This sermon on Titus was given in a series at Kew Baptist Church, London.
Has there ever been a clearer contrast between two leaders than in the current US Presidential Election? While many will cast their votes on the 3 November based on the contrasting policies of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, others are sure to do so based on the kind of leader they believe America needs. Trump’s supporters tout him as a no-nonsense, tell it as it is, bold and brash businessman. Trump is the leader best equipped to drain the political swamp in DC, and return power to the people. Biden’s supporters champion him as the safe, steady hand the country needs in uncertain times. After almost a lifetime in politics, including 8 years as VP, Biden has the experience and statesmanship to heal the divisions and bring the nation together again. Trump as leader would make America great again. Biden as leader would bring America together again. Their characters, qualifications and visions are so different, it goes to show ca just how divided the nation is right now: the two parties have picked two very different leaders to be the next POTUS.
Last week we seen that in 1:5, Titus was instructed to appoint elders on Crete. ‘This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order and appoint elders in every town as I directed you…’. In order to better understand Titus’s task, we said it was necessary to combine this verse with others in the Bible about choosing a leader in the church. When we did this, we found the Bible speaks of two processes: one in heaven and another on earth. The heavenly process was that elders were promised by the Father in Jeremiah 24, provided by the Son in Ephesians 4 and produced by the Spirit in Acts 20. The process on Earth is different: we seen from 1 Timothy 3 that the individual is to aspire, from Galatians 1, Acts 1 and 6 that it is the whole congregation who are to agree and from Titus 1 and Acts 14 that existing leaders are to appoint. Two processes, one in heaven and the other on earth. The Father promises, the Son provides, the Spirit produces. The individual aspires, the congregation agrees and the existing elders appoint. In light of this, we might legitimately ask, how is it we can be sure these two processes will both select the same man? How can we be sure that they will not pick two leaders as different as those picked by the Democratic and Republican parties this year? How do we who are on earth know who the heavenly choice would be? How can the church be certain it is shepherded by undershepherds chosen by its chief shepherd, Jesus Christ? I believe our passage answers such questions. For in Titus 1:6-9, through the pen of Paul, it is revealed what kind of leader the Father has promised, the Son has provided, and Spirit has produced for us. It is here that individuals are instructed what they should aspire to. Congregations are commanded about who they should agree to submit to. Existing elders, or evangelists like Titus, are told who they are to appoint. In 1:5, Titus is taught about The Nomination of Elders, in 1:6-9 Paul teaches him about The Nature of Elders. Summed up in a single sentence, Titus is told appoint: Godly men (1:6-8) who teach God’s truth (1:9).
1. GODLY MEN (1:6-8)
‘I shall not attempt to further define [it]…and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it…’. Those were the famous word of the US Supreme Court in 1964. While judging a case, the court was forced to consider when the right to free speech should be limited as a result of someone publishing or promoting morally obscene material. Tasked with the job of defining the type of material that would be so shocking or offensive, that it was to be suppressed, Justice Stewart struggled the find the words to say. After giving some general guidelines as to what this material might be, he uttered that famous line that has caused decades of confusion and controversy in courtrooms across America: ‘I know it when I see it.’ Though such a definition is not as clear as legal scholars would like, we can sometimes find ourselves in similar position. Sometimes things that are easy to see are hard to say. Sometimes it is more difficult to define or describe something than it is to point to a demonstration of it. I recently attended some career training at work where we were asked to define values such as: integrity, happiness, loyalty, wisdom, creativity. Even a room full of lawyers struggled to find the words to capture such concepts. We could probably add the concept of leadership to that list. There are so many different aspects and angles to leadership, which of us could ever hope to accurately capture them all in a few sentences. We may know a leader when we see one. But trying to say all that it means to be one isn’t simple.
Thankfully when it comes to leadership in the local church, the task of defining has already been done for us. Here we see just another great example of the truth that all that is necessary for us to know, God has made known to us in his word. In Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3, Paul provides a description of what is necessary for an elder. Though originally written for Titus and Timothy, and the churches in Crete and Ephesus, God in his wisdom seen to it that these lists were included in the New Testament so that every local church could have them. In 1:5, Titus is told to appoint elders in every town. How was he to identify who these elders were? Paul tells him: ‘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.’ (1:6) Here we see that Paul states that two things are necessary for an elder to be appointed: he must possess a character that is beyond criticism and he must preside over a family that is being faithful. Let us consider these two qualifications that Paul gives us here.
A. Possess a character that is beyond criticism
Paul’s core qualification is the one he lists first, both here in 1:6 and in 1 Timothy 3:2: the first thing Paul says is that an elder must be ‘above reproach’. Paul makes clear that this is his primary qualification not just by listing it first in both passages, but by explaining that all of the other characteristics mentioned are contained within it. After giving this requirement in 1:6, Paul repeats it in 1:7 before going on to describe what ‘above reproach’ includes: ‘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, and disciplined.’ When you compare this list to the list in 1 Timothy 3, you realise Paul doesn’t seem to have an exhaustive list in mind. In 1 Timothy 3, Paul not only removes some of the characteristics he includes here, he will also add sober-minded, respectable, gentle and quarrelsome. This isn’t an exhaustive list. Rather, this is a list of examples Paul selects to show us what it means to be ‘above reproach’.
What does it mean for someone to be above reproach? That is often the question that is asked about this passage. Does somebody need to be perfect, flawless, sinless? Obviously, that isn’t the case – there is only one sinless Shepherd. Calvin summarises what it means well: ‘he does not mean one who is exempt from every vice, (for no such person could at any time be found,) but one who is marked by no disgrace…He means…that he shall be a man of unblemished reputation.’ Paul does teach here that an elder must be beyond sinning. Rather, he teaches that an elder must have a character which is beyond criticism. To be above reproach is to be beyond blame. This man’s life is free from obvious faults or flaws. What kind of faults or flaws? Well, Paul gives us five examples here: ‘arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain’. If a man is characterised by any of these things, his character is not beyond criticism. These are the kind of flaws that disqualify him from serving as an elder. Not only are there traits that should not characterise him, but there are others that should: ‘hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.’ In this way he see that he is not only to refrain from ungodliness, but be proactive in godliness. In this way his character, both negatively and positively, is to be beyond criticism. There is nothing obvious in his life that should not be there. There is nothing missing in his life that obviously should be there.
Whether we look at the list of characteristics, or the catchall category of ‘above reproach’, one thing is clear: the character expected of elders, is not exclusive to elders. There is nothing that we have looked at so far, that God does not want for all his children. As we will see so clearly in Titus 2, God wants us all to be godly. DAC famously said, ‘These qualifications are remarkable for being unremarkable.’ He said that because if you were to take each of these characteristics, you would find that somewhere else in the New Testament it is commanded of all Christians. Another writer puts it like this: ‘There is nothing here that is extraordinary, it is just the ordinary things done extraordinarily well.’ Whether you aspire to be an elder or not. Whether you are an elder or not. Whether you can be an elder or not. You are to aim to be above reproach. All Christians are cultivate characters that are beyond criticism. In this way elders are to be examples. The shepherds are supposed to set a standard for the sheep. Before Paul explains that leaders must teach godliness with their lips, he tells us they are to teach it with their lives. That is why the author of Hebrews can exhort the whole church, whether young or old, male or female, ‘Remember your leaders…Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.’ (13:7) An elder’s life is to be an example to aim for, not an exception to admire.
However, here in Titus 1, the reason Paul gives for elders to be above reproach is not that they are examples to the church, but that they are stewards of God. In 1:6 Paul first gives us the requirement that elders are above reproach, and in 1:7 he explains why it is necessary: ‘For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach.’ Building on a conversation I had after the service last Sunday, it is here that we see that ‘elder’ is not the only title for these godly men. In 1:5, Titus is told to appoint elders. But in 1:7 Paul describes them not as elders, but overseers. Because of its Latin form, this word ‘overseer’ was translated ‘bishop’ in the KJV. However, we see here that an ‘overseer’ or ‘bishop’ is not a different role, but just a different name for an elder. Something similar happens in Acts 20, where the same group of men are not only called elders and overseers, but are told to care for or shepherd, or in its Latin form, ‘pastor’ God’s flock. Elder, overseer, pastor: three titles all referring to the same job. If we think about it, this isn’t that uncommon. In my own job I am generally called a lawyer, but I am also known as a solicitor or alternatively as an associate. Three different titles, emphasising three different aspects of my job. The same is true of these men that Titus was to appoint. If they are to be elders, they must have characters beyond criticism. Why? Because as an elder, they are an overseer. That is ‘one who watches over’ or ‘a guardian’ or, as Paul says here, a steward. What are they entrusted with? To watch over? We see from other texts that they are to give an account for the souls of the sheep, they are entrusted to care for God’s household, to look after Christ’s bride. When we go on holiday, we would only ask someone we trusted to housesit for us. If we were to place our loved ones in the care of anyone, we would want them to be beyond blame. How more is this true of God. When he selects shepherds to care for his sheep, sets stewards over his household, they must possess a character that is beyond criticism.
B. Preside over a family that is being faithful
Just as some believe Justice Stewart’s definition in 1964, ‘I know it when I see it’, is to broad, there are those who look at the definition Paul gives here in 1:6 and think that it is too narrow: ‘if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers….’ (1:6) That is how it reads in the ESV, which seems to give the impression that an elder must be married and have Christian children. Therefore, it is unsurprising many those two questions: does an elder have to be married? Does an elder have to have Christian children? If we translate 1:6 as narrowly as the ESV, we end up in some strange situations. For if an elder’s wife died, he would be disqualified from eldership. Similarly, a man with children would have to wait until they confess faith in Christ, before he could become an elder. Even if they did this, if he later had another child, or if a child fell from faith, he would also be disqualified and have to step down. Now, ultimately if that is what 1:6 says, that is what it says. However, such strange scenarios should make us look closely at 1:6 to make sure this is the case. There is no sense in the earthly process for selecting shepherds being pickier than the heavenly one.
The phrase ‘the husband of one wife’ is a translation of three words: ‘one woman man’. As the Greek for woman is the same as for wife, and man the same as for husband, you can see why the ESV translates ‘one woman man’ as ‘one wife husband’ or ‘the husband of one wife’. However, if you have an ESV, notice in the footnotes it the other broader option: being ‘a man of one woman’. To be a man of one woman, is to demonstrate faithfulness to one woman: not to characterised by ‘flirting, promiscuity or questionable relationships.’ (Strauch) This is why the NIV translates it as an elder must be ‘faithful to his wife’. And there are good reasons to translate it this way. This aligns with all of the other qualifications given here, which focus not on circumstances, but on character. Far more important than whether a man has one wife or not, is whether a man is faithful to his wife or not. Christ will not entrust his bride to an unfaithful husband.
This theme of faithfulness continues with the man’s children. For that phrase ‘his children are believers’ is probably also better translated more broadly, as it is in the KJV, ‘having faithful children’. Again, an option in the ESV footnotes. The difference is whether the children are to have faith or be faithful: the same word is used for both. Must they have faith in God, or be faithful to their father. Is it they are genuine believers or have good behaviour? Again, I think the latter is better: it matches what Paul writes in 1 Timothy 3:4, where the only mention of children is that they are to be ‘submissive’. It also matches what Paul says here in the rest of 1:6, where his focus is clearly on the behaviour and not the belief of the children, for they are not to be ‘open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination’. That is, wild or reckless living. Even the best of fathers cannot ensure their children become Christians, however, he can, as far as they remain under his authority, shape their behaviour through discipline and devotion. Paul tells us an elder’s family should be characterised by faithfulness: he is faithful to his wife, his children are faithful to him. He presides over a family that is being faithful.
Around two miles from where we live, the Tower of London has stood for almost 1000 years. Originally built by William the Conqueror after the battle of Hastings in 1066, it was designed as a fortress to supress his new subjects. To show them just how strong their new sovereign was. However, over the last 1000 years, monarchs have modified the site. The infamous King John, of Robin Hood fame, built enclosures for exotic animals so that he could impress the public and win their favour. Henry III cared less about winning the public over and more about keeping them out, building an extra wall and installing a moat after he had to hide in the tower during a rebellion. The Tudors famously used it as a prison for religious and political opponents. Queen Victoria, more concerned with scent than security, drained the moat, which had become a cesspit, covering the surrounding area with a terrible smell. How each monarch modified the castle tells us something about their character and circumstances. The same is true of every man. How a man manages his home, which if he is an Englishman is his castle, tells us something about his character. That is why Paul draws attention to the family life of an elder. He explains this to Timothy when he says an elder ‘must manage his own household well. For is someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?’ (3:5) Guthrie puts it, ‘the home is the training ground for Christian leaders’. Not only that, but I would argue it is also a testing ground. That is, it is where a church can look in order to consider a man’s character as he cares for those under his authority. If he is not faithful to his bride, can we expect him to be faithful to Christ’s? If he cannot nurture his own children, will he be able to nurture God’s? How a man manages his household reveals how he will manage God’s household.
That is why I think it is good for an elder to be married and have children. This allows a church to see him act as a steward and shepherd in his family. And yet, we must balance this by remembering Paul’s aim here is not to give boxes that must be ticked to make somebody suitable, but tests to help the church see that somebody is already suitable. Having a family is not a goal that must be achieve before a man can become an elder, it is an important way a man can show that he is ready to become an elder. I think Paul presumes here that a man will be married and have children, but I don’t think he prescribes it. Given Paul’s cultural and contraceptive context, men would rarely remain single and almost certainly start having children shortly after marriage. Therefore, this was wholly sensible for Paul to assume in this short letter to Titus. As we seen last week Paul himself was single and yet had many true children (1:4). In 1 Corinthians 7, when speaking about the strengths of single service, Paul seems to suggest some men can actually serve better without marriage. I believe that family is the main, but not the only way, I believe we can show ourselves to be faithful stewards of God. I am sure we all know men who, whether by choice or circumstance, are not married or do not have children. And yet by the way they conduct their lives, devoting themselves to others, discipling those around them, we know if they circumstances were different, they would undoubtedly preside over a faithful family. Such men are godly men who I believe Paul would have been happy for Titus to appoint as elders on Crete.
2. WHO TEACH GOD’S TRUTH (1:9)
Nothing we have discussed so far is extraordinary or exceptional, limited to leaders. No, God wants all of us to be godly. However, in 1:9 we see that there is one key difference between a godly servant and a godly shepherd. That difference is drawn out so well in 1 Timothy 3, for there Paul not only gives qualifications for eldership, but also for deacons. When you compare the two lists, there is only one main difference: deacons must be godly, elders must be both godly and gifted. Now, we need to be careful when we say gifted, for such language is often used to refer to leaders in the world. I don’t mean that elders need to be capable or charismatic enough to run for President like Trump or Biden, though arguably Trump and Biden aren’t the great examples of capable and charismatic leaders. No, what Paul means is summed up in 3 words: an elder must be ‘able to teach’.
What Paul says in 3 words in 1 Timothy 3:2 is expanded here in 1:9 into three clauses. What does it mean that an elder is able to teach? Firstly, Paul tells us here that it means he himself has been taught the truth and hold fast to it. ‘He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught…’ Teachers don’t grow on trees. They are trained up, entrusted with the truth. Teachers train teachers. Paul knew this, a few weeks ago we thought about how he spent himself not only serving others, but serving alongside them, discipling and developing men like Titus and Timothy, who he expected to do the very same. He tells Timothy ‘what you have heard from me…entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.’ (2 Timothy 2:2) Teachers train teachers. If a church is to have teachers in the future, it must train them in the present. However, the emphasis is not just that he has been taught truth, but that he holds fast to that truth. That is, he hasn’t wavered or wandered from that word of God. He has not departed from that doctrine. He was entrusted with God’s truth, made a steward of it, and has been a faithful servant. Once arriving at the correct creed, he has not changed: for love or money. We see that this steadfastness in the truth he has been taught allows him to teach others. ‘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’. Friends, whether it is sharing the gospel at work, teaching children at home, or discipling others in the church, if we are to teach anybody the truth, we must ensure we are ourselves are being taught, drinking deeply from God’s word, both in devotions by ourselves and discipleship by others. However, we must also ensure that he hold firm to that truth we are taught. We must work ourselves to a place where we are dedicated to our doctrine. Truly believe the truth we teach. Before you can hope to convince others with the truth, you yourself must be convicted and confident in it.
What does this teaching of others look like? What is it this man must be able to do? Must he be able to preach a 45-minute sermon? Must he be able to take a whole service? Must he be able to read Greek and Hebrew and recite the book of Psalms backwards? Paul doesn’t give us such specifics, each context and church will have different needs. What really matter is not the format that this teaching will take, but the effect that it has. Paul says that he should be ‘able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it’. We see here the two sides to teaching: building up and beating off. Feeding the sheep and fighting the wolves. Both constructing and correcting. Thomas Manton writes that they should ‘be able to handle the sword and the trowel…’. Calvin comments, ‘They must have two voices: one for gathering the sheep and another for driving away the wolves’. Paul tells us what is important it that when he communicates with the church, whether this is from the front in a service, alongside in leading a bible study or across the table while having a coffee, he must be able to instruct them in true doctrine and correct any false doctrine.
So far in Titus we seen that if God’s people are to be godly, they must be taught God’s truth. How do we select shepherds? Who is it that should care for the church? Well, it is godly men: those who possess a character that is beyond criticism. Preside over a family that is being faithful. However, it is not just godly men. It is godly men who can teach God’s truth. For if God’s people are to be godly, that is what they need. It is truth that leads to godliness. They must, we must, be taught God’s truth.
ALEXANDER ARRELL