|
Faithful Children |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Elders are an instrumental part of God’s plan for the New Testament
Church. It is unfortunate that we have such a difficult time finding
qualified men for this position in a troubled time when their leadership
could prove even more valuable. The qualifications that Paul sets forth for
elders are straight forward, with only one point generally lending itself to
much controversy. This is the statement Paul made to Titus about an elder
needing to have faithful children. Does this mean faithful to the man or to
God? Does it mean faithful while at home or after leaving home? It is
important that we understand this lest we appoint unqualified men or even
refuse qualified men. Regarding the qualifications of an elder, Paul said to Titus, if any be blameless, the husband of one wife,
having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (Tit. 1:6)
Why is it important how a man’s children behave? They are a direct reflection
on his ability to be a leader and to administer discipline. If he cannot do
the right thing where his own children are concerned, how can he be trusted
to care for God’s flock? Some take the
view that a man’s children must remain faithful members of the Church for
their entire lives or the man is unfit to be an elder. If the man has a dozen
children, then all twelve are held to this same high standard or again the
man is disqualified. Eleven faithful out of twelve would not be good enough
by this standard. If a man raises a family and his children “go wild” almost immediately
after leaving his control, then I agree that his job as a father can be, and
probably should be called into question. But on the other hand, what if the
children remain faithful for many years after leaving his control before
going astray? Does not this have any significance? Is it really to be
expected that the children will remain faithful to God solely because of
their upbringing? To say that a child will remain faithful for life because of the way
they were raised denies the fundamental idea of free will. Every individual
has the option to take any course in life that they choose. All a parent can
do is try to equip the child with the necessary tools such as understanding
and attitude to see them through the remainder of their life. What the child
does with these tools is up to them. There is no absolute guarantee as to the
fate of a child regardless of how good a job their parents did in raising
them. There are too many other variables involved in an individual’s life to
say their fate is determined by the way they were raised. We recognize, and are very thankful for the fact that a person can be
raised in a very evil and sinful environment, then leave home and remain evil
for many years, yet can still one day turn all of this around and become a Christian.
If this is true, and it is, then how can we then deny that the opposite is
also possible? If a person is raised properly by Christian parents, leaves
home as a Christian, and remains a christian for many years thereafter, is it
impossible for that child to falter at some point later in life? To say that a “properly” raised child cannot fall away is closely
akin to the denominational teaching of “once saved always saved.” If a person
who was raised in the world, and later converted, can fall from grace, then
why can’t a person who was raised in the church likewise fall? Is a child’s
salvation in their parent’s hand, rather than in their own? Do good parents
guarantee eternal life? Certainly this idea is not correct. Each individual
is responsible for their own destiny regardless of how their were raised. In the end, we need to try to determine the intent of the statement
concerning faithful children. What was the real intent for this requirement? The
Lord wanted a man to be proven at guiding and directing others over whom he
had authority. I feel that all this involves is the children’s faithfulness
while they are under the direct supervision of the father. Their behavior
after leaving the auspices of their father, while important, is not really
the important factor here. After all, the members of a congregation are not
going to be “raised” by the elders and then be turned loose on their own. They
will remain under the guidance of the elders as long as they are members of
the church. The comparison of the father-child relationship with the
elder-member relationship is valid only to the point where the child leaves
home. Fortunately for us, Paul also gave instructions for ordaining elders
to Timothy as well. We must consider both sets of instructions to be complete
in and of themselves, else we would have either Timothy or Titus improperly
ordaining elders. Therefore, we can conclude that whatever Paul said to
Timothy regarding an elder’s children must be equivalent to what he said to
Titus. Paul said to Timothy that an elder should be one that ruleth
well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For
if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the
church of God?).
(I Tim. 3:4-5) This passage sheds
an enormous amount of light on the subject. It immediately answers who the
children must be faithful to; their father. A prospective elder must have his
children in subjection to him. It
should go without saying that a Godly man who has his children in subjection
to him will also have children who are in subjection to God and, at an
appropriate age, who are members of the Church. To Titus, Paul
said an elder’s children must not be accused
of riot or unruly. To Timothy, he said in subjection with all gravity. Children are, well…children. No
child is perfect and no prospective elder should be held to the standard of
having perfect children. All that is implied here is that a man has control
over his children and they are not running wild and constantly getting into
trouble. In I Timothy 3:5, Paul basically says that a man is demonstrating
his leadership abilities with his children. If a man cannot control his
children then he does not need to be a leader of God’s people. The idea of
having children in subjection also
places a time constraint on this qualification. Children can only reasonably
be expected to be in subjection to their parents while they live at home.
Common sense needs to be applied to this situation. If a man has three
children and within five years of leaving home, each one is an out-of-work
drug addict who is cohabitating with someone, then there is a real concern.
However, if only one has rebelled and the other two are faithful members of
the Church the man may have done a good job after all. It appears to
me that there may be a little bit of “wiggle room” in this qualification for
a reason. The same is also true of other qualifications. Consider the statements
listed below and the corresponsing questions that show their subjective nature.
Can anyone
give a clear cut definition of exactly how a many must behave to meet any of
these qualifications? Absolutely not. Then what good are these
qualifications? They are simply guidelines to help a congregation select
capable men to lead them. If a man obviously falls short in any of these
areas, then he is unit for the position. If, however, in the congregation’s
opinion, he meets the qualifications then he may be appointed. In the end, it
is the congregation that will either prosper or falter under a man’s
leadership. They know the man and their own congregation better than anyone
else. Therefore, no one is a better judge of a man’s qualifications as an
elder than the congregation itself. The qualification Paul gave are
purposefully subjective in order to provide latitude for the congregation to
use its own judgment in appointing elders. How do we now
interpret the one qualification that began this discussion: faithful
children? Like all of the others, this one is really up to the individual
congregation. They should weigh the evidence and determine whether or not the
man has shown himself to be a capable leader within his own family. Every man is different
and every congregation is different. When a man becomes a candidate for the eldership,
the congregation should thoughtfully and prayerfully consider each of the qualifications
Paul listed. This is a serious matter and not to be entered into lightly or hastily.
Every congregation should have elders to guide it, but a congregation with no
elders will always be better than one with bad elders. |