Elders and Children
Thesis: To be appointed as an elder a man must have more than one child to meet the qualification of “children” recorded in I Tim. 3:4 and “faithful children” recorded n Tit. 1:6.
Argument # one
We are to speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent. Peter states it this way in I Pet. 4:11. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God . . .” The Scriptures say “children” (plural) and that is never denied. We must say “children” if we are to speak as “the oracles of God”.
Argument # two
The principle of authority says I must have a command or direct statement, an approved example, or a necessary inference to authorize anything in religion. I have a command or direct statement for children in I Tim. 3:4 and Tit. 1:6. There is no direct statement or command, approved example, or necessary inference for an elder with only one child.
Argument # three
We are to do what is right and cannot be wrong. Appointing elders with children fits this approach. Appointing an elder with only one child violates this approach. (Rom. 14:23)
Argument # four
Even slight deviancy in relation to God’s directions causes righteous retribution. (ex: Nadab and Abihu, Uzzah, etc.) To change children so that it includes only one child is deviant from the written, inspired word.
Argument # five
If one were playing Simon says and Simon said, “Everyone with only one child step forward”, people with two or more children would not move or they would be eliminated. If Simon then said, “Everyone with two or more children hop on one foot”, none with only one child would hop or they would be eliminated. God has more authority than Simon and God said “children”.
Argument # six
When God gives specific directions, all other options are eliminated. (ex: vocal music being commanded eliminates instrumental music). God, specifying “children” in the texts under consideration, eliminates one child and no child.
Argument # seven
In a list of specific requirements in order to obtain specific results one must use denotative meanings. The context of elder qualifications must be received as denotative. Denotatively, children is the plural and not the singular. Context, then, demands an exact application of what God said.
Argument # eight
The purpose of a scripture helps define its application. The purpose of “children” is to develop and establish management skills in relation to people. Without various personalities in the home, this skill cannot be adequately developed. (I Tim. 3:5)
Observation # one
Anyone taking the “one child” position finds themselves in the unenviable position of having to prove God meant something different than what he said. (Go back to the section on exegesis and eisegesis).
Observation # two
Sophistry, not scripture, is generally used to support this textual change from children to child.
Example A. The defenders of the one child theory abandon the principle of context and pull from all sorts of non-related texts to show that “children” is sometimes singular. First, ‘sometimes’ is not equal to ‘always’. Second, passages which are not contextually or materially connected do not apply. Third, casual usage does not set aside specific commands (refer back to connotative and denotative meanings). What is the compelling contextual argument that justifies changing God’s requirement of children in these passages that are under consideration?
Example B. People often call on common usage in our discussion on this issue to set aside this specific command. The fact that if I invite everyone with children to my house and someone shows up with only one child and I let them in changes this passage in no way. Certainly no one would accept the argument that if I turned them away then I was right about this passage. Such reasoning is not really reasoning at all.
Observation # three
Often when I discuss this question with brethren, I ask the following question, “If it was God’s intention to specify children (plural) and eliminate all those with only one child, and you do not accept the word “children” as teaching this, what words could God have chosen to get you to understand that he wanted a plurality of children before one could be an elder?”
One brother responded by asking me what word or words could God have chosen to convince me that someone with one child was qualified. I responded by saying that God could have simply said “having at least one child” and I would have been satisfied. I then pointed out that if I could have figured this out, probably God could also.
The brother went on to say if God had said “two or more children” that he would be satisfied. The tragedy is, that is exactly what God said in using the term “children”. The brother still is not satisfied. Remember, God is not the author of confusion. These well meaning brethren put him in this position by saying his language is unclear. If God had meant that one child would suffice, he would have conveyed that to us. He would not have confused us by stating the plural exclusively if he intended to include the singular.
Conclusion:
The one-child position contains far too much assumption for me. I will stick with “Thus saith the Lord”.