Leadership Matters – part 4
Titus 1:5-9 (6)
February 23, 2025
Tonight we just jump back into our look at leadership.
#1 THE PURPOSE
Titus 1:5a
#2 THE DIRECTIVE
Titus 1:5b-9
1. The Title
2. The Job
3. The Plurality
4. The Appointment
5. The Gender
So let’s get to the 6th aspect of our discussion regarding elders.
6) THE REPUTATION
And this segment covers verses 6-8, and would be considered by most to be the real heart of the issue.
We know we are speaking about the reputation because we see the same phrase mentioned twice.
Verse 6 we read, “if any man is above reproach”
Verse 7 we read, “For the overseer must be above reproach”
The main point is the issue of being “above reproach”
And we’ll see that there are two main categories here in Titus in which the potential elder’s reputation is to be evaluated.
In verse 6 we are evaluating his reputation regarding how he operates in his FAMILY.
In verse 7 we are evaluation his reputation regarding how he operates in the CHURCH.
I think it is only fair to state that Paul’s letter to Timothy contains a third area of evaluation when Paul tells Timothy:
1 Timothy 3:7 “And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”
That third level would be with those outside the church.
And we’ll look at all three in an effort to be exhaustive.
But you get the idea of what we are looking at and evaluating now.
But let me say this, as we begin this segment.
THIS CAN BE AN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT SEGMENT TO DEAL WITH.
One of the reasons this is difficult is because of the lack of consensus among theologians regarding the interpretation of these qualifications.
There are many commentaries seeking to explain the qualifications for elders the interpretations are all over the place.
Let me explain.
And I’m not even going to bother looking at what we would consider to be a liberal approach that disregards Scripture.
That is to say, we’re not even going to waste our time listening to people who ordain women pastors or homosexuals or who really don’t care who becomes an elder.
I’m just talking about a difference of opinion from men we would trust as having sound doctrine.
Just for reference sake I’ll show you what I mean.
JUST LOOK AT THE FAMILY REQUIREMENTS.
Let’s take the requirement that the elder must be “the husband of one wife”
Interpretations have been all over the place on this one through the years.
Some said a single man was disqualified
Some said a widower was disqualified
Some said it only referred to polygamy
But very few yield to those interpretations today.
Every sound Bible teacher I know interprets that passage from the Greek to mean “a one-woman man” and considers it a call to sexual purity.
Namely that as you evaluate the family life of a man to determine his qualifications for eldership you are simply looking to see if he is a “one-woman man”.
Ok, that seems clear enough. But is it?
What about a divorced man?
What about a man who was divorced and now remarried?
What about a man who was divorced before he was saved?
What about a man who was just wild as a single man before he was saved?
Well we could turn to John MacArthur, who you know that I love.
John MacArthur will tell you that a man who has been divorced, even if that divorce was before he was saved, he is disqualified from ever being an elder.
He references sexual immorality as a sin which a man can never come back from in the sense of leadership.
Here’s a quote:
“The writer of Proverbs asks rhetorically, “Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can a man walk on hot coals, and his feet not be scorched? So is the one who goes in to his neighbor’s wife; whoever touches here will not go unpunished” (Prov 6:27-29). “Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry,” the writer goes on to say, “but when he is found, he must repay sevenfold; he must give all the substance of his house” (vv. 30-31). But “the one who commits adultery with a woman is lacking sense; he who would destroy himself does it. Wounds and disgrace he will find, and his reproach will not be blotted out” (Prov. 6:32-33). Unlike a thief, a man who commits adultery has no way to make restitution for his sin and can never be free of reproach and, consequently, can never be “above reproach.”
(MacArthur, John [The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Titus; Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1996] pg. 28)
He goes on to mention men like Reuben who defiled his father’s bed and lost preeminence.
He mentions men like David who was faithful except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.
He mentions men like Solomon who was faithful except with the foreign women who caused him to sin.
And MacArthur says, “Both of these godly men [talking about David and Solomon] were specially loved and blessed by God, yet both were morally disqualified as spiritual shepherds of God’s people. Despite their great devotion to the Lord and faithfulness in His service, sexual infidelity gave them a permanent moral stigma.”
(ibid, pg. 29)
So you can see that MacArthur is rigid on the issue.
Men who commit adultery
Men who have been divorced even prior to salvation
They are permanently disqualified because they carry a stigma which cannot be undone.
I was curious that he said nothing however about men who have struggled with pornography if they are also disqualified since Jesus clearly identifies it as adultery, but it carries no public stigma unless it has been found out.
But none the less, there is one respected man’s interpretation of “the husband of one wife.”
But let’s listen to Alexander Strauch who wrote the book “Biblical Eldership”
A book I bought at the book store of John MacArthur’s church
On the back cover there is a recommendation from John MacArthur that says, “Mr. Strauch has made a fine contribution to the subject of eldership. I am confident that it will be helpful to many.”
Well what does Alexander Strauch have to say about “the husband of one wife”?
He agrees that we are simply talking about a one-woman man.
But what about the issue of sexual sin or divorce before marriage?
Here is what Strauch had to say:
“What does 1 Timothy say about sexual marital sins committed before a person’s conversion to Christ? What about people who have legally divorced and remarried (assuming the local church allows for such)? What about the forgiveness and restoration of a fallen spiritual leader? These and many other painful and controversial questions are not answered directly here. They must be answered from the whole of Scripture’s teaching on divorce and remarriage, forgiveness, grace, and restoration, as well as its teaching on leadership example and the full spectrum of elder qualifications.”
(Strauch, Alexander [Biblical Eldership, Lewis and Roth Publishers, Littleton, CO, 1995] pg. 192-193)
So Strauch just says Timothy and Titus aren’t clear enough and don’t answer such dilemmas, but that someone had better consider Scripture’s teaching on forgiveness, grace, and restoration while you decide what it means.
A little bit of fence walking there but certainly not as rigid as MacArthur.
And then let me read you one more.
This is from Gene Getz and his book “Elders and Leaders”, another book I bought at MacArthur’s bookstore.
Gene Getz is the pastor of Fellowship Bible Church in Plano, TX and a seminary professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.
Getz addresses the issue of sexual immorality, divorce, and sin prior to conversion.
He writes:
“Unfortunately, this interpretation puts divorce in the category of an unpardonable sin, whereas a man could be guilty of murder and still become a spiritual leader – which characterized Paul’s life (Acts 9:1, 26). In his first letter to Timothy, before listing the qualifications of an elder/overseer, Paul classified himself as “the worst of sinners” – “a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man” (1 Timothy 1:13-16). And yet, his position as an apostle was far more prominent as a multiple church planter than being a spiritual leader in a local church. Murder did not disqualify him from being the greatest missionary who ever lived.”
(Getz, Gene [Elders and Leaders, Moody Publishers, Chicago, IL, 2003] pg. 165)
He goes on to write:
“In terms of forgiveness of sins, there is no argument. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin (Ephesians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19; 1 John 1:7). But why not the sin of divorce? Bible scholar Robert L. Saucy develops the answer to this question in a very objective and thorough fashion in an excellent journal article entitled “The Husband of One Wife.” He concludes by saying: “If this interpretation is correct…(1) that adultery is probably not a continual state of sin, but can be forgiven even as a murder, (2) that divorce does not dissolve marriage so that one married again is not considered to be the husband of two wives, then it would seem reasonable to interpret the qualification of being the husband of one wife as a present quality of a man’s life.”
(ibid. pg. 166)
Getz concludes by saying:
“We believe that Paul was simply requiring that a man be above reproach morally, that he be a “one-woman man” – which is a legitimate translation. In essence, he was to be loyal to one woman and one woman only – his present wife.”
(ibid. pg. 167)
So there are 3 trusted pastor/theologians all weighing in on the issue of a one-woman man.
One says one woman per lifetime regardless of conversion.
One says it’s tricky, but read the whole bible to interpret the issue.
One says redemption triumphs and if murder can be forgiven so can adultery.
Now I’m not quoting those guys to say which one we are going to believe, I just want you to understand that these are highly commented and highly debated issues.
Consider the issue of “having children who believe”.
All 3 men agree that Paul has grown children in view here, not just children in the household.
Here is MacArthur’s take:
“Many Christian men who work hard to support and manage their households utterly fail in leading their children to salvation, to godliness, and to Christian service. It is not that a faithful and conscientious father is responsible for his children’s rejection of the gospel. He may have made every effort to teach them their need of salvation through trust in Jesus Christ and have set a godly example for them to follow. Nevertheless, such men are not qualified to be elders if they do not have children not only who believe but who are also not accused of dissipation or rebellion.”
(MacArthur, pg. 30-31)
So MacArthur’s take is that a man may have done everything right as a father, but if his grown children don’t believe he is disqualified.
What about Alexander Strauch?
“The contrast made is not between believing and unbelieving children, but between obedient, respectful children and lawless, uncontrolled children. The strong terms “dissipation and rebellion” stress the children’s behavior, not their eternal state…Those who interpret this qualification to mean that an elder must have believing, Christian children place an impossible burden upon a father. Even the best Christian fathers cannot guarantee that their children will believe. Salvation is a supernatural act of God. God, not goo parents (although they are certainly used of God), ultimately brings salvation (John 1:12,13)”
(Strauch, pg. 229)
So he says you can’t require salvation of a man’s grown children because a father has no control over it.
Rather he says you examine the behavior of the man’s grown children and consider whether or not they are moral. He interprets Paul to mean, are the children faithful, trustworthy, and dutiful?
Obviously a step back from MacArthur’s point.
And I should probably note that MacArthur goes on a long dialogue to prove that it is salvation and not just faithfulness.
What about our third man?
What about Gene Getz?
What does he have to say about the qualification “having children who believe”?
“Unfortunately, the world’s system can at times undo everything a parent has done. But unless this hurts the man’s reputation, these isolated instances should not disqualify him from being appointed as an elder/overseer…Paul was primarily concerned that every man selected and appointed to serve as an elder / overseer must have a good reputation, both in church and in the larger community.”
(Getz, pg. 170-171)
So his take is it really is an issue of embarrassment.
If the grown kids are in the town and an obvious distraction there is trouble, but if the grown kids live away they don’t threaten the man’s reputation.
And again, I don’t show you that to tell you which one to believe, just to show you that these are difficult issues that are not that black and white.
Some interpret them with strict definitions of the Greek word, others seek to grasp the spirit of the qualification.
But the point is, this is a difficult segment to deal with.
And I think you have to be very careful slamming your interpretation down as infallible law.
I think we really need to get to the spirit of the point here.
There is something that needs to be considered as we examine these criteria.
We talked previously about how Crete was 160 miles long and may have had 100 churches.
We talked about how Titus had a relatively short window.
And we talked about Titus was expected to appoint elders in every city.
We said he would not have known the men in the respective churches.
We said he would have had to lean heavily upon the recommendation of those in the church.
What is my point then?
Don’t forget that Titus directive was to “appoint elders” not eliminate them.
The goal was not to go through all the churches and scrutinize all the men to such a degree that you disqualify everyone there.
If he does that, he’s not going to appoint any elders.
He is traveling an island known as an island of “liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons”
He is traveling an island of Greek influence and pagan culture.
If he is really going to do a deep dive into the full history of every single man in every single church I am doubtful that he is finding more than a few on the whole island.
Now I’m not suggesting that he was ever supposed to turn a blind eye to any of these criteria, not at all.
This is God’s criteria and we are not at liberty to alter it.
But I am suggesting that the goal was to find men, not eliminate them.
What Titus is going to do is go to a city, enter the church, set them in order and then begin the process of appointing elders, and I believe it would look something like this.
“Church, we need to appoint a leadership of elders in this church. I want you to consider the men in your church. Consider their families and consider their behavior in the church, and these are the types of men we are looking for.”
I do not think it was a process void of the reality of redemption.
I certainly think it was a process that put much more emphasis on their behavior today than it did their behavior 20 years ago or pre-salvation.
And the chief issue was this.
“above reproach”
So let’s examine that phrase first, especially since it is used twice and seems to be the main point.
“above reproach” translates ANEG-KLAY-TOS
It means “to be without fault, unchargeable, without indictment, without accusation.”
We all know what an indictment is.
It is sort of the “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” idea.
When a grand jury is convened to hear charges against a man, they are determining whether or not that man should be indicted.
An indictment is not a conviction, it only means there is enough evidence available to move forward with the trial.
If you see any smoke, you must assume there is a fire.
Well here that is the word Paul uses for Titus.
You go to the church and you tell the church to examine his family life and his service in the church and then you ask them, “Is there any smoke?”
Is there anything about the man’s family or behavior that gives you pause that he might not be on the up and up?
Are there any rumors?
Are there any disturbing behaviors?
Are there any things that bother you about the way he treats his wife?
Are there any things that bother you about the behavior of his kids?
Are there any things that seem wrong about how he treats people?
That is what Paul is asking.
He is just wanting the congregation to be honest about the man, and if they can say, “I really don’t see a problem with his family or his behavior in the church” then great.
We cannot here be speaking about absolute sinlessness.
Obviously no man fits that bill.
We do see that word used other places in the New Testament.
For example:
1 Corinthians 1:8 “who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
There the word is translates as “blameless”
Colossians 1:21-22 “And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach”
There it is again “beyond reproach”
And clearly there it does not mean sinless since it is used in the context of a man who was formerly sinful but now has been justified by God.
It would speak of a sanctified man.
I really do like the “blameless” translation.
It makes one think of Job.
Job 1:1 “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.”
We would not say that Job was sinless by any stretch.
However we also know that when Job’s friends were certain that his suffering was the result of his sin they still couldn’t figure out what it was.
Job was a sinner, no one denies that, but it is also true that his sin wasn’t blatantly obvious to anyone.
That is the idea here.
Now we see that same requirement in Paul’s list to Timothy, but it is different.
1 Timothy 3:2 “An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,”
You see the same words “above reproach” but there Paul uses a different Greek word.
There he uses: AN-A-PEELUP-TOS
It means “not able to be made a prisoner, not able to be taken captive, not able to be laid hold of.”
That implies a little more liberty I think.
It may be a man who is in fact accused or reproached by some, but after investigation is found innocent.
Someone might accuse him but there’s not enough to convict him.
And I think that rings true with Paul says later in that letter.
1 Timothy 5:19 “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.”
The fact is there are some who are accused, but even if they are, it cannot stick.
I hope that starts clarifying the picture.
We are not talking here about a man without sin.
We are not talking about a man who has never made a mistake.
We are talking about a man however who can rise above any scrutiny regarding the way he raises his family or conducts himself in the church or in the world.
He’s not a sinful man.
He is what we would call a godly man.
So you look around the room, and based on what you know about the men of the church, do you see a man here who you would say was a Godly man?
That’s the idea.
Now, Titus does focus in on a couple of areas.
LET’S TALK ABOUT HIS FAMILY LIFE
He gives two criteria which we read some commentary on earlier.
“if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.”
So when you are looking at the men of the church and you are considering whether or not they are godly men you are going to look at their family.
You are going to examine two key things.
How do they love their wife?
How did they raise their kids?
And that is just common sense isn’t it?
If you are about to take a man and give him authority in the church you would want to examine the institution where he has already been in authority and see how he did there.
So first we look at his relationship with his wife.
Paul says he must be “the husband of one wife”
Again, there were arguments made at various times in the past, but virtually no one today thinks Paul is talking about polygamy or singleness or even a widower.
It is pretty much agreed that the phrase here literally means “a one-woman man” or not an adulterer.
And as we said it has brought up all sorts of questions and criteria.
What if the man has been divorced?
Well was it a biblically granted divorce?
When did the divorce occur?
Those things matter.
If we’re evaluating men and you have a man in your congregation who has been faithfully married for 30 years are you going to disqualify him because of a divorce he had as an unredeemed young man?
Now I get it if this is a track record problem.
I get it if it was recent and there hasn’t been enough time to tell.
But I think you get the spirit of the question there.
Or, let’s say he did have an affair as a young man.
Is he, as MacArthur noted, disqualified for life?
What if he had killed his wife instead of cheating on her, would he now be qualified?
What if it wasn’t a public affair, what if he was looking at pornography?
What if that was when he was younger, but he has been free from it for years?
Do you see my point?
I genuinely believe that if you are going to take adultery to it’s fullest extent and apply it a man’s entire existence then you will not find a qualified man anywhere on earth.
I just don’t believe you can tell me about a man who has never committed at the very least heart adultery through lust even before he was redeemed.
Such a man does not exist.
And I do not think that is what Paul means by the qualification.
No, he is asking the church to examine that man’s current married life and to ask about that relationship.
More so than a divorce that happened 30 years ago, or even sexual immorality committed 30 years ago, I am far more concerned with how he has treated his wife for the last 20 years.
I want to read this:
Ephesians 5:25-32 “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.”
That is the point.
Does he sacrifice for his wife?
Does he love his wife?
Does he lead his wife properly?
The way he treats his wife is a great indicator of the way he’s going to great Christ’s bride.
Look at the men in the church who might be considered as prospective elders, would you be happy if they treated the church the way they treat their wife?
Do you have any complaints in that area?
Are there any red flags?
Is there any smoke?
That is the point.
Obviously a man who is cheating on his wife is disqualified.
He can’t even stay in the church in that condition let alone lead it.
Obviously pornography is a disqualifier, that must be defeated and crushed in his life with a lengthy track record of victory before a man can be considered.
Obviously a man who dominates his wife or abuses her or mistreats her is disqualified, you don’t need that in the church leadership.
You get the point.
Look at how he treats his wife.
I don’t think the point is so much what he was when he was unredeemed, or even what he was 20 years ago.
The emphasis, as with all of Scripture, is who is this man today?
When we talk about evaluating your salvation, we aren’t so much interested in your baptismal date, we want to know if spiritual life is evident in you today.
That is what we want to know about potential elders.
Today, how does he treat his wife.
And it is fair to say that this needs to have been the pattern for some time.
If he’s not married, then we have other criteria we need to look at, but if he is, we want to know why kind of husband he is.
And then, look at the children he raised.
“having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion”.
As was also mentioned earlier, we are talking here about grown children.
The word Paul uses her for “children” is a word he used in 1 Timothy.
1 Timothy 5:4 “but if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God.”
Obviously those children are grown.
And that makes sense here since “dissipation” is not really a toddler sin.
“dissipation” is equivalent to being a prodigal.
Ephesians 5:18 “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,”
1 Peter 4:4 “In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you;”
The other word used is the word “rebellion”
It comes from a word that means “not made subject; disobedient”
1 Timothy 1:9 “realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious…”
We see it later in Titus:
Titus 1:10 “For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision,”
It just refers to a person who does not submit their life in the areas where God calls for submission.
They don’t obey parents
They don’t submit to governing authorities
They don’t submit to church leadership
They ultimately don’t submit to God or His word.
They are rebellious young adults.
But clearly those are adult sins.
Paul is here talking about his grown children.
Now, in 1 Timothy Paul does mention how a man raises children who are not yet fully grown.
1 Timothy 3:4-5 “He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),”
So we can really examine a man’s family at any stage.
Does he have young children, how well-behaved are they?
Does he have grown children, how well-behaved are they?
Both of those are an indication of how he manages.
Both of those are an indication of how he will oversee.
I find this to be a very important aspect of evaluation.
Not only is it a good indicator of how he will shepherd the flock, but it can also be an indicator that something is not right and true.
One of the reasons we examine the kids of a potential elder is because they are more prone to show us if what we are seeing is a mirage.
There are many men who can put on a good face at church or even in the community, but the children know the truth.
If they grow to reject the faith it may be that it is because they never saw true faith.
If they grow rebellious it may be an indication of hypocritical or inconsistent or dominating leadership.
Fathers are specifically commanded:
Ephesians 5:4 “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
If children rebel against that, you need to pay attention and dig deeper because they might be showing you a real problem.
Now clearly there are two very different evaluation points.
For a man who has children at home he needs to manage them well and they need to be well-behaved.
When I see pastors who have wild children living at home, it is perhaps the biggest red flag to me of any other thing.
There is no excuse for a man who does not manage his household well.
But then we look at a man whose children are grown and we consider whether they are wild or not.
That does not mean the father didn’t raise them well, he may have.
They may have been under control while under his roof, but then got caught up in the world and fell into sin.
I’m not saying that a grown child is a direct result of bad fathering, but it could be and a church can’t just ignore the reality when selecting leaders.
Here in Titus it is grown children.
And Paul says, “have children who believe”
As we mentioned earlier this is quite a debatable issue.
One like MacArthur says they have to be genuinely redeemed. Even though a father has no guarantee that his children will be saved, if they aren’t saved he is disqualified.
Others say that salvation is not point here, but rather faithfulness to their father to not live lives that will embarrass him.
And honestly, I don’t know how you could require saved children as qualification.
But I do see why you would require well-behaved or faithful children who aren’t prodigals or rebellious.
Certainly in Paul’s day people didn’t move far from home.
And on an island no bigger than Crete there wasn’t far to go anyway.
If a man raised kids and they were the town drunks walking around in vile living they were going to be a constant embarrassment and stumbling block to the work of the elder.
Imagine the reproach.
How would you encourage a young father to lead his family properly while your rebellious child terrorizes the neighborhood?
We’ve all heard the phrase, “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
Well look, sometimes an elder has to do some confronting.
Grown prodigal rebellious children will undermine him at every turn.
Gene Getz seemed to think that if the children have moved away and they are not a present reproach on the father then that is ok, but I think we can agree even that is risky.
The point of the qualification here is that the man’s track record be one that encourages the congregation to listen to his leadership and rebellious grown children hinder that.
So what do you do there?
I would encourage such a man to take all of his focus and shepherding desire and focus it on that rebellious grown child.
I would encourage the man whose family does not fit the criteria and tell him to cous all of his shepherding desire on his family.
Go shepherd your family first and if God should be so gracious as to bring them in line for you then we’ll talk about eldership.
After all no man with a shepherd’s heart is going to be content to abandon his family just so he can be an elder.
No man with a shepherd’s heart is going to try and hide his lost children so he can be an elder.
The heart of Christ was to suffer humiliation, reproach, and rejection in order to save his lost sons and daughters.
He didn’t try to hide them as those who were holding him back from a position he craved.
There is no shame in focusing on shepherding your family right before stepping into the role in the church, in fact that may be more godly.
So first when examining men as potential leaders look at how they shepherd their family.
If you have a man who disrespects or abuses or cheats on his wife, he is disqualified.
If you have a man who can’t control his household or who has grown rebellious children, he is disqualified.
Now, I don’t hold disqualifications to be permanent things.
I value greatly the Biblical reality of redemption.
I see God use people all the time who were formerly unusable.
But we don’t put the health of God’s flock at risk.
We wait until we know a man is fit for the task before we put him there.
And a family in order is one of those criteria.
But if you look at a man whose family is in order.
You respect how he treats his wife.
You respect the behavior of his kids.
You’ve got nothing to say against the way he does it.
This is a man we are considering to take his abilities and his character and to broaden his responsibility.
We are going to ask that man:
What you do for your wife, would you do it for the bride of Christ?
What you do for your children, would you do it for the sons and daughters of God?
That is what we are looking for.
Next time we’ll look at his reputation in the way he deals with the church.
