I was in Titus this week, and prompted me to think more deeply about elder qualifications.
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
The key item I keyed in on was “faithful children.” Does this mean that an elder must have children that are still faithful believers? Or does it mean that the children must simply be orderly?
While I do not hold the office of elder, nor do I aspire to, this is an interesting question. Does this mean that if one of my children says “Jesus is an interesting historical figure, but not God” then I am disqualified? What if my child is an adult at the time of this profession?
Simply looking at the words, it seems that I would be disqualified. My thought is that this makes sense. It is evidence that I couldn’t even lead those whom I raised in the faith. It makes for a high standard, for sure, but isn’t that the charge to Titus here?
I wanted to learn more.
I read this blog post from Desiring God. I’m no bible expert or theologian, so take my analysis within that context. One of the passages in the Desiring God post says:
Requiring that his children have genuine saving faith is to require personal responsibility for the salvation of another, something I don’t see taught in Scripture.
I would counter that the elder simply needs to demonstrate that he can lead others in a deep and lasting faith. If the elder’s children demonstrate aren’t saved, doesn’t that call into question the elder’s ability to lead others? Especially others that he is not in daily contact with? To address the second half of the author’s point, I think James 3:1 does call out a separate standard (admittedly not as extreme as “personal responsibility for salvation”) for teachers stating, “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.”
Other articles I read similarly say that the child must only be obedient, but doesn’t have to be faithful, discussing the Greek translation. Authors also state that the father cannot be held perpetually accountable for the spiritual state of his child. Further, they state that every home has sin. Articles also distinguish between a child under the roof versus one on their own.
But isn’t whether a child believes or not evidence of the father’s teaching? I also think it’s misdirection to say that sin is in all families, therefore an elder isn’t expected to have believing children. Finally, an elder’s responsibility is similar to a father with grown children; he must teach and admonish those whom he doesn’t live with.
Perhaps I’m in the minority. I think Paul is setting a bar, knowing that a number of people won’t reach it. Shouldn’t we be OK with disqualifying some people who, through no fault of their own, have unbelieving children? Or is today’s church so desperate for men of any character, it is willing to justify bringing in elders who have unbelieving children?
I know many of you who read my words are actual pastors or ministers. What are your thoughts?
