An Elder’s Character in the Home
We live in a culture that is cynical about character. If we think about it, this really means that we are unbelievers about right and wrong—about real moral action that makes a difference. When we become Reformed, we move from “Nobody’s perfect” to “Everyone sins every day” to “We are totally depraved.” And doesn’t even Paul say about the ministry “Who is sufficient for these things?” (2 Cor. 2:16) How then could this be the same Paul giving us that list of character qualifications in Titus 1:6-8?
A somewhat mystical view of these passages keeps many qualified men off of the battlefield. The very humility manifest in their trepidation is a clue that they are often very much qualified, and we can certainly appreciate that unassuming response as opposed to the man with a sense of entitlement. However, a closer examination of these passages and the wider context of building the church is needed to push past this.
Look carefully at the structure of that Titus 1 passage. The beginning of verse 6 and the beginning of verse 7 are headed with the idea of the elder being “above reproach.” What that does is to set up two levels of an elder’s character: first, what he is in his own home life, and second, what he is in the life of God’s house. The same thing happens much more clearly in that other famous elder qualification passage, 1 Timothy 3:4-5. Character is tested under the fires of life.
There is the story of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, as a young minister, hearing the oldest and wisest of the church leaders say about a young phenomenon who everyone was ready to pass through with glowing reviews, “Ah, but does he have the limp?” The “limp” referred to that depth of soul that only comes from humiliation and painful trials. Such things can usually only develop in the man’s family life. There he will learn that even the strongest devotion and highest ideals have to produce results over the long haul, and which would only look like a train-wreck if measured in any given moment.
Insisting or Persisting in the Sins in View
In one sense, to be above reproach is comprehensive of all of the traits that follow. But there is another nuance that is usually overlooked. Hendriksen suggests its best wooden translation is “not to be laid hold of,”1 as in having an accusation against him that can stand; and Stott adds that, “This cannot mean ‘faultless,’ or no child of Adam would ever qualify for a share in the oversight.”2
We all know that’s impossible. Instead, let me give you a phrase that I’ve used from the beginning of my time in ministry, that I think makes the most sense of what it means to fail being above reproach. The phrase is made up of two important words—INSISTING and PERSISTING. All of us struggle with any number of these sins. Every single elder that is less than Jesus struggles with one or a few of these sins; “for there is no one who does not sin” (1 Ki. 8:46).
The key questions are these: Do they struggle against that sin? If so, that’s good. Or do they persist in the sin in a way that characterizes their life? Worse yet, do they insist on one of these disqualifiers as if it is the very essence of leadership and spiritual maturity?
These are just a few thoughts that should forever banish the notion that “above reproach” means sinless. More to Paul’s point—which is a passion to qualify leaders (not disqualify!)—if he is the sort of person that a mature believer can see being an elder, the only reason that he shouldn’t be considered is if there is an actual and legitimate formal charge that he is presently under.
The Man’s Character in God’s Little House
Now the phrase husband of one wife has led to some legalism as well. I have known churches that actually believe that this forbids widowers from being elders. Clearly something has been missed. The Greek could suggest something like “one-woman man,” as γυναικὸς can be used about either “wife” or “woman.” But whatever order the words should be in, certainly this does not mean that a widower or a single man cannot be an elder. Whether a divorced man can be an elder gets stickier, but it is not ruled out by Scripture. Where is the emphasis? It is on the sin itself. That naturally begs a few more questions that our snap-shot moralism finds too mentally taxing.
Two parts about the kids. First, his children are believers. What can be done with this? All parties would have to concede that we cannot see into the childrens’ hearts any more than into the elder candidate’s heart. Nor can that man do so infallibly into his children’s hearts. It also cannot be said that the man has the ability to regenerate, as that would contradict the Bible’s overall teaching on salvation. Bringing in the second part might help us. Second, he adds that they are not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. Now we are coming to more external things. Paul’s words must have in view a relative respectability that children have for their parents, and a sound base of Christian instruction. That is the actual activity that the man is called on to perform. Many results in the children naturally follow from the faithful activity of the man; but regeneration and the deeper spiritual results are of the Spirit alone.
That his children are believers is described by Paul to Timothy as well. There he says it this way: “He must manage his own household” (1 Tim. 3:4). This is crucial context. The reason that Paul gives us there is important: “for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?” (v. 5) Can we see the link?
The home is like a microcosm of the church in a few ways. Everyone in that household has a soul that will last forever; and over that little flock, God has set a man as the shepherd. And Paul’s rationale is this: If you don’t have a plan and a passion and a pattern to watch over the souls of three or five or eight (or whatever) little souls, you want me to place you in charge of a few dozen, or a few hundred!
Here is the principle that summarizes the whole over God’s little house: “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much” (Lk. 16:10). In fact, notice that when Paul says a second time that an elder must be “above reproach,” the context: For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. What does this phrase “as God’s steward” add to Paul’s reasoning? What is a steward? It is someone who watches over the master’s property. These things are not the servant’s but the master’s. He cares for them out of love for the master, but also because he knows that he will have to give an account (see Heb. 13:17). So Paul moves from God’s little house for men to shepherd to God’s larger house called the church.
The key to moving beyond what I called above “snap-shot moralism” is to avoid opposite extremes. At one extreme, there is a fatherhood-fatalism that resigns to the Spirit what is delegated to the man. A pastor is no pastor at all who has not pastored already. A shepherd must have “shepherded,” so that there is a real activity to be examined. At the other extreme, there is the so-called morality of Job’s three friends. Having done with torturing him, they show up in the conservative church to disqualify men who are very busy about performing the action, but whose 1. raw material (e.g. an autistic child) and 2. material results (e.g. medical bills, persecution for faithfulness) knock him off of the acceptable suburban hero trajectory.
The real metrics include these: Does he pray with his wife and children? Does he lead in family devotionals? Does he pay the bills? Is he gentle with them and yet resolute before them? Does he wallow in false humility to past failures to lead or does he get back up on the basis of the gospel and with a plan to disciple and to discipline in the present?
It is certainly lamentable that modern Evangelical culture has prized charisma and pedigree over the virtues hard fought where none can see but those who see your worst. But let us not fly to the other extreme and take a morally lazy snapshot of the man, comparing the raw material and the results of his home to that of others who have never had so much as a single fire to extinguish nor other Job-like crosses to overcome. It is the character of the man in action that counts, and more often than not, it is precisely the man with the limp who alone has been out in the field: “Where there are no oxen, the manger is clean” (Prov. 14:4).
_________________
1. William Hendriksen, Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 120
2. John Stott, The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 92.
