Titus 1

⁵ This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 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. 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, ⁸ but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. ⁹ 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.

It was recently revealed that yet another high-profile pastor has fallen. This pastor is in his 70s. He is a conservative stalwart, theologically, and is active on the speaking circuit. One or two of the books in my library have his name on the cover. I have heard him speak more than once at conferences. The “other woman,” as they say, is in her 20s. The issue of “power dynamics” has been raised, not without reason. The entire situation is utterly tragic.

As this scandal unfolded, many began to wonder about the strange silence surrounding it, particularly from the church he pastored. Why had they not brought church discipline against him? Why were the elders of the church not addressing this public scandal in a sufficient way?

Then it became clear: Apparently this man—well-known and heretofore well-respected as a pastor—was not actually the pastor of the church he appeared to pastor. He was not the undershepherd of the church, though seemingly everybody thought he was. He was not even a member of the church. As it turns out, he allegedly had an agreement with the church that he would be paid to preach on Sunday mornings. That is it. One insider said that he would drive up, preach, then drive away.

One wonders: Was this arrangement so that the man in question could sidestep the clear biblical requirements for an elder? In other words, by not technically being an elder (but, instead, a weekly speaker), could he perhaps be exempted from the high standards of the office? To which I think we should say that one ought not play games with the church and, more importantly, with God. God sees the heart and God knows our characters…and God is never fooled by technicalities. In fact, this man presented himself as a shepherd and, as a proclaimer of the word, he has a responsibility to make sure that his life matches his profession.

There was a time earlier in my life when I used to hear this mantra during a particular presidential campaign: “Character counts!” Indeed, it does! Which is why Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gives the qualifications for elders in the church.

The elder’s relationships.

Paul begins with the elder’s relationships.

⁵ This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 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.

We might group these relational qualifications under the three headings of his relationships with others, with his wife, and with his children.

His reputation among others

The elder must have a good reputation.

⁶ if anyone is above reproach…

To be sure, having a good reputation does not mean that he is universally loved. In Paul’s numerous instructions to Timothy and Titus, for instance, he calls upon them to confront false teachers and to exhort the church. To lead is to, at times, be disliked. Even so, the man of God must have a fundamentally good reputation among people at large.

We can see this dynamic at place in the early church in Acts 2:

⁴⁶ And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, ⁴⁷ praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Clearly there were those who did not care for the early Christians (to put it mildly), yet there was a fundamental respect among people at large. This should be the case with elders in the church.

His relationship with his wife

The elder’s relationship with his wife must also be strong and respectable.

⁶ …the husband of one wife…

Let us first note that this instruction does not mean the elder must be married. It is rather addressing those who are.

This phrase is interesting, “the husband of one wife.” Scot McKnight translates these words in Titus 1:6 as “one-woman’s man.”[i] Denny Burk (and others) agrees.

The elder must be the “husband of one wife.” As explained in the comment on 1 Timothy 3:2, “husband of one wife” denotes a “one-woman man.” The husband, therefore, must exhibit exemplary faithfulness and devotion to his wife. If a man is not faithful to love and lead his own wife like Christ does the church, then he cannot love and lead Christ’s bride. Marriage is a proving ground of church leadership.[ii]

In this reading, Paul is not talking about the number of marriages a person has had (though this is likely the dominant reading of these words over the last two millennia), but rather the elder’s character with his wife and also, by extension, with other women. Meaning, is he known as a one-woman man?

The English Standard Version Archeology Study Bible offers this insight:

As in 1 Tim. 3:2, the context addresses the current status of an elder. Men under Roman law could have only one wife at a time, although indigenous (non-Greek) groups sometimes practiced polygamy. The passage is concerned with the husband’s faithfulness, requiring a married elder to be faithful to his wife. He should certainly not consort with prostitutes or keep concubines, which was relatively common behavior in the first-century society.[iii]

Here, then, are the main options for interpretation:

• Paul is saying that a man who has been divorced cannot be an elder.
• Paul is saying that a polygamous man cannot be an elder.
• Paul is not addressing divorce but is rather saying that the elder must be faithful to his wife and not seen as flirtatious or one who acts inappropriately with women.

Again, it is likely that the first of these is the dominant interpretation of this text, but the other two possibilities should be considered. Churches must wrestle with this with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, with wisdom, and with the whole witness of scripture in view.

His relationship with his children

The elder’s children must also reflect well upon his character.

⁶ …and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.

I include this under “His relationship with his children” because, in context, Paul’s seems to be assuming that if an elder’s child is running wild it is a reflection on the elder’s failure in raising the child well. After all, the beginning of verse 7 likely suggests this when it says, “For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach.”

Here as well, some qualifications are in order. It is reasonable to assume that Paul is referring to the character of children insofar as they are under the direct guidance of their fathers and mothers. A grown child who makes grown but tragic life decisions might be reflecting less on his father than on his or her own selves. Should an elder be removed because of the behavior of, say, his 40-year-old son? This would not seem to fit the flow of Paul’s thought here, though, of course, that too might ultimately reflect (or not!) on his father in some way.

No, the idea would seem to be that a man whose children are under his direct parental guidance are, to some extent, a reflection of the father’s character or, at least, a reflection of the father’s diligence or lack of diligence in raising them.

What the elder must not be.

In verse 7, Paul lists a number of qualities that the elder must not possess.

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,

He must not be:

• arrogant
• quick-tempered
• a drunkard
• violent
• greedy

Sadly, a perceived arrogance among the clergy is all too prevalent. When the church looks at her leaders, the members should find humility. Instead, they often encounter a staggering sense of self-importance. In Anthony Trollope’s Barchester Towers, he describes one clergyman in these terms:

Francis Arabin…was the younger son of a country gentleman of small fortune in the north of England…he went to Oxford…He became a member of a vigorous debating society…In due process of time he took his degree and wrote himself B.A., but he did not do so with any remarkable amount of academical éclat.  He had occupied himself too much with…polemics, politics and outward demonstrations…When Mr. Arabin left Oxford, he was inclined to look upon the rural clergymen of most English parishes almost with contempt.  It was his ambition…to do something towards redeeming and rectifying their inferiority.[iv]

Rectifying the inferiority of the other clergy does not seem like an appropriate pastime for a man of God. In fact, he should not see himself as superior to anybody. He is not to be arrogant.

Or “quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent.” C.K. Barrett translates the second and third attributes as “no drinker, no brawler.”[v] That is well said.

Craig Keener has offered some interesting background information on the prohibition against drunkenness, against being addicted to much wine.

The drunken worship of Dionysus was known on Crete, and the Christian leaders’ behavior must not be confused with it in any way (some people ignorantly confused Judaism with the cult of Dionysus, and Christians were generally viewed as part of Judaism). But avoiding drunkenness was also important for other reasons (Prov 20:1). Those “given to wine” (KJV, NASB) were also often recognized as abusive and given to fighting as well.[vi]

Churches disagree on the question of whether or not an elder can have a glass of wine with his meal, but let us be very clear on this: Drunkenness and debauchery are utterly unacceptable for an elder or, indeed, for any child of God.

So, too, is greed. Do I even need to say that ministers in our day oftentimes have a terrible reputation in this department? The elder need not live in poverty, to be sure, but neither must he demand great wealth.

I remember with a shudder a lunch I was at some years ago during a break at a state convention meeting. A denominational employee was present who I had never met. He struck me almost immediately as rather humorless in his countenance and his words. At one point in the lunch, ministerial compensation came up. He said: “The pastor should make the same amount as the wealthiest member of his church.” I genuinely thought I had misunderstood him or had misunderstood what was surely a joke. I responded: “I’m sorry. What did you say?” He repeated it: “The pastor should make as much as the wealthiest member of his church.” I asked, “Are you being serious?” He responded, “Completely.” And he was.

That struck me then as it strikes me now: amazing and utterly wrongheaded. I am sure the brother would not have said that “greed” was his motive. Nonetheless, that certainly sounds like a step in the wrong direction!

There are many things the elder must not be!

What the elder must be.

But there are many things the elder must be!

⁸ but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.

By “hospitable,” Paul means that he loves people and is willing to open his heart and home to them. He is not standoffish, aloof, unconcerned. Paul would have had no concept of the elder whose church members cannot approach them. Rather, he saw the elders as sharing the concerns and, indeed, the lives of the people.

He also possesses the fruits of one whose heart has been redeemed. He is a “lover of good.” Paul says something similar in Philippians 4 when he speaks to the Christians at Philippi in this way:

⁸ Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

To be a follower of Jesus is to love the good!

And to be “self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.” This is a picture of a person who is sober-minded, focused, and “wills the one thing,” to paraphrase Kierkegaard. His faith and calling are not incidental to his life. They are rather the animating core of his life. They define who he is, and he lives out of this sense of calling.

The elder will not be perfect, to be sure, but he nonetheless needs to be holy, needs to be good, needs to be disciplined. Flannery O’Conner’s famous short story is entitled “A Good Man is Hard to Find.” Maybe, but a good elder should not be hard to find. One does indeed wonder what role a basic sense of goodness and decency in the elders of the church might serve in bringing about revival.

There is a doctrinal aspect to this as well.

⁹ 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.

He must be a man of conviction, a man who truly believes the gospel. He must “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught.” His theology must not be ever-malleable, soft, pliant. The gospel must not be to him a mere suggestion or even merely a noble idea. It must be life to him!

There can be no doubt that the theological dilution one senses and sees happening in the evangelical church today is in no small part attributable to the lack of genuine theological conviction among the church’s elders. In this way, uncertainty is handed down to the flock and a fog settles over the body of Christ. But let us be clear on this point: The apostles did indeed know what they believed! It was life and death to them, and vacillation was not an option.

The renewal of the leadership of the church must begin with a renewal of heart-commitment and mind-commitment to Jesus Christ and His gospel. Anything less than this will lead to a stymied and ineffective church.

People—especially those in the church—have a right to expect their elders, their leadership, to actually be true undershepherds.

A Gallup poll from earlier this year provided respondents a number of professions, then asked: “Please tell me how you would rate the honesty and ethical standards of people in these different fields—very high, high, average, low or very low?” The percentages reflected in the following table reflect “Very high/High” responses. Observe the clergy ranking.

Gallup summarized the findings in this way:

New Lows for Five Professions; Three Others Tie Their Lows

Ethics ratings for five professions hit new lows this year, including members of Congress (6%), senators (8%), journalists (19%), clergy (32%) and pharmacists (55%).[vii]

This simply cannot be. Let the hearts of the leadership of the church of Jesus Christ turn back to Jesus. Let the next poll show a marked increase in how people view the clergy and the ethical standards of the clergy. The word of God is clear: The elders of the church must be men of God, men of character, men of resolute focus on Christ and His gospel!

 

[i] McKnight, Scot. The Second Testament: A New Translation (p. 241). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

[ii] Burk, Denny. “Titus.” ESV Expository Commentary: Ephesians–Philemon. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway) Apple Books.

[iii] Archaeology Study Bible. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 1805, n1:6.

[iv] Evans, G.R. Wyclif: Myth & Reality (Downer’s Grove, IL:  IVP Academic, 2005), p.92.

[v] Barrett, C.K. The Pastoral Epistles. (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1963), p.129.

[vi] Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (IVP Bible Background Commentary Set) (p. 626). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

[vii] https://news.gallup.com/poll/608903/ethics-ratings-nearly-professions-down.aspx