Eldership Requirements

According to Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 is it a requirement for the elders wife and children to also be Christians?

Yes.

KJ, isn't this a bit unrealistic?

Paul didn't apparently think so. It only becomes "unrealistic" when we get the mentality of: "We have all these churches that need pastors... but if we have such high requirements, we will not have very many men that can do the job..."

If we can only have a couple pastors that are truly qualified in the 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 sense, then sobeit! For we should ultimately be jealous over the glory of God, and not the "need" to fill a spot. The church would be better off having no men serving as pastors than to have men who have not met the biblical qualifications. The law of supply and demand ought not dictate what standard we raise for pastoral ministry.

I don't think anything needs to be said for the great reproach "PK's" (preacher's kids) often bring on a pastor, and by bringing it on the pastor, they bring it on the church, and thus on Christ. I knew a pastor just a block down the street from me of a pretty large and established church in the area. His son, however, was far from being a Christian. His teenage son was a homosexual, used drugs, and one halloween cracked open the skull of some kid in the neighborhood.

Needless to say, great reproach was brought upon this man's ministry as well as the rest of the church. Thus, Paul sought for pastors in the church to have a life that was above reproach in all regard: both in their public and private lives. Because if the outside world could reproach the leadership of the church, then they could easily disqualify the gospel itself.

Meanwhile, the Church needs men of God to look after the flocks.... regardless of what age or spriritual stage their children are at.

And because of this attitude, my own denomination recently appointed a pastor out of my church to another congregation who was far from ready spiritually. No doubt, the man was quite a good preacher, and had some great insights. But they failed to check his character before appointing him.

As it goes, God wants pastoral ministry in the church. However, I've yet to see anywhere in the Scriptures where it is taught that we "need" such individuals. We need to be broken as a church of this "need" for pastoral ministry at all costs.

Let us first submit to the Scriptures.

KJ, I think you're mixing up two different questions here, by calling the kind of pastor you describe, an elder.

Biblically speaking, there is no distinction.

My 'attitude' is, that if a man of God is doing everything he should be and his life is demonstrating his readiness for eldership, it is completely - if I may go so far as to use a word which rarely passes my lips these days - ridiculous to say his children must be born again, or he is disqualified from serving the church in this way.

I don't think that is what Paul means.

But this is the very thing Paul says. Here is a list of the things Paul says an elder must be:

1 Tim 3:2-7:
*Above reproach
*The husband of one wife
*Temperate
*Prudent
*Respectable
*Hospitable
*Able to teach
*Not addicted to wine
*Not pugnacious
*Gentle
*Peaceable
*Free from the love of money
[b]*One who manages his own house well, with children who are under control.[/b]
*Not a new convert
*A good reuptation outside of the church.

Titus 1:6-9
*Above reproach
*The husband of one wife
[b]*Having children that believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.[/b]
*Not self-willed
*Not quick-tempered
*Not addicted to wine
*Not pugnacious
*Not fond of sordid gain
*Hospitable
*Loving what is good
*Sensible
*Just
*Devout
*Self-controlled
*Faithful to the word
*Able to exhort in sound doctrine and refute those in error.

I know it might seem an unreasonable thing. How can one's pastoral ministry depend upon the spiritual state of one's children? I'm not sure I can fully answer it, other than to state what Paul himself states, which seems to be a requirement based upon the need that a pastor be above reproach in every area of his life.

I don't see anything in Paul's requirements which specifically mentions the necessity of his children being 'Christians'.

In Titus Paul says the pastor's children need to be believers. I don't know how this could mean anything but born-again Christians.

Tit 1:6 (kjv) If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

Tit 1:6 (asv) if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe, who are not accused of riot or unruly.

I would say that as the point stands, the word "faithful" is possibly more along the lines of "trustworthy" and not "God-fearing." In other words, it might be Paul being a touch redundant.

I would think that it is quite possible Paul was using a dually inclined phrase here, yet as it stands the context is not entirely clear. We'd like it to be, and human nature is of the suggestion that generations that follow should be brought up in a path parallel to their predecessors. Also, it might be a little difficult to rip straight out a culture that put a lot more emphasis on the mixing of thought and action such a line and linearly apply it to ourselves.

What I think we do see here ("explicitely" implied) is that elders would be (according only to this phrase applied to their children) responsible people with out a penchant for subterfuge or grudging disrespect - because these [hidden] traits are passed on quite easily (...I think I'd be one to know...) - and whom are established (and often longstanding) men of the faith (due to the rather specific tendency of imbued traits to take a very long while to diminish once controlled - especially passed to children). Children are children everywhere. Mothers can see much of others' lives through the eyes of a child's friends. I'm not entirely sure how to apply it to a person with grown children, exactly, but that might be getting a touch off-subject anyway.

Paul is a difficult man to understand; because he was a master (in my opinion) of understanding other's thoughts - and he wrote to such regards. How better to be effective than to mould rather than break?

-----------

Aye, 'tis a bit interesting. If there were an elder in a church (the KJV uses the word "bishop") to whom a newborn child was given... would that mean they were no longer eligable for their post? Their new child is evidently not a Christian. Doesn't exactly seem like a "family man" would be much of a husband without taking that risk... hence wrapping us up in another controversy alltogether, due to the use of the word "wife" in the same sentance. That's enough to cause a headache. Must be a slight cultural misunderstanding in there somewhere.

One who manages his own house well, with children who are under control. 1 Tim 3

*Having children that believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. Titus 1

It seems to me that this is relating to the father's ability to 'rule his own house' rather than to the spiritual experience of the children.

As PTywama3 has observed to make the spiritual condition of the children the criteria for prospective elders would mean that the every new baby in the family would automatically disqualify the father from the role of 'elder' for some time. We should also bear in mind that new babies in the home was a more regular pattern than in our own day.