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.

Joe,

I suspect this may be a rather contentious argument. I know folks on both sides of this fence who feel strongly about your point.

The argument I have heard made by those who hold the view you oppose is two fold: first, adult children are no longer his responsibility, so therefore, it doesn't matter what they do; and second, since the father doesn't bear the sins of the son or vice versa, then an elder is not held accountable for the sins of his children and therefore, that doesn't "count" in the qualification/disqualification of the man. The first point is, I believe, simply adding to the scriptures; the scriptures say believing children. Period. And on the second point, this is mixing apples and oranges. Being held accountable for someone else's sin and being qualified for a job are not the same thing. Of course an elder won't be held accountable (as in having to accept punishment because of), any more than any one else, if his adult child suddenly decides to commit murder. That does not mean he may not have to suffer some consequences of his child's actions. At a minimum, the acts of the child (adult or not) reflects poorly on the man and does not leave him "blameless" in the minds of the congregation and possibly the community, which is another requirement to be an elder.

Then I hear folks try to discount the "blameless" requirement, saying no man is perfect. Well what's left? Who are we to reason through the qualifications given by God and discard the ones WE don't think are reasonable? Consider that elders are held to higher standards than are other Christians (whether some want to admit it or not). Elders are to be examples to others, and if they have sin in their own lives or or seen as questionable, then they cannot, without hypocrisy, shepherd the flock and discipline as necessary to correct the faults in others and keep the flock pure, which they are commanded to do.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

Let me throw out another idea for consideration though... I was an elder's daughter and now I have children who are the sons of an elder. I've seen both sides of the fence. It can be hard, because the children are expected to act better some how. People are people and will make mistakes. Being a "believing child", does not imply perfect any more than any other Christian is perfect. Can an elder's child make mistakes? Can he be in need of repentance? Not only can he, he will. Does such disqualify a man as an elder? I don't think so, as long as such is not a long lasting habitual thing. But if a child enters into a long standing habitual sin (e.g. drug abuse) and refuses to repent or leaves the faith altogether, that is a different matter indeed.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

Many people associate the lack of qualifications of eldership with a fault in some way with the individual. Well, it's not his fault his wife died, or his kids leaving the church doesn't mean he's a bad person... It really has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with qualifications. Consider with me:

A man drives a school bus for 40 years. In these 40 years he never missed, he never got a traffic ticket, and every kid he ever picked up was delivered safely. One day he loses his eyesight due to no fault of his own. Is this man still qualified to drive the bus? He didn;t do anything wrong. He was doing his job faithfully. Why should he step from driving the bus just because he can't see anymore?

the bus driver did everything right for 40 years, but he suddenly lacked one thing in order to be qualified to drive the bus.

God laid down the qualifications for His bus drivers. We are not to rationalize, we are not to change or deviate from that in any way. Only then can we be assured of our standing before God. Let us make sure God's bus drivers are up to God's standards.

__________________
"My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him." 1 John 3:18-19

The church of Christ at Granby

David, I agree. I see this as no different from the qualifications needed to perform any job. I may have been an exemplary software engineer. I may have created a very valuable program that helped save many lives. Does that qualify me to run the company? Does not being qualified to run the company speak poorly of me?

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

Neither does being blind speak poorly of the bus driver.

The person that is unqualified is not necessarily a bad person. The person who was qualified and then lost his qualifications due to circumstances beyond his control is not a bad person. He is simply no longer qualified.

Too many people view the disqualification of an elder as some sort of punishment for doing wrong and it is not always the case.

__________________
"My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him." 1 John 3:18-19

The church of Christ at Granby

Laura-

Good thoughts. We must work at separating the person from his qualifiers. Back when I was single, this was an easy sermon to preach. I'd just start off and hit "husband of one wife" and "children who believe" and tell them I wasn't qualified to serve as an elder. That'd get a chuckle b/c it was one of those "well, duh" moments. They could see I wasn't qualified and it didn't make me a bad person. But too many folks cannot see how children can disqualify elders.

Consider: How many times have we seen a man and said, "There goes a good guy." And then we think about his ol' sorry boy and we wonder how such a man could produce a worthless son. Whether we admit it or not, we wonder to ourselves if the guy is really as good as we think he is behind closed doors. He's no longer blameless. Blameless is not having an accusation stick to you. If I accused you of something and automatically, everyone discounts it b/c they know you, you are blameless. But when folks say, "Well, I wouldn't put it past him" or words to that effect, you aren't blameless--there is a shadow of doubt on your reputation. God wants credible individuals.

When I returned to preach at Arkadelphia after preaching off, I told them I might not be what they wanted since I own the local newspaper and have to report on some pretty bad stuff at times. Most folks are able to separate what they read and understand I am doing my job. Others think I am deliberatly trashing someone and cannot get past the idea that I am not a good person. Thankfully, that has not occurred vey often. An elder must have a "good reputation from those that are without (outside the church)" and so should anyone in a leadership capacity (we don't have elders yet.)

Another argument is in regards to age. Preaching along in Bible Class on this issue, a woman spoke up and told me "You are a young man. When you get older, you'll understand this more." I was somewhat offended, but it wasn't my first go-around on that argument. I told that I hoped when I was "older," that I hoped I would still stand by the Bble b/c it would not have changed.

David-

Great point about the school bus driver. I'm gonna remember that one!

Let us consider what constitutes believing children.

First, let me tackle an error that has crept into many places that says an elder must have multiple children. Right off the bat, that argument can be discounted. In the congregation that I grew up, there was a school across the street with a large playground. Suppose we were having a potluck and the kids were across the road playing. A storm began to brew and I came in an announced, "Those who have children outside, there is a storm coming up. You might want to go get them in." How utterly senseless would it be for a person with only one child to say, "He wasn't talking to me. I only have one child."

Since Paul was speaking of elders plural, he must also of necessity speak of children in the same sense. It would be cumbersome language at best for him to say it any other way.

The Greek also bears this out. Those with more access to the Greek, feel free to post it here, but from what I have read, the word for "child" and "children" is used interchangibly throughout Scripture. This shows that Paul was speaking of however many children the elder had--be it one or a dozen.

The argument is advanced that each child is different. Any of us as parents understand the truth in that statement. An elder should have multiple children so he can know how to deal with multiple personalities. The Greek word for that argument is "hogwash." Each of us over time learns how to deal with folks as individuals. If by the time we have reached an advanced age to serve as an elder and we have not learned this valuable lesson, then we are disqualified for lack of wisdom.

A second error in the church regards the word believing. Can a person be considered a believer if they do not attend the Lord's church? Can they be a believer if they have never been immersed?

Let Jesus answer the question. Mark 15:16, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. He that does not believe shall be damned."

If I am a believer, I have allowed that belief (faith) to motivate me to obey and be immersed for the remission of my sins. If one has not done this, he can think what we wants about the Lord, but he is not numbered among the believers until his belief has made him obedient, i.e. a true believer.

Having done this, if I cast my lot with those who are not teaching the Bible as it is written, I cannot be considered a true believer b/c I am not acting in obedience.

Therefore, I understand that a believing child must be a part of the Lord's body and must assemble faithfully with His church.

Can an elder's child sin? Most certainly. We hold them to a higher standard, but there is nothing in Scripture that of necessity does this. Life in the fishbowl is not Scriptural, save for teachers themselves ("Let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we will face a harsher judgement").

That having been said, as long as an elder's child is attempting to walk in the light, they should be considered qualifiers. If they repent, they should be forgiven. Only when a child walks away from the faith and cannot be brought back should an elder resign. I submit that an elder's child could bear a prison sentence without disqualifying his father, provided that 1. He bears fruits of repentence (for then he can no longer be accused of dissipation) 2. The congregation and community it serves can allow the man to serve. It is an individual situation each time. There can be no blanket rule.

One more thought of believing children. If a man has multiple children, must each one of them believe to qualify him? If I have twelve children and 11 believe and the other one is a decent guy, but not a churchgoer, can I still serve?

Many would say yes, for the elder in question would have believing children. But I still have one unbelieving child. As I read and understand, it would be a disqualifier b/c at best it would be a stumbling block for others.

A concluding thought and a question: If I have two children and I have served faithfully as an elder for many years and my children die, must I step down?

Certainly, a widowed elder must step down. But is it any different with deceased children? If I have successfully raised my children to adulthood and they marry, have children, all of whom are believers and they depart this life before me, am I disqualified? I would submit that I am not, for I raised my children and they qualified me. I'd enterain thoughts on this issue as it is not clear-cut.

Thoughts on believing children?

Brother May:

What does "believing" mean? Titus 1:6 uses PISTOS - which translates trustworthy, faithful, reliable.

If we say it means to be a Christian, then of course all the elders children must be baptized and faithful.

But if we say it means trustworthy, reliable, then does the onus go to the quality of the children.
Then the children do no have to be baptized, just trustworthy kids, and so an elder is not dependent
upon his last child being baptized but is he a good child? Leaving the choice of being a Christian in the
hands of the child.

If they all have to be baptized, then are they still under his command, 1Tim.3:4 he must keep his children
under complete control with all dignity, are they not now adults if they are Christian, so how does he
keep them under control? In Timothy they sound young, not baptized, my thoughts.

RJ Mac

Why did you leave out "faithful"? The word PISTOS means all of those things. It is the culmination. Faithful to what? The context edicts faithful to the faith or Christ. That implies Christian.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

RJ,

I agree with Laura. It would seem that the burdon of proof would be upon you to prove that an elder's children are not required to be Christians. To me, the context simply will not allow any othe translation.

An elder is an older man. Now, how old is a good question. I am 34 and I have been approached about serving. I refused b/c as a young man, I felt unqualified in some areas. And my children are unproven. I would rather wait until I know more on my children than have to resign in shame at a later date.

Regarding younger elders (late 30s, early 40s), some may have grown or nearly grown kids who are members. They are certainly eligible, but what of those who have a mixture? For example, if we assume for the purpose of this discussion that I am qualified, then what of my four-year-old? In her own way, she is a "believer," but she is not a Christian. Should such a one serve?

Frankly, I don't have the answer. At what point does a "safe" child become an "unbeliever" in the sense that they are not immersed? The situation could be rather problematic.

Thoughts?

The situation is only problematic because men state the children have to Christians. Where the text reads the children have to be trustworthy. How does one keep in control with all dignity his children when they are Christians. Your son if baptized should be presiding at the table, leading songs, public prayers. But then dad tells him to go to bed and get his pajamas on. I know of some who have baptized their nine year old son.

If a man's kids are trustworthy, not accused of rebellion or dissappation, but obedient to their father, now this man qualifies to be an elder. My thoughts.

RJ Mac

RJ, you said,
Perhaps you did not see this?

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

RJ-

The children may be in the home (where yes, they would be subject to the father, baptized or not) or they may be outside the home. Either way they are children, regardless of age.

The text says "believing children." Again, the burdon is upon to prove that it does not say this. Respectfully, you are are leaving out some of the text. Please, let us deal with it in an honest manner.

I will kindly offer that the qualifications for an elder does require that his children to be baptized members of the Lord's Church.

The word used in Titus is πιστός (pistos) and it is used in many places as an adjective to refer to a substantive (noun) in the Greek. It is thus used for those who are part of the Lord's Church or Christians. Examples:

In 1 Timothy 4:12 the word πιστός is used an no one argues it is referring to Christians eventhough the word Christian is not used in the verse. πιστός is an adjective and is being used to describe a "state of being".

In 1 Timothy 6:2 the word πιστός is used and no one argues it is referring to being a Christian eventhough the verse does not use the word Christian in reference to the master. πιστός is used as an adjective to qualify the substantive which is "master".

Taken in it's context, the passage in Titus 1:6 would lead us to understand that πιστός is being used to qualify the substantive (children). In its context there is no reason for us to not accept pistos as having reference to "those who are Christians or members of the Lord's Church". To further support this as being correct, the word ἀσωτία (riot) carries the understanding of not being in a state of "unsavedness". Thus, taken as a whole we see that the context of Titus 1:4 has children that are "Christians" in mind.

Kindly,
Don

__________________
Don Gelles,
Preacher, Church of Christ in Hyde Park
Austin, Texas
www.hydeparkcoc.org

Robert the only flaw in the reasoning of all who believe are baptized into Christ, but there are those
who believe and do not get baptized. Ja.2:19 the demons. My denominational friends believe
but are not baptized. Cornelius believed and was not baptized. A person must first believe then
get baptized or be mis-led by false teachers.

My understanding is that the word PISTOS is not always interpreted believe, it can be interpreted
trustworthy, and that is my submission concerning children. Anyone can baptize their children
so many do so at a very early age because many are obeying the parents wishes. What 13 yr old
rattles off his sinful nature and tells you what is dying in the waters of baptism and what changes
are his friends going to see? But we still baptize children don't we.

Who do you see as the stronger more committed Christians, those who are raised in the church or
those who converted latter in life. Not saying all, just where do you see the trend going. How about
third generation Christians?

RJ

RJ,

You are still spouting the same old stuff and have yet to answer me. This is the third time I have presented this to you.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

R.J.

After you have answered Laura and Robert I would like to see your response to my quoted post. Please provide BCV.

Kindly,
Don

__________________
Don Gelles,
Preacher, Church of Christ in Hyde Park
Austin, Texas
www.hydeparkcoc.org

Laura - The situation is only problematic because men state the children have to Christians.
Where the text reads the children have to be trustworthy.

So your saying the children don't have to be Christians?

What does "believing" mean? Titus 1:6 uses PISTOS - which translates trustworthy, faithful, reliable.
If we say it means to be a Christian, then of course all the elders children must be baptized and faithful.
But if we say it means trustworthy, reliable, then does the onus go to the quality of the children.
Why did you leave out "faithful"? The word PISTOS means all of those things. It is the culmination.
Faithful to what? The context edicts faithful to the faith or Christ. That implies Christian.

I did not leave out faithful in the definition I only used the word trustworthy. Trustworthy to their
parents or if you wish faithful to their parents, since they are children.


Robert - the definitions for:
PISTOS - trusting, trustworthy. ie faithful, reliable.
PISTIS - confidence, certainty, trust, trustworthiness,
PISTEUO - to trust, (to obey), to believe,

From Theological Dictionary of the NT, abridged edition p.849

Try the word EV, translated 'in' in the book of Php. found
Php. 1:1,14,26; 2:1,10,19,24,29; 3:1,9,14,; 4:1,7,10,19,21,
Everytime except for Php.2:10; where they translate it 'at'.
Why? to fit false doctrine? Who said they could change it?

Try the word SWDZW - "save" in James 1:21; 2:14; 4:12; 5:20;
And yet in Ja.5:15 this word is translated "restore" again why,
by who's authority do they do this? Are they inspired or just led
by their false doctrine?

The list goes on, translations and translators are not inspired, so one must
always go back to the Greek text to be sure one is not being mis-led.
By who's authority, do I have the right not to be mis-led, by God's authority.
1Tim.4:16 Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them...
m1Th.5:21; Test all things, hold fast to what is good.

Don - ASWTOS - incurable, hopelessly sick, whose manner of life destroys him,
wild and disorderly conduct. TDNT vol.1 p.506

This definition fits well for children, if the elders kids are wild and disorderly, it shows
he didn't raise them properly. It works both ways, all I am saying is, I don't believe
the text is making the demand they be Christians.

Especially in 1Tim.3:4 keeping his children under control, one does not control a Christian
but one does control his children.

RJ

The text reads "PISTOS", not trustworthy. Therefore the text must carry the full connotation of that word, and not just the part of it that fits our personal beliefs. PISTOS carries with it the connotation of "believing", not just being "trustworthy". Kindly, you are are dropping the "believing" part to suit your own desires.

I am saying the text not only requires the children to Christians, it also requires them to be FAITHFUL Christians. That is the context. Those children who are unfaithful have lost their faith and no longer fit the definition of "believing". And yes, this is a quality. A man with a non-believing teenager cannot be viewed as blameless. The two go hand-in-hand.

That's not what the context edicts, nor does it follow with the use of the word in passages such as 1 Timothy 5:16 and 1 Timothy 6:2, where the same word is translated as "believing".

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)