Elder Qualifications: What About His Adult Children?

Since the New Testament does not address this concern specifically, one must draw a reasonable conclusion from the available evidence.

My personal view is that, in the circumstances you describe, an adult son's defection does not necessarily disqualify the brother from serving as an elder. My reasons for this judgment are as follows:

Every human being has been granted the responsibility of exercising his personal power of choice in the decisions of his life (Joshua 24:15; Isaiah 7:15; John 5:40; Revelation 22:17). The elder may have raised his children in the ways of the Lord, but later, when the child was on his own, events transpired wherein the offspring abandoned faithful service.

Parents cannot be held perpetually responsible for their children's transgressions (cf. Isaiah 1:2). We discussed this principle in another article, to which we refer the reader (Will a Properly-Trained Child Never Go Wrong?).

The Qualification Considered

Paul instructs that an elder must "rule well his own house" (1 Timothy 3:4). When does a child stop being a member of his father's house and become responsible for his own decisions?

It seems to me that when an offspring moves out of his parents' home and establishes his own independent home, he is no longer under the control of his father and mother. They therefore cannot be held responsible for his conduct—as much as they may disagree with his way of life. Even the sin of a youngster "under his father's roof" would not necessarily disqualify an elder. Every young person is guilty of sin.

Is the Father's House Out of Control?

The issue is this. Does the father exercise general control over the child? Can the youthful transgressor be brought to repentance?

It's not reasonable to expect the elder's home to be absolutely free from the common problems all Christians face in rearing children. The elder is to be one "having [echon — a present tense form suggesting a consistent state] believing children" (Titus 1:6) who are subject to his "rule" (1 Timothy 3:4).

If the elder's children who are in his household (i.e., under his immediate control) are habitually disorderly and he cannot, as a general practice, "rule" them (proistemi — "to stand before" in the sense of "lead"), but, to the contrary, they are constantly guilty of outrageous conduct (Titus 1:6), he certainly would be disqualified to serve in that leadership capacity.

Totally rebellious children nullify the elder's ability to lead the church (1 Timothy 3:5).

The Problem of Expediency

That said, we acknowledge that an elder's grown child, living on his own, could be guilty of such notorious and flagrant conduct that it might not be expedient for the elder to continue in his role. The inordinate attention to this problem — even though he is not responsible for the wayward child's conduct — might seriously distract him from his pastoral responsibilities, and his influence could be muted.

This need not be the case necessarily, but it could be. In such a case, the judgment of the local church should be consulted. A good elder will always put the congregation's welfare first in any decision.