John3Thirty

Qualifications of Elders: Part VII

If you’ve lived in a small town you understand how quickly news spreads. We lived in a town of about 450 people for four years. As the only resident pastor, I was constantly told stories of my son’s activities. Some people seemed to get a twisted pleasure in asking the pastor: “Do you know what your son did?” He never seemed to understand how dad could know the things he had done, and know so fast. Now don’t get me wrong, he wasn’t doing bad, cruel or illegal things. Neither was he being disobedient since most were not the sort of thing you would think to tell a kid not to do. He and a friend were simply being mischievous. We had moved to this small town so that, among other things, he could have fun and experience childhood—a boy’s childhood.

The people of the church and most of the town were good natured. They didn’t expect my son to be perfect—a prim and proper pastor junior. Since I am far from prim and proper I guess they knew better. This is not always the case and a man’s ministry in a church can be quickly undermined by the behavior of his children. Scripture tells us to include the conduct of his children in our judgment of a potential elder. Unfortunately, many churches have handled this poorly, with many men overlooked or removed from leadership.

The apostle Paul’s standards for how a potential elder interacts with his household and family are our starting point. Many have concluded from these qualifications, that this forbids childless men from serving. The standard set by Paul is blamelessness. If the candidate is single, as Paul encouraged, there is no blame, so he is blameless. Likewise, in parenting the elder is to be blameless. If he has no children, there can be no blame, so, once again, he is blameless. I have met few men committed to living as a bachelor. Most of those claiming such a commitment changed their minds with the blink of an eye—or perhaps I should say the wink of an eye on a pretty face. I have seen several men, fully qualified to lead the church kept from it because of the inability to have children. This was not the intention of the apostle. If the man in question is otherwise qualified this has no effect.

So what about the elder’s wife and kids? It is interesting that while no qualifications are given for the wife, there are several tied to children. As a good manager of his household the elder’s children must be obedient, well behaved and believe.

Household (Gr: oikos) in the New Testament included more than just the family (deSilva 2000:174; Verbrugge 2000:3875). A wealthy man’s household included slaves and clients. Living in his house could also be married children and their families. So long as the child lives in his household obedience is expected, but once the child moves out the relationship changes. The father is no longer responsible for the actions of that child. This is supported by scripture. A man is to “leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife” (Gen. 2:24). Once married and out the children are bound to their marital relationship and it takes priority over the parent to child relationship. In their society a certain acquiescence was still due the family patriarch, but the highest responsibility was still to those under one’s own roof. In our society it is assumed children will move at marriage if not before. However, if they remain in the parent’s house they still respect and obey the head of the household. For example, at one point a close relative moved in with us help me grow a business. While in my house, he submitted to my rules and attended church out of respect.

If a child shows blatant disrespect to his father, the father has for some reason been unable to earn the respect he deserves. For this reason such a man is disqualified. Yes, all children rebel at some time but how the father handles it is a test of his ability to lead the church. In such a case, the man should be encouraged to get his own house in order before seeking to lead the house of God. My son understood that so long as he was in my house, my rules applied—no exceptions. The only way to make his own rules and to not submit to mine was move out. From the age of eight he counted down the years until he could move out on his own. He moved out, started his own life a few years ago and has lived very responsibly. Though he attends church and believes, he is not subject to my rules and I am not to be judged by his actions or decisions. The only thing that extends beyond this is whether children believe or not.

It is the responsibility of the parent, especially the father, to teach his kids and give them an opportunity to respond to the gospel. In the ancient world many of the members of a household accepted the religion of the pater familias automatically (deSilva 2000:185; Gehring 2004:121; Meeks 1983:30). With Christianity we see several exceptions. First of all Paul speaks of the slave Onesimus from the household of Philemon. He apparently did not accept the faith of his master until later contact with the apostle Paul. Second, Paul tells women married to non-believers to remain with them, but does not encourage them to convert to their husbands faith. Third, the inclusion of this requirement means that the children of some men in the church did not accept the religion of their father, if such was always automatic, the requirement would be culturally redundant. Besides, acceptance of the father’s faith was less universal than the ancient secular authors would have liked, we know this from the number of Gentile women adhering to Judaism and other religions contrary to the faith of their husbands.

The conversion of a child is an emotional subject. We do all that we can to strengthen them but many children still walk away. The continued faith of a child after leaving his parent’s household is an important indicator of how the father interacted with the kids, but there is much more to the equation than parental teaching. Many faithful, loving fathers have raised children to believe, sent them off to college where the professors and fellow students indoctrinate the faith out of the child. If this man was qualified to serve as an elder before, he could find himself disqualified not on his own faith and actions but on the faith of his child. This doesn’t seem right, especially when one considers that God has always insisted that a man be judged by his own actions rather than the action of his children or parents.

Of the two lists only Titus 1:6 mentions believing children. Both Timothy and Titus mention obedient children, but Titus goes beyond this saying the elder is to “be blameless, the husband of one wife, a man whose children believe . . .” To read this in the NIV it sounds as if the expectation is that all of his children believe. In the NASB the passage reads, “having children who believe, . . .” This construction is more accurate to the Greek. There is no requirement that all of a man’s children believe but that some of them do. As for who these children are, the word child can mean one’s physical progeny or those one brings into the faith—spiritual children. Paul refers to Titus this way, just two verses before, as his “true child (same word for children in 1:6) according to shared faith (same word for belief in 1:6).” This bolsters the earlier argument that a man is not disqualified because he has had no physical children. He can still produce spiritual offspring. Elders should be evangelistic, seeking opportunities to make disciples by reaching the lost and teaching them to walk in the Lord’s commands. They reach those inside and outside of their household. The command to have children who believe relates to spreading the gospel. Some examples of how this could be applied:

• A father with several kids who believe is still qualified if one or some of them reject the faith because he still has believing children—though not as many as he started out with.
• A father with several kids who all reject the faith after leaving dad’s house is disqualified because he has no believing offspring. If this man has spiritual offspring, the situation may warrant allowing him to serve, but such a father should ask himself what there is about his faith and practice that makes it so unattractive to his children. The church should also take notice of this and be wary. No one knows more about a man than those under his own roof.
• A man with no physical children who has reached and discipled others is qualified by this command, because he possesses believing spiritual offspring—Timothy and Titus for Paul.
• A man without children who has never led anyone to the Lord or come along side anyone to disciple them is not qualified. Since coming along side is part of shepherding why would such a man be considered? There is no evidence that he is gifted as a shepherd.

The problem comes when we look at a father and reject him because one of his grown children chooses to reject the faith. Remember, it is possible that the child is saved, though they claim to longer no believe. We don’t know what goes on in the heart of anyone. Young people often struggle with depression or experience doubts. In the end the child who once believed may return to the faith. If we over-apply this, the father was qualified to lead while the child was at home, was disqualified after the child moved out and walked away, then becomes re-qualified after the child returns to the fold. This is contrary to what the apostle is looking for. He is not looking for men who do everything right and for whom there is only success. He is looking for leaders who are blameless in their character, faith and actions.

When I was twelve the Lord called me to salvation. I prayed to receive him as my Lord, but for my own reasons walked away into a life of sin when I was a teenager. I thank the Lord that he took action to draw me back. Was I saved at twelve when I first prayed or was I saved when I returned? Was the second episode the Lord calling me to salvation or the Lord correcting and restoring one already saved? I don’t know; you can not know; God only knows. When the child of a fellow believer walk away from the Lord we need to realize that the child is now the Lord’s responsibility and not judge the father too harshly.

There is one other side of a man managing his own household well. It is often overlooked while we are busy weighing his marriage and judging his kids. How often do we look at a potential leaders handling of money? Since the majority of marital problems spring from money it is important for this discussion. Whether poor, middle class or wealthy, the way an elder handles what God has given him is a question of stewardship, but also applies here. An elder must be a good manager of all sides of his household—monetary, marital, parental. This is the leader God is looking for. Such a man is a blessing to the church and an example for people to emulate.