Many in the church today have come under the influence of the false teaching that elders are not required to have believing children, despite Paul's teaching to the contrary. I know of one congregation that has two elders, each having one daughter. Both daughters are Baptists. Neither man is qualified to be an elder.

An elder has two qualifiers in his life that he cannot completely control: His wife and his children. I'll go into more on this later, but if an elder can remain in positon without believing children, then the same man can be married to an immoral woman. Extreme? Yes, but no more extreme than some brotherhood preachers going around defending men lacking believing children under the guise that these men are "good men" or "if we said they couldn't serve look how many men would be disqualified." So what? God once destroyed the world and left only eight people.

Are unbelieving children the fault of their parents? I don't see a point in going there. No believing kids, no serving as an elder. Trying to argue that a man without beleiving kids can serve is like a man applying for a scholarship targeted only at women. He can't even begin to meet the qualifications.

Why does God place the qualification of beleiving children upon an elder? First, an elder must be one that manages his own house. Secondly, and more importantly I believe, how can an elder take care of the disorderly when his own offspring number among them? There's a serious credibility problem. The same God in the OT who told His children not in any way, shape or form to imitate the religious practices of the heathen round about them today wants His shepherds to be blameless. I may not be at fault for my children, but I am not blameless in the eyes of the world when my children are not believers.

Many we learn to take God at His Word even when it's not easy.

I'll have more on this later, including a bit more Scripture, but I'll pause here for comments.