According to the Bible, what we refer to as the call of a pastor or the call of an elder
is far more external than it is internal.
So how do you know if God has called you to be a parent?
Well, if he blesses you with a child, you know.
He's called you.
Well, how do you know if God has called a man to be a pastor?
Well, indeed, there's going to be an inward working of God's Spirit.
There's going to be a desire there for the work.
Even if it's a reluctant desire, it's a desire nonetheless.
Paul wrote to Timothy, whoever desires the office of an overseer desires a noble thing.
And surely we need more men in churches who are willing to actively take the lead
and desire the work of shepherding God's people.
Well, undoubtedly, that is a necessary and an essential part of it.
But the certainty of a man's call involves meeting particular qualifications,
displaying giftedness that shows not that he's capable in and of himself to perform the task,
but that God has uniquely given him a gift to communicate the Word.
It takes being recognized for the task by a congregation.
A man doesn't establish his own eldership, in other words.
Instead, the church recognizes the clear display of God's work in a man's life.
So we ought not immediately begin to think when it's time to establish more leadership in our church,
our first thought ought not to be, well, who says that they want to do it?
The first step should be an examination of the church of who is actually already doing it.
Who meets the objective qualifications given by the Lord?
And then we move forward from there.
That's really what this text is about.
If the call of a man is more external than it is internal,
then this particular passage, along with a few others,
helps us to understand what the objective and external qualifications are.
And the text before us reveals that elders are model Christians.
That's really the basis of it.
They're just model Christians with a unique gifting from God to lead the church.
And what is described in these verses is it's not a list of requirements for capable men to try to live up to
so that we would appoint someone who seems gifted and hope that they figure it out along the way.
No, it's actually a list of qualifications that faithful men are already living up to.
And the church simply recognizes what the Lord is doing in their life.
Paul's primary concern as we dig in here, Paul's primary concern,
and really the summary title of these qualifications,
is that an elder be above reproach.
We see it in both verses 6 and 7.
Look at it with me.
He immediately begins,
So that's kind of the big umbrella under which everything else that he writes here falls under.
Is this man above reproach?
Is he actually a model that is fit for imitation?
It means to be unimpeachable.
Above reproach doesn't demand perfection,
but it suggests a kind of person against which an accusation would be surprising or out of character.
It means that one lives their life in such a way that
those looking for a way to condemn them cannot find a reasonable way to do it.
That's really what it means.
It's not perfection.
It just means what characterizes their life is a life of actual godliness.
That even if you tried to accuse them,
you'd really have to jump through some hoops to do it.
And according to Paul,
being above reproach is essential to church elders
because they act as God's servants to God's people.
Look at it again in verse 7.
For an overseer as God's steward must be above reproach.
William Mount said they are not watching over a human institution.
They are stewards over God's house.
Why is it that we have to be so concerned with this above reproach, this model?
Because it's not because they're building a business.
It's that they're stewarding the people of God for the glory of God.
And so God demands of them that they actually be above reproach.
Elders above reproach are models for the congregation.
And the text gives us three categories
which living above reproach qualifies a man to be a pastor.
He is a model of leadership,
a model of character,
and a model of gospel commitment.
And that's what I want to spend the duration of our time
thinking about this morning.
First, let's see that an elder is a model of faithful leadership.
A model of faithful leadership.
Look with me at verse 6.
If anyone is above reproach,
the husband of one wife and his children are believers
and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.
So the first category in which a potential elder must be above reproach
is in the area of leadership.
And Paul lets us know that the training ground
for pastoral ministry in this sense
is actually in the home.
To recognize a man's ability to faithfully lead the church,
a congregation must examine how he loves and cares for
and leads his wife and children.
And the parallel passage to this is found in Paul's first letter to Timothy.
He writes in 1 Timothy 3,
he must manage his own household well,
with all dignity,
keeping his children submissive.
For if someone does not know how to manage his own household,
Paul says,
how will he care for God's church?
We stop and we think,
well, that makes sense, doesn't it?
If we're going to ask a man to actually give oversight
to the people and the work of Lakeside Bible Church,
if we're going to ask a man to shepherd the church here,
shouldn't he be able to prove that he has shepherded well his family?
That he has given proper oversight and faithful leadership to his wife and to his children?
Yeah, it makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
Now, we need to be careful that we don't apply this passage too rigidly.
Paul didn't mean that a man must be married and must have children
before he could be appointed as an elder in the church.
That's not what he intends to say.
Paul himself was unmarried.
The best we can tell, Timothy and Titus were both unmarried.
And so if that's what Paul meant,
he immediately disqualified himself from the very position
with which he held in church leadership in these churches and as an apostle.
So it's not that he means that.
You don't have to be married.
You don't have to have children.
But he's appealing to the fact that the most common scenario,
really both then and now,
is that most men in the church would be married with children.
And so he tells Titus,
examine their leadership in the home
before appointing them to such a monumental task in the church.
And according to the criteria that he lists here,
really two questions need to be asked about a potential elder.
The first question is this,
is he a faithful husband?
Is he a faithful husband?
Look again at verse six,
if anyone is above reproach,
the husband of one wife.
In other words, Titus,
look and see how he treats his wife.
Is he faithful to her?
Does he fulfill the demands of God's law
in regards to being a husband?
Of course, as many of you may know,
it's long been debated in churches
and in theological circles,
what exactly Paul meant
by being a husband of one wife
and what marital conditions or circumstances
would actually prevent a man
from serving as a pastor.
Let's think about that for a moment.
Did Paul really mean
that a man who has been married twice
is indefinitely disqualified?
Is that perhaps what he means here?
Did he really intend to say
that a previous divorce
was disqualifying regardless
of the particular circumstances
or whether it was before
or after his conversion
or whether or not significant time
has proven genuine repentance
and restoration in the church?
Does it mean that simply
the act of a historical divorce
in a man's life
indefinitely disqualifies him
from the task of serving
as a pastor in the church?
And I don't think so.
You may disagree.
That's fine.
I don't think that's what he means.
Very literal translation of this
is a one woman man.
It gives the sense of demonstrating
exemplary faithfulness
and commitment to one's wife.
In other words,
I think what Paul is concerned with
is he's far more concerned
about a man's marital fidelity
than he is about a man's marital history.
And that's not to say
that marital history is irrelevant
because it's not.
But it isn't automatically disqualifying either.
At least that's not what I think
Paul means to say here.
To fulfill the qualification
of a one woman man
has everything to do
with how a man loves
and treats his wife.
Is he known to avoid circumstances
that would cultivate sexual temptation?
Or is there suspicion
that he actually has little self-control
and restraint in that area?
That's a better question to ask
what was the nature of his divorce
20 years ago.
Is he faithful to the life that he has?
Is he flirtatious with other women?
Is he guilty of indulging in pornography?
Is he careless with what he watches on TV
or scrolls through on his phone?
Is he a one woman man?
You say, well, he's only had one wife.
That doesn't mean he's a one woman man.
You say, well, he's never been divorced.
Well, that doesn't mean
he meets the qualification.
Is he actually faithful to his wife?
Does he lead her well?
Does he care for her?
Does the way that he loves
and cares and treats for his wife
show that given the position
and authority of an elder in a church,
he's going to love and care
and shepherd the church?
How does he match up
to the Bible's teaching for husbands?
About Colossians 3,
husbands love your wives
and do not be harsh with them.
Is he harsh with his wife?
You know, if he's willing to be harsh
with his wife in front of the church,
can you imagine what the harshness goes to
when it's not in front of the church?
Remember what Peter said to elders,
that you're to exercise oversight,
not domineering over the people,
but living as an example to them.
Is he domineering?
Is that really the character of his marriage?
What about Ephesians 5?
Husbands, love your wives
as Christ loved the church,
gave himself for her.
In other words,
does he lay down his life for his wife?
Does he lay aside his own wants and desires?
Does he sacrifice his own dreams
in order to care for his wife,
in order to love his wife,
in order to lead faithfully his wife?
Does he love her like Jesus loves the church?
Or at least is he patterned that way?
1 Peter 3, 7,
Husbands, live with your wives
in an understanding way,
showing honor to the woman.
Does he show his wife honor?
Is he grateful for her?
If a man doesn't love and care for his wife,
what would make anyone think
that he would properly love
and care for the church?
Does he prove covenantal faithfulness?
It's an important qualification here.
Because again,
the training ground for pastoral ministry,
according to the way Paul lays it out
to Titus and Timothy both,
is the home.
And so the first place Titus is to look
is at a man's marriage.
What does it look like?
There's two ways to see that.
Is he showing that he is capable
of shepherding the church?
That's one side of it.
The other side of it is,
is he living in disobedience
to the Lord in this way?
And if he is,
don't appoint him to leadership
in the church.
If he's in disobedience,
how is he gonna help the church?
It doesn't matter how gifted he is.
It doesn't matter how charismatic
his personality is.
It doesn't matter if he could take
a startup business
and make it excel
beyond your imagination.
That doesn't matter.
What matters is,
does he love his wife?
Does he shepherd his home?
Does he care for them?
Is he obedient to the Lord?
If he's not obedient
to the Lord there,
he's probably not gonna be obedient
to the Lord in the church either.
Is he a faithful husband?
Secondly,
is he a faithful father?
Is he a faithful father?
Look again with me at verse six.
If anyone is above reproach,
the husband of one wife
and his children are believers
and not open to the charge
of debauchery
or insubordination.
Titus was to look for men
who are above reproach
in their parenting.
And honestly,
I think I wrestled
with this part of the text
more than any other this week,
just trying to figure out
what exactly did Paul
intend for us
to understand here.
The instruction is very similar
to what he wrote to Timothy,
except he adds here
something that he didn't
tell Timothy.
He says that the children
of an elder
must be believers.
Well, it's worth noting
at least that the word
that's used here
translated as believer
can just as appropriately
be translated as faithful
given the context.
That may even be a notation
that you see right there
in your Bible.
But at the end of the day,
it really doesn't make
much of a difference.
In either case,
Paul still seems to be
conditioning an elder's
qualification on something
that could possibly
be out of his control.
Well, how exactly
are we to understand that?
How are we to think about that
in regards to our own church?
How rigid of an application
are we to apply
when thinking about church leaders?
There's a few thoughts
I want to offer to you
as we reason through it together.
The first is this.
I think it's significant
that Paul did not apply
this same restriction
in the qualifications
he lists in 1 Timothy 3.
And so the question then is,
if it was essential in Crete,
why wasn't it essential
in Ephesus?
So does he really intend then
for us to look at Crete
and say, well,
all of a man's children
must actually be converted
before he can be appointed
to be an elder?
I'm not sure that's exactly
what he means.
I think it's also unlikely
that Paul intended to say
that they must be converted,
his children,
but he doesn't apply
the same restriction
to the man's wife.
Why would he say
his children must be converted,
but he doesn't actually
make the same application
to his spouse?
And I think when it comes down to it,
we have to remember
that the evaluation ultimately
is of the potential elder,
not his family.
You understand that, right?
What the church
and what Titus
is evaluating here
in this passage
is the man,
not his family.
And so the belief
and behavior
of individual family members
was important
insofar as they reflected
his faithfulness
in managing
his own household
well.
I think that's the point here,
that his children
need to be faithful,
they need to be believers,
and if they're not,
the church needs to ask
some serious question
as to why.
Is his children unbelieving
because he's been
a lousy parent?
He's not been faithful
to disciple his children
in the gospel.
He's not restrained
the evil
in his household,
or does he have
a wayward child
because we're prone
to have wayward children
from time to time?
And is he brokenhearted
over that,
and has he done
everything that he can do
to woo that child back
using the scriptures
and teaching them
the truth of the gospel?
I think that's the question
that we need to be asking.
We're evaluating the man,
not each individual
of his family.
And I think that's a sense
of what Paul has to say here.
He's not looking
for a problem-free home.
That's not what he's looking for.
Neither is he asking Titus,
I think,
to consider the actions
of an individual
member of the family
as much as he is looking
at the general patterns
of a man's home.
Brian Chappell said this,
good leadership
is not determined
in the absence of difficulty,
but in the prudent discipline
and handling of problems
when difficulties come.
Patterns of disbelief
and unruliness
in a man's household
should cause questions
about his aptitude
for church leadership.
But occasional
or exceptional difficulties
well handled
should not disqualify.
Rather,
they are precisely
what do qualify.
Turn with me
to 1 Samuel 2.
Now the sons of Eli
were worthless men.
They did not know the Lord.
So if we were to translate that
in the context of Titus 1,
they were unbelieving
and they were guilty
of insubordination
and debauchery.
Okay, that's the dynamic
of Eli's sons.
Thus the sin
of the young men
was very great
in the sight of the Lord
for the men treated
the offering of the Lord
with contempt.
So Eli's the high priest.
He's got two sons
that are serving as priests.
He's not restraining their evil.
They are worthless men.
They do not know the Lord
and they're cheating
the people of God
as the people would come
to the tabernacle
and they would offer
their sacrifices.
They're cheating them.
They're acting crookedly
to benefit their own selves.
They're treating
the offering of the Lord
with contempt.
Later on,
when Eli actually does
have a minor confrontation,
he acknowledges
that they're actually
prostituting themselves
at the entrance
of the tabernacle.
This is gross sin.
There is no doubt
that they're unbelieving
and they're guilty
of debauchery.
And yet Eli doesn't
do anything about it.
He doesn't restrain
their evil.
He doesn't discipline them.
He doesn't rid them
of their place
in the priesthood.
He doesn't deal with them
according to the law of God.
In fact,
if you get to
a little bit later on
in chapter two,
you find that he gave them
a good talking to.
That amounts to
what Eli did.
He said,
no, no, boys.
Don't do that no more.
And that was it.
And then we get to chapter three
and look what happens.
You understand the way
that the story goes.
God begins to call
the young man Samuel
in the middle of the night.
Finally, Eli realizes
that it's the call of God
and he tells him
to listen to the Lord.
Look at verse 11
in chapter three.
Then the Lord said to Samuel,
behold,
I'm about to do a thing
in Israel
at which the two ears
of everyone who hears
it will tingle.
On that day,
I will fulfill against Eli
all that I have spoken
concerning his house
from beginning to end.
and I declare to him
that I am about
to punish his house forever
for the iniquity
that he knew
because his sons
were blaspheming God
and he did not
restrain them.
And the punishment
for Eli and his house
is severe.
But God wasn't angry
with Eli
because his unbelieving sons
acted like unbelieving sons.
He was angry with Eli
because Eli
did nothing
to restrain the evil
and discipline them
according to God's word.
And I think that's the sense
in which congregations
are to evaluate
a man's parenting
because generally speaking,
faithful men
will produce
faithful children.
There will be exceptions
to that rule
and the congregation
must weigh
his ability to pastor
on how he deals
with those situations.
But I think he's really
warning against
an Eli kind of situation here.
You don't want a pastor
who leads the church
to discipline your kids
but sweeps his own kids' sins
under the rug.
Don't want that.
That's not going to be helpful.
And if a man
doesn't disciple
his own kids,
how will he ever
disciple the people
in the church?
Is he a faithful leader?
Well, how do we know?
It's not based on the way
he runs his business.
It's based on the way
that he runs his home.
It's he shepherded them.
A man that fails
to love
and lead his wife
and kids
must not be appointed
to lead the church
no matter how gifted
he is.
The elder will model
spiritual leadership
in his home
showing that he can
actually do it
in the church as well.
All right?
That was the longest
of the three, okay?
He's a model
of faithful leadership.
Number two,
he's a model
of godly character.
Back to Titus 1.
He's a model
of godly character.
Look with me
at verse 7.
For an overseer
as God's steward
must be above reproach.
He must not be arrogant
or quick-tempered
or a drunkard
or violent
or greedy for gain
but hospitable,
a lover of good,
self-controlled,
upright,
holy,
disciplined.
Now,
I want to be careful
not to miss
the forest
for the trees here
by painstakingly
working through
each one of these
categories that Paul lists.
I'm not going to do that.
We'll make mention
of each of them
but I'm not going to
spend a lot of time
on them.
I'll leave it to you.
Really what Paul's doing here
is he's painting
a portrait of godliness.
What does a godly man
look like?
The characteristics
even listed here,
they're representative.
They're not even exhaustive.
So,
in other words,
not everything
that should be true
of an elder
is actually listed here
in the qualifications
in Titus 1
nor are they listed
in 1 Timothy 3.
These are representative lists.
For example,
spiritual disciplines
like prayer
are absent
from the list
though surely
we would never appoint
someone to shepherd
the church
who is not a man
of prayer.
Nothing explicit
is said
regarding his commitment
to the church
and its ministries
though we would never
appoint someone
who is half-hearted
in their attendance
or in their service
to the church.
So,
we don't need to
look at this list
as if it is
everything that should
be considered
but rather we're
looking at it
as general
characterizations
of what a godly man
actually looks like
in the church.
And it's not difficult
to see Paul's intention.
All throughout this letter
he's contrasting
one type of person
with another type
of person.
Look with me
at verse 12
in chapter 1.
He says
of one type of person
one of the Cretans
a prophet of their own
said Cretans
are always liars
evil beasts
lazy gluttons
and then he says
and this is true
this testimony is true
and you get the picture
that as this letter
is being read
and the church is on Crete
that nobody's being
offended to this
probably.
They're probably
sitting there
saying yep
he nailed it
that's exactly
why most of the men
are in our nation.
He's presenting
a picture of a person
isn't he?
They're liars
they're evil beasts
they're just terrible people.
Well then he gives
another example
in chapter 2.
Look at verse 7.
He tells Titus
show yourself
in all respects
to be a model
of good works
and in your teaching
show integrity
dignity
sound speech
that cannot be condemned
so that
an opponent
may be put to shame
having nothing evil
to say
about us.
So if we take
the bird's eye approach
through the letter
of Titus
we see Paul
very clearly
he is contrasting
two characterizations
here.
There is the
unbelieving person
or at least
what is reflective
of an unbelieving person
in this kind of behavior
and here is what
is reflective
of a genuine believer
someone who is
growing in their
knowledge of the Bible
and being sanctified
by the Spirit.
And these two lists
here in verses 7 and 8
are the same thing.
The negative traits
portray
a prideful
selfish
man
known for being
hot-headed
and
drinking too much.
The positive traits
on the other hand
depict a humble
disciplined man
known for being
kind
and loving
righteousness.
He wasn't
asking Titus
to evaluate
a man's actions
in a given moment
but he's considering
what generally
characterizes
a man's life.
And perfection
again
is not the standard.
Perfection
wasn't the standard
for his home.
Perfection
isn't the standard
for his character
either.
Otherwise
we would only
have one shepherd
in any of our churches
and it would be
the Lord Jesus Christ.
There would be
no reason for us
to appoint anyone else.
The standard
is above reproach.
And there's a sense
in which watching
the way a man
deals even with
his own sin
and failure
is necessary
to understand
the true depths
of his Christian character.
Let's quickly look
at the traits here.
First
he gives a list
of negative traits.
He says in verse 7
that an overseer
must not be
arrogant
literally
pleasing himself.
This person
tends to be
domineering
in leadership
always
wanting to
satisfy
his own
agenda
regardless
of the needs
of anyone else.
That's what
characterizes
his life.
He says
he's not to be
quick tempered
which is the
opposite
of the characteristic
of God's nature
which is
slowness
to anger.
If a fruit
of the spirit
is temperance
then
quick tempered
indicates
a spiritless
perhaps even
unbelieving
man.
he says
he's not
to be
a drunkard
which is
not merely
a reference
to overindulgence
but the
kind of
behavior
that's
associated
with
drunkenness
being out
of control
out of your
mind.
He says
he's not
to be
violent
which carries
the idea
if you have
an older
translation
it carries
the idea
of being
a striker
or a
brawler
lashing
out
at other
people
in anger.
In other
words
an elder
should be
able to
diffuse
tension
rather than
striking out
physically
or verbally
at someone
else.
Finally
he says
he's not
to be
greedy
for gain
referring
to an
individual
who
desires
to be
rich
beyond
their own
needs
and is
even
willing
to use
the church
as a
means
of
personal
financial
gain.
This is
the
picture
of someone
you don't
want
to appoint.
You say
but he can
preach
it doesn't
matter.
He's only
been married
once
it doesn't
matter.
If he's
greedy
for gain
he doesn't
need to
be your
pastor.
If he's
violent
he can't
leave the
church
church.
There's
the
characterizations
here.
Then there's
the positive
traits.
He must
be
hospitable
which is
simply
living a
life that
is open
for others
to be a
part of
it.
He's not
closed
off.
This
isn't
a
jab
at
introversion.
It may
be something
that a
natural
introvert
would have
to work
harder
at than
an
extrovert
but it
doesn't
mean that
he's
just kind
of quiet
nature.
That's
not what
it means.
It means
that he's
just
open.
His
home
is open.
His
time is
not
reserved
only for
his family
and friends.
His
time is
reserved
for
everyone.
He is
welcoming
his home.
The doors
of his
home are
wide
open.
He's
hospitable
in his
nature.
Number
two,
he's a
lover
of good
which means
he's
motivated,
energized
by good
works.
elders.
The
elders should
desire to
do good
things for
others
rather than
performing out
of a sense
of obligation.
Do you see
the difference?
There's the
person who
does whatever
they're asked
to do and
then there's
a person who
loves to do
what God
has called
them to do.
A lover
of good
things,
of good
people,
and of
good
works.
A
faithful
elder
never wants
to do as
little as
possible
because
they're a
lover of
good.
Thirdly,
he's
self-controlled
which is
used all
throughout the
letter to
contrast
Christian
behavior with
culturally
accepted
practices
and ideas.
He actually
has control
of his
faculties.
He's
upright
which is
living
righteously
according to
God's
law.
He's
holy
which is
being
entirely
devoted
to God
and his
word.
He's
disciplined
which refers
more so
to
spiritual
disciplines
than
physical.
He is
committed
to a
rigorous
application
of
biblical
habits.
This is
the picture
that Paul
is
painting.
Here you
have a
man that
is a
portrait
of
godly
behavior
and here
you have
a man
that is
not.
Don't
appoint
this
man.
Look
for the
men
who
meet
these
qualifications
whose
lives
are
generally
characterized
this
way.
Again,
giftedness
isn't
irrelevant
to the
conversation
but it's
not the
primary
reason
for
recognizing
elders
either.
The
overall
message
of this
letter
is that
the true
gospel
produces
godly
living
and it
was
necessary
for
Titus
to
appoint
men
whose
lives
reflected
the
transformative
power
of
Christ
so that
as they
preached
on Sundays
to their
church
as they
evangelized
the people
on the
island
of Crete
and in
the
individual
towns
in which
they
lived
there
was
credibility
to the
message
of the
gospel
because
the
life
of the
messenger
matched
the truth
that he
was
proclaiming.
How
will the
unbelieving
world
take
seriously
a man
whose
life
doesn't
actually
characterize
what his
preaching
says
that Jesus
does?
An
elder's
example
should be
to put
Jesus
on display
for the
congregation
and also
for the
watching
world.
His
life
should be
worth
imitating
in other
words.
1 Peter
5.3
referring
to the
elders
Peter
says
be
examples
to the
flock.
Hebrews
13.7
Remember
your
leaders
those
who
spoke
to
you
the
word
of
God
consider
the
outcome
of
their
way
of
life
and
imitate
their
faith.
Philippians
3.17
Brothers
Paul
says
join
in
imitating
me
and keep
your
eyes
on
those
who
walk
according
to
the
example
you
have
in
us.
In
other
words
follow
the
men
who
are
following
Christ
and
how
do
you
know
if
they're
following
Christ
their
life
will
show
it
their
faithfulness
to
their
home
will
show
it
their
faithfulness
and
godly
character
will
show
it
their
passion
for
the
church
will
show
it
their
shepherding
work
even
without
the
office
it
will
show
it
find
those
men
follow
those
men
let
those
men
lead
the
church
he's
a
model
of
faithful
leadership
he's
a
model
of
godly
character
finally
he
is
a
model
of
gospel
commitment
he's
a
model
of
gospel
commitment
verse
nine
he
must
hold
firm
to
the
trustworthy
word
as
taught
so
that
he
may
be
able
to
give
instruction
in
sound
doctrine
and
also
to
rebuke
those
who
contradict
it
so
the
final
qualification
here
or at
least
the
categories
that
Paul
is
dealing
in
is
that
a
man
must
be
wholeheartedly
committed
to
the
gospel
of
Jesus
Paul
isn't
saying
that
an
elder
has
to
be
a
theological
egghead
with
a
comprehensive
knowledge
of
every
facet
of
doctrine
that's
not
what
he's
saying
that
might
be
helpful
but
it's
not
required
in
fact
we
can
actually
discern
from
this
letter
when
we
get
into
chapter
three
that
an
individual
who
is
obsessed
with
doctrinal
nuances
will
end
up
dividing
the
church
rather
than
lead
it
in
fact
look
at
chapter
three
look
at
verse
nine
in
chapter
three
avoid
foolish
controversies
things
that are
not of
primary
importance
in other
words
avoid
genealogies
the
dissensions
quarrels
about
the
law
for
they're
unprofitable
they're
worthless
and
as
for
a
person
who
stirs
up
division
as
a
result
of
this
emphasis
in
their
life
after
warning
him
once
and
twice
have
nothing
more
to
do
with
him
knowing
that
such
a
person
is
warped
he's
sinful
he's
self
condemned
that's
strong
isn't
it
he's
saying
he's
saying
avoid
the
guys
that
all
they
want
to
talk
about
their
pet
doctrines
what
he
means
by
trustworthy
word
is
the
fullness
of
the
gospel
message
in
NING
!
NING
!
NING
!
NING
!
NING
!
not because of works done by us in righteousness,
but according to his own mercy,
by the washing of regeneration,
the renewal of the Holy Spirit,
whom he poured out on us richly
through Jesus Christ, our savior,
so that being justified by his grace,
we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Now look what he says in verse eight.
This saying is trustworthy.
There's the word again.
And I want you to insist on these things.
What is the trustworthy word is taught?
It's the gospel of Jesus.
It's the gospel that every one of us are condemned in our sin.
We are hopelessly lost and without God,
and there's nothing we can do to earn our way back to his favor.
We can do all the good things that we can try.
We can do all the church services.
We can give all the money that we can give.
We can do our best and try our hardest,
and it won't matter.
The gospel is that God, in his great love for us,
sent his only son,
and then he sends his spirit to regenerate us,
and those who have faith in the sacrifice
and the resurrection of Jesus Christ
are then given the mercy of God,
reconciliation with God,
not on the basis of who they are
or of what they've done,
but solely according to his mercy and grace,
which he lavishes on us.
And Paul says,
find the men who aren't concerned
about fighting with everybody
about every possible doctrinal nuance.
Find the men who are wholeheartedly committed
to the gospel message
and put those men leading the church
so that the church will be committed
wholeheartedly to the gospel message.
That's what he's saying.
He must hold firm to the trustworthy word.
He must hold firm to the gospel of Jesus.
What he says regarding instruction
or in sound doctrine,
it's a medical term.
In fact, this may be a note
in the footnotes of your Bible even.
It could appropriately be translated
healthy doctrine.
And his point there
is that an elder's doctrinal emphasis
should produce spiritual fitness
leading to external displays of godliness,
not spiritual anemia
that reflects a full head
and an empty heart.
There's an emphasis that we're looking for
and it's an emphasis
and a commitment on the gospel first
as a matter of first importance.
We all know people
that are passionate about pet doctrines.
I have my own.
But have you ever known someone
who would love to debate you
about the Bible,
but they're the last people
to ever sacrifice for someone else
or evangelize the lost
or give up their freedoms
for the good of the church?
That's not the kind of person
you're looking for.
It doesn't matter how thick
the books of theology are
that are sitting on their desk at home.
Sometimes,
this is the result of a pastor
who sets the same kind of example.
And God help me
if I ever start to care more
about what your brain thinks
and less about the gospel
that actually transforms your life.
Calvin said,
the pastor ought to have two voices.
One for gathering the sheep
and another for warding off
and driving away wolves and thieves.
And the scripture supplies him
with the means of doing both.
What is a pastor supposed to do?
He's supposed to be a man of the book.
He's supposed to preach the Bible
to the people in his church
and to courageously stand against the people
who would pervert it.
That's his point.
He needs to know his Bible well
and he needs to be able to teach it
to believers and unbelievers alike.
He needs to be committed
to the trustworthy word
even if the wolves and the sheep
hate him for it.
This is the one place
in the New Testament
that speaks of giftedness
regarding pastors.
They've got to demonstrate
a God-given ability
to instruct the church
and to fight against those
who contradict the Bible
because they will come.
And as we'll see next week
in this chapter,
they're going to come
from outside the church
and then as we reflect
on Acts chapter 20,
they're going to come
from inside the church too.
You need to make sure
that the people leading the way
are people that know the Bible
and know the truth
and know what's worth dealing with
and what doesn't have to be dealt with.
Let me finish with this.
Tim Chester said
in relation to this text,
here is what you should look for
in a leader.
Here is what you should aspire to
as a leader.
And it's what you should pray for
regarding your leaders.
When we understand that elders
are simply models
of faithful Christianity,
what we read about
in their qualifications
begins to become
much more personal,
doesn't it?
You say,
I'm really tired of us
dealing with this whole
church government
and pastors
and what they need to be
and all this stuff.
Let's get on to something
better than this.
But this is for you.
At the end of the day,
outside of a giftedness
to teach
at the end of the day,
an elder in a church
is just a model Christian.
The qualifications listed here
are not exclusive
to the elders.
They must be
a part of the elders' testimony
because it's what
every Christian
should be pursuing
in regards to the way
that they live
and the character
of their life.
Everything in this text
is commanded
of all believers
at other places
in the New Testament.
Every single word of it.
Even the word
of commitment
to the trustworthy gospel.
Even the word
of commitment
to sound doctrine.
Even the ability
to build one another
up in Christ
through the gospel.
That belongs
to all of us.
So you don't get a
pass on this text.
All of us
have to take this serious.
There's an essential element
of gifting and calling,
but that doesn't mean
everyone else
gets a pass
on godliness.
Not everyone
in the church
will be called upon
to lead it.
But every Christian
should live a life
that is qualified
for it.
So ask yourself
the same question
that you might
would ask a potential
elder in our church.
Do you love your wife?
Are you faithful to her?
Like really faithful.
I know your marriage
has all the appearances
of faithfulness,
but really when it
comes down to it,
are you really
a one woman man
or is your mind
all over the place
when it comes to women?
Are you discipling
your kids?
Are you restraining
the evil?
Are you disciplining
your young kids?
Are you restraining
the evil of your older kids?
Are you keeping
the gospel in front of them?
If someone were
to characterize your life,
would you fit more
like the Cretans
on Monday to Saturday
or would you look
more like what
Paul is encouraging
Titus to be?
What about the word?
Do you care about it?
Are you faithfully
studying the Bible?
Are you spending
time growing
in your knowledge
and in your prayer
and trusting
the Holy Spirit
to shape your life
the way that he sees fit?
Those things
don't just apply to me
or to anyone else
who may serve this church.
It applies to each one of us
because we all belong
to Christ
and that is the thing
that he has called us
to be.
Faithful believers,
faithful Christians.
And then together
as a church,
we need to keep
our eye out
for those who
demonstrate the ability
to faithfully shepherd
our congregation.
because as we saw
last week,
it's an essential role
in the church
and it's a role
that at least in part
the congregation
is responsible for.
So watch for those men
in our church.
Encourage those men
in our church.
Confront those men
in our church
if necessary.
Build one another
up in Christ.
Thank you.