The Essential Model Of Elders

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,

Acts 20 · chapter mention

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