Deacons and Kids

The Bible says:
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (ESV) 1 Timothy 3:8-13

Paul gives these instructions concerning deacons to Timothy. These qualities, or qualifications, follow similar ones given for elders (vv. 1-7).

The question addressed in this note concerns the item related to children. Does the Scripture require of a deacon that he have children?

We understand that if a deacon has children, they should be managed well. Does this contingency that a deacon manage his children well imply necessarily that he have children to manage?

The following reasons show conclusively that it is not necessary for a brother to have children in order to serve as a deacon.

1. The Scripture leaves no question, by explicit statement, that the deacon must be the husband of one wife. Thus, if we receive v. 11 as reference to the deacon's wife, then we hear the apostle Paul actually giving two necessary marriage conditions for a deacon: (a) that he must have one wife and (b) that the wife herself must exhibit certain godly characteristics.

If Scripture were to follow the same pattern for children as it does for his wife, then we might expect to read something like this: (a) A deacon must have children. (b) His children must be well managed. This keeps the matter unambiguous and clear as to what is required. However, the Scripture does not do this: it does not say explicitly that he must have children.

2. Is there a necessary inference that a deacon have children?

No. The text does not require it. If we were to allow the absence of children for the moment, we see that no violence or change comes to the meaning of the Scripture. The meaning of Scripture holds, namely, that such children as there are must be managed well.

What is necessary to the passage is that children, if there be any, are managed well. That this is the correct reading of the passage becomes clear in the next thought.

3. The Scripture also says that a deacon must manage his household well (v. 12). The household is not his wife nor is it his children. Both wife and children have each been addressed explicitly moments before. He must manage "children and household" well. The conjunction and indicates something in addition to children in this case. So, it is not his immediate family. Consequently, we must ask who or what constitutes the household?

The household includes other persons who would somehow be closely associated with the deacon's family. These would be servants, maids, or other people attached who serve in various capacities.

For example, Cornelius, a Gentile centurion in the Roman army, had a number of people associated with his house. These would be in addition to immediate family. In Acts 10:7 we learn that Cornelius sent two servants and one devout soldier to invite Peter to preach the message of salvation. These three messengers were among those who attended Cornelius; this implies a number of other people also closely associated with him - namely, his household.

The circumcision party later accuses Peter of eating with Gentiles. Peter defends his actions and tells them the Holy Spirit instructed him to teach Cornelius, because Cornelius himself had received instructions to hear the message by which he and all his household would be saved. Acts 11:14. We noted already that Cornelius' household included servants as well as soldiers. Furthermore, he had invited relatives and friends to join the meeting with Peter. Acts 10:24.

Now, does it follow that if a deacon is to manage his household well, that it is necessarily required of him to have such a household? That is, is it required that he have servants, maids, or other people somehow associated with him that constitute the household?

Or is the requirement, rather, that such household that there is must be managed well?

Without question we have never made having a household a requirement for a deacon. But more to the point, clearly, a deacon is simply not required to have a household. But if he does, it is required that he manage them well.

For exactly the same reason, a deacon is not required to have children. But if he does, they must be managed well.

We conclude, consequently, that it is not required of a brother to have children before he may serve as a deacon. But it is required, if he has children, that he manage them well.