download here

Daniel Cates

download here

Daniel Cates

download here

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.

download here

Leadership Matters – part 3
Titus 1:5-9 (6)
February 23, 2025

This morning we return to the book of Titus
And specifically Paul’s discussion regarding leadership in the church.

We have titled this section “Leadership Matters”
I don’t think there is anything remotely controversial about that.

EVEN THE WORLD has grown to understand the vital impact leadership can play in almost any arena.

• Currently on Amazon you can choose from 57,136 books that contain the word
“Leadership” in the title.
• A study nearly 10 years ago noted that new leadership books were being
written at a rate of around 4 per day.

Even the world understands the importance of good leadership.
• Corporations
• Athletic teams
• Non-Profits
• Politicians
• Religious institutions
• Family planners

The topic of leadership is the one thing they all seem to have in common.

BUT the common fascination may be where the commonality stops.

There may be a common desire for leadership,
But there is no common conclusion as to what a good leader is.

What is the most important leadership characteristic?
• Is it charisma?
• Is it experience?
• Is it character?
• Is it hard work?
• Is it influence?
• Is it example?
• Is it innovation?
• Is it education?

If you are going to select a leader what should you look for?

Well, thankfully with regard to the church,
God has taken the guess work out of it for us.

He has been extremely specific.
We are clearly told what to look for and what not to look for.

And that is what we are studying here in the first chapter of Titus.

To quickly recap what we’ve seen so far…

#1 THE PURPOSE
Titus 1:5a

“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains…”

A quick reminder that:
• Crete was an island 160 miles long
• Crete was anywhere from 7-35 miles wide.
• One historian noted 100 cities there.
• There are a lot of churches on the island

Crete is also a corrupt island
(1:12) “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”

And sadly the church was being influenced by the culture.
(1:10) “For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision,”

Titus was left on the island to “set in order what remains”

He was to be the spiritual chiropractor for the church,
The spiritual orthodontist.

Paul would tell Titus to address all sorts of areas in the church.
Old men, Old women, Young women, Young men, Slaves, Citizens

BUT THE FIRST people Titus was to set in order was their leadership.

#2 THE DIRECTIVE
Titus 1:5-9

“and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,”

We noted that word “elders” and we started discussing it.

1) THE TITLE

“ELDERS” (pres-boo-ter-os)
• Means “older man”
• Came to be an office in the church
• Brings to mind the issue of SPIRITUAL MATURITY

“OVERSEER” (e-pis-ko-pay)
• Speaks of a manager
• Actually a word also translated “visitation”
• One who visits to oversee and evaluate and correct
• Brings to mind the issue of AUTHORITY

“SHEPHERD” or “PASTOR” (poy-mane)
• It is one who ministers to or cares for the flock
• Brings to mind MINISTRY

All 3 titles are used interchangeable and all 3 titles are important.

Speaking to the men Luke identified as the elders of the Ephesian church:
Acts 20:28 “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”

• Called elders
• Made overseers
• To shepherd

2) THE JOB

It stands to reason that if:
• Titus was going to set the church in order
• And then to appoint elders

That the job of the elders would be
To maintain the order that Titus introduced.

Titus was the orthodontist who put on the braces,
The elders would serve as the retainer to keep the church straight.

And we discussed THE AUTHORITY of these men to do that job.

Paul spoke to Timothy about the elders “who rule well”

The writer of Hebrews said:
Hebrews 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”

God is the ultimate authority and all authority is then delegated by Him.
• Husbands over wives
• Parents over children
• Kings over citizens
• And elders over the church

We noticed that it is not to be an abusive leadership or a dominating one,
But it is authority none the less.

3) THE PLURALITY

Paul told Titus to “appoint elders in every city”

And we looked at the Scriptural references
For a plurality of elders in the church.

God’s design is for multiple men
To share the leadership burden in the congregation.

• This produces accountability
• This supplements against personal weaknesses
• This provides more availability an opportunity than one man can perform

It is God’s design that there be a plurality of leadership to fulfill this role.
Acts 14:23 “When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.”

James 5:14 “Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;”

4) THE APPOINTMENT

Paul told Titus to “appoint elders in every city”

The authority the elders would receive in their congregation
Would be an authority handed down from God through Titus.

But at the same time we recognized that
Titus would have to lean upon the recommendation
And discernment of each church to identify such men.

Paul told the Ephesian elders
That it was the Holy Spirit who made them overseers.

So we are talking about men whom:
1. God would appoint
2. The Church would identify
3. Titus would ordain

AND THAT IS WHERE WE ENDED UP SUNDAY NIGHT
In our discussion about leadership.

As we jump back into the study this morning we simply note that
LEADERSHIP IS IMPORTANT.

• It is instituted by God
• It is defined by God
• It is used by God
• It will be judged by God

Church leadership is not something that men came up with,
It is something that God came up with.

He grants His authority to men for the purpose of leading His church.

And it was so important that it is the first command Paul gives to Titus.

BUT WE ALSO LEARN THAT
• God does more than just INITIATE the presence of leadership.
• God also gives specific instructions to help us IDENTIFY leaders.

And as we move on to verse 6
We begin to see those qualifications which God has given.

(READ TITUS 1:6-9)

Now we move into that segment of
Examining God’s qualifications for such men.

SO WE’VE SEEN:
The Title – The Job – The Plurality – The Appointment

5) THE GENDER

“namely, if any man…”

There may have been a time
When stopping to make this point wasn’t necessary,
But it certainly is today.

IN TODAY’S CULTURE
• That has seen a rise in feminism
• Along with an idiotic confusion of gender reality and role,

It is important that we stop here to remind that
The Bible is not confused on this issue.

For years, Southern Baptists
Were one of the few denominations that seemed to faithfully hold the line on this issue.

In 2000 the “Baptist Faith and Message” was revised to contain this statement:

Under article VI “The Church” this sentence was added:
“Its two scriptural offices are that of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”
https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/#xviii

That addition caused a stir in Baptist life.
• We saw the BGCT reject the new version in favor of the 1963 version.
• We saw Truett seminary in Waco start training women pastors.
• We saw BGCT churches start ordaining women pastors.
• Out of this the SBCT emerged as an alternative to the BGCT for Texas churches that wanted a state affiliation that would adopt the new statement of faith.
• And Texas Baptists were divided.

IT IS A FIGHT THAT CONTINUES TO RAGE TODAY.

Just this past November, the Baptist General Convention of Texas voted again NOT TO AFFIRM the 2000 version of the BF&M.

In February of 2023 at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention
• 6 churches were removed from the Southern Baptist Convention for abandoning the conventions confession.
• The most notable was Saddleback Church founded by Rick Warren, author of “Purpose Driven Church” and “Purpose Driven Life”.
• Warren had ordained 3 women to the pastorate of his church.

But the battle still didn’t stop.

A committee was formed
• To examine what the meaning of the word “pastor” really was to determine if it was possible to go ahead in the future and allow women in the position.

This past June an amendment was brought before the convention
• To amend the SBC constitution to ban women from serving as pastors in the SBC.
• The amendment failed.

THIS BATTLE ISN’T GOING AWAY ANY TIME SOON.

The issue of women pastors
Has already toppled many current mainstream denominations
And we are in the thick of the battle in the SBC.

We may not struggle with the issue here at FBC Spur,
But I promise you this is a real struggle and we need to address it.

SO, WHAT IS THE GENDER OF AN ELDER.

Well, Paul gives it to us here in Titus 1 simply by saying “if any man”
And one would think that would settle the issue.

But you and I know that for many it does not.
• You can read the TNIV (Today’s New International Version) which came out in 2001 and it will translate this verse “if anyone is above reproach…”
• They chose to say that the word “man” there was not a gender specific term, it simply refers to “mankind”.

But that is not what Paul meant.
He meant a physical genetic man.

I was looking at an article just this morning from “The Gospel Coalition” promoting a book “Women in Ministry” lauding the 4 views of the issue.

In just their endorsement of the book the article said:
“No evangelical spokesperson can be heard or taken seriously without engaging the traditional arguments supporting gender role hierarchy. At the same time, it is not enough to restate these arguments without engaging with equal seriousness the exegetical and hermeneutical work carried on in recent years, the results of which go a long way to support egalitarian role relationships in the church [supports women pastors]…Culver loses credibility with a patronizing tone and his refusal to engage seriously…He assumes too much and dismisses without critical reflection any idea that challenges his assumptions.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/women-in-ministry-four-views/

You hear it there in the article.
• Even the person seeking to give a balanced view to endorse the book has already made the statement that the man who upholds the view that women are not allowed to serve as pastors “assumes to much and dismisses without critical reflection”
• The writer dismisses the man who holds to the Biblical mandate, not because he is wrong, but because he has a “patronizing tone”.

Look, it was “Higher Criticism” that ultimately led to modernism and liberalism and then unbelief in many denominations.
• It was men who chose to let their thinking stand in judgment over God’s word
• As opposed to letting God’s word stand in judgment over their thinking.

THE BATTLE IS HERE.
And while it is a battle over the leadership model of the church,
More than that it is a battle over the authority of Scripture.

SO – TURN TO: 1 TIMOTHY 2

The chapter begins with admonition for the men of the church to be devoted to prayer.
• He speaks of how we must pray for rulers and all in authority
• He speaks of how we must pray for the salvation of the lost

(2:8) “Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.”

It is a clear admonition.
• If you are a man in this church not faithful in prayer you are failing this church.
• God has commissioned you to be an intercessor for this church, for this nation, for the lost, etc.

And then Paul moves to address the women of the church.
1. Her Sanctity
2. Her Submission
3. Her Station
4. Her Salvation

HER SANCTITY

(9-10) “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.”

He is speaking of adornment
Or that which a woman uses to beautify herself.

The world tells women that her adornment is purely external.
• From her hair to her toenails women are relentlessly judged in our culture by their outward appearance.

And there is nothing wrong with a woman being physically attractive,
That is part of how God designed them,
And part of what we as husbands appreciate about them.

But the point is if that is all she has, she has failed as a woman.

What makes a woman truly attractive ought not to be her outward appearance.
• It should not be “braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments”
• She is to dress “modestly and discreetly”

Her goal is not to draw attention to her outward appearance.
Her goal is to draw attention to her attitude.

Such as:
(10) “good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.”

THAT’S IT ISN’T IT?

Ladies, your goal should be “godliness”

If all people notice is your appearance but not your virtue
You are failing.

THE GOAL is to stand out as a godly woman.
THE GOAL is for your attitude to be what they see.

Peter said the same:
1 Peter 3:3-4 “Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.”

Or we could listen to Solomon:
Proverbs 11:22 “As a ring of gold in a swine’s snout So is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion.”

Let your attitude be what stands out.
Well, what sort of attitude am I supposed to show to the world?

HER SUBMISSION

(11-12) “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

We’ll start with verse 11.
“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.”

FIRST OF ALL,
• For Paul’s audience that was somewhat of a provocative statement,
• But not for the reason you are likely inclined to think.

• In Jewish culture in Paul’s day Jewish Rabbis wouldn’t even teach a woman.
• They were permitted to attend the synagogue but they were not permitted to
learn anything.
• Greek culture wasn’t much better in Paul’s day.

Paul sort of broke the mold here by instructing that women were to “receive instruction”.
• Women are children of God.
• Women are redeemed through Christ.
• They are just as important as any man ever was.

Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Women are just as much heirs of Christ as men
And have just as much right to hear the preaching of God’s word
And learn the gospel as any man.

That was actually revolutionary in his day.

BUT BACK TO THE POINT was HOW they were to “receive instruction”

And Paul says they were to receive it
“quietly…with entire submissiveness.”

That statement would take the feminist of our day
And just about set her hair on fire.

But it doesn’t bother us,
And it doesn’t bother the women in our congregation
• Because they have submitted their hearts to the Lord Jesus and long to be in obedience to God’s word.

BUT THAT IS THE COMMAND.

Or we read:
1 Corinthians 14:34-36 “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?”

That is a reference to God’s design of how she is to conduct herself.
She is to walk in quietness and submission.

The current stereotypical “strong outspoken woman”
IS A PERVERSION OF GOD’S DESIGN.

Women were not created by God to be loud, outspoken, bombastic, opinionated, boisterous, provocative, bold, or any or thing like that.

I realize that is the personality that is celebrated in our culture, but that is not God’s design any more than the effeminate man is not God’s design.

Now women ARE to be strong,
But biblically strong and with the right attitude.

The strength of the godly woman is in her faith, her submission,
Her endurance, her virtue, and things like that.

Think about what Peter says to women in difficult marriages.
1 Peter 3:1-2 “In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.”

Do you think a weak woman can obey that command?
The faith and endurance required of that woman
Is a strength that the woman of the world today knows nothing about.

But none-the-less you see God’s design is quietness and submission.
Not loud and boisterous.

Why is that important to see first?

Because it directly correlates then to verse 12, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

There is really nothing confusing about that verse.
• If it is God’s design for women to be quiet in the church it’s going to be awfully hard for her to stand and preach.
• If it is God’s design for women to be submissive in the church it’s going to be awfully hard for her to exercise authority.

AND I KNOW,
There are all sorts of “Yes, buts…” that come with that verse.
• Wasn’t Deborah a Judge in the Old Testament?
• Didn’t Philip have 4 daughters that prophesied?
• Didn’t it say that Isaiah married a prophetess?
• Aren’t two books of the Bible named after women?

RICK WARREN, as he defended his church’s decision to ordain women noted:
• That the Great Commission is for men and women alike so if women can share the gospel they ought to be able to preach.

• He pointed out that Jesus told Mary to give word to His disciples that He had risen from the dead and thus made her the first ever gospel preacher.

• He pointed out that at Pentecost there were women in the upper room who received the Holy Spirit and spoke the mighty things of God.

And those are the type of counter-arguments
That people often use to try and dismantle this verse.

SO LISTEN.

The Bible does not say women are not allowed to proclaim the gospel.
• In fact, they are commanded to.

The Bible does not say women cannot teach.
• In fact, Titus 2 will say that older women are to teach the younger women
• Certainly women teach their children

The Bible does not say women can’t go out and proclaim the gospel.
• We know Priscilla and Aquilla both instructed Apollos.

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?
That in the church women cannot “teach or exercise authority over a man”
• They cannot serve as elders.
• They cannot serve as pastors.
• They cannot serve as overseers.

That is a position of authority in the church
And they are not allowed to be in that position.

THAT IS GOD’S DIRECTIVE.
Women are not permitted to hold the position of authority
They are mandated to hold the position of submission.

And that is only offensive if you think that the position of authority
Is more important than the position of submission.

BUT THIS IS WHAT GOD’S WORD SAYS:
FOR THE RECORD:
• Deborah was a Judge, not a pastor.
• Philip had four daughters who prophesied, they didn’t pastor and not a single message they ever preached is recorded.
• Isaiah married a prophetess, only called that because she bore a child with a prophetic name.

The New Testament knows nothing of
Women elders, overseers, or pastors, it is forbidden.

When we are talking about who is appointed to the authoritative office of elder in the church, that office is LIMITED ONLY TO MEN.

And to that it is fitting to see WHY.

HER STATION

(13-14) “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”

First of all, we recognize God’s divine order.

Very simply put, but God’s design, and by His prerogative
He placed men first and women second.

“Adam was first created, and then Eve”

1 Corinthians 11:3 “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”

1 Corinthians 11:8-9 “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.”

You know the story.
• God created Adam and then said it was not good for man to be alone.
• God made a “helpmate suitable” for Adam.
• Adam called her woman.
• Woman was made for the man’s sake.

And I know that in our culture that just sounds awful.
But all that proves is
How far our culture has fallen from the divine standard.

When people are offended by such a statement
It does nothing but expose them as worldly
And condemn their thinking as depraved.

The God of the universe set the order.
The Creator of all things designed it like this.

God put man as the head of woman AT CREATION.
• This is NOT an Ephesian issue.
• This is NOT an early church issue.
• This IS a natural order of creation issue.

That DOES NOT MEAN men are more important than women.
We wouldn’t say that parents are more important than their children.

But we do recognize God’s divine order established at creation.

It would be totally inappropriate and backward
For women to assume authority in the church over the men.

INTERESTINGLY: The Bible even speaks of God’s judgment through bad leaders in this way:

Isaiah 3:12 “O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths.”

Women rulers are a thing,
• But they are an expression of God’s judgment because you have someone in a position of authority who was not designed to be there.

THIS IS A GOD OF CREATION ISSUE:
• Men and women are different.
• They were designed differently.
• And the Creator who designed them knows what role they should be in.

You can make all the secular arguments you want…
You can give all the examples of women who led well…
But it won’t change the fact that this is how the Creator designed it.

NOW, LOOK, THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH.
The fact that God’s created order is for men to lead and women to submit would be enough.

But we have more than just God’s created order.

We also have A CASE STUDY
Of when a woman ignored the order and tried it anyway.

And that is what Paul references next.
(14) “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”

We have an illustration of when women tried to usurp authority
And stand in a leadership role and make a decision.

• Eve tried to handle Satan
• The Bible says she was “deceived”.
• Adam was not deceived,
• Adam was disobedient and listened to his wife.

Eve assumed a position she was not designed to be in.
• She was not created to handle the enemy.
• She was not created to make those kinds of decisions.
• But she took that role upon herself and Satan deceived her.

WHAT IS PAUL’S POINT HERE?

Namely this, that women should now have
The humility and presence of mind to recognize that
It was in fact a woman who led the entire human race into sin.

Yes the fall was through Adam, but it was Eve who opened the door.

• This was the effect of women stepping outside of her role.
• This was the effect of women stepping out from under the authority she was placed under.

Just as every man recognizes in himself the weakness of Adam to succumb to temptation and thus is in need of Christ.

So also every woman must recognize that
The weakness of Eve also dwells within her
And she should not ascribe to a position she was not created for.

IT IS NOT JUST
• God’s natural order that forbids women from being in authority in the church,
• But also her track record of failure when she tried.

SO THE CALL HERE IS
• For women to have some humility,
• Realize what she was created to be,
• And not to try to move beyond that.

It is often referred to as “the glass ceiling”
And it is a sinful ambition to seek to break it.

And look, we could stop there, for the point has been made.
The office of elder is restricted to men.

But Paul doesn’t stop there and we won’t either.
For we do not want women to despair
Or feel as though they have no role and are of no importance
To the church or the kingdom.

SUCH IS NOT THE CASE.

Let’s look at one more point here.
HER SALVATION

(15) “But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

That word “preserved” is actually SOZO
Which is the word commonly translated as “saved”.

The NASB translates it “preserved”
• Because Paul is NOT HERE SAYING that lost women will gain entrance into heaven if they just have babies.

HERE IS WHAT PAUL IS SAYING.
• Having just pointed out that it was a woman who led the race into sin.
• Now he points out how women can redeem their mistake.

A woman ruined the race through seeking authority that was not hers to seek.

She will not fix that mistake by continuing to seek authority.
• If women seek to fix the mistake…
• If women seek to redeem their reputation…
• If women seek to prove their worth to the kingdom…

She will not do it in the pulpit.
She will do it in the nursery.

She will raise up the next generation of leaders.
“The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world”?

Do you remember Hannah praying for Samuel and keeping him until he was weaned before taking him to Eli the priest?
• What do you suppose she was doing during that time?

Do you remember what Paul told Timothy?

2 Timothy 1:5 “For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well.”

And later
2 Timothy 3:14-15 “You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

Now where do you suppose Timothy learned all those sacred writings and obtained that wisdom that made him so appealing to Paul?

We are talking about influence and ladies you have it in gobs!
Teach your children.
Train your children.

Those boys you are teaching and training today
Will be the elders in the church tomorrow.

WHAT IF DON’T HAVE CHILDREN?
• What if got saved after I raised my children?
• I’m now an older woman, what can I do?

What will Paul tell Titus?
Titus 2:3-5 “Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.”

THERE IS A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE FOR YOU LADIES!
But regarding elders in the church, it is restricted only to men.

download here

Leadership Matters – part 2
Titus 1:5-9 (5)
February 16, 2025

Tonight we’re going to jump back in to our discussion on leadership.

We know that Paul had left Titus in Crete so that he “would set in order what remains”

He was to straighten out the church.
He was to show them how to live.

Similar to what we read in 1 Timothy:
1 Timothy 3:14-15 “I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”

Titus was to do the same.
He was to travel that island, examine and confront the churches there and straighten them out.

That was:
#1 THE PURPOSE
Titus 1:5a

His purpose was to reform the church.
Get their doctrine straightened out.
Get their old men, their old women, their young women, their young men, their slaves, and their citizens all straightened out.

That’s why he was there, and as we pointed out this morning, he didn’t have long to do it.

It was an enormously difficult task.
But it was his task.

And then we started looking at the second point.
#2 THE DIRECTIVE
Isaiah 1:5-9

“and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,”

Not only was Titus to straighten out the church, but he was also to put in place elders who would continue to lead and hold the church true after he was gone.

And so we were discussing this morning about leadership.

We looked into the title of “elder”.
1) THE TITLE

We saw how it is uses interchangeable with the term overseer and shepherd.
We saw how those terms are also distinguishable and important.

Elder speaks of the leader’s maturity.
Overseer speaks of the leader’s authority.
Shepherd speaks of the leader’s ministry.

They are important titles.

And then we started discussing the second aspect of these elders and that was:

2) THE JOB

And when we left we were discussing their God-given authority to rule or manage or oversee the church.

Like a husband must manage his household…
Like a king must manage his kingdom…
Like a father must manage his children…
So also the elders must manage the church…

Indeed they are commissioned by God to do so.

If they fail to lead they will give an account to God for their failure.
And if the congregation fails to submit to their authority the congregation will give an account to God for their rebellion.

This is God’s design.

Now the elder has no right to dominate the flock or lord his authority over them.
He is a shepherd leader, not a ruthless leader.

And the Scripture has much to say about this.

TURN TO: EZEKIEL 34:1-6

The text there is clear.
It is also symbolic.

God isn’t talking about literal sheep, nor is He talking to literal shepherds.

God is speaking about the people and the elders who have been given charge over them.

But the problem was that the elders in that case ruled badly.
They had no love for the flock.
They only sought to use and abuse the flock.

You may remember even in Jesus’ day:
Matthew 9:36 “Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd.”

Instead of feeding the flock they were skinning the flock.
Instead of caring for the flock they were tossing them aside.

Jesus hated those evil shepherds.

That is the same point being made here in Ezekiel 34.

These elders were not caring for the flock they were caring for themselves.

Instead of feeding the flock (preaching the word) they were starving and exploiting the flock.

That is what a prosperity preacher does when he extorts money from the flock by tickling their ears.
You starve the sheep spiritually and rob them financially all at once.

They didn’t strengthen the sickly (that would be those struggling with sin)
They didn’t heal the diseased (that would be those caught in sin)
They didn’t bind up the broken (that would be those in the consequences of sin)
They didn’t bring back the scattered (those who have wondered off in their sin)
They didn’t search for the lost (those who have never been saved)

And God says
(5) “They were scattered for lack of a shepherd, and they became food for every beast of the field and were scattered.”

So clearly, when God gives authority to elders over the congregation He is not giving them the right to run roughshod over the congregation.

He is there to feed them, lead them, strengthen them, heal them, bind them up, bring them back, and search for those who are lost.

He is there to lovingly care for the flock not dominate them.

So we do understand the type of authority we are talking about.
It is true God-given authority over the flock to which the flock must submit, but at the same time it is a loving authority that God demands.

There is a beautiful balance there, just like in a marriage.

But there is authority given.

And there is a reason for that.
It has never been God’s design to turn His people loose without leadership.

The church was never designed to be self-managing.

Throughout the pages of Scripture a lack of leadership never worked out well for the people.

TURN TO: JUDGES 2

Pick up in verse 6, and let’s read through the end of the chapter.

What do you notice?

When Joshua died and they had no leader the entire congregation fell into sin.
And when God would raise up leaders it would straighten out the congregation until the leader died and then they would return to sin.

When they rebelled against the leader it never went well.

And you see this throughout the book of Judges

Judges 4:1 “Then the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, after Ehud died.”

Judges 6:1 “Then the sons of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD gave them into the hands of Midian seven years.”

Judges 8:33-34 “Then it came about, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the sons of Israel again played the harlot with the Baals, and made Baal-berith their god. Thus the sons of Israel did not remember the LORD their God, who had delivered them from the hands of all their enemies on every side;”

You get the point.
The presence of leadership was a stay against corruption, but when the leader died or the people rebelled it always led into sin.

The entire period of the Judges is defined like this.
Judges 21:25 “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

And it was a recipe for disaster.
Leadership matters.

This is God’s design.
He appoints leaders in the church whose job is to “set in order what remains” and at the same time to preserve what is straightened.

When qualified leaders are in place and they do their job well the church thrives.

When leaders are rejected…
Or when leaders are unqualified…
Or when leaders fail to do their duty…

The church suffers.
Leadership matters and that is what elders do.

They have been given God’s authority over the congregation.
And the church must submit to their leadership.

Now, as we have noted, there are many in the world who categorically reject such a notion.

Why should we give such authority to one guy to come in here and be over us?

Are you just saying that the church calls a pastor and from that moment on we’re just all supposed to do whatever he says?

No, I’m not.

In fact, let’s talk about another aspect of elders.

3) THE PLURALITY

One must be able to see that in verse 5 Paul uses the term “elders” in the plural.

He is not to appoint an elder, he is to appoint “elders”.

And this is something that is also seen throughout the pages of Scripture.

James 5:14-15 “Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.”

The phrase is clear, “elders of the church”
James is not referring to many churches, but one.
He is not referring to one elder, but multiple.

Acts 14:23 “When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.”

You see it again “appointed elders for them in every church”
It really couldn’t be more clear than that.
Every church had elders.

Acts 20:17 “From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church.”

These were those Ephesian elders.
And in Bible times it’s not like Ephesus had multiple churches.
Ephesus had 1 church and that one church had multiple elders.

Those same elders are referenced by Paul in 1 Timothy as Timothy served in Ephesus:
1 Timothy 5:17 “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.”

Philippians 1:1 “Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons:”

There it is again.
The church in Philippi and both “overseers” [plural] and “deacons” [plural].
And it is interesting that while some balk at the notion of a plurality of overseers no one balks at a plurality of deacons.

Yet, there is more Scripture evidence of a plurality of elders than even of deacons.

The point is that the church in the New Testament operated under a system that saw a plurality in its leadership.

Hebrews 13:7 “Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.”

Hebrews 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”

Hebrews 13:24 “Greet all of your leaders and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you.”

Now why does this matter?
Why is this preferred?

Well for one, and this is a big one: ACCOUNTABILITY

Everyone seems to rightly understand that you don’t take a congregation and give sole authority to one guy to make all the decisions of the church.

That is a foolish notion.
Even a trusted man should not be in that situation.
There is too much temptation, and it is not a good idea.

After all, even a man who has been appointed as a shepherd is himself still a sheep.

Accountability is vitally important to the leadership of the church.
Men need to be accountable to other men.

Beyond that, all men have blind spots.
That is to say, everyone has failures and flaws that they do not see in themselves.

Sometimes it is just blindness, sometimes it is that they weren’t raised to see their flaw as a flaw and so they don’t.

Iron sharpens iron and multiple leaders help to bring accountability and purity to each other.

Another important reason is: WEAKNESSES

A plurality of elders balances the weaknesses of men.
There are things an elder may be good at and there are things he is not good at.

And when there is only one then the flock suffers.

If you have a shepherd that’s good at feeding sheep and terrible at sheering sheep, then the sheep are going to suffer.

And the flipside is also true.
If the shepherd is good at sheering and terrible at feeding then the flock will still suffer.

A plurality of leadership balances out the weaknesses of the various leaders.

Another important reason is: WORKLOAD

It is unlikely, but let’s say you have a leader who is actually exceptional at every aspect of leadership, but even then doing it for the entire flock all the time can still cause the flock to suffer.

You may have the best cardiologist in Lubbock, but if all of Lubbock uses him too you’re going to have a difficult time getting to see him.

The fact is that the flock deserves to be cared for.
This is God’s flock.

They must be fed, healed, bound up, delivered, restored, and searched for.
Often times it is a job too big for one man.

God answers this problem throughout the New Testament with a plurality of leadership.

You see them described over and over as “elders”.

Does that mean you lose your main preacher?
No, not in the New Testament.

There is also a principle in there that is often referred to as the “first among many” principle.

Peter is often held up as the example.
Peter was not the first disciple chosen by Jesus.

It was actually Andrew who took Peter to Jesus.

And yet in Matthew 10 we read:
Matthew 10:2 “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;”

There Simon is called “the first”.
But he wasn’t the first chronologically.

“first” there is PROTOS
And it means first in rank.

And you see that.
It was Peter with Jesus on the mountain.
It was Peter closes in the garden.
It was Peter tabbed to preach at Pentecost.

They were all disciples, they were all apostles, they all had been granted authority to shepherd the flock from Jesus and yet Peter was still “the first”.

A plurality of leadership does not negate spiritual gifts or abilities or duties but it does follow a patter that lends to accountability, effectiveness, and availability.

Now some would say:
YES, AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE DEACONS

And that is a fair assessment.
And in fact that is what has happened in many Baptist churches.

Baptist churches have ordained deacons and then treated them as ex-facto elders.

I have found this to be true in every church I’ve been a member of.

The deacons become a sort of leadership group to accomplish all the things we just said a plurality of leadership is necessary for.

I actually had a deacon at Crawford tell me that the job of the deacons was to keep the preacher in line.

And look, I am not in total disagreement here.

I have seen the fall out and the problem.

When I was in seminary they told us that the average tenure of a pastor was 18 months.

I googled it and found that the number today is more like 3 ½ years.
Southern Baptists are doing better with their tenure closer to 7 years.

But even that causes problems, and I have seen them.

A pastor comes, the church is excited, he starts leading and making changes.
He starts new ministries.
He allocates funds for them.
He makes a change to the schedule.
He changes the music or whatever.

And just as the church is starting to buy in, he leaves.

The next pastor comes in and wants to put his stamp on everything so he starts changing stuff too, but this time the congregation is a little more hesitant because they’ve been burned before.

And sure enough after a while he leaves.

The next pastor shows up, unaware of all that has happened before him and meets immediate resistance. He labels the congregation as stubborn or “too attached to tradition” gets frustrated and leaves even sooner.

And then your stuck in this broken cycle of pastors who get frustrated with the congregation and congregations who have a difficult time trusting their pastors.

It happened in Baptist life.

What was the solution?
In Baptist life the power began to be transferred to the deacons.
Afterall, they were typically the most faithful men of the church.

And the deacons really started to operate more like elders than deacons.
Instead of an office of service it became an office of authority.

And you see that easily.
If an issue arises in the church and our deacon body makes a recommendation it is almost a certainty our congregation will follow their recommendation.

And that is not a bad thing.
The congregation realizes the need for a plurality of godly leadership, they see that in the deacon body, and they follow their lead.

Now, why is that a problem?
What is wrong with that structure?

Only this.

By ordaining men as deacons and treating them as elders you have created a leadership group of men who at the very least are untrained as elders and who may even be unqualified to be elders.

That is the problem.

The church deserves biblically qualified and biblically trained men to be in a position of authority, and in many cases in the church this has not happened.

Far too often men are selected to be deacons, only if they haven’t been divorced, they are not asked to know any doctrine or theology, they are not examined according to the criteria of an elder, but they are put in a position where they are given authority over the congregation as if they were qualified.

Now, I love our deacon body.
I love their humility.
I love the love they have for this church.
I love their wisdom.
I love them.

But even they will tell you that they can all remember a time when the deacon body of this church was something far different and something far worse.

And here is the simple point that we must ultimately see.

God has ordained two offices in the church.
God has ordained the office of elder.
God has ordained the office of deacon.

They are both absolutely vital to the health of the church.

But they are not the same office.
They do not have the same function.

If you ordain deacons but treat them like elders then the church loses the blessing of a faithful deacon body.

If you ordain deacons and use them as deacons then the church loses the blessing of an eldership that can lead effectively and minister effectively.

Commonly what you get is a mixture hybrid of both and it all falls short of what God intended.

Elders and Deacons do not serve the same function.

What is the difference?

If I could just sort of simplify it then I would say it like this:
Elders are appointed for the spiritual care of the flock.
Deacons are appointed for the physical care of the flock.

TURN TO: ACTS 6:1-6

You see it there don’t you.
You have Peter who knew his obligation to prayer and ministry of the word.
There needed to be servants who could handle the distribution of food.

Does that mean that Peter thought feeding widows was beneath him?
Certainly not!

But it wasn’t good for the church to go spiritually hungry either.
You needed both!

Does that mean that there is never any overlap between the two?
No.

If you keep reading Acts you’ll find both Stephen and Philip preaching.
Certainly Peter served his brothers and widows from time to time.

But the main issue at hand has to do with qualifications and training.

When you read the list of qualifications the lists for deacons and elders are remarkably close and similar.

But there is one major exception.
Elders must be “able to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2)

Paul will tell Titus:
Titus 1:9 “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.”

Beyond that, and I think this is very interesting.

When Paul lays out the qualifications for deacons.
We read this peculiar verse.

1 Timothy 3:8-13 “Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.”

Isn’t it strange that Paul is talking about deacons, then all of a sudden he mentions “Women” and then he is back to deacons again?

The KJV for years translated that word “their wives” and sought to settle the debate saying that it was just a qualification for deacon’s wives to meet.

And I certainly don’t think it’s a bad thing for a deacon to have a good wife.

But doesn’t it seem strange that Paul would give criteria for a deacon’s wife to fulfill but none for an overseer’s wife to fulfill?

In reality that word Paul uses is not the word for a wife, it is just the word for a woman.

And it is highly likely that he does so because the early church had women deacons.

Romans 16:1 “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea;”

That word “servant” that Paul uses for Phoebe is the Greek word DIAKONOS

And if you’ll think, this makes so much sense.

When you’re delivering food, or one of the widows is bedridden, or perhaps she needs help taking a bath, or any of the other practical and hands-on physical ministries of the church, you’d much rather have a woman come in and help than a man.

So why don’t we have women deacons in the Baptist church?
Because we have wrongly elevated the office of deacon to an authoritative office and women are forbidden from preaching or having authority in the church.

It’s just an example of how doing things the wrong way robs the church of a beautiful blessing.

In reality, in the New Testament this is what we see.

We see churches with multiple pastors, elders, overseers, shepherds.
They are men who fit the qualifications.
They are men who are able to teach.
They are men who are trained in doctrine.
They are men who care spiritually for the flock.

They teach them, they counsel them, they encourage them, they correct them, they lead them, they feed them the word.

They protect the flock from heresy and deception.
They guide the flock in godliness and truth.

And in those churches we also see multiple deacons.
They serve the physical needs of the church.
They deliver the meals.
They meet the needs.

And it is a beautiful picture of care for the flock.
It is God’s ordained design so that His flock gets the absolute best care imaginable.

It is not a system meant to rob the congregation of her voice.
It is not a system meant to silence the sheep so that the elders can do whatever they want.

On the contrary, it is a system meant to care for the sheep.

I realize that there are many who oppose such a system because they have seen it abused, and clearly that is just as wrong.

Any group of elders who think it is their job to hide in a room and disregard the desires of the flock just to be in charge has no idea what their job is.

But let’s be honest, in our lives we’ve seen just as many bad deacon bodies do that as we have elder bodies do it.

The problem isn’t the structure, the problem is placing ungodly, unqualified, and untrained men in positions they should not be in.

Or when we place them in a position that they have no idea what their true responsibility before God is.

That is when things go bad.
It’s not a plurality of elders that is bad, it’s bad elders that is bad.

The Biblical model is multiple elders to oversee the church and multiple deacons to serve it.

Now, if you’re a little nervous (and I know that not everyone agrees with me on this, and that’s ok. I’ve told you it took me about 5 years to come around to it after being first introduced.)

If you’re nervous that I’m about to try to pull something on you, I assure you I am not.

We are currently training men, any men who want to be trained in leadership.

They have been emphatically told that just because they go through the training does not mean they were going to be elders or deacons.

This church will not follow the elder led model unless the church congregation sees fit to adopt such a model.

There’s no need to fight or get nervous here.
But I would say, don’t close your heart to it.

What God has designed here He has designed for the good of the flock and we’ll never adopt a better design than His.

The Title
The Job
The Plurality

Let’s consider one more thing about this elder issue before we dive into the qualifications next week.

4) THE APPOINTMENT

How does the church go about selecting elders?

Well on one hand we could just read the verse here and take it at face value.

Paul told Titus “appoint elders in every city as I directed you”

And I suppose one could say, “There it is.”
Titus was just supposed to go and pick some men make them elders over the church.

One could even quote:
Acts 14:23 “When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.”

And you could double down right there and say, “There it is, one elder just goes and appoints the others.”

Let me tell you why that doesn’t mean what it sounds like.

First of all, you have Titus who is going to travel to these churches all over Crete.

As I told you this morning some have thought there to have been around 100 cities on Crete and that would be a lot of churches.

There is no way Titus knew the men in those churches.
There is no way Titus, in a relatively short amount of time, was going to be remotely able to enter a church, select elders and ordain them.

You and I both know what Titus was going to do.

He was going to approach those churches, outline God’s plan for reform or straighten them out.

He was then going to outline God’s plan for leadership in their churches, namely that they needed elders.

He was then going to show them God’s qualifications for those men.

And you and I both know what he was going to do next.
He was going to ask the congregations if they had any men who fit this description?

Who knew those men better than the people who lived with them day in and day out?

That is what he’s going to mean by “above reproach”

Paul is going to tell Titus to examine their family life and their public ministry life.

And Titus is going to ask those congregations.
Do you have any guys here who have managed their families the right way?
Do you have any guys here who are living with the right attitude?

And someone will say, “Yes, Stephanos has” or “Yes, Marcus fits that criteria”.

And then what is he going to do?
He’s going to ask, “Does anyone here have any indictments of either of these men based on the criteria God has set forth?”
“Does anyone know of something about them that makes them unfit to fill that role?”

And if you can’t find any reproach then what is going to happen?

Well then Titus is going to appoint them.

Most likely he will question them doctrinally, but ultimately he will lay his hands on them and ordain them as elders and charge them to care for the flock.

Similar to what Paul told the Ephesian elders:

Acts 20:28-32 “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. “Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. “And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.”

That is the sort of thing Titus would do.

And what you will end up with is a leadership identified by the congregation, qualified by the word of God, and appointed by those in leadership.

That’s how the deacons were selected wasn’t it?

Acts 6:3 “Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.”

Peter told them to select qualified men and then Peter would put them in charge.

And I just point that out to you as well, because it is important for you to know that learning these qualifications is important for you.

You need to know what sort of man God has determined should be an elder.
You need to know what sort of man God has determined should be a deacon.

Because as this church begins to identify and select leaders in for our congregation you need to know:

Why you are selecting them.
What you are selecting them to do.
What office you are selecting them for.
What sort of training you are going to require them to complete.

You do not want to select unqualified or untrained leaders, that is a nightmare for the church.

So we study to see God’s plan for the leadership in the church.

Next time we’ll start talking about their qualifications.