FBC Spur

"and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free"

  • Home
  • Service Times
  • Contact Us
  • Ministries
    • Men’s Ministry
    • Women’s Ministry
    • FBC Youth
    • Children’s Ministry
      • Summer Camps for Kids
      • Growing Godly Girls
  • LiveStream
  • Missons
    • Zimbabwe
    • El Paso
    • China
    • Guatemala
    • Ethiopia
    • Sanyati
  • Sermons
    • Genesis
    • 1 & 2 Kings
    • Job
    • Psalms
    • Psalms 119
    • Ecclesiastes
    • Isaiah – The LORD Is Salvation
    • Daniel
    • Jonah
    • Zechariah
    • Malachi
    • The Gospel of Matthew
    • The Gospel of Luke
    • The Gospel of John
    • Acts
    • Romans
    • 1 Corinthians
    • Galatians
    • Philippians
    • 1 Thessalonians
    • 2 Thessalonians
    • 1 Timothy
    • Titus
    • Hebrews
    • James
    • 1 Peter
    • 2 Peter
    • 1 John
    • Revelation
    • It’s All About Jesus
    • The Holy Spirit
    • 500 Years of Reformation
    • Various Sermons
    • Testimonies
  • Facebook
  • FBC VLOG
  • Calendar

Leadership Matters – part 6 (Titus 1:5-9 (7-8))

March 10, 2025 By Amy Harris

https://fbcspur.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/012-Leadership-Matters-–-part-6-Titus-1.5-9-7-8.mp3

download here

Leadership Matters – part 6
Titus 1:5-9 (7-8)
March 9, 2025

Tonight let’s continue looking at the qualifications for leadership.

I’ll refresh you with our outline on the screen here.

I. The Purpose (5a)
II. The Directive (5b-9)
A. The Title
B. The Job
C. The Plurality
D. The Appointment
E. The Gender
F. The Reputation
1. In His Family
a. With His Wife
b. With His Kids
2. In His Church

That is where we have come tonight.

And again, I want to just begin tonight by reminding that
We are not necessarily here looking to disqualify a man.

What we are seeking to do if find men who are obviously qualified.

The others we’re calling POTENTIALLY qualified after deeper examination
Or perhaps we should say EVENTUALLY qualified after proven changes.

Some men may need to live faithful to their wives for a few more years
• To put behind them past mistakes and prove that redemption and sanctification
has taken hold and they are now ready to shepherd the flock.

Some men may need to go shepherd their children a little while longer
• And invest their energy in that arena first,

Or perhaps the church needs to dig a little deeper
Into the circumstances of the man to determine eligibility.

But the list we have here is a list that shows us men who are ready today.
If you want to know what a qualified man looks like this is it.

As we examine men as potential elders in the church,
Having examined his family
WE NOW LOOK to how he carries himself in the church.

LET ME ALSO SAY, that it has been my personal observation
• That these criteria have generally taken a back seat over the years to the first two,
• And I think that is tragic.

WHAT I MEAN IS THIS,
That for years in the church all that people really seemed to evaluate
• Was whether or not a man had been divorced,
• And perhaps how his kids behaved.

But if he wasn’t divorced and his kids were pretty good kids,
No one really cared too much about the rest of the list.

And that is one of the main reasons why
Churches have been saddled with bad leadership in so many situations.

As I have visited with people about church structure
And have even discussed an elder led model,

I have had some tell me of “bad experiences” with elder led churches.

I’m sure that is true.
It was an elder board that dominated, ignored, and disregarded the flock
And it is no surprise that the flock suffered under such leadership.

It is perfectly understandable that someone in that scenario
Would cringe at the thought of an elder led model.

I CAN CERTAINLY WEIGH IN ON what it’s like being under a deacon board that was just as oppressive.
• I could pretty much tell you on a weekly basis what part of my sermon was going to get me ripped by the deacon body at Crawford,
• Eventually they told me to leave and not come back.

There are plenty of us who have our own personal PTSD
From having suffered under bad leadership.

And the reason for this is because
Churches have been notorious for placing ungodly men
In leadership positions so long as they had never been divorced.

THAT IS A TRAGEDY.

THE CRITERIA WE LOOK AT TONIGHT
Is every bit as IMPORTANT as the criteria we looked at this morning.

A man may be faithful in marriage and have obedient kids
And be totally unfit for the role of an elder.

IT’S NOT JUST HIS FAMILY WE LOOK AT, IT’S ALSO HIS ATTITUDE.

AND THAT IS WHAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT TONIGHT.

Paul starts in verse 7 with a perfect transition
Between an elders family and his attitude.

He says, “For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward…”

You of course notice that Paul has shifted
To one of the other titles for the leadership in God’s church.
• Those he referred to as “elders” in verse 5
• He now refers to with the title “overseer” in verse 7.

This is EPISKOPAS – and it refers to a manager.
It is one who comes to oversee what is going on.

No doubt Paul uses that title
Because he also refers to the man as “God’s steward”

“steward” is OIKONOMOS
It means “the manager of a household”

He is one of the men whom God is putting in charge of His household.
He is one of the men whom God is charging to oversee His people.

Well that makes sense why God is so concerned
With how he managed his own house up in verse 6,
Because in verse 7 he is about to tasked to manage God’s.

I love the term “steward” as a title for leaders in the church.

One of the most convicting passages I read is:
1 Peter 5:2 “shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;”

That phrase “flock of God” cuts me to the heart.
• It is the reminder that the church does not belong to me.
• It is the reminder that the church does not exist for me.
• This is God’s church.
• You are God’s people.

He created you, He redeemed you, He is sanctifying you,
He will come back for you.

In the meantime He appoints stewards
To watch over you, feed you, shepherd you, etc.

And those who are in leadership must never forget their place.

We have been entrusted with the flock of God
And it matters how they are cared for.

Just like you would be selective who you asked to take care of your dog or your cat or your chickens or your cows while you are on vacation,

So is God selective with who He selects to manage His flock until He returns.

AND CERTAINLY if you are going to select someone to take care of your dogs
• You are going to pick someone who actually likes dogs (or cats or chickens or cows).
• You don’t want someone who hates dogs and kicks dogs and ignores dogs on a daily basis.
• That would be a bad selection.

In the same way, when we start examining men as potential elders
It is important to select men who know how to deal with people.

• He needs to be someone who loves people.
• He needs to be someone who desires to minister to people.

1 Timothy 3:1 “It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.”

There must be a desire to care for the people of God.

Far too often men are selected simply because they want to preach.

Certainly preaching is a big part of it,
• You’ll see down in verse 9 that he has to be able to do that too,
• But there is far more to the job than just preaching.

Does he even love the people he is preaching to?

This job of elder is not merely theological, though that is important.
This job of elder is not merely administrative, though that is important.
This job of elder is to manage the flock of God.

I think the Ezekiel passage gives great insight there.

Ezekiel 34:4 “Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought for the lost; but with force and with severity you have dominated them.”

We are NOT dealing with an abstract audience.
We are NOT dealing with a cyber flock.
The church is comprised of living, breathing, emotional, spirited people.

• Sometimes these people are diseased, or broken, or scattered, or lost.
• Sometimes they are angry, or disillusioned, or confused, or burdened, or deceived, or stubborn.

And the overseer must deal with these real living people
In the midst of their real messy and emotional lives.

The sheep don’t always “lay down in green pastures beside still waters”.
• Sometimes they wander off.
• Sometimes they butt back at you.
• Sometimes they are hard to catch; hard to doctor; hard to lead.

When selecting leadership in the church
We are directed to select men
Who are equipped with the right disposition to handle that.

I want to ILLUSTRATE this tonight before we get to the list.

I often tell people that if they think they want to be in a leadership position
To first read the book of Numbers,
Just so they will know what they are getting in to.

• It would not be a stretch if we were to say that apart from Jesus, Moses was the greatest leader who ever walked on the earth,
• But you should know what it was like for him.

TURN TO: NUMBERS 11:1-15

(READ 11:1-15)
• Incidentally, one of the solutions God gave to Moses was to appoint elders to help him with the leadership. (READ 11:16-17)

But they were certainly an unpleasant people to shepherd.

TURN TO: NUMBERS 12:1-2
• There it was Moses’ sister who grumbled against him because they didn’t like the wife he chose.
• It would be later in the chapter that God would make Miriam leprous for a time.

TURN TO: NUMBERS 13:27-28
• Remember when Moses sent out the spies?
• Remember the report? (VS 31-32)

That must have been a great day for Moses.
God gives a direction, you tell the people, and they vote not to obey.
Fun days as a leader.

TURN TO: NUMBERS 14:1-4
• It wasn’t Moses’ fault, but he took the blame
• And the people wanted to get a new leader and go back to Egypt.

But instead of growing angry, Moses interceded for them (VS 19)
That is leadership.

TURN TO: NUMBERS 16:1-3
• Those people resented Moses being in authority over the people.
• They were all God’s people and they resisted that someone would ascend to an authoritative position over them.

If you’ll remember God killed Korah and Dathan and Abiram
By opening the ground and swallowing them alive.

TURN TO: NUMBERS 16:41-50
• God killed Korah and the people blamed Moses and tried again to overthrow him.
• God was again angry and Moses again interceded for them.

It seems like someone was always angry at Moses
And someone was always trying to overthrow him.

AND THAT IS NOT TO MENTION
The sin of the people that certainly grieved Moses.

• Did he not have to intercede when they made the golden calf?

• What about Baal Peor where they intermarried with the Moabites and God sent a plague that killed 24,000?

• What about Meribah and Massah where Israel grumbled with no water and God came to loath the people there?

• What about when they grumbled again in the wilderness and God sent serpents to bite them from the sand and Moses had to make a serpent on a pole?

When you read the book of Numbers
You don’t walk away with a glorious view of leadership.
LEADERSHIP IS HARD

PEOPLE CAN BE stubborn, ungrateful, disobedient, rebellious, grumbling, and even mutinous.

THEY CAN attack you, blame you, accuse you, slander you, grumble about you, ignore you, etc.

IT IS REAL.

AND HERE IS THE QUESTION.
How is the man you are considering going to respond to such reproach?

• Is he a “turn the other cheek” kind of guy?
• Is he a “return their curse for a blessing” kind of guy?
• Or is he a fight back and beat you up kind of guy?

Is he going to pull a Moses and intercede for the people even when the sin they committed was against him?

• Or is he going to pull a Jonah and ask God to kill them anyway?

I might further set the stage by reading:
Philippians 2:1-11 “Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

We are certainly aware of how Christ cared for the flock.
• He was humble and humiliated.
• He was lowly and rejected.
• But He never stopped loving the flock.

Matthew 12:14-21 “But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him. But Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. Many followed Him, and He healed them all, and warned them not to tell who He was. This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: “BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN; MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL is WELL-PLEASED; I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM, AND HE SHALL PROCLAIM JUSTICE TO THE GENTILES. “HE WILL NOT QUARREL, NOR CRY OUT; NOR WILL ANYONE HEAR HIS VOICE IN THE STREETS. “A BATTERED REED HE WILL NOT BREAK OFF, AND A SMOLDERING WICK HE WILL NOT PUT OUT, UNTIL HE LEADS JUSTICE TO VICTORY. “AND IN HIS NAME THE GENTILES WILL HOPE.”

• Not a screamer.
• Not a bragger.
• Not a bully.

He was tender and calm and patient and compassionate.
• He bore reproach and scorn.
• He endured murmuring and complaint.
• He was patient with little faith and slow growth.

Psalms 103:8-14 “The LORD is compassionate and gracious, Slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness. He will not always strive with us, Nor will He keep His anger forever. He has not dealt with us according to our sins, Nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him. As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us. Just as a father has compassion on his children, So the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him. For He Himself knows our frame; He is mindful that we are but dust.”

That is how Christ shepherds His flock.
He is looking for men who will shepherd them the exact same way.

NOT ONLY THAT,
He is also looking for men who will set that kind of example for His flock.

Christ doesn’t only bid undershepherds
To walk with humility and patience with the flock.

Christ also expects sheep to be humble and patient with each other,
And they will learn how by watching the example of their elders.

That is why we see passages like this:
1 Timothy 4:12 “Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe.”

1 Peter 5:3 “nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.”

Titus 2:7 “in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified,”

See you want an overseer who will manage like Christ managed,
And who will set a Christ-like example for the sheep to follow.

If you don’t select this type of man the church is going to suffer.

He may not have been divorced
He may have obedient kids,
BUT HE NEEDS TO BE MORE THAN JUST THAT.

HIS ATTITUDE MATTERS TOO.

Now, with that as a backdrop
I think you’re going to understand this list much better.

There is a sense in which we need to examine each word individually
• To know what it means,

But I think even more so you need to see these words as a whole
• Because it paints for us quite a picture.

So we are discussing HIS REPUTATION IN THE CHURCH.
• And if you are keeping the outline then call this (a) and (b) under that heading.

I. The Purpose (5a)
II. The Directive (5b-9)
A. The Title
B. The Job
C. The Plurality
D. The Appointment
E. The Gender
F. The Reputation
1. In His Family
a. With His Wife
b. With His Kids
2. In His Church
a. His Maturity
b. His Ability

We are going to look at:
1. HIS MATURITY
2. HIS ABILITY

TONIGHT LET’S LOOK AT HIS MATURITY.
We’ll get to his ability next Sunday morning.

(7-8) “For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled,”

It is very easy to see the distinction between verse 7 and verse 8.
• Verse 7 speaks negatively of what things the man must not be.
• Verse 8 speaks positively of what he must be.

Let’s first look at what he must not be found in verse 7.

“not self-willed”

The Greek word there simply means “self-pleasing”.
• You are not looking for a man whose objective in life is only to please himself.

Peter used the word when talking about false prophets who seek to infiltrate the church.

2 Peter 2:10b-11 “Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.”

It is a man who only cares about what he wants
And gives no concern to the will of anyone else.

That sort of dominating type leader is strictly forbidden.

“not quick-tempered”

That is ORGILOS in the Greek.
• It comes from the word ORGE which is the word for “wrath” (even God’s wrath)
• This compound word means “inclined to anger; passionate”.

That is to say that his temper is his “go-to”
When he doesn’t get his way or when he gets offended.

He is ready to fly off the handle.
He manipulates the flock with his temper.
(Incidentally, that might be why his kids are so well-behaved, they might just be terrified)

A Christian is commanded not to act like that.
Ephesians 4:31 “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.”

Colossians 3:8 “But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.”

If the sheep are not supposed to fly off the handle in anger
Then certainly the example setting shepherd must not either.

A man with a temper is not presently qualified to oversee God’s flock.

“not addicted to wine”

The Greek word simply indicates “one who always has wine by his side”.
• He lingers long at the bottle.

This would be his coping mechanism to a frustrating job.
It is hard to lead, it is frustrating to lead and the way he copes is by drinking.

Obviously you don’t want a man who buries his struggles in the bottle.
You want a man who is given to lay his burdens at the feet of God.

Ephesians 5:18 “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,”

“not pugnacious”

That Greek word simply means “a giver of blows”
• He’s a puncher.

Not only will get fly off the handle in his anger,
But he’s liable to punch you in the nose if you irritate him.

And perhaps it’s not a physical blow, perhaps it is a verbal one.
He might just destroy you with his words when you anger him.

Sheep don’t need a shepherd who delights in kicking them
Or whacking them with a stick when they frustrate him.

“not fond of sordid gain”

This speaks of a man who only stays with the sheep for one reason…to make money.
• He doesn’t care about the sheep.
• He may not even like the sheep.
• But the sheep provide a source of benefit or income that he does like so he stays there.

Micah 3:5 “Thus says the LORD concerning the prophets who lead my people astray; When they have something to bite with their teeth, They cry, “Peace,” But against him who puts nothing in their mouths They declare holy war.”

This is not the type of man you want as an elder.

NOW WE WENT THROUGH THOSE QUICKLY,
Not because they aren’t important individually,
But because I want you just to consider them as a whole for a moment.

Imagine a man like this in leadership.
Imagine if Moses had behaved like this.

The people rebelled and grumbled so:
Moses, thinking only of himself,
• Flew off the handle at them,
• Then to handle his frustration he went and got drunk,
• Then got violent and started beating the people.
• He would have left all-together but he craved the power of the position.

Was that Moses?
No.
• Moses was patient, interceding, enduring, caring.
• Moses was a shepherd, not a butcher.

But what do you call a person who throws a fit when they don’t get their way?
• What do you call a person who needs wine to pacify their anger?
• What do you call a person who kicks and hits when they are angry?
• What do you call a person who only calms down when you put something in
their mouth?

I know what we call that type of person…A BABY

They don’t belong in the pulpit, they belong in the nursery.

1 Corinthians 3:1-3 “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?”

Go sit in the nursery.
• All they think about are themselves.
• They scream when they don’t get their way.
• You have to shove a pacifier in their mouth to calm them down.
• They are prone to bight and punch and kick if they aren’t happy.

And unfortunately there are men in the church who are just like them.
They never grew up.

• They still can’t handle their emotions.
• They still can’t control their temper.

I don’t care if they’ve been divorced or not, don’t let them be a leader.

Churches have had plenty like that, and they destroy flocks.
A leader must be mature.
Not a baby.

WELL WHAT DOES MATURITY LOOK LIKE?
Well let’s examine verse 8

“but hospitable”

It is a word that means “love of guests”

1 Peter 4:9 “Be hospitable to one another without complaint.”

• He has to be a man who actually loves people.
• He has to like being around them.
• He has to like having them over.
• He has to like it when they stop by to visit.

It’s hard to shepherd when you don’t like being around sheep.

“loving what is good”

He is a lover of goodness or a promoter of virtue.
• He is concerned about his flock doing the right thing.
• He is concerned about setting the right example.

It’s not about winning, it’s about running the race the right way.
• He is not a pragmatist where the ends justify the means.
• He is a perfectionist where running properly matters.

He doesn’t just want the sheep to get fed and lay down and be quiet,
He wants them to be good and pleasant sheep.

He cares that they are pleasing to God.

“sensible”

It is a word that means “of a sound mind; and able to curb one’s impulses”

He may be a man who feels anger at the response of his people,
But his mind controls his emotions.

There may be a part of him that wants to fly off the handle,
But he is mature enough not to.

“just”

The word actually means “righteous”

Matthew 1:19 “And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.”

Mark 6:20 “for Herod was afraid of John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was very perplexed; but he used to enjoy listening to him.”

Luke 1:5-6 “In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.”

It is simply people who do the right thing.

Joseph was certainly confused and hurt
• When he thought Mary had betrayed him
• But even then he was going to do the right thing
• By her and send her away secretly.

It is what we saw in Moses over and over.
Taking the reproach of the people but doing the right thing by interceding.

“devout”

This is a word that means “undefiled by sin, free from wickedness, pure, holy, pious”

It was a word used to describe Jesus as the “Holy One”

OBVIOUSLY IT CANNOT BE a man who is without sin and totally holy,
(At least not beyond the imputed righteousness of Christ to his life.)

But it is a man who is committed
To being as holy and free from sin as he can be.

• He is not a man who settles at a certain level of wickedness.
• He is well-aware that he is an example to the flock
• And that he must be above reproach at all times.

He’s not a guy with skeletons in the closet.
He’s not a guy who leads a double life.

You don’t want a guy who is only holy when he’s at church,
But who is someone else when he’s in the world.

“self-controlled”

The Greek word means “strong, robust, having power over, mastering, controlling one’s self”

In short, he is a mature man.
He is not overrun by his emotions.

Now again, each word is important by itself.

We might note that to Timothy
Paul added the words “peaceable” and “gentle”

And certainly they fit this list easily.

But I think the idea here is more of
The general idea that all of these words portray together.

When you are looking for an elder to oversee the flock of God
You don’t want an immature baby
• Who needs to be pacified;
• Who will fight and kick and scream when he doesn’t get his way.

What you want is a mature man,
• Who has control over his emotions.
• A man who is more concerned about godliness than winning;
• A man who is more concerned about being holy than being honored by men.

If you don’t pick men like that,
You are asking for trouble in the leadership of the church.

So as you examine the congregation for men who could lead the flock.

Look at his family.
• Is he faithful to his wife?
• Are his kids faithful and obedient?

Now look at his attitude.
• Is he a mature man who can turn the other cheek?
• Is he a self-controlled man who will be a good example?

THAT IS THE TYPE OF MAN WE ARE LOOKING FOR.

AND AGAIN, IF A MAN DOES NOT FIT THAT BILL TODAY,

Then we are not going to ordain him right now,

But we do hold out that through repentance and sanctification and growth
That a man not qualified today might be qualified in time.

This is not a list to disqualify forever,
It is a list to show who is presently qualified.

We want men who will be faithful to the bride of Christ.
We want men who will rightly manage the household of God.
We want men who will patiently and selflessly lead the flock of God.

1 Peter 5:1-3 “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.”

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Leadership Matters – part 5 (Titus 1:5-9 (6))

March 10, 2025 By Amy Harris

https://fbcspur.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/011-Leadership-Matters-–-part-5-Titus-1.5-9-6.mp3

download here

Leadership Matters – part 5
Titus 1:5-9 (6)
March 9, 2025

I certainly want to thank Daniel for filling in last week.
• It is a blessing to have capable men like him who are willing to do the work to stand before you and rightly divide God’s word.

THIS MORNING we are going to return to our study of the book of Titus
And we return right in the middle of our segment on leadership.

We have said it many times, “Leadership Matters”

The Bible has so much to say regarding the negative effect that bad leaders can have on God’s people.

Jeremiah 10:21 “For the shepherds have become stupid And have not sought the LORD; Therefore they have not prospered, And all their flock is scattered.”

Ezekiel 34:5 “They were scattered for lack of a shepherd, and they became food for every beast of the field and were scattered.”

Hosea 4:6 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.”

Aside from the prophets and priests, how much of the pain and suffering of the Old Testament is the direct result of the leadership of BAD KINGS?
• Do we remember the effects of Solomon’s immorality and the influence of pagan worship he allowed into the nation?
• Do we remember the effects of his son Rehoboam’s arrogance and how the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms?
• Do we remember the effects of Jeroboam, the northern kingdom’s first king, and his idolatrous decision to replace Jerusalem as the ordained worship site?
• Over and over in the kings we read, “he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat”
• It was Ahab who corrupted Israel with Baal worship.
• It was Ahaz who corrupted Judah with worship of Assyrian gods.
• We could lay the entire exile of Israel into Assyria and the exile of Judah into Babylon at the feet of their bad leadership.

And when we get into the New Testament it doesn’t get any better.

Matthew 9:36 “Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd.”

Ultimately Jesus exposed those bad leaders in Matthew 23

Matthew 23:1-4 “Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.”

Matthew 23:15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.”

Bad leaders bring condemnation and judgment on their people.

But the flipside is also true.
Good leaders bring blessing and salvation to their people.

Paul told Timothy:
1 Timothy 4:16 “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.”

• How blessed was the nation of Israel when they actually listened to the leadership of Moses?
• How much blessing did David bring to his people?
• We think of kings like Hezekiah or Josiah who brought about deliverance and revival by leading their people to walk by faith and obedience.
• We think of prophets like Haggai who led the people to rebuild the temple and to bring an end to the temporal judgments they were experiencing.

LEADERSHIP MATTERS.
It is an issue that every church and every church member
Should be intently concerned about.

AS WE HAVE SAID,
The world has all sorts of ideas regarding what makes a good leaders.

• Experience, education, charisma, culture, ingenuity, success, etc.

But fortunately for us,
Scripture outlines for us what to look for in a leader in the church.

God has not left it up to us to determine what we think is best,
God has laid out for us the specific qualifications
Of what to look for in the leadership of the church.

And we have been examining it.

#1 THE PURPOSE
Titus 1:5a

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

• Titus was to be a spiritual chiropractor for the church; a spiritual orthodontist.
• He was to help the congregations all over the island get in order.

#2 THE DIRECTIVE
Titus 1:5b-9

“appoint elders in every city as I directed you”

Titus was to set the church in order and then appoint leaders
To direct the flock from that point forward.

We discussed the office.
• The Title – elders, overseers, pastor/shepherd
• The Job– they set an example, oversee, and shepherd the flock
• The Plurality – the New Testament shows a model of plurality in leadership
• The Appointment –elders were identified by the church and appointed by Titus
• The Gender – that the office of elder is restricted to men

And then we began looking at:
THE REPUTATION

This is where we are learning how to identify these men.
• Paul gave Titus a list of qualities.
• If a man fit these qualities he is approved.
• This is how you spot who is ready.
• And they are based upon his reputation.

This is why we see the same phrase used twice:
“above reproach”

• (6) “if any man is above reproach…”
• (7) “for the overseer must be above reproach…”

The phrase indicated a man that could not be indicted.
• It is NOT a perfect or sinless man,
• It is a man who could be evaluated according to the qualifications
• And the congregation would have no grounds for accusing him of being unfit.

That is how these men are going to be evaluated.

And, as we said, in Titus Paul focuses on two main areas of examination.
• His Home
• His Church
• 1 Timothy adds a third…Those outside the church

We are currently looking AT HIS HOME LIFE.

We started this two Sunday nights ago, looking at His marriage.

(6) “If any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife…”

I don’t want to hash all back through all of that,
But I would say, if you missed that please go online and listen.
It is too important an issue for the church to rightly understand
And everyone needs to be aware of it.

What we are talking about here is a “one-woman man.”
• We are looking for a man who is not adulterous.
• We are opening his folder on sexual immorality.

Affairs, pornography, unbiblical divorce and remarriage, filthiness, perversion, etc.

As we examine the men of the congregation as potential leaders,
We are looking for the men who have a solid reputation
Of being faithful to their wife.

Now we also said, I still stand by it, I DO NOT believe this to be a “one offense and disqualified forever” issue.

Paul is not here giving a list of who is disqualified forever.
He is giving a list of how to spot who is presently qualified without debate

Certainly REDEMPTION plays a role in this,
• You would be hard pressed to find a man in any culture and in any age who
was not guilty of heart-adultery or lust even before redemption.

But also, even among the redeemed,
• It may be true that a man has made mistakes in his past, as we all have,
• But if he has shown a faithful track record of repentance, sanctification, and
faithfulness for many years since, I do not see a permanently disqualified
man.
• We are far more concerned with what a man is today, and perhaps what he
has been over the past decade than we are with what he was 20 or 30 years
ago.

The qualification given here shows us who is immediately qualified,
But other men, after some investigation, through the lens of redemption,
May also be considered.

But we look at his faithfulness to his wife
Because that is a wonderful indication
Of how faithful he will be to the bride of Christ.

If he is not faithful to his own wife, how can he be faithful to the church?

THAT IS THE POINT.
• Do you see men who are faithful to their wives?
• Do you see men who are one-woman men?
• Do you see men who are examples of self-sacrificing love?
• That is what we are looking for.

WELL, THAT IS WHERE WE’VE COME SO FAR.
I’m sorry for the lengthy introduction and catch up, but it is so important that we all get this. If you’ll all show up on Sunday night we won’t have to do all of this.

BUT LET’S MOVE FORWARD.
Still talking about his reputation in his family.

(6) “if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.”

Now we look at the children he raised.

Just like it is important to look at how a man loves his wife,
It is equally important to see how he raises his children.

And let me just shoot straight here.
I find this to be the most difficult requirement to handle.

FOR ONE, sound commentators and authors and theologians are all over the place as to what this qualification actually means and how it should be applied.

You’ve got men like MacArthur
• Who say the man must have genuinely redeemed and believing children, who even when they are grown and out of the house do not engage in any kind of wild living for the rest of their lives.

Such a position certainly POSES QUESTIONS:
• Does there ever come a day when the father is no longer responsible for the decisions of his grown children?
• What if those grown children apostasize later in life? (John Piper)
• What if the father seemingly shepherds them well even in their rebellious state?

Such questions have led other commentators
To a little less direct of a response.

Men like Alexander Strauch
• Say that it is not redeeming belief that Paul is referencing, since no man can guarantee the salvation of his son since salvation is the work of God.

Of course this comes with its OWN SET OF PROBLEMS.
• If we are talking about unredeemed men, is there any certainty that they won’t become wild living?
• If they don’t have the Spirit of God how can you be sure that those children won’t fall into grievous and embarrassing sin?
• And if they do, what do you do with the elder then?

Or we could listen to men like Gene Getz
• Who says the issue is only the reproach that falls on the father as a result of the child’s living.
• He points out that if the child doesn’t live anywhere near the father, and his behavior is not in the public view then it has no negative effect on the ministry of the father.

HOWEVER,
• What is to keep the child from moving home?
• In a social media world, a child can become very public living miles away.

Beyond those scenarios.
• What do you do if a man has multiple children?
• What if 9 are faithful believers and 1 is a prodigal?
• Does 1 prodigal nullify the 9 faithful?
• What if it is split 5 and 5?
• Which 5 are the aberration?
• What if the man is saved after his children are grown?

In many ways these are unanswerable questions.
Namely because Paul does not address such situations or issues.

He does not elaborate.
He does not dive into various scenarios.

Paul gives us one, short, concise sentence by which to evaluate.
“if any man is above reproach…having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.”

THAT IS IT.

AND I JUST POINT ALL OF THOSE OUT TO YOU TO AGAIN SAY,
No matter where you land on this issue there are going to be questions.

We live in a messy world with messy circumstances.

The church of Jesus Christ
• Is being built in a fallen world
• And it is being led by men who needed redemption.

There are always going to be sticky and confusing issues.

OUR OBJECTIVE THIS MORNING
• Is to do our best to navigate Paul’s command to Titus
• And to rightly apply it to our understanding of how we select men to lead the church.

So let’s start working on it.

LET’S START BY EXAMINING THE CRITERIA
What does it actually say?

Well, let’s start with the word “children”

TEKNON in the Greek which simply refers to “ones offspring”.
If you want to talk about “little children” you use the term TEKNION

So we assess that all children of all ages are in view here.
• And certainly that makes sense since Paul will in a moment mention sins like “dissipation and rebellion” which are not really toddler level sins.
• Those are more likely to occur in teenagers and grown children.

When considering a man for leadership we examine his children.
• We look at his young children in his home.
• We look at his teenage children in their freedom and adolescence.
• We look at his grown children even as they leave the house.

And the first criteria Paul mentions is that they “believe”
• “having children who believe”

Now, first of all, if we want to just do a word study,
• The word here is the same word used of genuine and faithful believers throughout the New Testament.

For example:
Matthew 25:21 “His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’”

• There it is twice used and clearly referencing true believers.

Acts 16:1 “Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek,”

• There it is used regarding Timothy and translated “believer”

Galatians 3:9 “So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.”

But it is also a word that just speaks of “basic faithfulness”.
Luke 16:11 “Therefore if you have not been faithful in the use of unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true riches to you?”

So it is a word that means “faithful” and it is perhaps
The best way to describe one who is a genuine Christian.

But is Paul here requiring genuine Christianity from every child raised by this man?
• MacArthur says “yes”
• Other faithful men say “no”

NOW, we certainly would NOT absolve a man of a responsibility to lead his children to the Lord.

Ephesians 6:4 “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”

• We certainly do not teach that a father has no duty or responsibility there.
• We certainly do not encourage a passive “let go and let God” approach.
• There is a sense in which we certainly hold a father responsible for the faith of his children.

And even as it relates to shepherding God’s people we think of passages like the one we already quoted:
1 Timothy 4:16 “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.”

Or even what the writer of Hebrews taught:
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.”

We certainly see that
In the same way as a shepherd is responsible for the souls of his flock
So also is a father responsible for the souls of his children.

However, we would also quickly point out that
No shepherd or father can guarantee the salvation of his flock or his kids.
• We know salvation to be a work of God, not a work of man.
• We know that salvation is something God works in the heart of that child, it is a personal thing.

SO IT WOULD SEEM IMPOSSIBLE
To hold a man totally responsible for the saving faith of his child.

After all, do we not see God lament
In the Old Testament at the waywardness of His children?

Isaiah 30:1 “Woe to the rebellious children,” declares the LORD, “Who execute a plan, but not Mine, And make an alliance, but not of My Spirit, In order to add sin to sin;”

Isaiah 30:9-11 “For this is a rebellious people, false sons, Sons who refuse to listen To the instruction of the LORD; Who say to the seers, “You must not see visions”; And to the prophets, “You must not prophesy to us what is right, Speak to us pleasant words, Prophesy illusions. “Get out of the way, turn aside from the path, Let us hear no more about the Holy One of Israel.”

Malachi 1:6 “‘A son honors his father, and a servant his master. Then if I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My respect?’ says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests who despise My name. But you say, ‘How have we despised Your name?’”

That is the continual problem of Israel that
Despite the perfect spiritual leadership of God, they refused to believe.

We are certainly aware of Judas, who was one of the 12, but we do not hold Christ responsible for his apostasy.

It would seem then that the point of the qualification here is that
These children be orderly and faithful to a right standard of living.

I think this walks in step with the qualifications Paul gave to Timothy.

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?),”

Paul doesn’t mention salvation there,
Only that the father did a good job of managing his household.

The idea there is that he keeps them under control with dignity.

With that in mind I think it best to understand Paul’s criteria here is that
WE ARE LOOKING FOR A MAN WHO RAISES DIGNIFIED CHILDREN.

They know how to live.

This fits with what we’re expecting from an elder in the church.

A shepherd, elder, overseer may not be able to
Guarantee salvation in every person in his church,
BUT HE CAN CONTROL THE BEHAVIOR OF EVERY MEMBER.

If they live wild he is called to discipline them,
And then even potentially remove them from the flock.

We are talking about a man who knows how to oversee;
He knows how to control his flock with dignity.

When Paul wrote to Timothy in his letter he said:
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.”

There it is again,
• Can he control the flock?
• Can he manage the conduct of his people?

And the way you are going to analyze that is whether or not
He has been able to manage the conduct of his children.

SO THAT IS FIRST.
He must have faithful, orderly, well-managed, dignified children.

And that is really what the CONTEXT INDICATES.
Paul expounds on what he means by “having children who believe”

And THEN says, “not accused of dissipation or rebellion”

• If he was talking about genuine redemption he would have said something more like, “having children who believe, filled with the Holy Spirit”.

It is their faithful, dignified character in view.

Specifically that they are “not accused of dissipation”

“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 4:3-4 “For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries. In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you;”

You understand “dissipation” there.

Paul says a qualified elder needs to have children who are not accused or charged as free-living, prodigal, drunks.

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.

These are just wild-living, unsubmissive, disrespectful, prodigal people.
And when we are looking for elders
We are looking at his kids to see if that is how his kids behave.

If they don’t, then this man is what you are looking for.

The qualification reads like an easy or obvious evaluation.

“appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.”

It is a quick evaluation.
• Does he love his wife properly?
• Has he raised his kids properly?

Can you find any red flags here?
• If not, then this is the type of man you are looking for.

NOW FIRST, LET’S ASK WHY?
Why do you want a man who manages his household well?

Namely because of the similarities of fathering and shepherding.

Many times in the New Testament ministry is compared to parenting.
• Paul even called Titus “my true child in the faith” up in verse 4.

When Paul wrote to the Galatians:
Galatians 4:19 “My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you”

He wrote to the Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 4:14-16 “I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me.”

2 Corinthians 12:13-14 “For in what respect were you treated as inferior to the rest of the churches, except that I myself did not become a burden to you? Forgive me this wrong! Here for this third time I am ready to come to you, and I will not be a burden to you; for I do not seek what is yours, but you; for children are not responsible to save up for their parents, but parents for their children.”

John wrote to his congregation as his children:
3 John 4 “I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth.”

And to the Thessalonians Paul even compared his ministry to that of parenting.
1 Thessalonians 2:3-8 “For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit; but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who examines our hearts. For we never came with flattering speech, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness— nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority. But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children. Having so fond an affection for you, we were well-pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us.”

• There he was gentle like a mother.

1 Thessalonains 2:9-11 “For you recall, brethren, our labor and hardship, how working night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you, we proclaimed to you the gospel of God. You are witnesses, and so is God, how devoutly and uprightly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers; just as you know how we were exhorting and encouraging and imploring each one of you as a father would his own children,”

• There he exhorted and encouraged and implored like a father.

The role of a shepherd is very much like the role of a father.
If the man didn’t father well
You have no reason to expect he will shepherd well.

So we look at his kids and determine what kind of shepherd he will be.
• Are they orderly, dignified, well-behaved children?

NOW – WHAT IF THEY AREN’T?

• We already established that at times even God’s children are ill-behaved.
• We already pondered what if it’s not all of his children, only some.
• We already pondered that he may have done it right, but the world simply
corrupted his kids.

I get that this is a sticky issue.

So let’s get back to THE HEART OF THE QUALIFICATION.

Paul says that when we examine a man’s married life
And how he raised his kids we are doing so for one main reason.

It is to determine whether or not that man is “above reproach”

THAT IS THE ISSUE.
IS HE ABOVE ACCUSATION OR CONDEMNATION?

And let me just give you some things to think about
Before you ordain a man whose children are out of control.

Well for one, there is a REPUTATION issue at stake.

We’ve all heard the phrase, “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”

Sometimes an elder has to do some confronting.
• Grown prodigal rebellious children will undermine him at every turn.

One of the issues we consider is that
The congregation needs to trust the counsel of it’s leaders.
Wayward children will undermine the man’s credibility.

The presence of wild children can make shepherding very difficult.

Another reason is the ABILITY issue.

We said that parenting and shepherding are very similar in their job description.
• If he hasn’t done it well with his children, we should not expect that he will start doing it once he is ordained as an elder.

Remember the admonition to Timothy?
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?)”

That is a real issue that must be considered.

And that leads to a third issue which I would call the HYPOCRISY issue.

Rebellious children can indicate that something is internally wrong
Which were not able to see.

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.

If a man’s children grow rebellious it may be an indication of
Hypocritical or Inconsistent or Dominating leadership.

One glaring example of that in the Old Testament is Eli.

1 Samuel 2:12-17 “Now the sons of Eli were worthless men; they did not know the LORD and the custom of the priests with the people. When any man was offering a sacrifice, the priest’s servant would come while the meat was boiling, with a three-pronged fork in his hand. Then he would thrust it into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; all that the fork brought up the priest would take for himself. Thus they did in Shiloh to all the Israelites who came there. Also, before they burned the fat, the priest’s servant would come and say to the man who was sacrificing, “Give the priest meat for roasting, as he will not take boiled meat from you, only raw.” If the man said to him, “They must surely burn the fat first, and then take as much as you desire,” then he would say, “No, but you shall give it to me now; and if not, I will take it by force.” Thus the sin of the young men was very great before the LORD, for the men despised the offering of the LORD.”

We find then that God promised judgment on those boys.
1 Samuel 3:12-14 “In that day I will carry out against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. “For I have told him that I am about to judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knew, because his sons brought a curse on themselves and he did not rebuke them. “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”

God revealed that the wild living of Eli’s sons was due to inconsistency on the part of Eli.
• He did not rebuke his sons.
• He was a bad leader
• Under his leadership the ark of God was actually stolen by the Philistines.
• We would not have known about Eli’s failures, but they became evident in his sons.

It could be that a man has
No conviction or justice or discipline or consistency in his home
You know it because his grown children are wild and uncontrolled.

But THE OPPOSITE could be true as well.
• Even today has a father been prone to legalism?
• Has he pushed his sons to an impossible standard?
• Has he led void of grace?
• Has he frustrated his children and caused them to give up and turn away from the faith?

Colossians 3:21 “Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart.”

If children rebel against that, you need to pay attention and dig deeper
Because they might be showing you a real problem.

AND MY POINT is that we must take this qualification seriously.

• I DO NOT read this as an obvious or eternal disqualification of a man.
• I DO believe that under further examination he may be acceptable.
• But if he has wild children you cannot immediately ordain him either.

So perhaps the best way is to say it like this.
I don’t like using the term “disqualified”, in fact Paul never uses it.

Let’s simply talk about those men who are IMMEDIATELY QUALIFIED,
And those men who may be POTENTIALLY QUALIFIED.

For a man to be immediately qualified he must be a one woman man with believing children who are not wild living.

A man with a past of immorality, or with questionable children
May be potentially qualified under further examination, but as a congregation you would have to know why.

You would have to dig deeper.

AND HERE IS WHY.

THE FLOCK OF GOD IS THAT IMPORTANT.

We may love the man.
• We may respect the man.
• Indeed he may be a godly man.
• And it may be painful to not immediately ordain him.

But the flock of God is more important
You cannot overlook God’s criteria
For the sake of a personal relationship or personal admiration.

You just can’t risk the flock.

A man can only be immediately ordained
IF he is faithful to his wife and IF he has obedient children.
And IF he fits the other qualifications we will see later,

And there is ONE MORE THING I would say here.

Let’s say you are a man who desires eldership,
But you are concerned about your eligibility
Because of the condition of your children.

Let me say this to you.
THERE IS NO SHAME IN PRIORITIZING YOUR CHILDREN.
• That is to say there is no shame in focusing on shepherding your children first,
before you come to shepherd God’s flock.

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.
• 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.

There is no shame in focusing on shepherding your family correctly
Before stepping into the role in the church,
In fact that may be more godly.

But the admonition to the church is clear,
Even if all our questions are not answered.

As we look for men
Who are immediately and unquestionably qualified for eldership,

1. We are looking for men with the reputation of being faithful to their wives
2. And men with a reputation of raising godly children.

And we take that man and we say:
• Would you do for the bride of Christ what you have done for your own wife?
• Would you do for the children of God what you have done for your own children?

That is what we are looking for.
(more about his reputation tonight)

Filed Under: Uncategorized

God Is Sovereign Over Salvation – Part 2 (Acts 9:6-12)

March 4, 2025 By Amy Harris

https://fbcspur.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/God-Is-Sovereign-Over-Salvation-Part-2-Acts-9.6-12-Daniel-Cates-3-2-25.mp3

download here

Daniel Cates

Filed Under: Uncategorized

God Is Sovereign Over Salvation – Part 1 (Acts 9:1-5)

March 4, 2025 By Amy Harris

https://fbcspur.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/God-Is-Sovereign-Over-Salvation-Part-1-Acts-9.1-6-Daniel-Cates-3-2-25.mp3

download here

Daniel Cates

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Leadership Matters – part 4 (Titus 1:5-9 (6))

February 24, 2025 By Amy Harris

https://fbcspur.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/010-Leadership-Matters-–-part-4-Titus-1.5-9-6.mp3

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.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • …
  • 323
  • Next Page »

About Us

It is nearly impossible to give a complete run down as to who we are in one section of a website. To really get to know us you will just have to hang around us, but I can give you a few ideas as to what really makes us tick. A LOVE FOR THE WORD All of our services are planned around an exposition of the Word of God. We place high emphasis on studying God's Word through expository book by book studies of the Bible. The Word of God is active … Learn more >>

 

 

Sunday Schedule

9:30am – Sunday School
10:30am – Morning Worship
6:00pm – Evening Worship

Pastor

1 Timothy 4:13-16 "Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation … learn more >>

  • Pastor Blog

Worship Leader

Colossians 3:16 "Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with … learn more >>

Secretary

Romans 8:1 "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Amy Harris … learn more >>

Copyright © 2025 First Baptist Church Spur Texas