Elders and Children

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 2]

     The question of whether or not elders must have children in order to qualify has long been discussed. The editor humbly submits his views on this issue in the form of questions and answers.

1. Is it your position that a man must be married to qualify as an elder?
        Yes, and I gave my reasons for so thinking in the November edition of this paper. I admit there are difficulties presented by this position, but it seems to fulfill the requirements better than any other. Those who desire to study the opposite view, and all should do so, may see it set forth by Bro. Ralph Graham, in Bible Talk.
2. Do you think that an elder must have children?
        Yes, I do, because he is contemplated as the head of a family, or household, and he must demonstrate his ability to take care of the church of God by ruling his own family well (1 Tim. 3:5). In connection therewith, it is said he must have his children in subjection with all gravity.
3. Does the term children imply a plurality, or could a man with one child serve, if he possesses the other qualifications?
        The word "children" does not necessitate a plurality. It is used in its common application, and neither legally, naturally, or in the Old and New Testaments does it convey the idea of a compulsory plurality.
4. Can you illustrate what you mean by "legally" and "naturally"?
        Yes. In this state, there is a law which stipulates that "All parents having children under the age of sixteen years must enroll them in school." Could parents having only one child evade that law? Indeed not!
        In normal conversation we use the term "children" in the same fashion. If the Parent-Teachers Association invites to a meeting all parents who have children enrolled in the school, it certainly would not be limited to those who had two or more in school.
5. Give us examples in the Old and New Testaments to illustrate your view.
        A good case in point is that of Sarah, at the birth of Isaac. "And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck? for I have born him a son in his old age" (Gen. 21:7). Here the term "children" is certainly equivalent to "a son."
        In 1 Timothy 5:4 "any widow who has children" is to be supported by them. This certainly would not eliminate one son or daughter from any obligation, for that would contradict verses 8 and 16 where the singular is employed. Such examples could be multiplied far beyond our space to accommodate them.
6. If a couple having no children of their own, adopt children, would this satisfy the requirements?

   [Page 3]

        Certainly it would. The qualification is not based upon a man's physical ability to beget offspring, but upon his ability to rule or govern the family circle. A wife might be sterile even though her husband was not. If a couple adopts children and they demonstrate ability to rear them in subjection, the qualification is met.
7. Then why could not a man qualify by teaching public school and governing children?
        Because the relationship sustained in a school is different than that in a home, and the government of a congregation is analogous to that of a home. There is more to "ruling a household" than maintaining youngsters in subjection. That is but one phase of it. An elder will be called upon to counsel and advise in domestic difficulties involving husbands and wives, parents and children, employers and employees, etc. It is to qualify him to deal objectively with all such cases that he must be the head of a household so he may know "how to care for the church of God."
8. Do the scriptures teach that an elder's children must be members of the church, in order for him to qualify?
        I do not think so. I believe that the statement "having faithful children" in Titus 1:6, is misunderstood by a lot of people. Of course, I may be in error about it myself, but I merely give my view of it, after making very careful and earnest study, as objectively as I know how to do so.
9. Do not most of the modern translations imply that the expression means "children who are Christians"?
        Yes. Some of them even use the expression. For instance, The Twentieth Century New Testament says, "Whose children are Christians." But this is not a translation. It is a commentary. It expresses what the translators thought the apostle meant, not what he said. There is no word for "Christian" in the text, and it is not a translation to use this word for the term that does appear.
10. Does not Thayer in his lexicon say the term means one who has become convinced that Jesus is the Messiah and the author of salvation?
         Actually, Thayer does not say that. He merely translates the words of Prof. Grimm to that effect. Strictly speaking, belief in Jesus is not included in this word at all. It simply means "trustworthy, of good fidelity," and relates to one who can be relied upon. There is not one thing in the term itself to indicate belief in any specific person, proposition or thing.
11. Then why did the lexicographers assign it a specific application?
         That is easily understood. The term pistos appears in a New Testament framework or background. In many cases, it has to do with a state of conviction relative to Jesus as the Messiah. The lexicographers of New Testament usage would obviously slant their thinking in that direction in any case of question. I think they have done so here. They thought the contextual usage justified it; I do not think so. The term is applied to God, Christ, servants, stewards, and the word, as well as to children.
12. Do you have some justifiable basis for disagreeing with these authorities?
         That all depends upon who is to be the judge of what constitutes a justifiable basis. The Bible says "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes," but it also says, "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." I think that I am correct in my conviction that a man may be appointed to the eldership before his children are old enough to accept the gospel and assume the responsibility of the Christian life.
13. On what ground do you reach that conclusion?
         First, let it be remembered that the strict meaning of the term pistos is "trustworthy, reliable." Qualifications relating to the children were written by the apostle to Timothy at Ephesus, and Titus at Crete. I do not think they differ. Whatever was required of children in one place

    [Page 4]

    would be required in both. If an expression used in writing to Titus is obscure or ambiguous, it may be explained in the language to Timothy, or vice versa. The statement to Titus is "having faithful children," and to Timothy, it is, "having his children in subjection." I conclude, then, that faithful children are children in subjection to the will or rule of the father. Faithful children are those who are trustworthy and reliable because they are in subjection to paternal government. Paul defines what he means when he says "Faithful children not accused of riot or unruly." This is the negative attribute, while trustworthy is the positive.
14. Is it not to be presumed that children who are reared by Christian parents will obey the Lord when they get old enough?
         That does not necessarily follow. God said, "I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me" (Isaiah 1:2) and I do not think that earthly parents are any better than God. The fact that God's children rebelled against him is no reflection against the way in which he nourished and brought them up. We need to be careful in assuming that a profligate child is always a reflection against the parents, lest we reflect against the fatherhood of God.
15. If a man had one or more children, under subjection, yet none were old enough to become Christians, I take it you would ordain him as elder.
         Of course, that is not the only qualification. But if a man was fully qualified otherwise, and his children were under subjection and obedient to his discipline, I would appoint him as elder, if the congregation selected him. The qualification is not the ability to get your children into the church, as desirable as that may be, but to govern and control the family circle. I know a man who reared his family in a denominational influence, and they were always very close as a family. All became members of the denomination. When the father was somewhat advanced in years, he and his wife became convinced that denominationalism was wrong, and obeyed the pure gosel. The children, all being married, would not leave the denomination in which they were reared. But this faithful, godly man could qualify as a bishop over the flock of God.

     (NOTE: This will conclude for the time being, discussions on the eldership. The series on "Fellowship" will begin in the next issue, and to it will be given the space previously allotted to the discussion we now close.)