Paul wrote his epistle to Titus to encourage the young man in his task. Titus was left in Crete by Paul with a specific assignment: "that you would set in order what remains" (Titus 1:5). Now, Crete is a relatively small island, but even in Paul's day it was known as the island of 100 cities. You have to believe that there would be more than, say, 2 cities there for Titus to deal with. And Crete was a mountainous island without connecting roads to the cities (because they were largely ports). So this was going to be an arduous assignment. But the terrain and the number of churches were not the real difficulty. Crete was infested ... with false teachers.
So, what instructions did Paul think would help Titus in this task? "Appoint elders in every city." Wait, Paul, Titus has to face all these problems and you're most concerned about church polity? Yes, indeed. Think about it. Crete had "many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain" (Titus 1:10-11). (Apparently Paul didn't think "freedom of speech" extended to church life.) Dangerous liars were all around inside the churches. How do you counter that? How do you silence them? You need leaders who are above reproach and who know how to manage family (because God's people are a family). You need leaders who are not working for themselves, but working as stewards of God. They're not concerned about their own interests, not prone to heated exchanges, not serious drinkers, not out for personal gain. They are good with people, love what is good, reasonable-minded. They do what is right in Man's eyes and in God's eyes. Oh, and they are anchored in the Word, especially as it was always taught. They're not coming up with new takes on a text. That's what you need in the face of seriously bad teachers.
That list I just gave you was a summary of the list of qualifications Paul gave Titus for the leadership of the churches in Crete (Titus 1:6-9). He says why they need those qualifications: "so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9). If we are to refute the lies -- to put things in order -- we have to silence the liars. You do that by 1) godly living and 2) godly doctrine. You do that by being rooted and grounded in God's Word, "the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 1:3). Paul didn't hand down arbitrary qualifications for leadership in church. He handed down the list (breathed out by God) of the qualifications of those who would need to continue to defend God's people against the liars who were promised to show up in our gatherings. They would need to "reprove them severely" (Titus 1:13). Interestingly, it was necessary "so that they may be sound in faith." Which, of course, is why we still see today this constant attack on Christian behavior and, above all, the Word of God. When it comes from inside the church, you can guess what the real source is. And when we neglect the leadership requirements and the purpose, it does not bode well for the church.
5 comments:
I can't think of a single person who might resemble those at Crete who Timothy was sent to deal with, not a one.
It was Titus, but me, either. Not one.
I had said earlier that it would seem that all Christians should strive to meet the qualifications given in Titus for an elder. But pondering it, I wonder if that is true, or if maybe I'm wrong. What if I'm imposing my own internal processes. I marvel at the scriptural ignorance of Christians today, and since I don't have that, am I imposing my giftedness onto others? Am I asking more of others than Scripture asks?
My bad, we just studied those small letters from Paul and I had a brain malfunction.
But were lucky we don't have any folx like those around.
No one in particular comes to mind.
I have to admit, when I was President of the Church Council for the UCC church I attended and then left due to knowing better what the UCC was all about, I did support the hiring of a particular man for pastor...as the position open at the time. There was disagreement between those on the selection committee who seemed to think the authority was all theirs...it wasn't, as they were appointed to find suitable candidates from whom the congregation would have a voice in selecting...and those on the committee and the majority of congregants who regarded our interim pastor as worthy of the job. While I got along famously with the man personally, I soon came to regard him as a bad choice and wished I urged patience. Live and learn, I suppose. It's kinda like choosing political office holders or justices for the SCOTUS. You think you got someone good and it turns out you were wrong.
The downside was that I doubt any choice would have been good according to the criteria listed for Titus, or my own understanding of what a pastor should be. As it happened, after I had left, and the pastor referenced had retired, the congregation went and hired a woman who is pastor still. I would have been far more vocal against such a selection, as I would have had they had naught but homosexuals or lesbians applying, but that's another issue. Clearly this woman and those sexually disordered also fall woefully short of the criteria.
In any case, pardon my rambling.
Good post.
Post a Comment