Put Things in Order

Put Things In Order

Titus 1:5-16

May 14, 2017

As I read our text today, you may think to yourself, “This does not sound like much of a Mother’s Day text to me.” You would be correct. However, in the tradition of having awkwardly incongruent texts for special occasions – one need only remember the day we talked about Lot’s daughters on Preschool Sunday (you canlook to Genesis 19:30-38 if you are curious) – we are going to press on.

Read Titus 1:5-17

Let me set the scene again: Paul sent Titus this “personal letter” in order to – as Paul says – “put in order what remained to be done” to establish the churches in Crete. Titus was to “appoint elders in every town.”

Apparently, Paul and Titus had spent time in Crete later in Paul’s missionary journeys. It may be that Paul went to Crete after his imprisonment in Rome at the end of the book of Acts. Having started to lay the foundation for a church community there, Paul left Titus in Crete to finish the job. Then, having moved on, Paul received reports of how things were going. The bulk of this letter is about establishing leadership, teaching sound doctrine, and maintaining the mission that Paul and Titus had begun together.

This letter seems to indicate that it was written fairly soon after Paul had left Titus – long enough for the kinds of confusion and heresies Paul encountered in Ephesus to arise from the Jewish community in Crete, but early enough that he did not have to instruct Titus to remove anyone from leadership.

What was Titus to put in order? Leadership. The very first priority Paul addressed was leadership.

Church leadership is a tricky thing to address. On the one hand, doesn’t Paul’s description of the qualifications for leadership seem like a contradiction of everything Paul had argued in Galatians – specifically, against earning righteousness by our own merits? Yet, look at the first criteria he urged Titus to evaluate for leaders: church leaders should be blameless. He used the word twice. I am not dismissing or avoiding the others – married to one wife, believing children, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious – but Paul was painting with a broad brush and “blameless” seems to encompass the rest. The specifics Paul provided involved domestic, social, and ecclesiastical examples under the umbrella of “blameless.” He seems to be describing some sort of super-Christian.

On the other hand, let’s check reality: how many “blameless” church leaders do you know? Let me be clear: if “blameless” means “sinless,” I have not earned that title because of my own works; and, without calling out specifically how, neither have any of our session members, deacons, or staff. Further, if blamelessness includes accountability for the faith of our children – well, that’s a pretty high bar! When God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses, he commanded children to honor their parents and said that the sins of the parents would be visited on several generations of their children; but the notion of parents being held accountable for the faith of their children – that cuts a little too close! Have you ever tried to get a teenager to clean their room or help with chores around the house? How are we supposed to force them to become believers?

So what did Paul mean by “blameless”? It means we do not rely on our own works of righteousness, but we have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus. It means we are gratefully and wholly dependent upon what God has done for us in Christ. There is a remarkable difference between those who are confident in their own strength and those who rely on the LORD in their weakness. There is a humility that comes from trusting in Jesus to wash us clean from all unrighteousness – and it is that humility and devotion that Paul was describing as “blameless.”

This past week’s video from our Pastors’ Study was David Choi, who talked about “the gospel is greater.” He began by talking about Luke 14 and 15, where the religious elite were grumbling and saying to one another, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.” They were saying those things after Jesus had repeated several times, “Let anyone with ears to hear listen!” Choi talked about how he started a church in Chicago and the people who responded most enthusiastically were the non-believers, un-churched, hurting people and – conversely – that the church people were mostly inert and non-responsive. He observed that church people failed to react because “we already know this stuff.” The Pharisees were the church leaders about whom Jesus warned the people in Matthew 23, saying multiple times, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” The Pharisees were confident in their own knowledge; ignorant of their foolishness of not knowing Jesus. Being blameless means remembering and being grateful for the grace we have received – grace God was not required to give, but chose to give out of His great love for us.

In order to understand Paul’s point, we have to see that church leadership is something to which God calls people in service. Church leaders work for God; not for the people, not for the institution, not for the minister, not for the Pope. Church leaders work for God. All believers are to serve God; leaders are to fulfill specific functions helping shepherd the flock in their service to God. Titus was to appoint leaders based upon characteristics he observed in the lives of those in the church. In God’s perspective, those who have received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and serve obediently to him are “blameless.” Those who serve for their own ends and purposes – either consciously or unconsciously making themselves idols to be served – are not. Herein lay the distinction Paul was making.

We have many illustrations from history of the problems caused when leadership fails to be “blameless” by humbly serving in gratefuldependence upon what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. For example, we are about to “celebrate” the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, marked by Martin Luther’s nailing his 95 Theses on the Wittenburg church door. The 95 Theses addressed abuses by leadership within the Roman Catholic Church – the most well-known of which was the practice of indulgences: priests were to offer prayers on behalf of the dead to free them from purgatory for a price. You may remember the jingle, “When the coin in the coffer doth ring, a soul from purgatory, it doth spring.” Luther and several generations of reformers after were expelled from the Roman Catholic Church because of their criticism of – and refusal to abide by – the non-biblical practices of the Pope, bishops, and priests of the Roman Catholic Church.

Our Presbyterian heritage is part of the Protestant Reformation. Among the things we recognize is that even the strongest people of faithstruggle with sin when they are put in positions of power. Just like how the Pharisees rejected Jesus authority because they could not give up their own, just as the religious people could not “hear” with joy the gospel proclaimed in Chicago as David Choi preached, we find that institutional power often corrupts even the best-intentioned servants. It is tough to hold the power loosely and not to conflate service responsibilities with personal righteousness. As soon as we start believing we deserve the position and power we have been called to exercise as a steward, we stop being “blameless.”

To counter the temptation to self-righteousness, we do not give unfettered authority to the clergy. I have one vote on our session; and it is not veto power. To counter the temptation to self-righteousness, we have term-limits for the installed service of ordained ruling elders. Once ordained, elders are always ordained to service – teaching, participating in communion, exhorting and encouraging the congregation – but the specific decision-making power is limited to only those installed to serve on session; and that installed service is time restricted.

As I mentioned earlier, Paul was painting with a broad brush. That said, we cannot just simply dismiss the illustrations. How do we read them? The domestic, social, and ecclesiastical characteristics he cited as necessary for an elder were fruit of a life committed in service to Christ. As I go through these, recognize that Paul was describing men; yet, without going into a long discourse about why – which we will at another point – the same general attributes would be applicable to women whom God was raising up into leadership. Consider the list:

• The husband of one wife – he demonstrates faithfulness in his relationships;
• His children are believers – his life, including his exercise of parental stewardship, has yielded fruit of faith in the life of his children;
• Not accused of debauchery – he is a person of integrity, people in the community can trust his word; and,
• Not rebellious – he is not looking for his own glory or gain at the expense of the gospel. He does His opponents in the early church were more than happy to come up with the rituals and behaviors that would make one righteous in the eyes of other men.

Similar are the attributes Titus was to seek in someone to be considered “blameless” as a bishop or as an “overseer”:

• Not arrogant or quick tempered – he has the humble disposition of a servant of Christ;
• Not addicted to wine – he is disciplined in the behaviors of day-to-day life and of a clear mind;
• Not violent or greedy for gain – violence results from not getting what we think we deserve or want; greed is the same; serving Christ means we do not demand our own way but rather seek to discern and serve Christ’s way.
• He must be hospitable, a lover of goodness, prudent, upright, devout, and self-controlled – these are the positive expressions that contrast with the prohibitions previously enumerated.

I want to spend a moment on the last one: “He must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.” He must know Christ and seek to make Christ known.

Leaders in the church must have a conviction that the gospel is true: we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. On the foundation and basis of that conviction, leaders seek to share the gospel with others who are lost. Further, “they are willing to engage those who contradict it.”

Friends, here is where I think the modern main-line denomination has failed the church. I have shared this previously, but it bears repeating here: pastors in the mainline churches have accepted the role of “theological experts.” We have accepted and encouraged the notion that non-professional (that is, non-paid) believers should not trust their own understanding of Scripture in order to engage in conversations about the faith. Instead of sharpening Biblical literacy, we have ensured job-security by cultivating a community dependent upon us to tell you what Scripture really means.

If you wonder if this is true, let me ask you: how many of you are comfortable confronting me about theological issues where you think I am wrong? Some of you are, but not many. (Just a reminder: it’s Mother’s Day. Don’t feel like you need to respond to this challenge at the door this morning.)

For what it is worth: I am working hard to change that perception. The reason I am annoyingly committed to preaching verse-by-verse through Scripture is not to impress you with how expert I am on all things Biblical. It is to equip you to be able to engage with each other and with those beyond the congregation to “be able to [share] with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.” My goal is not to get you to agree with me on every issue; it is for you to be able to persuasively articulate the gospel: what you believe and why.

Functioning in the environment.

The purpose of leadership standards is to have a clear proclamation of the gospel into a confused and hostile environment. As much as the technology has changed in the two millennia since Paul wrote, the spiritual conditions have remained the same. There are rebellious people, idle talkers, and deceivers inside and out of the church.

Like the Galatians, the people of Crete were hearing a multitude of voices telling them what they should believe. Paul noted they were “teaching for sordid gain what it is not right to teach.” And then he launched on what seems a wildly offensive attack, “It was one of them, their very own prophet who said, ‘Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.’ That testimony is true.”

OK, what is that all about? It was a colloquialism of the community – it was a saying that had a specific meaning that was different than how it sounds literally. It was like Abby’s trip to Japan a year ago; she was talking with a group of Japanese students who have a pretty good understanding of book English. In the course of the conversation, she said, “I am not going to throw my friend under the bus.” The Japanese students all looked horrified until she explained it was just a metaphorical expression. Here, the line comes from four lines of a work

attributed to Epimenides the Cretan, in which his fellow-islanders are denounced for their impiety in claiming that the tomb of Zeus could be seen in Crete [that is, they were claiming to be more holy by teaching false doctrine, claiming they were high enough to see into heaven]:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one –

The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!

But thou art not dead: thou livest and abides for ever,

For in thee we live and move and have our being.[1]

In short, Paul was taking a known criticism of false, puffed-upreligious types within Crete and applying it to those who would pervert the gospel for their own power, profit, or status.

The same is true today. We have people proclaiming the prosperity gospel – if you just believe enough and give more money to their ministry, God will grant you material wealth. We have people proclaiming a works-righteousness faith – if you just believe enough and give more money to their ministry, God will heal you or help you achieve all your dreams. That is the environment in which church leaders have a job to do: they need to be able to proclaim with sound doctrine and refute those who contradict it. They must humbly lead others while simultaneously remembering that they, too, are following Jesus.

Humility does not mean uncertainty. Solid, humble, God-fearing leadership is critical in the early development of a congregation, of a church. Paul stressed the importance of convicted leadership to Titus because the faith requires it. In an age and environment of uncertainty and rejection of the gospel, leaders needed to teach. They needed to set an example. They needed to show in their own life the power of the gospel to transform; not just when we die, but also right now. As it was then, so it is now.

Solid, humble, God-fearing leadership is not afraid of questions. The gospel stands up, even if I am not always the most articulate defender. However, what cannot happen is what is still happening today: people want to keep their spiritual options open; they want to think that the gospel is true but do not want to take the personal step to trust it completely. Leadership cannot be ambiguous.

As Christians, we are not defenders of the faith. We are witnesses to the gospel. There is a huge difference. We do not expect or anticipate our elders to know everything, to be flawless in all their conduct, and capable of leaping tall buildings in a single bound. We do expect them to be professing Christians. We do expect them to have the conviction that Jesus is who he said he is; which is essential in a world that would rather not hear it. We do expect them to be willing to correct those who have submitted themselves to the authority of the church for the purpose of conforming them to the image of God’s Son who is revealed in Scripture. They cannot do all that on their own: I exhort you to be praying for me and praying for all those who are in leadership.

Church leadership is something we take for granted at our own peril. Paul’s words here may seem overly dogmatic, but he has a clear vision of what happens when a lack of accountable leadership exists. Over the course of years I have seen the devastating effects corrupt leadership has cause: congregations split over loyalty to a pastor who has been accused of sexual misconduct, congregations split over staff taking too much authority away from the session; congregations split over denominational issues; and so on. Some of you were around and can remember how painful it was when this congregation split years ago. Some of you have been involved in other congregations that have experienced this kind of turmoil as leadership loses sight of who they are and who they are serving.