Week two: Titus 1.5-9 THE
By Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D.
COPYRIGHT 2004
PURPOSE OF THE LETTER:
5. For this cause
left I thee in
"Cause" is normally translated as it is here,
but it comes from a word relating to "speak reproachfully" built into
the word - maybe indicating the mind set of the Apostle at the time - speaking
of the Cretans and those things wanting in the church. One must wonder.
Paul tells Titus that he is there to set things in order,
ordain elders in every city. Seems to be two items of labor, which most likely
are intertwined, but still distinct.
"Set things in order" probably included the
need for leaders and the ordination of elders would have been needed, thought I
would think there was further order needed. Had Paul only wanted elders, he
would have stopped at telling Titus to ordain elders. The training of men to be
elders would also have been needed.
What other items might have been on the apostle's mind in
the thought of "order?" I would suggest that he wanted Titus to set
up constitutions and doctrinal statements, but that would be pressing today’s
standard upon the Cretan church. There probably was a certain amount of sorting
out of the believers as to maturity level, of doctrinal correctness, but I'd
guess the majority of this thought would have been correcting problems of
organization, and people problems.
There may have been some lifestyle issues that needed to
be dealt with as well. Certainly today there are within the church. The church
life style is not too much removed from that of the world in most cases today.
"Ordain elders" brings us to a topic that many
have problems with. Actually, two problems. The first being ordination and the
second being elders. Let’s deal with these one at a time.
Ordination: The term used here simply means to set into
office, or appoint. It is not some big procedure to bring about a potluck
followed by a
If you look at the qualifications coming up in the text,
little is said of education, but is mostly about life style and character.
Today’s ordination is far from what it was in the early church and far from
what it should be.
Normally, today a bunch of pastors come together to
question the man's belief system and/or tear it down. There seldom is any
checking of the character, nor the lifestyle of the man in question. Seldom are
the church leaders involved in this process. In some cases the church leaders
are purposely excluded as if they are not related in any way.
In my mind, ordination might run along this line. When
you have need of a man to fill a leadership role, you look around your church
and see if there are any that would fit the qualifications listed for us in
Scripture (I Timothy and Titus). If there is someone that qualifies, has a
proper life style and seems to fit, then consider him and have him consider the
position. Open the process to the congregation if he is desirous of the office
and see if all concur about his qualifications/lifestyle. If all seems
appropriate, then ordain him.
Now, just what ordain should entail is the question. It
could be as simple as appointing him to the position at a regular service of
the church, to a service committed to the ordination, to include challenge,
description of the office/qualifications for the congregation, prayer and
commitment. It seems open to what the church would desire.
In a case where there is no one in the congregation that
is qualified/desirous, then go outside the church. Seek input from other
congregations. When it comes to knowing if the person is qualified, have the
church leaders interview him, send out letters to his home church, to his
employer, to his neighbors and see if he really lives what he believes. If all
looks good, install him for a trial period so you can evaluate his
qualifications/lifestyle. Then proceed to the ordination when all is confirmed.
I recently watched a thread on an internet board on this
subject. I watched for awhile and finally asked for a Biblical basis for
ordination. Of course Acts was brought up - when Saul was separated and
ordained. I posted back that the text did not mention a council of men
questioning/badgering the candidate and that I did notice fasting was a part of
the process - I pointed out that most ordinations include pot lucks rather than
fasting.
We are far from Biblical in our process of choosing
leaders these days even though most deny it and assert how Biblical they are.
If you are recognizing the qualifications in a person, if they are called of
God, you have prayed and fasted over the subject, then ordain them and kick
them out into the ministry they are called to. That process contains nothing
about a board of pompous pastors trying to trip up a young man that seriously
wants to serve his Master.
Some would ask if I have been to an ordination. My answer
would be that I have been in attendance at two. The first was my own, when my
church board, which had known me and watched me mature for years, met with me
and asked me some questions about the doctrinal statement they had requested.
They knew me, they knew what I believed, and they knew my calling, they had
been praying about the subject and they ordained me. Now, some would say I am
not properly ordained, and that is probably true as far as the
"church" is concerned, but I rely on the fact that I was Biblically
ordained.
The second ordination I went to was to a minor
acquaintance that invited me to be on his board. I arrived and because I wasn't
a pastor or man of renowned I was not asked to sit with the pastors. In fact I
was not even recognized by the ordination council as being there or being a
part of the council when they were introduced.
The council began the questioning. Many of the questions
were sent to the candidate prior to the meeting and his responses were in the
hands of the rest of the council. I had
not seen them. The council president became infuriated with one point of the
man's doctrine and rather than keep his silence which is the norm as president,
he blurted out his disdain for the man's comments.
All this time the elders of the church were sitting
behind me - also not introduced.
The schedule by the way was the council in the afternoon
followed by a pot-luck and then the ordination service. Seemed rather obvious
the conclusion to the council was totally forgone.
The council finally drew their questioning to a close,
though they did not ask the man of his call from God, nor his call to this
church nor much of anything about his character or qualifications for the
office. The president stood, asked for the elders of the church to leave, and
they voted on the man.
It seems in Acts the elders of the church did all the
work and did the ordaining.
I am not sure why they did not ask me to leave - the vote
was taken and the man was able to enjoy the pot luck.
That was the last ordination I attended and the last I
desire to attend if arranged by today’s church. I decided if I wanted to see
sanctimonious people playing their silly games, I could go to most any lodge
and see similar goings on. Not that there aren't some good Biblical ordinations
going on today, but they are few I would guess.
Elders: I won't take time to try to prove this point, but
I believe that there should be multiple elders in every church. These men
should be from the congregation. A paid pastor might be brought in if needed,
but he should go through the procedure listed above. He should be evaluated for
qualification/lifestyle.
If you list the terms, elder and elders you will find
that the plural is used in a majority of cases in the New Testament. There are
some cases that might indicate one elder, but the majority of usages are
plural, not singular. If you look to the Old Testament you will find that
multiple is usually the case as well.
There is a movement today that says that multiple elders
are the norm and that all of them should be paid elders - as in from outside
the church. I would challenge anyone to give Biblical basis for this concept.
I think if you do a word study on elder/elders you will
come to the thought of multiple elders in each church. There is safety of decision
when you have multiple people considering an issue. You also have a multiple
set of ideas to consider and evaluate.
Now, in the context, we are speaking of selecting,
evaluating and ordaining men to the office of elder in each of the churches. In
my view Titus was to ordain multiple elders in multiple churches. Others would
reject this thought for the idea of ordaining AN elder in multiple churches.
Either way Titus was to set himself about setting leadership in the churches of
"In every city" indicates only that there were
more than one church already existing on the island, and all were in need of
leadership.
We might take note of Paul's habit of planting churches
and then returning later to set up leadership. I have often wondered if this
lapse of time was for the congregations to consider their members and select
those they thought fit the qualifications for the office.
Acts 14.21 "And when they had preached the gospel to
that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and [to]
Iconium, and Antioch, 22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, [and] exhorting
them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter
into the kingdom of God. 23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church,
and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they
believed."
Barnes mentions that Homer told of a hundred cities on
I have mentioned that FASTING was a part of this
ordination process. We might have to do a word study on that to see what it is
before getting into the ordination process. Not many today have a handle on
what fasting is.
Be sure to notice that there is no requirement of
schooling, ordination council, nor is there a specific age mentioned. The
thought is to ordain elders of proper stature to watch over the believers in
the different cities.
The fact that he was to ordain elders - plural - in every
city indicates the plurality of elders in a church. Paul had evidently started
the churches in the different cities and would not have had time to plant
multiple churches in every city he visited.
The lack of mention of appointing deacons is of interest.
The churches may have already had them in place at the time, or more likely in
my mind, Paul was leaving this to be done when the elders were appointed. It
would be properly their place to call for deacons as there was a need in the
church for them.
Paul must have planted the churches and then moved on as
he did in the book of Acts when he planted churches on the way out on his
journey and appointed elders on the way back. This would give time for the
congregations to see the natural leadership emerging from within the body of
believers.
Some might suggest that it was not Paul that planted the
churches, to which I would respond, this is quite possible, but why would he
feel it his responsibility to see to the needs of leadership by sending Titus?
Before we move on there is an important item to observe.
Paul wanted Titus to ordain elders in verse five, while he mentions
"bishop" in verse seven. The two terms seem to refer to the same
office. The term bishop is "episkopos" and the term elder is
"presbuteros" - two completely different words. Episkopos relates to
oversight, of seeing to it that what needs to be done is being done.
Presbuteros relates to age or elder, one of age. It would seem that the idea of
elder would relate to the maturity while the word bishop would relate to the
office itself rather than the person. The point being - we don't have two
offices mentioned here.
Gill has a paragraph relating to some historical letters
that were sent to churches on
Let's move onto the qualifications set forth for elder.
6. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having
faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be
blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to
wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a
lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 Holding fast the faithful
word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to
exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Barnes suggests that not accused and unruly relates to
the man's children; however Gill takes it to relate to the man. I think Gill is
the better line of thought.
THE ELDER IS TO FOLLOW SOME DO'S
THE ELDER MUST BE IN CONTROL OF HIS OUTWARD
He must be blameless. Why? Because he is a steward of
God. He is a steward watching over the church's activities as well as the
church's people. You can't be a good steward if you aren't a right living
believer!
If any be blameless = not just without blame, but unreproachable,
not someone against which any can accuse of blame. In our society this will be
hard as churches are not filled with totally honest, upright people. If there
is a "beef" between two people it might well come to the surface as a
“blame game” - these cases will be hard to sort out, but they need to be worked
through.
This requires good ethics in business, in life, and in
recreation. Keeping yourself clean of all accusation. This is the same Greek
word that Paul used in his list of qualifications in I Timothy three.
The husband of one wife = Now until the last generation
this seemed to mean one woman type man, a man that was committed to one woman
for life. In recent years we have seen this redefined to include all sorts of
ideas including "one woman at a time type man" thus allowing for
divorced and remarried men in the position.
Since they are to be blameless and remarriage is adultery
I don't see the thinking - a person living in open sin, must never be placed in
a place of leadership.
This does not mean a single person could not be an elder,
though there would be a real need of wisdom in how he conducted his ministry.
It does not mean that a widower, nor a widower that gets married are to be
exempt from the office either.
What Paul wanted were stable men that were blameless.
Having faithful children - this requirement might bring
some discussion. Are we talking about "believing" children, or
children that appear to be consistent with the family's standard and way of
life?
This is a word that is related to the word that is used
of faith unto salvation, so I would suggest that Paul was talking about
believing children. Now, this would need to be understood as somewhat variable.
A man with a two month old baby should not be barred, nor should a man that has
a child that professes salvation. Unless a child has demonstrated a lack of
understanding of salvation or a life that is counter to one that is a believer
the father should not be removed from consideration. Nor does it bar a man that
has no children.
It only refers to men that have children - these children
if old enough must be believers.
A number of commentators suggest that the parent can't
make a child come to God and this is true, but it does not change this seeming
requirement that Paul sets forth. These suggest only that the father is
faithful in his parenting. Now, I don't know how much of a Greek scholar Paul
was but I'd guess he could have figured out how to say that, if that is what he
meant. The passage relates faithful to the children not the parent. These
commentators call back to the Timothy passage, but then again we are not told
that these are the same lists. It is quite probably that they aren't meant to
be exactly the same. If they were to be the same couldn't, Paul have said,
"See my work on Timothy for the list that I gave him - that was tongue in
cheek - that is what most modern day commentators do to their readers.
Not accused of riot = Not sure this isn't closely related
to the first qualification. The word used means riot or excess. Riot isn't an
easy thing to get involved in today, but an application might run along the
lines of protests that are out of order, or maybe union strike lines that are
out of control. Being involved in anything that is out of control? Well if you
are into anything that seems to be causing problems for other people, then I
would say you should not be involved in it.
Even anti-abortion protests might well be considered riot
if they get into shouting/pushing matches with other people.
I guess it comes back to the first qualification -
blameless - if you can do something without being accused of something, then
you are okay.
Or unruly - this relates to anyone that is not subject to
those that are over him. This might be an employer, a church leader, a
government official or anyone else that the person is to be subject to.
I once heard a deacon of a church state numerous times
that he WOULD NOT obey a simple traffic law (because it was a stupid law).
This, in a very minor point, is being unruly.
In 2004 the wise and all consuming government of
From my observation at least one percent of the traffic
decided to obey this new law. I don't know how many times I was nearly rear
ended while slowing for the zone. The city busses seldom abided by the law. In
this context, in my mind an unruly man would be one that failed to obey the new
law - no matter how ludicrous it was. We are called by God to obey the
government placed over us. Glad there was no prohibition to letters to the
editor and to the legijesters that made the law.
If a person is not above reproach, they cannot be a proper
witness to those around them. The church leader must be even more circumspect
in life if he is going to represent Christ and His church in a proper manner.
THE ELDER MUST BE IN CONTROL OF HIS INWARD
Not self-willed = I am not sure if this relates to
letters to the editor about dumb laws or not - might be close. The elder must
be able to control himself and his emotions. This seems to be a state of mind,
in that it can have the thought of being arrogant. We all know what an arrogant
person is like to deal with so we can imagine what is going on in their mind
with themselves - kind of stuck on themselves so to speak.
One of the things I learned while on the faculty of the
Bible Institute where I taught was that some were self willed. They were the
ones that wanted their own way no matter what they had to do to get their way.
The board, after we left, determined what their agenda was going to be, and
changed the constitution to allow what they wanted to do - no matter if the
constitution was to be changed in those areas or not - indeed, the constitution
had a clause stating that it could not be changed, though they did it anyway.
I am not sure what goes on in the minds of men to give
them so much self importance as to allow them to feel they are above the rules.
Not soon angry - this is simply what it says, someone
that is quick to react in anger is not one that is ready for the office of
elder. It does not say that anger is never present, but not soon at it. Someone
that is slow to become angry would be a good way to put it.
I think the reason for this one is that if you are quick
to anger you go off at most any time, while if you are slow to anger, you will
probably be through the trouble before your anger surfaces. Indeed, anger is not
a real productive emotion in most cases of life. Anger is not wrong in and of
itself, but is wrong when it controls us, consumes our time, or is detrimental
to ourselves and/or others.
I might mention that the word "not" is the same
word in these verses. It is nothing special, but it does indicate
"not" rather than anything else someone might rationalize into use.
I may be coming off as a little cynical, but I have seen
men dance around these qualifications for years and find that the qualifications
of Paul are being ignored in many cases in the church these days.
Not given to wine = I don't think this relates to total
abstinence since the Old Testament suggests giving drink in some cases, and
since the New Testament is clear that we are not to be drunk - as opposed to
drinking now and then.
Given to wine in our own society in
If looking for an elder I would look for non-drinkers, so
that the witness of the church would not be hindered. I think that, while the
qualifications for elder are elsewhere listed as things
No striker = When I was in the Navy, I returned home for
leave one time. I was out with some of my friends and found myself in an
unwanted confrontation with a young man that was bent on trouble. He punched me
in the face; I grabbed him by the neck and pounded his face. I left for my ship
shortly after. A friend in the Marines arrived home a few days after I left. He
heard from many many quarters about the sailor that had put a young punk in the
hospital. My fifteen-second fight was the talk of several towns for many days.
At least my first and only fight ended well - I guess - glad I wasn't up for
elder. Church leadership should not have this sort of life before the church or
the community.
Defending yourself is not wrong, but walking away from
disputes is always the preferable. Defense to protect oneself and family is
proper. God has placed us in the position of caring for our family and this
would be part of that caring.
Not given to filthy lucre - this means not desirous of
base gain, not greedy of money. "Given to filthy lucre" is actually
only one Greek word. This phrase kind of gives the idea that filthy lucre is
okay, you just aren't given over to it. Not quite the thought of the word. Not
greedy or eager for money. You know, that wringing your hands with avarice
awaiting your lotto ticket winnings.
Money is not wrong, nor is having money, but the greed,
the time consuming want, the I gotta have it attitude seems to be out of place
for an elder. Not too good a place for any Christian to be either. To think
about money, to plan on how to gain money, to concentrate on money is just a
waste of time in reality. God provides all that we have and/or need. He will
supply if you are to have riches.
This is a real fly in the ointment of the prosperity
gospel people that teach God wants us all rich. I heard a man on television
that had bilked Christians out of millions of dollars say that God wanted to
bless him, thus what he did was not wrong - that all those complainers and
people trying to put him away were of the Devil trying to stop God's work in
his life.
If God wanted all people rich He would have issued pass
books at the time of our salvation prayer.
THE ELDER MUST BE IN CONTROL OF HIS SPIRITUAL
But a lover of hospitality = Now, this is one that is
really missed in the church today. I was holding meetings across the western
half of the
I will say, though the food was fantastic and the
fellowship was great when I was offered meals, which was almost all the time.
I don't say these things to complain, as it was well with
my personality and way of living at the time. However, I say it for all those
missionaries that go on trips and have meetings Sundays and Wednesdays, but
nothing between. Where do you expect them to hang their hats? I trust you make
facilities available to them. I would guess they wouldn't even mind air
mattresses on the church floor.
Consider your hospitality to traveling believers.
Consider well your hospitality to your fellow church members. There are
churches where we have never been invited into another member’s home. This
ought not to be. This is where we will gain the fellowship that we are to have
with one another.
A lover of good men - this just has to relate to the
company that we keep. When I was a teenager, my folks did not always like the
company I kept. This is the Biblical basis for a parent being concerned for the
company that his child keeps. This is one of the responsibilities of parenting.
The teen-ager probably won't like it, but it is the way God desires it to be.
How are your friends? Can you say that they are GOOD men?
Are you assured of their good intentions toward you, your family and your God?
If not, is it not time to make some changes in your friendships?
A man that has good friends, friends that do good because
they are good, are the type of men you want in the office of elder. A man that
generates friends and "good" for the benefit of the church.
Sober - this means of sound mind, sane in senses, self
controlled in all areas, or temperate. Okay, so a flighty sort of guy won't
make the cut, a person that can't control his feelings is not fit, and a person
that struggles to control his feelings/emotions should not serve as elder.
The "leaders" of the church must be stable
individuals that can lead the rest of the flock to calm pastures when the need
arises. When trouble strikes, one that does not control himself will assist in
the congregation loosing control.
I was asked to interim pastor a church years ago in which
their founding and long time pastor had just resigned. The congregation was in
a minor panic as to whether the church would even survive or not. A few weeks after
I started, I was introduced by one of the leader’s wives to another couple as
the man that saved their church. My how ego inflating that could have been, but
I knew I had done nothing but come on Sunday mornings to speak and met with a
couple of prayer groups once a week.
All that I could supply was some stability. The board
took over and found me to do the speaking, they had split up most of the
pastoral duties among themselves and they found someone to fill the pulpit on a
regular basis. This "saved the church" in the woman's eyes. Adding a
stabilizing presence in my own eyes. Stability is key in a strong church life.
Many years ago I did a dissertation on church change. I
researched and dug and scrapped for all sorts of ideas as to how you can bring
about church change. I found that there were only two real principles that
needed to be followed. Preach the Word on a regular basis, and communicate as
much as possible with the congregation. These two simple rules will bring good
stability in most church change - as long as the change is of sensible
principle.
Just = One of the many usages in the Lexicon that I
really like is "wholly conformed to the will of God" - now that is
rather a stiff standard, but it is the standard set by God via Paul's letter.
God wants - ONLY - righteous, or holy men of God leading His people.
Simple - why would he want someone living in sin leading
His people into sin? He would not! He wants holy men leading the rest to
holiness of life. Sorry, if I don't think this is true in many churches today.
I don't think I need to elaborate on the subject to most church goers today.
Holy - this seems to compliment what I have just said
about "just."
Just is the action end of holiness, you might say, when I
am just I am doing all that is required of me and not doing any of what I am
not supposed to do.
Holy is the result of this just action. Because I am
just, I will be holy - without sin - free from sin. Just would be the keeping
straight while holy would be the resulting state of being. The two will go
together, for you can't be just and not be holy, nor can you be holy if you
aren't just.
Temperate - this word indicates we are to be in total
control of ourselves. It is control over one's being, one's mind, and one’s actions.
Now, that relates well to the drink issue. They are finding that it takes very
little drink to start affecting your driving. When you are affected in your
driving you are not in total control.
One of the aspects of this word is "mastering"
your being. I'd guess this might relate to all sorts of appetites and habits
that we find so easy to pick up now and then. I could list smoking, over
eating, over exercising, over indulgent in television, addiction to
pornography, alcoholism and probably many more.
God wants men that control themselves in leadership so
that they can assist in controlling the church properly.
THE ELDER MUST BE IN CONTROL OF HIS PREACHING
Verse nine sets the standard for the elder's preaching
life. "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may
be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers."
I have labeled this "preaching life" which may
be a little strong as we understand preaching today. This is not the public
pulpit ministry, though that would be good for
To follow up my comment on all elders preaching publicly,
I spoke with a pastor that was considering leaving the church he had founded
and pastored over many years to plant another church. I asked him jokingly how
his board felt about it. He laughed and said "Oh, they wouldn't care one
bit, they all can preach and they would just fill in the hole." He had
discipled his men in such a way that they all were capable preachers, in fact
they often filled pulpits for area pastors when that needed to go on vacation
or to meetings etc.
Holding fast - this is a broad word but very specific in
content - it means to cling to, cleave to, keep oneself directly opposite of
another, hold, retain, withstand and endure. We might get the picture that
elders are supposed to be the sticky note of all sticky notes. The elder is
supposed to be the super glue that holds the steel worker to the girder. The
elder is supposed to be the aerodynamic design that glues the race car to the
track.
Why? The direct context is what they have been taught and
hold to sound doctrine. If we don't hold to the sound doctrine as a leader,
then the congregation will not see the importance of it either.
I had a professor in
The elder is to hold fast the "faithful word" -
THE WORD OF GOD is to be adhered to, not rationalized away. God gave the Word
to be our guide not our multiple choice guide to life.
Hath been taught - this is the Greek word
"didache" which means "that which is taught." To the church
history student the word has a strong meaning. There was an early church
document set forth called the "Didache" which spelled out some strong
principles of life that were surely to be followed. It was a very strong
statement of living for the day.
The leaders of that early church wanted to teach their
people how to pattern their life.
Sound doctrine - this should be split into two sections.
"Sound" is actually a verb meaning "be sound" or "be
wholesome" or be "of good health," thus the elder is to live their
doctrine. They are to teach their proper doctrine.
Doctrine is the normal word for teaching or "that
which is taught." Might we say LIVE WHAT YOU PREACH? I think that is a
good turn of the phrase. This "sound" is also a present tense so it
means that you are supposed to ALWAYS LIVE WHAT YOU PREACH.
Exhort - this is a word that is related to the word
"paraklete" which is used of the Holy Spirit. It relates to comfort,
admonish, and exhort another. The idea of the Holy Spirit is someone that is
called along side - as to assist.
In the area of doctrine it would relate to using the Word
to encourage, or comfort one that has a need and that has come to you for
assistance. It might relate to sorrow, or sin or whatever someone might need.
Convince - this word has more the definition that we
usually relate to exhort. It means to convince, rebuke, reprove etc. It is
using the Word to show that there is something wrong in another’s life. This
can be done from the pulpit or the Sunday school lectern or on an individual
basis.
Gainsayers - this is an interesting term. It is actually
a verb in the present tense. The word has the idea of gainsay, set one self
against another, to disobey, to speak against, or contradict. It is translated
"shall be spoken against" in Luke 2.34. In our text it would be that
the elder is to be able to exhort and convince those that are actively speaking
against - the Word would be the assumption or at least speaking against the
Christian way.
The Net Bible translates it as follows: "He must
hold firmly to the faithful message as it has been taught, so that he will be
able to give exhortation in such healthy teaching and correct those who speak
against it." I think there may be a little interpretation included here with
the translation, but it gives the thought of the verse.
APPLICATION:
1. I think there are two important lessons to be learned
from Titus and the present state of the church in
a. A solidly founded church may decline into oblivion. I
almost used the word "will" instead of "may" because very
few churches and organizations I have watched over the years fail to fall into
the decline mentioned. I have watched many churches go from being sound
fundamental churches into wishy washy barely sound groups that fall for most
anything that comes along.
Sound doctrine is the only key to stopping this decline
and we are seeing more and more pastors speak of doctrine and theology with
disdain. How sad, to know the Word calls us to sound doctrine while church
leaders run doctrine down as being "intellectual" and
"useless."
I have also noticed that oft times these churches decline
in the tenure of one man. One church, of which we were a part, called a man
that had some personality problems (anger) and some poor concepts of whom to
associate with. The church was allowing men to fill the pulpit that had vastly
differing doctrinal positions before the man was taken home. The church went
from a strong witness in the small town to just another of the many churches
available to the townsfolk.
b. A solidly founded church may decline into oblivion,
and it is not necessarily the founders or the following pastor’s fault. Here we
have the Apostle Paul founding churches, and we have his personal delegate
setting the churches in order, yet over two thousand years or so there is
little vestige of the original left.
This is not the fault of the founder, or the founder’s
delegate. It is the fault of time and decisions made over time. As you study
the Roman Catholic Church, you will find that their great divergence from
correct doctrine came from little minor decisions that were made along the way.
A small compromise here and another there. It is not unlike many of the
decisions being made in our American churches. We are making small changes that
may or may not be Biblical that will affect things further down the road.
The blame may be on the shoulders of some of the leaders
or upon the congregation, depending on the situation. The blame rises from a
poor institution of verse nine - sound doctrine was found unimportant at some
point in the church’s life.
2. The fact that Paul did not appoint elders himself
would indicate that there were none that were qualified at the time he was on
the island. This would indicate for us the need for maturing enough to be
qualified. It also indicates a very important item. DO NOT APPOINT MEN THAT
AREN'T QUALIFIED
I suspect that this was true most of the time when Paul
was starting churches - in fact this is probably why he so often returned to
visit churches to appoint elders.
3. In Acts 20 we have another proof text relating to the
office of elder. In verse seventeen he called for the elders or
"presbuteros" and in verse twenty-eight he calls the same men
"overseers" which is the term episkopos. Thus elders, biships and
overseers are the same people/office, just different aspects of that one
person/office.
Verse twenty-eight is a neat verse, if you are a pastor
or teacher see to it that you contemplate it for a while. "Take heed
therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost
hath made you overseers, to feed the
This passage also indicates a plurality of elders in each
church. Note, in verse seventeen, elders/plural and church/singular. Referring
back to
Plurality of elders - men from the congregation -
qualified - to be ordained as elders. That is the Scriptural method. Many and
varied are the methods actually used in today’s church.
The Acts passage points out that the one really that does
the calling is the Holy Spirit, rather than a congregational submission of the
most popular men to the deacons for consideration as is the case in many
churches today.
It seems that the Holy Spirit should give the man the
desire, then he would share his desire with the congregation, and the
congregation then would seek to find out if he is qualified. If the man has
been with the church for a long time, then they probably already know if he is
qualified or not. This process eliminates the popularity, status and position
aspect from the equation and puts the process on a spiritual level where it
ought to be.
4. The term "blameless" has been interpreted by
a few to mean blameless all their lives. I have questioned a man that held this
and I told him that I had been a drinker in the Navy, and wondered if that
would disqualify me from being an elder. His reply was a definite yes. His
thought was someone that had never done anything that could be used to accuse
him.
I think this goes far and above the real meaning of the
word. I rather doubt that the man lived up to his own standard. I think that
the standard should be high for leaders, but that is not a standard any honest
person could meet. The point to me would be that they have lived an adult/saved
life that was blameless.
5. Phil. 3:10-14 is a key reference to understand in the
context we are considering. We are not perfect in this life, thus we must not
hold the elder to the "perfect" standard, but see him "nearly
perfect" if you will. One that normally does, and fervently attempts to
adhere to all these qualifications. A slip now and then might be acceptable in
the areas where testimony is not affected, but in the area of marriage, and
sobriety, I think perfect would be the standard. In the other areas I also feel
that a "near perfect" be the standard as well.
I went through a process set up to seek to know the
qualifications of myself and others for the office of elder. I found in my own
mind I did not qualify in one area. I set myself aside for a year while working
on that area.
The elder is the visible standard in a church for young
people to look up to - to model their lives after, thus a GOOD model is
required. Also the man is the leader and if he is less than the standard it
will be hard for the people to respect and follow him.
6. I don't think that I mentioned one position in
relation to the "one woman man" requirement for the elder. I
mentioned that singles would fit with care given to propriety, that widowers
that were remarried would fit, but I didn't mention that is was definitely a
bar against a man with more than one wife. Two wives would certainly disqualify
a man from the office.
Some suggest that barring divorced/remarried men from the
office is hard in light of our current society. This is similar to the question
of whether a woman can lead if there are no qualified men available (such as on
the mission field).
My answer to both is that if we are to find substitute
answers due to lack of someone present, might I suggest the following. If my
wife goes away for a couple months to care for a relative and I have no one to
relate to sexually, may I substitute someone for my wife that is not available?
I don't think so, not on the moral side of things and the safety side of
things. I would be out of bounds morally and in deep trouble with my wife.
Why do we substitute anything for a failure to do what is
Biblical? I have discussed ordination with people and the fact that what we
have today is really not Biblical. I have suggested that we ordain people we
know - not outsiders. One man asked how in the world we would know if they are
qualified. I suggested talking to one another, fellowship on a spiritual basis
not on the usual news, weather and sports. His reply was, well we don't do that
today. In short he was saying we don't do what we need to do to do what is
Biblical so we set up a system that is not Biblical to do what is not Biblical
to fit our current society.
I hope you find this as ludicrous as I!
Another passage that relates is Matt. 19.10 when Christ
was speaking of the subject of divorce and that it seems to be for life, the
disciples seemed to understand the requirements of marriage for life as
difficult. "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with
[his] wife, it is not good to marry."
The Bible has a standard and it may well be difficult to
live up to it, but it is still there and it is still required. Just because it
is difficult, we have no authority to change it for our own convenience or
ease.
7. I hate to keep harping on this do's and don'ts thing
that some pastors abhor, but here we have another list from God via Paul. These
don'ts are in the negative, not the positive. Not all rules need to be
positive.
When teaching the board of the school did not like the
student hand book because it was too negative. They required the faculty to
revamp twenty some years of work from the negative to the positive. It did read
nicer but it was not a necessary labor that summer as the rules were the same
whether couched in positive terms or not and they were still negative, in that
they couldn't do the same thing as before.
We, as believers have a specific way of life to lead and
the sooner we adopt it as our lifestyle the sooner we will be pleasing God to
the fullest.
8. You might look at this list and wonder why Paul listed
some of these qualifications. Wouldn't some of these fit under normal Christian
life? Yes, they would, but in the church we seem to have to spell out in great
detail what we mean. I mentioned the college student handbook. The length of
this work was due to the fact that the students loved to see just how far they
could stretch any given sentence and its meaning.
When a rule was written, the faculty had to consider well
what all the ways around the simple letter of the law would be, so that they
could add in those comments needed to let the student know that not only is the
letter of the law law, but all rationalizations and work arounds that they
might come up with are also law.
Besides, these elders were coming out of paganism, in
many cases, and they did not have the Christian standard as a pattern of life
as they grew up. They were learning these things and putting them into practice
as they learned of their new life in Christ. Titus was to look for men that had
already instituted these principles into life.
There is the side note to this, that Paul had been
teaching these basic principles of Christian life to the new converts. Give you
any ideas of how to assist new converts in your church? How will they learn of
these principles unless they are taught them? They may pick them up by reading
the word, but they should be taught them early so that they know what the
Christian life is like and how it is to be lived.
9. In relation to filthy lucre, Keathley comments about
false gain, "With reference to the false teachers, it would mean adopting
a form of teaching for the purpose of material gain." Now, just think of
that for a bit - anyone teaching in the church for the purpose of material gain
- I know this relates to the prosperity gospel folks that are getting rich on
the backs of the poor in their congregation that hope to one day get rich also,
but does it ever relate to others in the church? I suspect so. Anyone, even a
pastor that is in it for the money is automatically disqualified from the
position.
When I told my father I was going to
The purpose of the elder is to minister, and if money
comes along, that is cream on the top of all the blessings of ministry. I have
read long threads on inter-net forums where pastors were discussing at length
what they were getting, or not getting from their churches, and the discussion
was not all that pleasant if they weren't satisfied.
Many had their mind made up as to what they were owed and
since they were not getting it they were pressuring the board for more. In
light of the fact that the Bible does not discuss a full time paid pastor, they
have no grounds to stand on except the worldly system that they seem to follow.
Yes, the Word speaks to the elder being given double
honor, but that does not mean a pay check in particular. I would assume, given
the situation in history, that it meant honor, as in respect, not cash.
10. Keathley lists the following verses in relation to
hospitality and I include them for your further study. Romans 12:13, Hebrews
13:2, 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Peter 4:9.
11. Again, in relation to hospitality, would it be a
great kindness for a church to provide a bedroom, and bath for visiting
missionaries to use during the week when traveling. It couldn't take a lot of
money to work this into your building plan. Of course if one of those believers
with the huge houses with extra bedrooms and baths could volunteer to have the
missionaries instead... I know of many older people that have lots of extra
room in their homes. Add a private exit for them to the outside so you don't
have to have them coming through the main house if you don't want the
interruption, but hospitality is the norm for the believer, not the sometime I
will do it attitude that many display today.
12. In relation to the "holding fast" to the
word, I wonder what that hold fast means. Can you hold fast to something you
don't know? Can you hold fast to something you don't hold in high regard? Can
you hold fast to something you can't defend? I don't think so. To properly hold
fast to the word you need to study it, know it, and defend it. Many elders
today couldn't defend their belief if they were asked to; much less get into a
serious conversation with someone that opposed his beliefs.
We are not teaching our leaders the Word, we are not
teaching our adults the Word, and we are not teaching our children the Word. If
we don't get started on this our children will never be able to "hold
fast" to the Word.
In our present world where humanism is the norm for the
lost segment of our society, and where lack of morals is held as the moral
standard by the lost world around us, how much more important is it for us to
know the Word in a way in which we can share it and its message with these that
do not know of its truth.
Our country has lost its moral footing, it has decided
against God, and has chosen the pleasure of the day as their guide for life. They
are the field white unto harvest and we are the workers, if we would only learn
enough of the Word to give them the message that we hold so dear.
I have seen the nation do a real turn around in the last
few years, and the turn is near complete - totally away from God as a nation.
Do you realize the implications of a nation having to legislate what marriage
is? Do you realize that Sodom and Gomorrah had made homosexuality an acceptable
norm for their society - and are we not in the process of doing the same. I
fear the United States is seeking more than fire and brimstone, and I also fear
I may see it in my lifetime - and I am an old duffer already!