storiesofvalue

…the husband of but one wife, (Titus 1:6b)

If you are just joining our study, we are breaking down the character profile of a church elder, as given by the Apostle Paul to Titus, whom he left in Crete.  Titus was expected to appoint elders in every town, which means he needed some criteria for selection.

This morning’s passage is a tough one.  How should the idea that an elder is to be the “husband of but one wife” be applied?  Does it mean…

…he must only have one wife at a time?

…he must be married to be an elder?

…he must have only been married once?

It may already be obvious to you how certain circumstances in a man’s life could be considered as disqualifications.  For example, if a man has never been married, but is older with an experienced spiritual walk, should he be eliminated from consideration?  If a man’s wife leaves him, should he not be allowed to serve, even when he has not done anything morally wrong, and has had time to heal?  If a man’s wife dies, and he is in the role of elder, should he be asked to step down?  And if a man has been married more than once, should he be asked to serve as elder?

I don’t have the space here to address each of these questions sufficiently.  But I will give you a framework for interpretation. 

The structure of this morning verse suggests literally, a “one-woman man.”  In other words, in a role that requires as much trust and faithfulness as that of elder, people should not have to worry about whether or not a man knows how to conduct himself in the presence of women, or to maintain healthy boundaries that help him avoid an indiscretion.  With this in mind, it would be just as inappropriate to have a married man as an elder who has poor boundaries. 

Over the years I have heard many answers to the questions I posed earlier.  How one approaches them depends on whether one believes Paul is saying a man must be married to be an elder, or rather that regardless of his marital status, he should demonstrate in word and deed his conviction that sexual intimacy is reserved for the marriage bed (Obviously, the same would be true even if Paul were referring only to the fact an elder must be married). 

As with all of the characteristics for elder, this one applies to all of us, male or female.  Leaders are called to a higher level of accountability because of the impact they can have on others.  But we are all ultimately accountable to God and responsible for our witness to the world.

Dear God, help me live a life of integrity.  In Jesus’ name, Amen.

P.S.  Last weekend I accidentally sent out two devotions.  One of them, on the first part of Titus 1:6 was intended for Monday.  Then somehow I posted a past devotion from 3rd John.  I am moving ahead with the next devotion for Titus today (Titus 1:6b).  Disregard the 3rd John devotion and go back and read the Titus 1:6 one, if you missed it over the weekend.  My intention is to send devotions out only during workdays since some people read them in their offices.  Thank you for your patience as I learn my new system – Larry Jones.

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. (Titus 1:5 NIV)

We don’t have a biblical record of Paul’s work in Crete.  We know he stopped there on his way to Rome in Acts 27.  But we aren’t told of an evangelistic work, with the exception of his influence on his shipmates.  Therefore, either Luke chose not to record Paul’s ministry on the island, or it took place later, following his imprisonment in Rome.

Since the book of Acts ends with Paul’s Roman imprisonment, we are reluctant to assume anything after that point.  However, a plausible theory is that Paul was released from his incarceration and was able to travel and share the gospel.  If this is true, then he could well have visited Crete, begun a work and left Titus behind to develop a sustainable leadership.  The book of Titus would have been written later. 

This seems to me to be a good sequence of events.  As an aside, most who hold to a post Roman ministry by Paul, also believe he was eventually recaptured and martyred in the same city.  Also from non-biblical history is the thought Titus became the first bishop of Crete. 

We don’t know the full extent of the things Paul left “unfinished” in Crete, but one obvious task was the appointing of elders in every town.  The word used here for “elders” is “presbuteros”, which refers to an older man or an office of leadership, with experience implied.  There are other words used for elder in the New Testament, such as “episcopos” which is translated “overseer” or “bishop”, and “poimen” which is translated “shepherd” or “pastor.”  Of course, all three can be translated “elder”, but the three terms demonstrate the three fold role of an elder: an experienced man who shepherds the flock of God and oversees its resources. 

It has always been a challenge for elders in a given church to stay focused on people, in light of the practical, physical issues of church life that must be addressed (budgets, buildings, etc).  The Bible suggests elders should appoint others to share in their ministry so they can focus on spiritual leadership.  Yet, an elder is, by definition, ultimately responsible for both the people in a ministry and the logistics of the ministry.  The secret, I believe, is to continue to develop and/or hire leaders who can serve with them so they don’t become consumed by either.  And since Jesus came to save people, not things, people should always trump things. 

You may have made an interesting observation in this morning’s passage.  Titus wasn’t asked to have an election to choose elders.  He was told to “appoint” them.  I am not saying there is anything wrong with an election process, but it is good to realize how we place leaders in office sometimes has more to do with our cultural norms than biblical models.  Anyway, we don’t have any apostolic protégés to appoint elders, so the system of presenting names for consideration by the current eldership, to be confirmed by the church family at a meeting makes sense. 

Something tells me Titus would have liked to have had an established system of selection to fall back on, and some experienced elders to help him.  Imagine being left on the island of Crete to finish what the Apostle Paul left unfinished. 

Dear God, help us finish the work we are given.  In Jesus’ name, Amen. 

To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. (Titus 1:4)

Titus is perhaps the most important early church leader “not” to be mentioned in the book of Acts.  This is strange when we realize he was with Paul and Barnabas when they traveled to Jerusalem to debate the issue of circumcision and the role of Gentiles in the early church (Acts 15). 

Here is Paul’s account of the Jerusalem trip, which he shared later in his book to the Galatians: “Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also.  I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.  Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.” (Gal 2:1-3)

It is a mystery why Luke didn’t mention Titus in Acts, especially since as an uncircumcised Greek, he would have been a controversial figure.  Some have suggested there were always other people with Paul and Barnabas when they traveled, but if they didn’t have a significant role they weren’t included in the record. 

However, Paul mentioned Titus often and called him his “true son”, suggesting he had been led to Christ by the apostle.  Paul trusted Titus with important ministry tasks, such as the spiritual oversight of the misguided Corinthian church.  “But God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus, and not only by his coming but also by the comfort you had given him. He told us about your longing for me, your deep sorrow, your ardent concern for me, so that my joy was greater than ever.” (2 Cor. 7:6-7)

As our study continues, we will learn more about the heart of Titus and his relationship with Paul, but one thing becomes clear from the beginning: Paul was preparing Titus as a leader to meet the growing needs found in the first century church, and as one of many who would form the second generation of workers after the apostles were gone. 

For this reason the study of Titus (and Timothy), always causes us to reflect on the importance of growing leaders in the church.  It reminds us those of us who have been around a while won’t be around forever, and it is imperative we train others to take our place.

Perhaps the church is one of the few places where we experience such joy in the process of replacing ourselves.  And from what I can tell, this process continues until the day we see Jesus in person.  Maybe it is one of the reasons He will say, “Well done, my good and faithful servant.” 

Dear God, help me be a mentor.  In Jesus’ name, Amen.    

I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink.  Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete. (2 John 1:12)

You may recognize these thoughts from our study of 3^rd John.  There we read: “I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.Peace to you.” (3 John 1:13-14) 

It is no surprise that we see this similarity.  In fact, most of us tend to conclude our remarks in letters and e-mails with familiar sentiments.  I think this is one of the ways we authenticate our communication.  Our concluding remarks become somewhat of a signature, along with our name.

But there is one new thought in this morning’s passage.  John wants to talk “face to face” that “our joy may be complete.” 

Who’s joy?

Is it a reference to the joy the Apostle John and the “chosen lady” would have sharing their faith with one another in person, the joy John’s associates would also have as they travelled with him, or even the joy the church in Ephesus would experience upon John’s return with a good report?

I personally believe John is merely pointing out what we all know: there is nothing quite the same as “being there”.  I find it intriguing this is still true in our culture.   

When our last child left home, I couldn’t wait to buy a computer with a webcam.  The prospect of being able to see them as I talked with them was irresistible.  One was thousands of miles away in England and the other hundreds of miles away in Ohio.  It isn’t as though I was completely out of touch.  We had e-mail, and cheap cell phone connections.  But being able to see them…now that was something!

And they enjoyed it too!

For a while….

Do you know what it’s like having a parent stalk you?  Actually, we enjoyed our webcam conversations, but the truth is, most of us have lives of our own, and just because we find a convenient time to sit in front of a computer and talk through a camera doesn’t mean the timing is the best for the person on the other end. 

So after a while, the webcam conversations grew fewer and fewer, and we saved our “face to face” conversations for the time when we were together in person.  Then, we all knew we were there to be physically close…to hold hands while we prayed…to hug…to sit next to them.

Webcams, e-mail and cell phones are still great inventions, and I am really glad we are able to stay in contact with our kids through them.  But when we are actually together, the things we share aren’t confined to a computer.  After all, “complete joy” is bigger than a 17” screen.

Dear God, thank You for the opportunities we have to see loved ones “face to face.”  In Jesus’ name, Amen.

Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. (2 John 1:11)

The Apostle John is definitely trying to shut down the work of false teachers operating in the region where the “chosen lady” serves.  Then he goes beyond merely discouraging hospitality to outright condemnation.

As we saw yesterday, nothing is as dangerous to the Lord’s church as selfishly motivated false teaching.  And while the church is to be a place of grace, and love is to be shared regardless of one’s past, false teaching falls into a category all its own.  All sin should be confronted in love, but the process of repentance for a false teacher must, by necessity, come quickly.  Otherwise, the whole family of God can be corrupted by his influence.

But why are those who “welcome him” labeled wicked by association?

Why is anyone who knowingly aids a wicked person guilty by association?  Is the driver of a get-away car guilty, as is the bank robber?  Is the landlord who allows criminal activity to take place at his property, while receiving rent money contributing to the wrong?  And is a doctor who supplies a patient with illegal drugs to support his addiction at fault when his patient dies of an overdose? 

In courts of law, and with sufficient proof, yes…yes…yes. 

Therefore we should not be surprised to find the Apostle John implicating those who willingly provide safe harbor for those who teach false doctrine about Jesus. 

Maybe I should back up a little and toss in a word of perspective.  There are lots of theological positions people have that don’t rise to the level of false doctrine, even when they come into conflict with other opinions.  While there is ultimately one right answer to biblical questions, when we don’t have the whole story, we can’t determine those answers with certainty.  So don’t start chasing people away from your church just because they disagree with you!

For example, when it comes to how events will play out at the end of time, we simply don’t have enough information to know every detail with certainty.  This means people can agree to disagree on theories that can’t be proven until that day.  But the fact that Jesus is coming back, and that He will hold us accountable for our response to the gospel, is non-negotiable.  Other non-negotiable doctrines include Jesus’ nature as the eternal Son of God, His full covering of our sins on the cross, and His resurrection. 

This is why the specific teaching of Gnostics that the Son of God had not come in human flesh was worthy of condemnation.  It struck at the very heart of the gospel and offered no room for compromise. 

I think there are still many opportunities to show grace to false teachers, and certainly to correct people in love who may be quite innocent in their error.  But when it comes to the rudimentary teachings of Christ there isn’t much wiggle room: none in fact.

This is indeed a hard saying.  And one I have struggled with more than once.

Dear God, help me figure out the balance between grace and the preservation of pure doctrine.  In Jesus’ name, Amen.

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. (2 John 1:10)

This verse might seem a little “out of time” since in our culture we are very careful who we let in our house.  We certainly would not let a stranger in.

But in John’s culture, it was not uncommon for people to gather in homes to be taught about Jesus, and if someone had a word to share they would join the gatherings.  Someone also had to provide hospitality to traveling teachers during their stay.  Therefore, to turn a teacher away from your home was a way of denying him influence with others as well as the infrastructure he needed to continue his work.

You may remember, in our study of 3^rd John, there was an opposite problem with Diotrephes who refused hospitality to teachers of truth.  Now, John is actually encouraging the “chosen lady” to refuse hospitality to false teachers.

It might be good if we noted what this “teaching” is all about.  It is the “teaching of Christ” (vs. 9) and those “who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” 

It appears John was trying to shut down a false teaching ring operating in the “chosen lady’s” town, which was likely Gnostic in origin.  His plan was to starve them out.

Was this the nice thing to do?

One of the observations we make in the early church, and in fact in all of biblical history, is God’s swift treatment of false teachers.  False teachers set themselves up as authorities and dared to undermine the gospel with erroneous precepts.  Their work and their words could not be allowed to stand.

James once wrote: “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” (James 3:1)  Therefore, we should not be surprised when we find the apostle John shutting the door on someone with dangerous doctrine.  The Lord’s church is open to all who come with a humble heart and a broken spirit, but there is no place for those who purposely distort the truth for personal gain.

This is a hard truth.  Our tendency is to extend the same grace toward false teachers that we are commanded to share with all sinners…the same grace that has been shown us.  And indeed, we should attempt to reason with teachers who are distorting scripture and show them the error of their way.  This is grace.  But ultimately, as they used to say in the country, “we should not give them a place to roost.” 

Otherwise, we might end up with some really rotten eggs in the henhouse. 

Dear God, make me wise to false doctrine.  In Jesus’ name, Amen

Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

Before we move into our passage, there is an important point to be made from this verse, which influences our theological perspective on another topic. Some years ago there was a great amount of attention given to the term “antichrist.” It seems we go through historical seasons, from time to time, when the world seems as though it coming apart at the seams and someone is identified as the Antichrist (with a big A).

However, our passage says “any such person” who denies Jesus has come in the flesh is “the deceiver and antichrist.” My personal opinion is we should not be nearly as concerned about a single Antichrist emerging as we should any such person who seeks to deceive us.

Actually, this does bring us somewhat to the subject I want to address today. There are those in our present world that have this spirit of the deceiver and the antichrist. They don’t have horns coming out of their heads, and they don’t gargle like demons when they speak. In fact, in many respects they seem normal.

And they are normal…meaning they don’t look like a Hollywood Antichrist figure. But their logic is flawed.

What in the world or who in the world am I talking about? I am referencing those who reject Jesus as the Son of God, or deny that He did, or could have come as God in human form.

To be honest, I can handle people who reject the biblical Jesus because they don’t believe He is who He claimed to be. I disagree with them, and weep for their souls. But at least they are looking at a body of evidence and reaching an informed decision.

On the other hand, I am troubled by those who distort the biblical facts, twist logic, and use flawed presuppositions to promote a selfish agenda. Every year I read portions of popular magazine articles focused on topics like “the true Jesus.” The articles are often written by experts on Christianity who are not Christians, and their scholarship is embarrassing, to say the least. In a few weeks it will happen again as we approach Easter…I promise you.

What is the “selfish agenda?” It is I believe a moral agenda. Jesus is a threat to any who choose to live apart for morality and absolute truth. The reality of Jesus, as taught in the bible, presupposes a Creator God, a sinful, fallen human race, and a need for boundaries which make it possible for people to live together in peace.

The false teachers of John’s had some unique perspectives on the spirit and the flesh, which led them to self-abasement on one hand, and self-indulgence on the other. And they claimed a “secret knowledge” (Gnosticism) known onto to the few…the false teachers…as we might expect.

When people use the Lord and spiritual language to twist truth for their own purposes, who needs a single Antichrist? The small “a” antichrists are potent enough.

Dear God, help me examine the evidence. In Jesus’ name, Amen.