Elder Leadership and Qualifications

Transcript

GRM 815
10/27/2002
Elder Leadership and Qualifications
Titus 1:5-9
Gil Rugh

In our study in the book of Acts we are talking about the matter of elders as Paul met with the elders from the church at Ephesus during his stopover in Miletus. I want to talk a little further about elders this evening and I want to direct your attention to Titus 1. We'll be talking further about elders from the church at Ephesus as we continue in Acts 20 but we will not be talking about some of the qualifications of elders. Luke does not cover them there. Paul includes them in later letters, in fact, two letters written to two younger men who function as something of apostolic delegates during this time of the early Church's development.

Sometimes the apostles were present to be involved in the appointing of elders. This occasion as Titus is on the island of Crete, Paul left him there where they had been ministering because he had to leave for a reason we're not told and the work of establishing the Church and organizing it was not yet done. Verse 5, Paul tells Titus, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you." So the process of having the Church organized and established was not yet done. So Titus is left there as an apostolic representative to complete the instruction Paul has for these people and to complete the organization of the Church so that it is under the proper leadership of the elders that the Holy Spirit would raise up and have to oversee the Church.

These again are elders, plural, in every city, singular. At this beginning time, there would have only been one church in each city and that was their desire to carry the testimony of the Gospel to each place. They were not blessed as we are with a multiplicity of churches even in one city. So there are elders in every church or elders in every city.

The Scripture does not say much about the appointment of elders from the standpoint of how were they appointed. Just how did they go about the appointing of these men. Should you vote on them? Should they simply be appointed by certain individuals? What the Scripture does focus on are what the qualifications and responsibilities of these men are to be. We are to concern ourselves with, however they are appointed, is that they be men who meet the qualifications the Scripture sets down. In our local church we call the elders "elders." Now I mention that because some churches would use different titles. They’re called "the governing body of the church," "the official board," or titles like that. I think there is value in giving them the biblical title. Again, the Bible doesn't require it. If we used a different name for the men who were over this Body, you couldn't say we were in violation of Scripture. But we would have to have the qualifications required. The problem comes if you don't use the name, people over time get confused on the qualifications. So people say, oh, our church is governed by an official board. Well, what are the qualifications for members of the official board? Well, we tend to over time generalize, we lose sight of what the biblical qualifications are. So we do use the biblical title "elders" because that clarifies it. Oh, if they are elders then we know in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 there are qualifications set down for these men. To be qualified as an elder you must meet these qualifications. Doesn't mean that no one else in the church would meet these qualifications. In fact, many in the church should because they are really the character qualifications of maturity, if you will, Christian maturity. But they are required of the men who would be elders.

Again, if we don't follow a biblical pattern and the church is not structured biblically, then sooner or later that will catch up to the church and it multiplies the problems and makes it more difficult to function in a biblical way. We'll see some of that as we proceed in our study of Acts 20.

A little aside, but I'll mention it in light of the day in which we live, only men are qualified for the office of elder. Paul dealt with this in 1 Timothy 2 because he moves in to the discussion of elders, where he made clear that the women were not to be in the leadership positions, they were not to be the teachers of the men, the leaders of the men. So the elders are to be men. There is male leadership in the elders, in the pastorate. I mention that because there is a rapid erosion going on in the evangelical world, not just talking about the world more broadly and the church more broadly, but in the evangelical camp. Becoming a harder and a harder line to hold because we've found ways around the Scripture. And we need to be careful that we are allowing the Scripture to speak and not shaping the Scripture to say what we want it to say to fit the culture in which we live.

One of the requirements of the elder that we are not going to see in Titus. But if you turn back to 1 Timothy just before Titus, Paul's letters to Timothy, and the first letter to Timothy chapter 3 verse 1, "It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do." There Paul uses the title "overseer," as we talked about overseer, elder, pastor all referring to the same position. And that word, "if any man aspires to the office of elder," and that word "aspire" means to stretch out, to reach for something. And one of the characteristics that should be there is that a man desires that position. We don't talk people in to becoming elders. In our process as we sort through and consider men possibly for this office (as we do deacon but we are talking about elder now) when that person is approached if they indicate that they do not believe that's something that they would want to do now for whatever reason, that's accepted. Because we believe that one of the things the Spirit will do is put a desire for that position in the heart of those that He is raising up for it. Now the other qualifications have to be met. Just because a person desires it doesn't mean he's qualified. The person who desires this, a man who desires this office, ought to be evaluating himself in light of the qualifications and making whatever adjustments necessary to be qualified for the office.

Come back to Titus 1. Let's look at some of these qualifications. Again, I mention these are really the marks of a godly, maturing believer. And so something all of us, men and women alike, where most of these qualifications would be desirous of having as characteristics of our lives. What we are really looking at is elders must be maturing, godly Christians. The general qualification, verse 6, as he begins this list in Titus 1 -- we'll use this as our foundation -- "if any man be above reproach." That's the general all-encompassing qualification: “above reproach.” There's no charge or accusation which can justly be brought against him. So we're talking about with the Apostle Paul's ministry, he was continually under attack, slanderous false charges were constantly brought against him. That did not disqualify him from his leadership role. But there are no accusations or charges that can justly be brought against him, credible charges, if you will. When Paul writes to Timothy in 1 Timothy 3 he says that the “overseer must be above reproach.” He uses a different word there but the meaning is basically the same. Nothing in his life which can be laid hold of, which is open to censure. Again, we are not talking about perfect men because there are no perfect men, but there are not any areas where there are serious questions about his moral conduct or his behavior in the areas that we're going to talk about.

So what Paul does is give the general qualification and then gives you the specifics. What do we mean above reproach? Someone who can't have charges brought against them that have any foundation. Well, he moves on in verse 6, "if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife." And we start right out with the qualification that probably has the most discussion and debate about it. What does it mean to be the husband one wife? I periodically get questions usually on the e-mail and sometimes from other pastors in ministries. How do you interpret the qualification to be the husband of one wife? And it is a concern. Some churches take this to mean that if a man has been divorced he is not qualified to be elder. Some take it that if he's never been married and not married now, he's not qualified because you have to have a wife. So there's a variety ways to go on it. The view that an elder must be married, I don't think that has broad support. I did have a professor during my studies in school who was a strong adherent of that view, but it generally is not widely held. The way it's worded wouldn't be the normal way to say he has to be a married man. Paul could have been an elder and not married.

Look in 1 Timothy 4. Paul was an apostle but was he an elder? Well, in 1 Timothy 4:14 Paul writing to Timothy says, "Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed upon you through the prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery." And the presbytery, remember, normally translated elders, it's a Greek word, we get the word ‘presbytery’ from it, ‘Presbyterian.’ Usually translated elders. Here the translators have just carried the word over, ‘presbytery.’ It could have been translated, "By the laying on hands of the elders." Then look over to 2 Timothy 1:6. For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. Now in the passage of 1 Timothy 4 Paul said to Timothy you receive the gift by the laying on of hands by the elders. In the second letter he said you receive the gift by the laying on of my hands which may indicate that Paul was part of the elders.

That was so of Peter. Turn over to 1 Peter 5. He was both an apostle and an elder. First Peter 5:1, Peter is the writer, "Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder... shepherd the flock of God among you." So Peter as an apostle includes himself as an elder with the elders of the churches of the Dispersion, Jewish believers dispersed, that he is writing to.

So that may indicate that Paul also was an elder as well as an apostle. In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul says that the unmarried state is a special gift from God. And it would be strange Paul thought it was a special blessing that he had the gift of celibacy from God which freed him for greater ministry. So it would be strange if God was saying He would not give that gift to elders when Paul says it is a gift given to facilitate a greater ministry and greater opportunity for ministry. So those are some of the reasons why I don't think it's emphasizing when he says the elder must be the husband of one wife that he must be married. The husband of one wife. Some would say what they're saying in the context of that day that he can't be polygamous, he can't have multiple wives. But that's forbidden for all believers, 1 Corinthians 7 says that. Also at this time polygamy was forbidden in the Roman Empire. So I don't know that there is an indication that polygamy was a wide practice at this time because the Romans ruled the world and in the Roman Empire polygamy was forbidden.

Also, as you are aware, the exact expression here is the elder must be a one-woman man and over in 1 Timothy 5:9 where we talk about the enrollment of widows it says, "Let a widow be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man.” Now in Titus on the qualification of elders must be a one-woman man. Here the woman to be enrolled must have been a one-man woman. But there never is any indication that polyandry, multiple husbands, was practiced at all. So that view seems to not have any support.

Could they be a remarried widower? And some would say, you know, you could have one wife. And so even if your wife died and you remarried, you're disqualified. One well-known Bible teacher who was also a pastor of a church, his wife died, and he remarried and when he remarried he resigned as elder or pastor of that church because he thought he was no longer qualified in light of the fact he had now had more than one wife. I respect that man. I respect the ministry he's had. He's ministered here on occasion. But it's not a view that I think is really what is in view here. It's not the understanding I would see. Romans 7 says death effectively severs the former relationship. It is no longer in existence. And you are free from all obligations, responsibilities, entanglements, whatever, in that former marriage when a death occurs. In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul says the widowed have a right to marry. In fact, in 1 Timothy 5, if you are still in that area, verse 14, Paul says, "I want the young widows to get married, bear children." You are saying to be an elder a man could never remarry even if his wife died. You would be saying then in verse 9 of 1 Timothy 5 that a widow could never be enrolled if she had been married more than once, even if a former husband had died and she remarried and the second husband died, she would be disqualified because she wasn't a one-man woman. So I don't think that's in view.

Probably the most popular view outside of the right view that we're getting to is that an elder cannot be divorced. And basically those who hold this say that if an elder has ever been divorced or a potential elder has ever been divorced, he's disqualified. Now I respect the fact that many men that I would respect and appreciate in their ministry hold that view. I just do not think it's the one that fits the biblical requirements here. There would have been better ways to say this. I mean, it could have just said flat out a man who would be elder could never have been divorced. I mean, it would have been a lot clearer. The Bible does recognize divorce. Often those who hold this, hold there really is no divorce. The seminary I attended held there was no divorce. And so if you divorced for whatever reason and remarried, you lived in a perpetual state of adultery. I do not think that is a biblically supportable view. The Bible does recognize divorce and there are certain reasons for divorce and it does recognize second marriages, third marriages, fourth marriages. It recognizes the marriage you are in or whatever preceded that.

I think these qualifications are dealing with the present condition of the individual. I am concerned we take one qualification here and make it a lifetime qualification. If you do that with any of the other qualifications no one will ever be qualified to be an elder. You would have to say an elder would be a man who has never lost his temper. I mean, what about before you were redeemed. I mean, can be a man who was a drunk and been gloriously saved and been saved for 25 years, is he disqualified because before his salvation 25 years ago he was a drunk? We'd say, well, no. So I do think we are little inconsistent when we take this one qualification and say it's a lifetime qualification.

Now, if people would say, well, what about if they were divorced after they became a believer? Well, that doesn't change the issue because marriage and the marriage relationship is a universal principle established by God, if I can call it a principle. In other words, marriage is binding on believer and unbeliever alike. So whether you are a believer or not a believer and you got divorced and remarried, that doesn't change anything. I mean, obviously would expect more of a believer and the believer would have the potential of coming under the discipline of God for his sin if the divorce was not biblical. But the fact is, is the divorce real, is the remarriage real? And I think the Bible does recognize a remarriage, a second marriage, or a third marriage, whatever it might be. We are not studying divorce so we are not going off into that.

But I have a hard time understanding why divorce is a greater sin than any other sin. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and maybe you ought to turn there. Look at verse 9, "do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, no adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." However you qualify divorce and so on, fornicators, idolaters, adulterer, effeminate and all these things. But that's what we were before the grace of God reached down and saved us. “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified.” And again, we say, well, what if they were believers? Well, what if they were? Are we saying the sin of believers is not forgiven? You know where that puts a believer who sins then? You would have to say that is an unpardonable sin which will send them to hell. We understand that there is the ongoing cleansing of Christ.

Now I realize we get a little concerned because we are going to open the door here. People will say, oh, now I can sin. I've always felt I ought to get out of this marriage, so I'll just get out and repent and it will be all right. Well, that's true of any sin. I could say, oh, I'm going to embezzle money at work and then I'll confess and I'll have the money and I won't confess. Or I'm going to commit immorality and not divorce my wife or my husband and I'll be forgiven. Well, there's an element of trust in that. The blood of Jesus Christ keeps on cleansing us from all sin and He is our high priest who represents us at the right hand of the Father. But there is the discipline that God brings to the life of His children for their rebellion. But the sin is forgiven. Remember when Nathan confronted David. What did Nathan say to David? God has put away your sin. You're not going to die but here are the consequences of your sin.

So I want to be careful I don't think I have to tighten things up. Often I'm told in discussion with pastors, "Well, I think we're safe if we make it tighter.” Well, that's like people saying, I think it's all right. We put people under the Law, at least we’ll know then that we are more restricted. Well, grace can be abused. So I think we ought to be careful we don't go further than Scripture does. Don't go out saying I’m a liberal on divorce, please. I'm probably more liberal on this than those who hold a no-divorce view as we would refer to it. But I don't think that disqualifies a person from being an elder. Now let's face it. If they were divorced six weeks ago, they are probably not qualified to be an elder right now. There are issues involved in a divorce and so on and all of that, but a man divorced many years ago… What we are concerned about in these qualifications, I take it, is where is he now. I think the biblical view is he must be a man who is faithful to his wife. I think a literal translation would be good: a one-woman man. Because let's face it, a man may be married but there are still a lot of questions about his relationships with women. Never divorced his wife, never married anyone else, but he has a series of affairs. He's not qualified to be an elder. He's not a one-woman man. He hasn't demonstrated faithfulness to the woman God has given him.

That being the case, come back to Titus 1. This is the only qualification that covers sexual areas. Know promiscuity was a problem then as it is now. And this qualification really covers what we would call ‘sexual areas.’ A man to be qualified as an elder must be a one-woman man. It means he's demonstrated faithfulness to one woman, the woman being his wife. Now if he doesn't have a wife then he's be like Paul. He'd have to have demonstrated that he is a man of purity in this area. But the normal pattern is men would be married. That's the normal… Most men are married as most women are and so Paul deals with the general qualification. And that would be true then of the woman who would be enrolled, the widow, what we mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:9. She must have demonstrated that she was a one-man woman to qualify for support from the Church in her old years. She had that characteristic. Is it a lifetime characteristic? No, because moral sins are just as forgiven as other sins as Paul noted in 1 Corinthians 6 with adulterers and fornicators and so on.

So with all of that, we take the qualification here in our church to mean that a man must have demonstrated faithfulness to his wife. And as all these qualifications, there must have been a time where this is demonstrated. That's why you don't put a novice into the office of elder as he deals with in 1 Timothy 3 [verse 6], a new convert. They have to be men who have demonstrated maturity over time.

All right back in Titus 1. We won't spend as much time on all the rest because there is not as much issue over most of these. "Having children who believe." There are some questions about this one. King James has it "having children who are faithful." I think that is a better rendition and quite frankly I've gone both ways on this over the years, the idea that they have children who believe. There are certain things you can't control. I cannot control whether my children become believers or are believers. But I am responsible for their conduct and behavior. That's what Paul deals with in 1 Timothy 3. The elder must manage his household well. And you'll see where he's going with that as well. So I don't think the qualification is requiring that the children must be believers but they must be faithful. What do you mean by that? Well, look at the negative of that. "Not accused of dissipation or rebellion." “Not accused of dissipation or rebellion.” These are strong words. "Dissipation," it's a word used of the prodigal son in Luke 15:13, living a life abandoned to sin, rebellion, uncontrolled, undisciplined.

Down in verse 10 we are told, "there are many rebellious men." Talking there about unbelievers and their attitude of open rebellion and defiance. So we mean children who are faithful, in the sense there is order in his home and they are not living these kind of dissolute lives. He manages his household well is how it's elaborated in 1 Timothy 3.

So I think it's more consistent here to view this as children who are faithful. The word can be translated either way. But the follow up here, "not accused of dissipation or rebellion,” he doesn't say children who believe, having repented and trusted Christ. They are faithful. They are living under the control and authority as they should in their home as chapter 3 of 1 Timothy says. He must be managing his household well. There comes' a time when I'm not responsible for my children when they are out of the home and so on. But here they manifest control in the home because as 1 Timothy 3 says if you can't manage your own house, how will you manage the household of God. Remember, the Church is the household of God, it's the family of God. So demonstrating managing your family demonstrates that you have part of the qualifications to manage or oversee the Church of God which is His family.

Those are the home qualifications, if you will, the wife, the children. Maybe you ought to go back to 1 Timothy 3. Some of you may be more familiar, some less familiar. In verse 4, "He must be one who manages his household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity." Now a man can do that. Whether their children are believers or not, he is responsible to have his home in order. "But if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?" So you see that's the comparison. That's the realm that Paul is addressing and I take it he's addressing the same kind of qualification in Titus 1. It doesn't mean they are perfect children. It doesn't mean than an elder's children never get out of line, never do the wrong thing. I mean that wouldn't demonstrate anything if we had perfect little angels for children. The fact is that the elder demonstrates his authority in his home by bringing improper conduct into line, disciplining properly and so on. So his home doesn't turn into a place of chaos or his children don't upset that.

All right, then he moves on. Come back to Titus 1, “The overseer must be above reproach as God's steward.” That's a repeat of what he said in verse 6, he must be “above reproach." Ok, we talked about the family here, now why is it necessary to remember because he must be above reproach as God's steward? The word translated "steward" is a compound word, the word "house" and the word "law." And there's what we were just talking about, he's God's house manager. That's what the steward was, he was the house manager. So he was a manager of God's house or God's household. So the overseer must be above reproach as God's household manager. Now he's going to go on to talk about more of the things involved in being above reproach.

"Not self-willed." And the word literally means not pleasing yourself. A person who's not obstinate in his own opinion, arrogant, refuses to listen to others. One writer put it this way, “He obstinately maintains his own opinion, asserts his own rights and is reckless of the rights, opinions, and interests of others.” Obviously, if a man is self-absorbed and only concerned about pleasing himself and getting his own way, he is not a good candidate to lead the people of God, because he won't be doing what's best for them. He's always working for himself, looking to get his own way. So “not self-willed.”

"Not quick tempered." And I have to say in some of these qualifications I'm interested that they are even mentioned. You get into quick tempered and then pugnacious (we'll get there in a moment), and say, well, boy, that's almost a given. He hasn't beat up anybody this week. Do you even have to mention that? He doesn't pound people with his fists when things don't go his way. Well, first he says “not quick tempered.” And this is a person not controlled by his anger. You know, James 1:19, 20 says, we are to be “slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God." This doesn't mean that to be an elder a person has to be limp, you know, just the proverbial cabbage, nothing stirs him up, nothing rouses him unless you change the channel on him. He's just, you know, easy going, oh, that's all right and never stir him up. That's not what he's talking about. You know we see in Christ the anger that is there and we see in Paul anger on occasion. There must be a control of the anger, the discipline. There can be a passion in the person, even a display of anger in the right situations. But we need to be careful the anger does not control us. This is not a man quick-tempered, who loses his temper, you have to be careful what you say, you may ‘fly off the handle’ kind of thing. It's not a quick-tempered person, not a person who loses his temper.

“Not addicted to wine,” not a drunk. Do you even have to mention that? I was talking to a man who had been on a board of elders at another church, not this church, of course, a church I won't say whether it was here or another place. But you know, he told me when he was a member of the board of that church, they had to speak to the pastor about coming into the pulpit on Sunday morning under the influence of alcohol. When he came into the pulpit, he was drunk. They had to address that with him. So some of these things that we say these are a given, well, of course not. Now it does not say the elder cannot have a glass of wine. Paul told Timothy take a little wine for your stomach's sake and yet he was a man responsible to be appointing elders.

Now it's to say on our board of elders we have the biblical qualifications. We also have things that we believe that are necessary for the functioning of our board here. For example, to be an elder at this church, you not only have to meet the biblical qualifications but you also have to be able to meet on the evening that the elders meet together. So that is a nonbiblical qualification but it's necessary to be able to function here. If you can't attend the meeting of the elders, it's hard for you to be a functioning part of the board of elders.

Our elders have also set down that while they serve as elders, they will not partake of alcoholic beverages because there are issues around that. It would bother some people and it's just an area we believe that is not necessary for us to be mired down in. We also do that with tobacco. Again, we keep that separate because they are not biblical qualifications. Periodically we revisit those to see whether we want to make changes or so on. We want to make clear to men who would be considered for such office that these are the biblical qualifications but these are also other things that we have agreed on as elders and would ask you to agree to while you serve as an elder.

What Paul is dealing with here is overindulgence in wine. Abstinence would have to be dealt with on other bases, the gray areas -- Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 10 -- the principles established there. We are not going to get into that. But what Paul is at least saying here is this: doesn't forbid an elder who would have a glass of wine, it doesn't say he should. What he is talking about here is overindulgence in wine and what we maybe call a drunk or person who gets drunk on occasion.

"Not pugnacious." And this is a word I was talking about, beating someone up with your fists. The word literally means "a striker," someone who would resort to physical violence when he's stirred up. One put it this way, “It denotes a pugnacious person who strikes back with his fists when annoyed.” You know, we don't want to turn the elder meetings into fist fights. So we just don't want that kind of person around. It goes together. You know, you say, well, he's got a bad temper. You're almost afraid that he might haul off and punch you. Well, we don't want that kind of person… not qualified.

"Not fond of sordid gain," not a money lover. He must not have a life focused on material things and the acquiring of material things. You know this is the problem with the false teachers, they used their role for gain. Look in verse 11 of Titus 1, talk about these false teachers that have to be silenced, "they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain." Watching a program on a man who travels around. Before he gets all set up he's got to have his tapes, he's got to have his books, everything is peddled and sold and it's all on… It costs you $59 a person to attend. And all this supposedly where you are going to get spiritual information from the Word of God. And then in that he needs you to give a thousand dollars to do… And he's taking in a couple million dollars a year on this. And it's embarrassing. He's under the guise he's a conservative Christian. I say I don't think I identify with him and what they are doing. It's on a secular news program and I think, well, this is a mockery. It looks to the world like what is this man doing, he's got a great business going; all I can see as I looked at it, it looked to me like he had a great business going. The way he used the Scripture was a misuse of Scripture. And if I mentioned his name, many of you would know him. Sad.

So he's not to be a money lover. You don't want men leading the work that are going to be shaping in on the basis of ‘what kind of income will it bring and what will I get out of it’ kind of approach to ministry. “Not fond of sordid gain.” It doesn't mean… in the context, you get the idea (and it's dealt with in other passages) that many of the elders will be paid. In 1 Timothy 5:17 Paul addresses that, also addresses it in 1 Corinthians 9:14. But you don't want people to say, boy, it looks like they'd be in it for the money. We have to be very careful about those areas.

Titus 1:8, he's talked about some matters that we might say negative, he's going to focus on some positive. The elder must be hospitable, show hospitality. The word literally meant a lover of strangers, means hospitality. And in biblical times like the apostle Paul traveling here and there, where did he stay? You know, in the days before Holiday Inns and motels and hotels as we have it, you know, homes were opened up and so that was part of the ministry. The believers were to be hospitable, caring for one another, sharing their lives, sharing their homes, sharing their possessions. First Peter 4:9, "Be hospitable to one another without complaint."

"Loving what is good." I want to be a person who loves the things that are beneficial, worthwhile, profitable for the church and for the people of God. And that's what he loves with his life.

"Sensible." Here's a person who uses sound judgment. You know, basically he's saying elders ought to have good sense. We read a book a few years ago that is disturbing but very much to the point, not by a believer, not a Christian book, "The Death of Common Sense." And elders are to be sensible, literally somebody in their right mind. You know, we sometimes look around what's going on in the world and what do we say? What is happening? What are people thinking? And you know mature believers are those who have good sense. This is a favorite word of Paul in Titus, he uses it five times in this letter in these opening two chapters. Look at chapter 2 verse 2, "Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible. Verse 5, the older women are to be teaching the younger women and encouraging them “to be sensible.” Verse 6, "Likewise urge the young men to be sensible." Down in verse 12. We are to be denying ungodliness, worldly desires, “to live sensibly.” So using good sense in a biblical sense of the word.

So elders… it's to be true of others, but it has to be with elders. They'll use good sense, sound judgment, level-headed. They are not bouncing here and there but they've got both feet on the ground. They think clearly. They are level headed, use sound judgment. A basic, practical qualification and it is to be a characteristic of the people of God now living under the control of the Spirit. They use good judgment and that's why it is to be taught to the young men and the young women as well. Now that would get into areas we don't want to get in but even what we do with our finances and so on. People running around running up credit card debts and buying things they can't afford and just don't use good sense. I mean, you have to be sensible, it's a characteristic of maturity. You know, believers aren't to be people living in another world. We are to be demonstrating sound minds and a sober judgment, level headedness as God's people.

Conduct is “just,” conformed to the standard of what is right. This word "just" means right. The word "righteous" comes from this word. So that characterizes his conduct. He's a just man, a righteous man. That doesn't mean everybody will speak well of him, he may be slandered, but he is a just man, his person and character is characterized by that.

He's “devout,” a word that means personal godliness, holiness. A man who… he's comfortable in his relationship with God, he walks with God, that's not a strange environment for him.

“Self-control.” See, you could tie some of these together. We talked about sensible. This is a word that we would think, well, that would be similar. Self-control, a person who has power over himself. He's not dominated by desires, lusts, impulses, passions. There are people who are impulse buyers -- I don't know, I was there, I don't know why I bought that, what was I thinking? Well, you know I did this, I wasn’t thinking. And you know, a believer is to be self-controlled. Now self-control means I'm living under the control of the Spirit because Galatians 5:23, self-control is a fruit of the Spirit. So this is a result of the Spirit working in the life that we live, with our lives under control. Like Paul said, “I discipline my body,” and bring it into subjection in 1 Corinthians 9 [verse 27]. My body doesn't control me, I control my body. People say, oh, I couldn't help it. What do you mean you couldn't help it? Are you not a believer? Well, if you are a believer the Spirit dwells in you. If you are submissive to the Spirit, the Spirit produces self-control. This is a person not controlled by his passions and desires, impulses, and so on.

Then in verse 9, an elder must be one who is “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching." This gets into one of the prime responsibilities of the elders. So this moves from just character qualifications and to conduct, to what is going to be his realm of service. He's going to have to be a person who has a firm grip on the Word of God. There's no wavering here, he has a handle on the truth, "holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching." In other words, has been taught by the apostles, what we now have as our New Testament. To be an elder you have to know the truth. That means you have to be able to do two things. You have to be able “to exhort in sound doctrine,” to encourage and build up the believer, to challenge them, to correct them, to encourage them. And you also have to be able to refute the opponents. We will get into this as we proceed into Acts 20 in our study of Acts. That's become the major responsibility of the elders. Doesn't mean the elders have to be able to get up and preach or teach large groups. But an elder has to know the Word of God, be comfortable and at home in the Word of God, to be able to use the Word of God to exhort, encourage, challenge, correct and build up the believer. He is to know the truth, to defend the Body and protect it from false doctrine and false teaching. That becomes a major area of the elders’ responsibility, “refute those who contradict.” Not a popular ministry today many places. That's not only the positive of exhorting in sound doctrine, the church has to be grounded, but those who would teach contrary have to be refuted. Now note what's going on, [verse 10], “there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision.” Paul said the Jews were the big problem and they must be silenced, you just don't let it go on.

I mentioned watching this program where I would see men teaching false doctrine. My first reaction is I got to do a message on this, I got to expose it, I got to silence it, at least for our people. It “must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain," Titus 1:11]. You see what happens. False teaching comes in and families get upset, unsettled. They need to be very careful here. I've said this before and I'll say it again and then we'll be done. You know, elders are responsible to lead the church. It doesn't mean they are the only ones who know the Bible or know truth. We need to be very careful. We have all kind of input pouring into our homes from men who are not qualified as elders and they are upsetting whole families through the TV and the radio and I'm talking about so called Christian, religious programs, material that's read. Whole families get upset, thrown off-track.

We need to be very careful. I want to say Christian radio is listened to probably 90 percent by women and God has appointed elders and they are responsible for the doctrine of the church and much of the confusion can come through that root. It's not just women. The teachers I'm referring to were men. But I have to say I look through the audience -- and they went through a series of meetings with these -- and from the majority of the audience that was in attendance in the meetings that this secular news program was doing an hour program on were women. So we just want to be careful. And part of the elders’ responsibility is to refute those who contradict. We want to be careful what we allow into our homes. We say, oh, fine, the Lord provided elders and they are responsible to exhort in sound doctrine, refute those who contradict. But we just open the door for all kind of error and false teaching to come into our home and then whole families get thrown into turmoil and it becomes very difficult to sort it out and put it back together. So we just want to be very careful, be discerning.

I don't… well, I'll say it, I don't listen to Christian radio. There are some good programs I would listen to but by-and-large its junk. I have a book in my library that I think gets it, "Selling Jesus." And we got too many hucksters peddling the Word of God that has been corrupted to make it sellable. And I can say that because I'm an elder here and I have to refute those who contradict, and part of the elders’ responsibility of this church is protect the flock. And so you ought to be discerning and careful on what comes cranked into our homes, that bypasses the structure. We say, oh, well, unless the elders say it's ok, but we have to be discerning. It was happening in Paul's day. That's why Paul says you got to get these elders in place, Titus, that's why I left you there. Already whole families are being thrown into turmoil. They have to silence false teachers. People say, oh, I don't know, you always have to be attacking someone. I don't attack just anyone, I only attack the false teachers. It's not my fault they are false teachers and the Bible says the responsibility of an elder is to silence them, so I guess you have to speak to it.

So these are some of the qualifications, there are some others in 1 Timothy 3, altogether there is a list of about 21 qualifications. If you don't have I would recommend Alexander Strauch's book on "Biblical Eldership." That's a very fine work that works in a very thorough way through the whole issue of elders in the local church. And I think you'll find that helpful as a resource for your own further study. Let's join together in prayer.

Thank You, Lord, for Your Word, thank You for its clarity, thank You for its simplicity. Thank You, Lord, for Your provision for the Church. Lord, thank you for what You've done in our local church, for the elders You've raised up, for the Body You've brought together, for the blessing and privilege that's ours to serve together. Thank You, Lord, for a body of believers that is responsive to the elders, that follows their leadership, that submits to the teaching of Your truth, that are involved in serving and ministering according to how You've gifted each one. Lord, increase our testimony as Your people, keep us true to the Word in every area. We pray in Christ's name, amen.