|
|
|
"Must an elder have more than one child
in order to qualify as an elder?" Harrell Davidson |
We have before us a series of questions on the subject of the eldership. In fact, there are 12 questions altogether. We are happy to deal with them, but it will take several issues of The Gospel Preceptor to answer them all. We are confident, that due to the subject matter, there may indeed be those who disagree with us, as most of the questions are judgment questions. This, then, will probably precipitate other questions. We are not going to list the qualifications of elders here. Our readers should find such qualifications in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9. First Peter 5:1-4 ought also be taken into consideration. Question two is: "Must an elder have more than one child in order to qualify as an elder?" Answer: This question is often asked due to 1 Tim. 3:4 and Titus 1:6. In both instances the plural form of child is given ordinarily meaning more than one. However, other plain passages of Scripture shows that "child" would be acceptable in the qualifications listed. This is not always a popular view, but we neither write from the popular viewpoint or to be "politically correct." First, let us look at Genesis 21:7. "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." We now ask, how many children did Sarah give "suck" to? The verse indicates with the definite article that it was "a" child (one) and we know that his name was Isaac. She did not give suck to children — plural — thus the one is used for the other. Our second proof text will be, Eph. 6:1. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right." We ask the question, if "a" only child — singular — is the child obligated to obey his or her parents. The third text is found also in Eph 6:4 where Paul admonished, "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Would anyone take the position that it would be permissible for a father to provoke "a" child, but not children? We think with these three examples the question is answered, however, we wish to bring up a position or two that is not too unusual. One elder in the Lord's church in a western state took the position that it must be "children" in the plural sense and he further added that there must be a boy and a girl. We asked why this must be the case. He pointed out that a congregation had both men and women and that if an elder did not have a boy and a girl he would not know the needs of the women if he had all boys nor would he know the needs of the males if he only had girls. He was a good man and a faithful elder to the best of our knowledge. We were sitting around the desk in the office and I explained to him that by his position, and since every person in the congregation is different with no two being exactly alike, one would need to have at least as many children as there were members in the congregation and as many genders or else the elder would not know how to care for the flock! He paused, looked at the floor and did not say another word. He realized there was no stopping place to his belief and later resigned from the eldership. When we take extreme positions it sometimes takes extreme examples to get one to see the error of one's thinking. We regretted that he resigned. He was a good man and a good elder. Others have gone to the other extreme and argued that it was not necessary for an elder to have children — child — at all. This certainly does not meet the conditions of the texts before us. Most extreme views are wrong. Thanks for the question. |