In 1 Timothy 3:4-5, Paul requires that a man rule his house faithfully if he is going to rule in the household of God. The proof he is ruling his house faithfully is manifested in the faithfulness of his children. Sadly, this is a very neglected qualification for pastors and elders in the evangelical church today. If a man’s ministry is not bearing fruit in his own household, in the lives of his children, why would we expect him to be an effective shepherd in the household of God, the church? In the book of Proverbs, the rebellion of a son is often said to bring shame on his mother and father precisely because the parents are presumed to be responsible for the child’s life. They could have shepherded and disciplined his more effectively, but failed to do so. In other cases, we have explicit teaching of Scripture that good, wise parenting produces fruitfulness and faithfulness in the lives of the children (e.g., Titus 1:6), and undisciplined, unfaithful parenting leads to rebellion (e.g., 1 Sam. 3:13). Scripture is very clear: there is a deep and abiding connection between faithfulness on the part of the parents and faithfulness in their children. But how deep does that connection go? Are there any exceptions or qualifications? If a child rebels, should we always automatically conclude the parents are also to blame?
The teaching that Christian parents can be assured of their children’s status before God because of the covenant promises is known as “covenant succession.” The classic treatment of covenant succession in Presbyterianism is Rob Rayburn’s article: http://www.faithtacoma.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Covenant-Succession.pdf. I am in general agreement with this "covenant succession” teaching as Rayburn lays it out. But I qualify my endorsement because there's one rather foundational assertion with which I cannot agree. Rayburn’s essay states:
"It is to be noted, finally, that nowhere does the Scripture suggest the contrary, that blameless parental nurture might still result in one's children growing up to a life of unbelief.”
I find this statement rather troubling, especially in the face of evidence to the contrary. Here is some of that evidence:
First, God the Father created a son (in his image), and then nurtured, and trained him (Gen. 2). But Adam rebelled against his Father (Gen. 3). Was divine parenting at fault? Hardly. If a sinless son can rebel against flawless, divine parenting, how much more a sinful child against godly, but inevitably flawed, parental nurture and discipline? Even if we argue that Adam was repentant (which would swing us back to confirming Rayburn’s thesis), the fact that any of his offspring are lost would militate against pushing too hard on the parental faithfulness/child faithfulness connection. There most certainly is connection, but unless we are going to become universalists, we have to allow for the possibility that even faithful parenting might be mitigated by willful rebellion on the part of the child.
Second, God the Father created and parented another son, Israel (Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1ff.; Ps. 103:13; Deut. 332:6; Isa. 63:16; 45:10; 64:10; Mal. 1:6; 2:10; Jer. 3:19; 31:9, etc.). Yahweh's son was given everything he needed in the way of love and instruction (e.g., the Torah). So why did Israel rebel? What was the problem? Israel’s hard heart, not God's parenting. Hosea 11 and Isaiah 1 are enough to unravel the entire argument for extreme forms of covenant succession: "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for Yahweh has spoken: ‘Children have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me’" (Isa. 1:2). In Isaiah 5, the Lord asks the wayward nation, “What more could I have done for you? And yet you have rebelled” (Isa. 5:1-4).
There are other ways to get at this same truth. In the law, what we read about the case of a rebellious son who is turned in by his parents does not fit with an inflexible covenant succession doctrine:
"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, "This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear" (Deut. 21:18-21).
Clearly this is an older child, one who is able to live a life of gluttony and drunkenness. But the instructive thing in this case law is that the parents are not blamed for the outcome. They even have the willingness and courage to bring the boy to the elders without any indication of guilt on their part for his behavior. They have instructed and corrected the child, but he has refused to submit to them. He is incorrigible. The case law makes it clear that the parents “discipline him" but that he does not respond to their parental training. Whose fault is his apostasy? It's the boy's fault. The parents are without blame or shame in this particular case.
Interestingly, Samuel makes a speech to Israel in 1 Sam. 12 and basically argues that he has been blameless in his leadership and nurture of Israel, but warns that that's not enough to insure their future faithfulness. The people themselves are responsible to remain faithful. The other telling dynamic in this portion of the story of 1 Samuel is that the judge/prophet Samuel has also become Saul's adoptive father in the narrative of 1 Sam. 9-12. This is made very clear in chapter 10. Even so, Saul rebels grievously in chapters 13-15, through no fault of his "father" Samuel.
Lastly, we should remember that Jesus' impeccable teaching and training of his disciples notwithstanding, one of them fell away. Likewise, Paul was a faithful pastor, but many members of the churches he “fathered” apostatized.
These examples would appear to indicate that it is possible for children to rebel against godly, wise, loving parents. How? It is the mystery of iniquity. What I find troubling about certain forms of the doctrine of covenant succession is that the teaching burdens parents with the full weight of the if-clause: "If parents are faithful, their children will also be faithful." The difficulty with some extreme forms of "covenant succession" is that they lay all the blame for a child's apostasy at the feet of the parents and their faulty parental nurture/discipline. Any baptized, Christian child who goes astray in later years will cause parents who espouse an unnuanced doctrine of covenant succession untold misery. They will inexorably be led to a minute examination of their parenting methodology to find the hole in the dike. A more balanced view would hold the child himself accountable for his response to faithful parenting, and would recognize that many influences (some beyond parental control) impact the child. Yes, parents who have an unfaithful child should examine ways they may have failed so they can confess those sins and repent – and God may honor that repentance in restoring the child. But those sins may not be the exclusive reason why the child has fallen away.
All that being said, I still commend Rayburn’s article to you. Rayburn is basically right, even if he needs additional nuance. Covenant succession teaching needs to be emphasized today because so much of the church, even the Presbyterian and Reformed segment of the church, has completely neglected this biblical theme and the officer qualification. While parenting is not a crap shoot, in which there is no relationship at all between faithful kids and diligent parenting, neither is faithful parenting some kind of iron-clad guarantee of faithful children. God’s providence is more complex than that.