The Neglected Qualification is a book by Douglas Wilson about the Biblical requirement, found in Titus 1:6, that pastors/elders have children who are believers. The parallel passage in 1 Timothy 3 doesn't have this particular requirement, but repeats the general principle that a man is only qualified to lead the family of God if he has demonstrated that he can lead his own family. There is much wisdom and sound reasoning in the book, but I disagree with the main point to which it seems the book drives.
I want to list the ways in which the book is wise and helpful before addressing my disagreement and offering a counter proposal.
The qualification of the state of the pastor/elder's family, both wife and children, should surely not be neglected. "When we are looking at a man's family, we are looking for what we want to see duplicated - for Paul tells us that it will be duplicated" (p30).
The wise elder will leave the 99 of the congregation to pursue the one wandering sheep in his family. In doing so, he is not only not disqualified, but is actually demonstrating the qualities of Jesus (p13). We should not embitter our kids by having any and every problem in the church outrank their problems (p42).
Wilson offers procedural wisdom, saying we "should let the simple requirement drive the majority of your cases, and deal with your exceptional cases as they arise" (p20). And that when an elder has a difficult situation, "in such tangles those most closely involved should not be judges in their own cases" (p9).
Wilson makes a helpful distinction between selecting a new elder and retaining an existing elder. "Before he is in office, views about his family are a judgment call. After he is in office, they are a charge" (p35). This allows members to go with their gut on installation, but it protects the elder and his family from unreasonable scrutiny. The analogy of picking a wife vs. remaining married to that wife is apropos (p34). This distinction best fits the presbyterian model (elder for life), but can be applied to a congregational model with terms. The elder resuming another term after a required hiatus is largely continuing his role as elder.
But all of this is preamble to his central recommendation for church governance at the end of chapter 8, "If a natural child of an elder or minister, having grown up in his father's house, is lawfully excommunicated by the church, the resignation of his father will be required at that same time" (p47, also stated similarly on p9).
First, let me clarify two minor things in this recommendation. I don't like the distinction between the natural child and the adopted child or step child. Adopted children often struggle with the profound loss of their birth parents and their sense of identity, and step children have been scarred by a death or divorce they didn't cause. These extenuating circumstances must be considered. But there are also extenuating circumstances for natural born children that must also be considered, and making this distinction between types of children doesn't help with that.
Also, "lawfully excommunicated by the church" implies a formal proceeding in a local church in which child and father participate. But Wilson later clarifies, "If we adopt the policy I am suggesting in the larger church - that of asking elders and ministers to step down if their children are excommunicate (or the moral equivalent)..." (p55). So any unbelieving or grossly sinning child, regardless of church membership or proceeding, is in the equivalent state. I don't believe Wilson intends that the child be present in the local church where his or her father is serving in order to apply this rule.
Overlooking those points, how do I disagree with this recommendation without also "neglecting the qualification"?
First, Wilson's recommendation does not capture his distinction between making someone an elder and retaining that man as an elder. He only addresses retaining the elder.
Second, Wilson's recommendation doesn't state that when a child is known to be unbelieving the office of the father must be reevaluated by a qualified board. It simply says the resignation is required, and it is discussed elsewhere that discretion might be applied to override this requirement.
Third, Wilson argues that "children" must equally apply to young children in the house and to grown children out of the house or capable of being out of the house because young children cannot be accused of debauchery and rebellion (p44). No, two year-olds cannot. But 16 year-olds can. And a 22 year-old who went to college as a credibly professing believer, but fell under the influence of secular philosophy and atheistic science, is in some sense a rebellious child, but he or she is also a responsible adult. This all too common and tragic situation should never be neglected. It may reflect a flaw in the father's training or ongoing care. It should be considered, especially for a new elder, and even in the case of retaining a current elder, but I don't see how this recommendation captures any of that wisdom. Wilson says Eli's and David's sons should be regarded as responsible adults (p24), but his culminating recommendation doesn't incorporate that.
Finally, Wilson persuasively argues that Titus 1 is patterned after Deuteronomy 21. Execution of a disobedient son in Israel and excommunication of a disobedient child in the church are similar. Both Israelite and Christian parents are called to train their children to know the Lord and children are to obey their parents and follow their model of faith. Wilson says, "This is for all of us. But since we are supposed to learn the harvest of all Christian living from those who are given spiritual responsibility for us, it makes sense that Paul would begin by requiring this of church officers" (p54). The elder is required to have a complete harvest among all his children, without exception, into adulthood. If the father raises 10 children to know the Lord, all entering adulthood with credible professions of faith, and then one marries and later divorces and is unrepentant, I do not see how an expectation of covenantal harvest extends to an automatic resignation of the father from his elder/pastoral work. Surely he should not neglect the qualification. He should pursue his adult son. He should take the case to his fellow elders to see if he should step down for a season or forever. But Wilson is arguing for something more strict and automatic.
And so, now it comes to what really matters. Wilson should be commended for offering a recommendation, and if all I do is tear it down, I'm not building up the church. So I humbly offer my own recommendation to address the Neglected Qualification, much of it based on Wilson's own teaching:
If a new elder candidate has an unbelieving child in his home, the church should presume he does not meet the Titus 1:6 qualification unless proven differently. If any elder, new or existing, has an unbelieving child of any age and living situation, he should humbly submit himself and his situation to the judgment of the other elders, they should consider what has been revealed about the spiritual maturity and reputation of that elder, and whether he remains in office or not he should pursue his child with a greater urgency than his work for the congregation.
