Children & elders – both plural…

"If we believe we should have a plurality of elders because the term is plural everywhere it is found why do we not apply the same reasoning to ‘children’ when discussing the qualifications of elders." Good question.

First, "elders" is a specific term, describing either older men or the office of elder; "children" (Greek, tekna) is a general term describing offspring, whether male or female. Still, grammatically, it is possible for each to be used to mean "one or more." For example, if we said, "there are elders in every church in Sacramento," we might mean one or more in each church. Our interpretation of the statement would depend on how we are using the word "elder." If we mean "older men," we would readily accept the fact that there may be a church with just one older man ("elder"). But if that’s true for that meaning of the word, it is true for the other (the office of elder). So the statement, by itself, may imply "one or more" even if applied to the eldership; having one elder may be unscriptural, but the language allows us to draw that conclusion. Paul’s statement that if "any man (singular) aspires to the office of bishop (singular)…" in I Tim. 3:1 may be marshaled to support the point.

If that were the only information we had, we would be wrong to insist on more than one elder in every church. However, our decision is not dependent solely on the statements in places like Titus 1:5 and Acts 14:23. We also have examples that give us insight into the situation in first century churches. Each time "elders" (or "overseers") are mentioned, it is in the plural. An example is in Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22-23; 16:4; 20:7 (20:28); 21:18; Phil. 1:1; Jas. 5:14; I Pet. 5:1. These are actual cases of elders who were in place in early churches. In no case is it said, suggested or implied that there were less than two.

Reconciling this with the issue of how many children a man must have to be qualified, we note again that "children," when used in a general sense, can mean one or more. Now, be careful: if you were asked "do you have any children," and you had but one, you would probably say: "I have a child." However, if a statement was made that "everyone who has children please step forward and claim your prize," you would not hesitate to step forward even if you had only one. That illustration coincides with Paul’s instructions in Timothy and Titus.

More importantly, in the context of I Timothy and Titus, Paul uses "children" (Gk., tekna) in a general sense to mean "one or more." We know this because in I Timothy chapter 5, he refers to widows who are qualified to receive assistance, saying "if any widow has children" (v. 4) and "if she has brought up children" (v. 10). We all understand that a widow who raised an only child would qualify under these guidelines. In Titus 2:4, the older women are to train the younger women to "love their children." Again, no one would exempt the mother of the only child from loving her child.

These passages are important because of their proximity to the ones under consideration. We learn the meanings of terms by examining the author’s own use of them. Paul’s use of "children" in I Tim. 3:4 must be parallel to his use of "children" in chapter 5 unless there is some obvious reason to see it differently. The same is true when we compare Titus 1:6 with Titus 2:4. Nothing in the context requires that we define the term differently in each passage.

The text and context does not validate the idea that a man must have more than one child to be an elder. Therefore, any argument for it must come from human reasoning. There is an assumption that a man is more qualified (or perhaps more tested or proved) if he has more than one child. But that is a proposition that requires proof, and I’m aware of none. The parent of an only child faces challenges that are different than the parents of more than one. For example, a child who has brothers and sisters may require less attention that an only child, simply because siblings can watch and care for one another. And, in some cases, the more children a man has, the easier his job of parenting may become. Often, in large families, older siblings perform many of the tasks that parents would normally perform.

But all that is irrelevant, because it is still human reasoning. The point is, Paul did not require that a man have more than one child, so how can we justify requiring it? We can’t, no matter how airtight we think our human reasoning is.

"Faithful children"

"Blameless" seems to modify the qualifications that Paul gives in I Tim. 3 and Titus 1 (remember that "blameless" means that no charge can be sustained against the man that would affect his character or reputation). That doesn’t mean that "blameless" is the only qualification or that it makes all the others unimportant. But it does help to explain the distinction in a man who is a candidate for elder from all other Christians. For example, who can be self-willed, quick-tempered, addicted to wine, pugnacious (violent) and greedy and expect to go to heaven (Titus 1:7)? Or what man can love what is bad, lack sense, be unjust (unfair) and have no self-control, and still please God (Titus 1:8)? All Christians are even supposed to be hospitable (Rom. 12:13; I Pet. 4:9). So what’s the difference?

Paul is saying that a man must be blameless (irreproachable) in these areas of his life. No matter how hard a man is trying to overcome his failure to be hospitable, if his reputation is that he’s a "loner"; if few people have ever seen the inside of his house; if few people would say, "he’s a friendly fellow whose home is open to everyone," he is not irreproachably hospitable and not qualified to be an elder (though he still may be right with God if he is trying to improve). If the man is known as a quick-tempered man, he is not "blameless" and therefore not qualified, even though he may be making a sincere effort to overcome that fault.

What does this have to do with "faithful children"? I see only two reasonable alternatives in the interpretation of this phrase. "Faithful" (Gk., pista) is an adjective, describing a characteristic that the children of the man must have. Either it means the children of the elder are obedient Christians, or "faithful" means something other than spiritual faithfulness in this context. If the latter, then as long as the children are "faithful" in that sense, the man meets the qualification.

Some have argued that pista in this passage (Titus 1:6), when taken together with I Tim. 3:4 ("keeping his children under control"), means "faithful to the father," not necessarily faithful to God. Titus adds, "not accused of dissipation (riot) or rebellion." That is interpreted to mean "rebellious" against the father (but not, presumably, against the Father).

Again, to solve the problem we must merely look at how Paul uses the word "faithful" or "believing," especially in the so-called "Pastoral Epistles" (I & II Timothy and Titus). In those letters, he uses a form of the word (faith, faithful, believe, believing) thirty nine times. In the closest context in Timothy, Paul says (my emphasis):

"but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience" (3:9)

"Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things" (3:11)

"For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus" (3:13).

The most helpful of these is 3:11 in which the wives of elders and deacons are to be "faithful in all things." Is Paul primarily concerned with her faithfulness to her husband? Or is he concerned with spiritual matters? In every other context, "faithful" seems to have a spiritual meaning (i.e., faithful to God, or used in the sense of being trustworthy in God’s sight): Jesus Christ considered Paul faithful (I Tim. 1:12); Timothy was to teach "faithful men" who would teach others also (II Tim. 2:2; faithful to whom or what?); God remains faithful (trustworthy); elders are to hold fast the faithful word (Titus 1:9).

These passages convince me that "faithful children" in Titus 1:6 refers primarily to a child’s spiritual condition before God, not his trustworthiness to his father. If Paul means  that a man’s children are faithful to the father, they wouldn’t necessarily have to be old enough to be Christians. And can we really envision a man otherwise qualified to be an elder whose children have rejected the father’s faith? (Many who hold the "faithful to the father" view also admit that a child who is faithful to the father would also be faithful to God; in that case, the question becomes moot).

So, if that passage means "faithful to God," then a man who would be an elder must have children who are Christians. But for how long? In other words, what if a man serves for 30 years and then his 50 year old son quits the Lord. I can only speak as the utterances of God (I Pet. 4:11) and here is what God says: "having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion." There is no "until this time" or any other qualifying language in the passage. It is a simple statement, and the only safe course would be to apply it through the duration of the man’s service as an elder.

But what does this have to do with "blameless"? If you fail to find a rationale for the requirement that a man should step down if his child or children rebel against God, perhaps you will find it here. Parents whose children fall away often are strong, faithful people. No one is suggesting that they can’t be strong Christians and have a confident hope of heaven. But at least one question we should ask is whether the father whose children have become unfaithful is still "blameless." Pr. 22:6 says that if we train our children up in the way they should go, they will not depart. It’s a proverb (a statement of general truth, not an absolute promise), but it states an important principle: we do not share in our children’s rebellion, but we do have a part in directing them toward the right path. If a child rebels, some may rightfully wonder whether we trained them properly. If we fail to raise our child to be a Christian, how can we be relied upon to give proper direction to individual Christians in the body of Christ? It may also affect a man’s credibility when he has to deal with rebellious children (and their parents). They may wonder how he can tell them to do such and such, when he failed to do it. I am also aware of places where church discipline ceased about the time an elder’s child fell away.

I want to challenge our thinking about another statement that I’ve heard many times over the years. Some have said that if the man meets the qualifications when he is appointed, then he doesn’t have to continue meeting them afterwards. I assume that this presumption applies only to the physical qualifications (specifically, the family issues). Surely, no one believes a man can become, for instance, "fond of sordid gain" while an elder and still be qualified.

But upon what basis have we concluded that any of the qualifications are applicable going in, but do not apply later on? I’ve got a simple question: where do we find any statement in Scripture about the duration of the qualifications of elders? If the Bible doesn’t make this distinction, we are simply relying on human reasoning when we do so.

I’ve also heard people say that since Paul refers to a man "managing his own household" that when the nature of the household changes, then the qualifications change. That is, when a man’s children grow up and get out of the house, then their actions do not affect his qualifications to serve.

That argument has the advantage of trying to deal with the text, but has several difficulties. If a man only has a "household" while his children are in the home, how would we ever justify appointing a man whose children are grown and gone? And if we limit ourselves to appointing only men who are active parents, then we limit ourselves to younger men; yet, the man cannot be a "novice" and, if you accept the reasoning given above, his children must be old enough to be Christians. That would assume a relatively small window of time in which a man could be appointed.

Doesn’t it make more sense to understand Paul as saying that the man’s experience as a father is what we are looking at, whether he is actively involved in it or not? If he has brought up children who love and serve the Lord he has presumably done his job of "managing the household well." Remember, though, that there are many children who are serving God faithfully in spite of their upbringing, so this is not the only qualification. But it is an important indicator of how a man will function in "managing the church."

Husband of One Wife

The blameless qualification may also affect the "husband of one wife" rule. The statement requires that a candidate for elder be (a) a man (b) a husband (c) of one woman. The qualification eliminates women, bachelors and polygamists (the way the Greek is worded, it also eliminates "womanizing"; lit., it is "one woman man"). Given Paul’s statement in Rom. 7:1-4, it also eliminates a man who is unscripturally divorced and remarried.

But some find the "one woman" component of this qualification troublesome. "Isn’t it obvious that a polygamist would not be qualified to be a leader in a local church?" Yes. But isn’t it also obvious that a self-willed, quick-tempered, addicted to wine, pugnacious and greedy man is not qualified? So the fact that Paul seems to be stating the obvious does not rule out that meaning. He simply uses a concise statement to sum up this qualification: "husband of one wife." If all he wanted were husbands as elders, he could have said that. But he specifies the number: one wife (compare this with is statement about children where he does not give a number).

Two obvious issues that arise at this point. (1) Is a scripturally divorced and remarried man qualified? (2) What happens when the wife dies? The proper form of the question, in any case, is: "Is the man a husband of one wife?" If so, then he meets the qualification. Therefore, when a man’s wife dies he is disqualified, since he is no longer a husband of one wife and there is nothing in the qualifications that imply that meeting the qualifications is not required through the duration of the man's service.

How about a scripturally divorced and remarried man? I don’t see how this qualification prohibits such a man from serving if the church wishes for him to serve. The question does not turn on "husband of one wife," in my opinion, but on "blameless." Some have made the statement that there is sin on both sides in every divorce. But that grossly overstates the case. After all, every marriage partner has made mistakes and has sinned against his or her spouse at some point in the marriage. But that doesn’t give the other a party a right to divorce. Unfaithfulness does, however (Mt. 19:3-9, etc.). A wronged spouse, who in prayer and a desire to serve God, feels he or she must divorce the guilty party because of the breakdown in trust should not be tainted with guilt for the breakup of marriage. In my experience, I’ve found that most faithful Christians struggle greatly with questions of how they might have done better, when in fact they may have done everything reasonably expected of them. We need to be careful about attaching stigma to our brethren where God does not.

Having said that, a man who is divorced may not be blameless. He may have committed sins that fell short of adultery, but still contributed to the breakdown of the marriage. Frequently, the divorce process itself takes its toll on a man; many are forced into bankruptcy and custody battles – hardly the time for a man to take upon himself the weighty burden of the church. So, it would be wise for the man, even after remarried and rebuilding his life, to undergo a period of testing to gauge his ability to manage the household of God.

That leads to the discussion of one more issue and it’s something that can be an even bigger problem in solid, growing churches. There are inevitably men and women in the church who have been there for a long time and have a "history" with many of the members. Sometimes, the history is not all positive. How long should the man’s past affect his qualifications?

The answer deals in part with the nature of the sins. For an obvious example, a man who was convicted as a cat burglar probably has done irreparable damage to his reputation and could probably never be "blameless" or pass muster as one who has "a good reputation with those outside" (I Tim. 3:7). But a man who once had a bad temper, but now controls it, may be an even better candidate for the eldership than other men who have not shown as much growth in character.

We need to be generous in our allowance for growth. We should, like Jesus, celebrate the spiritual growth of our brethren. To hold old habits and characteristics against a man is juvenile and damages the gentle fabric that hold us together as a body of Christ, saved and forgiven by Him. We wouldn’t be here except that Christ has forgiven us! (see Col. 3:12ff.) And never forget that the apostle Peter, a few months after denying the Lord three times, stood up and preached the gospel. People can make dramatic changes when enabled by the Lord. And thank God for that!

I'll close with one final thought. The qualifications are given as guidelines to help us select good, faithful men to serve us in the leadership of the church. There are no perfect men and the qualifications are not designed to find perfect men. But they will help us get an eldership that is fully qualified to do the work God has assigned. Praise God for these good men who have the desire to do this important and sobering work.