The qualifications for elders are set forth in First Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9. One of these qualifications is that an elder must have "faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination" (Titus 1:6). First Timothy says he must have "his children in submission with all reverence" (3:4). These passages have led to an ongoing debate among brethren regarding whether or not it is scriptural for a man with only one child to serve as an elder. Some brethren claim that a plurality of children is essential, but I respectfully disagree with this view.

The word "children" is the plural form of the word "child." However, it is sometimes used as a collective noun referring to any number of children, including only one child. For instance, when a sign reads "No Children Allowed," no one makes the argument that one child will be allowed. They realize that the word "children" includes the singular - "child." When asked, "How many children do you have?" the parents of a single child will not respond, "None." They will say that they have one child.

The Bible uses the word "children" in this same manner. When God caused Sarah to finally conceive and give birth to a son for Abraham, she said, "'God has made me laugh, and all who hear will laugh with me.' She also said, 'Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? For I have borne him a son in his old age'" (Gen. 21:6-7, emphasis mine - HR). The word "son" is singular, but the word "children" is used to represent the son that she bore.

I have heard it argued that a plurality of children is essential because it gives a potential elder the experience that he will need in order to deal with different kinds of personalities. It is true that no two children are alike, even among siblings. However, if this was the reason behind this qualification, then wouldn't the man with the most children be the most qualified? If the management of the greatest number of personalities is the quality that the Lord is looking for, then how is having only two children (enough to qualify for a plurality) a greater advantage than having only one child? Shouldn't we be looking for the man who has raised four, or five, or ten children? What if he only has sons? Using this same kind of logic, this man will be woefully unprepared to oversee the souls of the women in the congregation - and vice-versa. You see, this argument comes from human reasoning, and carried to its logical conclusion, would render very few men qualified to serve as elders.

The purpose for the qualification regarding children is not to prove that a man has experience with different personalities, but that he has successfully raised his children. Consider the entire qualification as found in First Timothy: "One who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence, for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?" (vs. 4-5). The purpose for the qualification is to see how well the man did in a position of leadership in his own home. If he did a good job ruling his household and producing submissive and reverent children, he is qualified. Children are the product of the home. One child is enough to prove the effectiveness of a father's leadership and parenting skills.

Good, scriptural leadership is lacking in the Lord's church today. The sad reality is that there are many men who are not qualified to serve as elders. I am not in favor of lowering the standards to allow unqualified men into the eldership. The only thing that is worse than having no elders is having unqualified elders. However, why place limitations and barriers upon potential candidates that God has not placed? Who are we to make it harder for a man to serve as an elder than God has made it?

If a man with one child holds the view that he is not qualified, then his view should be respected and he should not be pressed into service. If the consensus of an entire congregation is that a man must have a plurality of children in order to be qualified, then such will be the standard for that congregation. Each local church is autonomous, and a survey of churches today will reveal the fact that different views held on the qualifications of elders render some men unqualified in some churches while they would be qualified in others. Such should not be the case, but it is.

It is a shame that the qualification regarding children is sometimes singled out as the only one that matters. Sometimes, when a church decides to begin the process of appointing elders, the only assessment given to a candidate is whether or not he can teach a Bible class and how many children he has. No serious thought is given as to whether or not he meets the other qualifications: is he blameless, hospitable, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, is he able to stop the mouths of those who contradict sound doctrine, does he handle his temper and his money in a proper manner, etc. Having faithful children is an important qualification, but it is only one of the qualifications.

Let us make sure that we appoint all of the men who are qualified, and only those men who are qualified, to serve as elders in the Lord's church.

I do not believe this short article will change the minds of those who sincerely believe that a man must have a plurality of children in order to qualify to serve as an elder. The debate over this subject will likely continue until the Lord returns. I am simply setting forth my views on this question for everyone's consideration.