Elder Qualifications (3 of 3): His Children are Believers
The following is the third in a series of blogs regarding the biblical qualifications for eldership. The first blog examined the overall purpose of the qualifications, and the second evaluated interpretations of the phrase “husband of one wife.” This blog focuses on the requirements regarding a prospective elder’s children.At The Parkway Church, our translation of choice is the English Standard Version (ESV). It’s a strong translation that manages to accurately reflect the original languages while also preserving readability. In Titus 1:6-7a, the ESV reads as follows,
…if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach.
This leads us to an important question in the evaluation of a man’s fitness for eldership: do his kids have to be Christians? The plain reading of the text (“his children are believers”) would seem to answer in the affirmative. However, the issue is more complex than it appears.
Two Options: “Believers” or “Faithful”
In Greek, the word translated “believers” in the ESV is pistos. Pistos is an adjective that can either mean “believing” or “faithful.” On a blank page, setting aside the context, either option is a legitimate translation choice. However, in this case, there is an enormous practical difference between the two. If pistos means “believing” or “believers” (Greek adjectives sometimes function as nouns) then Paul is telling Titus that an elder’s children must be born-again, regenerate Christians. They must believe the gospel. But if pistos means “faithful,” then the question of the children’s salvation is not in view. In that case, Paul is talking about a general posture of respectfulness and obedience. Clearly, a church’s determination of a man’s fitness for eldership may hinge on how they translate the word pistos.
Why Some Take Pistos to Mean “Believers”
We will contend below that “faithful” is the superior translation of pistos. However, the choice by the ESV translators–normally so excellent–to render it “believers” should at least cause us to consider why requiring an elder’s children to be already converted might make sense.
The primary reason why someone might expect Paul to require an elder’s children to be Christians is that the Apostle clearly describes family life as a proving ground for eldership. Paul mentions an elder’s home in both of his qualification lists. He sees an analogy between pastoring and parenting: “For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” (1 Tim. 3:5) In other words, a man’s home life can tell us a lot about what kind of pastor he will be.
This isn’t surprising, eldership and fatherhood have a lot in common. Both are positions of authority. Both involve intentional instruction and leading by example. Both will encounter a variety of situations that require biblical insight, wisdom, patience, persistence, and love. Both have the same mission of discipling those under their care, although the starting point and context are fairly different. Both will experience frustration, exhaustion, confusion, hardship, and disobedience from those they care for. And both will find incredible blessings, joy, and encouragement in the work. Parenting can go a long way in preparing a man to pastor. On that basis, some evangelicals contend that it makes good sense to require the children of an elder to be believers. He must have a track-record of success in the home in order to be fit to lead the household of God.
Why “Faithful” is a Far Superior Translation of Pistos
Despite the arguments in favor of “believers,” we disagree with the ESV translators and are convinced that “faithful” is a far superior rendering of pistos in Titus 1:6. We have seven reasons for this conviction.
1) Paul goes on to describe pistos in terms more akin to faithfulness than belief in Christ
Here is our passage in context, leaving pistos untranslated:
If anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are pistos and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. (Titus 1:6-7a)
There are two crucial pieces to note here.
First, the word “and” after pistos is not present in Greek, the translators have added it to make the text easier to read. The insertion of “and” creates the errant impression that Paul is describing two things–first that an elder’s children must be pistos and second that they must not be open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. But the word “and” is simply not there. Paul is talking about one thing. The second clause (“not open to the charge…”) explains the first (pistos). A better rendering would be “his children are pistos, that is, not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.” To say a child is invulnerable to accusations of debauchery is very different from saying they are a Christian, but it’s quite similar to saying they are “faithful.”
Second, the whole section is bookended by the phrase: “above reproach.” In our first blog we noted that an elder’s character is paramount. “Above reproach” captures that big-picture idea. In this passage it functions as an inclusio–a literary device that brackets the material between its two occurrences. In other words, everything between the repeated qualification (“above reproach”) explains what Paul means by it. There’s no obvious connection between having Christian children and being “above reproach.” But there is a connection between a child’s general faithfulness and their parent’s reputation for godliness. So, within the passage itself, Paul’s subsequent description of pistos sounds much more like “faithful” than “believers.”
2) Paul does not tell Timothy that an elder’s children must be believers
Paul wrote two letters that contain lists of qualifications for church elders. This blog has thus far focused on Paul’s letter to Titus, but let us now consider the list he sent to Timothy. Here is the portion of that list that deals with an elder’s children:
He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? (1 Tim. 3:4-5)
The primary point here is what Paul does not say. He says nothing to Timothy about the salvation of an elder’s children. Timothy pastored in Ephesus and Titus in Crete. They were not neighbors who could compare Paul’s letters with one another. If Paul told Titus that a man could not be an elder if his children were not believing Christians, then he has failed to communicate that same requirement to Timothy. If pistos in Titus 1:6 really does mean “believers” then this omission is near to apostolic malpractice! Poor Timothy was not given an essential requirement in evaluating elder candidates!
Assuming Paul was not giving vastly different commands to his two pastoral protegés, a comparison of the two epistles indicates that “submissive” children (1 Tim. 3:4) means the same thing as “faithful” children (Tit. 1:6). That seems like a far more likely option than to conclude that Paul gave them different requirements.
3) “Faithful” is the more common meaning of pistos in the New Testament
The adjective pistos appears 67 times in the New Testament. In 55 of those occurrences, the ESV has chosen to translate it “faithful” (or occasionally a synonym like “trustworthy”). More than 82% of the time, the ESV renders pistos “faithful” and only the remaining 18% of the time does it have “believer/believing.” So, just by the raw data, pistos is more than four times more likely to mean “faithful” than “believer” in the New Testament.
The data is similarly consistent if we narrow the search down to just Paul’s writings. Paul uses the word 33 times, and in 25 of those occurrences the ESV has it as “faithful.” If we narrow the search even further, to Titus alone, we find 3 occurrences of pistos, and the verse in question (Tit. 1:6) is the only instance in Titus where the ESV translates it “believer.”
To be sure, this doesn’t mean pistos can’t mean “believer” in Titus 1:6. It simply means that, unless the context provides good evidence for the less frequent option, then it makes sense to stick with the more common translation.
4) While the family is a proving ground for ministry, it is not the proving ground
We noted above that Paul sees an analogy between the church and the home–look at how a man leads his family and you’ll get a good idea of how he’ll lead a church. However, we must be careful not to push this too far. Paul did not view the family as an indispensable proving ground for a man’s fitness for ministry. This is clear from the fact that, in another letter, he extols the ministry-benefits of singleness.
Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am…I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:6-8, 32-33)
Paul says it is “good” to be single and singularly devoted to the Lord. This warns us away from ultimatizing the family. The family is a good thing, but it is not the ultimate thing. Neither Paul nor Jesus himself was married, nor did either of them parent children of their own. As noted in our previous blog, single men are not disqualified from the pastorate. If that’s the case, childless men cannot be disqualified either. If fatherhood is a prerequisite to Christian leadership, then Paul and Jesus were both unfit. So, while the family is indeed a valuable proving ground for ministry, it is not a vital one. Paul had a high view of the family, but he had a higher view of devotion to Christ.
It may be that, for some, the preference for translating pistos as “believers” is born from a desire to elevate the importance of the family. But if our understanding of the biblical view of the family causes us to make assumptions about what the Bible should be saying, we’ve made ourselves the authority and not the Scriptures. The more extreme position of requiring an elder’s children to be Christians seems to go beyond the Apostle’s view of the family.
5) Parents cannot guarantee the salvation of their children
In the belly of the great fish, Jonah came to a life-altering realization: “Salvation belongs to the Lord” (Jon. 2:9). This great truth is reaffirmed countless times across the pages of the Scriptures–God is the author of grace, the guarantor of redemption, the agent of any individual’s salvation. No man can usurp that role.
To be sure, God uses secondary means to accomplish his purposes. The ministry of a child’s parents is one of the most common means he uses to invade the heart of a child with the gospel. Parents are commanded to bring their children up “in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). And, Proverbs tells us that faithful parents should normally expect the seeds they sow to bear gospel fruit: “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6). We must remember, however, that this is a proverb and not a promise. Many faithful parents have experienced the heartache of children who grow up and reject the gospel they’ve been raised in. This is a testament to the Lord’s ultimate sovereignty–parents do what they can, but the final result is in God’s hands. In D.A. Carson’s words: “Grace doesn’t run in the genes.”¹
Paul himself was aware that our gospel-efforts cannot generate a response. He even accused one of the churches he planted of abandoning the faith (Gal. 1:6)! If Paul’s ministry could not produce guaranteed results, then neither can the ministry of parents to their children. As Paul reminds the Corinthians: those who sow gospel-seeds must rely entirely on God. “What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth” (1 Cor. 3:5-6). It would be incredibly strange for Paul to require an elder to manufacture something beyond his own ability to control. But a father can, through discipline, instruction, and the management of his household, produce faithful children who obey and respect him.
6) Translating pistos “faithful” is more consistent with Paul’s overall purpose in the elder qualifications
As we saw in our first blog, it would be a mistake to absolutize the elder qualifications. Paul does not give Timothy and Titus identical or exhaustive lists, therefore he did not intend them to be taken with strict rigidity. His main intention was to describe godly character in general terms.
While the respectfulness and obedience of a man’s children necessarily reflect on his character as a father, their regeneration does not. As we just saw, it is out of his control. A man of high-character may have children who, in the mystery of God’s providence, do not (as of yet) believe the gospel. If pistos means “believers” then Paul is not simply saying “an elder must be a godly man;” he is saying “an elder must be a godly man who also has Christian children.” It seems highly unlikely that this qualification stands as such an outlier from the rest.
7) Requiring an elder’s children to be Christians carries insurmountable practical difficulties
Let us assume that “believers” is the right translation for pistos. An elder’s kids must be Christians. Now imagine a man who has two children, ages sixteen and fourteen, both of whom are Christians. The man is considered qualified and is made an elder. A few months later, his wife becomes pregnant and eventually they welcome a newborn into their home. Should the elder be removed from his position because one of his children (the newborn) is not a Christian? If not, at what age does the newborn child’s lack of salvation become an issue for his qualification? Eight? Ten? Sixteen? Eighteen? Does an elder roll the dice on his qualification every time he has another child?
Imagine another scenario. A man has eight children, seven of whom are believers but one of whom is not. All the children received the same parenting. Should the father be considered unfit for eldership because one out of eight remains unconverted?
Consider one final imaginary situation. A man has one child, a fifteen year old daughter. She professes faith in Christ. He is made an elder. Ten years later, she renounces her faith and harshly criticizes her parents for raising her in a “fundamentalist” home. Is the man disqualified? The parenting seemed to bear good fruit while she was in the home and under his authority, but after a few years out of their household, she rejected Christ. Does that necessitate the church removing her father from eldership?
We could multiply these examples: What if the child calls herself a Christian but is attending a church with heterodox beliefs? What if an elder adopts a non-believing teenager, is he disqualified by adoption? What if an elder has a special-needs child whose salvation is more difficult to assess? All of these show just how difficult–near impossible–it is to consistently hold to the hard-line view that an elder’s children must be born-again Christians. Unless we invent an age of accountability for elder’s children (which Paul fails to include) or live in fear that a later-in-life deconversion of a child will disqualify one of our elders, it seems far more simple on a practical level to expect elder’s children to be “faithful” and not “believers.”
For all these reasons, it is our conviction at Parkway that a man may be considered fit for eldership even if his children are not believers. The conversion status (or lack thereof) of a man’s children is not an issue when we assess his fitness for the office. This has been reflected in the evaluation and installation process of elders at our church for many decades.
When is a child’s behavior disqualifying?
Taking pistos to mean “faithful” should not in any way devalue the importance of the qualification. If Paul does not rest a man’s qualification for the pastorate on the salvation of his children, what then is he resting it on where a man’s children are concerned? Our answer comes from Paul’s own explanation: “his children are faithful, not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.” The Apostle seems to be concerned with the general reputation of an elder’s children. How do they conduct themselves? Are they known to be a menace? Has their father lost control of them entirely? Are they the bane of every Sunday School teacher they’ve had? Or are they respectful and submissive to authority? The answers to such questions show us whether or not the children could be considered “faithful.”
The words Paul uses–“debauchery” and “insubordination”–indicate a fairly extreme rebellion. “Debauchery,” for example, is used in 1 Peter 4:4 as a summary statement corresponding to “living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry” (1 Pet. 4:3). This is high-handed defiance.
Every child will be disobedient at times, but if they are “open to the charge” of debaucherous behavior, their parents’ household-management is in question. A home devoid of discipline and godly instruction will produce wild and unruly children. If that’s the case, their father should not be given the management of God’s church (cf. 1 Tim. 3:5).
One other element must be considered here: a child’s age. The Greek word Paul uses for “children” in 1 Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6 is tekna. It refers to young children still in the home. This makes sense, since Paul is concerned with a man’s household management. Therefore, this qualification would seem to only apply while a child is young and living at home under the authority of his or her parents. Evaluating the behavior of children who have set out on their own does not fit with Paul’s statement “he must manage his household well” (1 Tim. 3:4).
Imagine a situation where a child displayed the kind of faithfulness to her parents that Paul describes. However, when she grows up and leaves the home she becomes significantly rebellious. She engages in debauchery and insubordination, the very things Paul says an elder’s child must not do. Is her father disqualified? There’s no denying that this is a difficult issue–one in which every case will feature a multiplicity of factors that must be considered. However, our answer is that her father is not necessarily disqualified. It may be that he was a faithful father to her: disciplining insubordination and exhorting her to righteousness. In fact, her submissive behavior while still in his household would seem to serve as proof of godly parenting. It was only when she left the home that her sinful heart–now unhindered by the constraints of God-fearing household leadership–felt free to indulge itself. Conversely, it is also possible that his failings as a father (whether overly passive or domineering) are just now coming to light. Serious conversations about previous parenting strategies should be included in such a man’s eldership assessment. But, as it stands, a wayward child who has left the home does not necessarily disqualify a man from eldership.
¹D.A. Carson, “Defining Elders,” 9Marks Leadership, January 4, 1999, https://www.9marks.org/article/defining-elders-2/