Share This Episode
Wisdom for the Heart Dr. Stephen Davey Logo

Raising the Bar Part 2

Wisdom for the Heart / Dr. Stephen Davey
The Truth Network Radio
January 16, 2025 12:00 am

Raising the Bar Part 2

Wisdom for the Heart / Dr. Stephen Davey

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1496 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


January 16, 2025 12:00 am

When it comes to church leadership, God doesn’t settle for mediocrity. In his letter to Titus, the Apostle Paul outlines clear, high standards for anyone who would shepherd God’s people. These are not just qualifications for those in positions of authority; they serve as examples for every believer on how to live a life that is above reproach. In today’s episode, Stephen Davey explores what it means to "raise the bar" in the character of church leadership—what God looks for in those who will care for His children. We’ll see that these standards encompass not only actions but motivations, integrity, and how leaders conduct themselves at home, in church, and in public. Whether you’re called to lead or to follow, these standards challenge all of us to pursue a life that reflects Christ. This message calls for a renewed commitment to character in a world where leadership is often reduced to charisma and success. Tune in and be encouraged to raise the bar in your own spiritual walk and support leaders who live out God’s vision for the church.

Listen to the full-length version of this sermon: https://www.wisdomonline.org/teachings/titus-lesson-05

COVERED TOPICS / TAGS (Click to Search)
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

The Apostle Paul laid out several qualifications for elders of a church, including this one. He is to be a one woman man. That not only speaks of his status, but it speaks to his attitude and his perspective. And you would immediately know then that this idea of that kind of commitment to one woman for life as long as until death do us part, so to speak, would be just as radical in the first century as it has become in the 21st century. When it comes to the qualifications for church elders, one of the most controversial is the standard that he be the husband of one wife.

What does that mean? Can a single man be an elder or must he have a wife? How about a divorced man? Is Paul saying that a divorce disqualifies an elder?

What about a man who has a wife but hasn't been faithful to her? No matter what our culture says, we want to know what God says, and that's what we're exploring today. This is wisdom for the heart.

Our Bible teacher, Stephen Davey, will help bring clarity to this passage from Titus, so stay with us. This lesson is called Raising the Bar. Grab your Bible as we get started today.

Here's Stephen. Now the pattern continues, and it begins to get specific, giving us this categorical statement. Having given that to us, he now adds these things that are attached, these qualities that are all attached.

And the first one is this in verse 6. If any man is above reproach, that is, in relation to, he is the husband of one wife. You can understand this then to mean the elder is to provide a pattern for living as it relates to his commitment to his wife. He is the husband of one wife. Now does this mean that a single man or a widow cannot be an elder?

It does not mean that. In fact, you might notice that Paul doesn't say here that an elder has to have a wife. Paul writes he is to have one wife. So that is, if he is married, and the word if appears in the English text well, if then this, if he's married, then he must be literally translated a one woman man. It's a wooden translation of this phrase, a one woman man. It sounds like a country and western song, doesn't it?

A one woman man. Well, the truth is not many people in the first century would have been singing the tune had it been written. First century immorality was acceptable among married men. It was literally part of the DNA of that culture to whom Paul was writing. Men in the Roman world, if you study the history of the first century, you know that a man kept a legal wife for inheritance issues and for the bearing of children that is heirs of the estate. But then he also was openly involved that any apology with mistresses and slaves and temple prostitutes as religious practices allowed. And I spent more time than you probably wanted in our last session talking about the religious practices of Dionysus.

Totally corrupt and immoral. So Paul was writing a radical statement to his culture. Divorce was also rampant in the first century.

I believe even more so than today. One man in Rome who lived in the first century left documentation revealing he had been legally married and divorced 27 times. Roman women were said to have dated the years with the names of their husbands.

Roman women were said to have been married so many times they wore out their bridal veils. So I don't believe, as we understand this phrase, that Paul is meaning to write here that an elder is to be married to one woman at a time. But to one woman. He is to be a one woman man.

That not only speaks of his status, but it speaks to his attitude and his perspective. And you would immediately know then that this idea of that kind of commitment to one woman for life as long as until death do us part, so to speak, would be just as radical in the first century as it has become in the 21st century. Being a one woman man is really no longer part of the DNA of our culture. We happen to live, as I researched this week for this study, we live in a culture where one article said 24 million Americans will have been involved with someone other than their wife or husband this past week. 24 million in a week. One article I read recently highlighted a particular website designed for people willing, and I quote, to kick their valves to the curb for at least a brief period of time. In fact, this website released a cell phone version of the site so no one would leave a trail of evidence on their computer at home or work. And in just one month, one month, 679,000 men and women used that one website to start an affair.

That one site. In fact, the CEO was interviewed, and I read some of the interview. He shrugged off any criticism during that interview saying, and I quote him, we're just a platform. People live like this because their lives aren't working out for them. In other words, there's a good reason.

And then he made this chilling comment that I've actually heard twice in the last couple of months. He said, and I quote, humans are not meant to be monogamous. Is that calling wrong right or what?

Is that turning everything upside down or what? Humans are not meant to be monogamous. In fact, I was watching one interview of a young woman, and she said this in that clip. She said, monogamy is unnatural.

Now, I say that to you, and you know as well as I do that if you go out there on the street, more people are buying into that than ever before. Monogamy is unnatural. And what is that the result of? It's the result of generations of evolutionism. We're just animals. We're just animals. And if we're just animals, well, look at the nature, world of nature. My wife and I are watching this one website where an eagle is laying eggs and sitting on them. It's fascinating to watch. And it was interesting because that one male eagle, he had three eagles.

I joked he was Mormon to my wife. But he had three, and finally I guess made a decision based on who had the first eggs. That's nature. My dog has no conception of fidelity, monogamy. She's unconverted anyway, but you know what I mean.

No idea, no conception of that at all. That's the world of nature. If we're animals, we just evolved a little further than why not? Monogamy is unnatural.

And the more I thought about that, in fact, I spent quite a bit of time thinking about her and what she said, which struck me that in sort of a twisted way, in a very real way, she's right. Committed, faithful, covenant love to one person goes against our sinful what? Nature. It runs contrary to selfishness and pride.

Faithful commitment to loving your spouse requires dying to self, and self does not naturally lie down and die, does it? It stands up. It demands. It requires.

It commands. When Paul wrote to the Ephesians that husbands were to love their wives to be one woman-men, as it were, he writes that to the entire church. And then he adds that caveat, as Christ loved the church.

Are you kidding? Jesus Christ died for the church. Jesus sacrificed his personal comforts for the church.

That's how he loved her. Jesus suffered humiliation for the church. He gave up his future for the church. He took on the sufferings and sin of the church and made them his own. He intercedes faithfully for the church. He loves the church regardless of response or affection or understanding in return. He longs to be in the presence of the church as she finds her final satisfaction and glory in his kingdom. That's how he loves us. Now you go love your wife like that. We're then called to die for our wives, to sacrifice ourselves for her, to take on her sufferings as her own, to remain faithfully committed regardless of affection or understanding in return, to suffer humiliation for her, to give up our personal comforts and rights for her, to maintain faithful intercession for her benefit and beyond our own, and then ultimately to long for her final glory and satisfaction in the coming kingdom when you effectively hand her over to her Lord and Savior. If that isn't convicting enough, and I know men, we're just, you know, this is for you.

We're gonna get to women later in chapter two, but this is for us here. If that isn't convicting enough, here's the amazing thing. Here's how Jesus Christ loves the church. Even while we were sinners, Christ died for us.

You wanna raise the bar? You wanna go even further than the list that I read in corresponding to the nature and sacrifice of Jesus Christ? Loving your spouse is not loving them as saints. It is loving them as sinners. That's exactly how Jesus loves us.

Aren't you glad? Aren't you glad his love for you didn't, wasn't measured out by virtue of your response? Aren't you glad his love for you is covenant, faithful, fidelity? You don't wake up in the morning and wonder if he'll love you? That's exactly how Jesus loves us.

And let me tell you this. That is not natural. The elder should be leading the way in this regard. It's one of the qualifications, in fact, it's listed first in 1 Timothy and in Titus. Could this be one of the reasons why the marriages of pastors and elders are such a target of the enemy?

In my research I came across, I can believe it, but then again I can't. But if you survey the divorce rates in the United States by occupation, occupation, you discover that pastors have the third highest divorce rate exceeded only by that of medical doctors and policemen. That ought to cause all of us to pray for one another, certainly you for the leaders.

And more than ever, it's a reason to understand why this is a qualification that is becoming harder and harder and harder to find, right? The reason we have applied this qualification as we believe Paul delivers it to require that an elder cannot be divorced, but actively and presently demonstrating commitment to his wife is simply because his relationship with her is intended to illustrate the faithful vow of Christ to his bride, the church. We believe that God has called the leaders of the church to live out the union of Christ and his church with an unbroken vow, to love their wives for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, to love and to cherish, until what?

Death do us part. And for those of you who've experienced the agony and pain of divorce, perhaps you were the innocent party and you were abandoned. Perhaps you were away from the Lord and you left your wife or husband, but you've since repented. You of all people know how and why to pray for the leaders of the church to stay true. I have many dear friends in this church who can't meet this qualification and they understand that while they can't fill this particular role, there are many other ministry roles and they fill them with joy and faithfulness.

I praise God for them. And they perhaps know better than anybody that the bar must not be lowered. The pattern must be demonstrated. It must be modeled for this generation that is growing more and more confused.

I'll add one more comment before we go on. The issue of monogamy is becoming all the more confusing, not just the attitude, which I think Paul is addressing, but the state of monogamy, the state of fidelity, one woman man. I mean, that's becoming a debatable issue now, isn't it? They're being rewritten now within mainline denominationalism. Does Paul really mean that an elder must be a one woman man? Did he really mean a one woman man? Couldn't that just be a reference to some kind of commitment, some kind of covenant that could refer now to a one man man or a one woman woman? I mean, it's hard to believe that I'm having to stand up here and address this issue.

This is where we live. Surely Paul isn't just referring to heterosexual marriage. That's exactly what he's referring to. Even Time Magazine caught on to the irony of the debate within the church when it reported, and I quote from Time Magazine, denominations that once would not have tolerated a divorced minister are now debating whether or not to accept lesbian ministers. How do we get from there to here? By lowering the bar, by defining the standards according to political correctness and our culture as we shove away and shelve the face value meaning of simple words from God. Frankly, more than ever, it's time to raise the bar. You're doing that, by the way. You're doing that too, one marriage at a time, one self-sacrificing spousal act at a time, one praying wife at a time, one committed spouse to the word of God at a time, one couple at a time committed to expressing their love and their commitment to one another, carving out time.

Isn't that the challenge? Demonstrating Christ's love and service in ever-ready presence and intercession for the bride. Since I'm dealing with the men, I thought I'd throw this in and then we're going to move on, but I wanted to tell you this. I thought it was kind of funny in Ken Hughes' wonderful little book, The Disciplines of a Godly Man. He's encouraging men to spend time with their wives and to not take that for granted. He wrote, years ago in the Midwest, a farmer and his wife were lying in bed during a storm when the funnel of a tornado suddenly lifted the roof right off the house and sucked their bed away with them still in it.

They just sort of floated around in a lazy circle. The wife began to cry. The farmer called out to her that this was no time to cry. She called back. She couldn't help it. She was so happy. It was the first time they'd been out together in 25 years.

I'm sure that didn't happen, okay? Paul goes on to end verse 6 by adding that an elder must have children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. I want to spend a few minutes here to finish off this verse. The phrase having children who believe has created quite a bit of debate over the centuries as you can well imagine. The verb having children implies these children are under his authority. In any culture that can change, in Rome it could be for life.

For us it might be at the age of 18 or 19 or whenever they move away. Having children, that is literally having them in your and under your authority. Now the problem lies in this adjective, pista, which can be translated actively as believing or passively as in obedient or faithful. In fact, if we collected all the translations in here, some would say obedient, faithful, and others would say believing as mine does. The word is actually used both ways in the pastoral epistles, which sort of adds to the conundrum. The word certainly refers to a believer or a Christian. In fact, Paul uses it that way in 1 Timothy 6, verse 2, for masters who are believers.

They are Christian masters. Paul also uses the word to refer to faithful men who will find other faithful men to teach them the word that they can teach others also, 2 Timothy 2, verse 2. Inside the pastoral epistles, the Gospel of Matthew uses it the same way to refer to an obedient servant who does the will of his master, Matthew chapter 24, verse 45.

So which is it? Is Paul saying that an elder's children have to be Christians or that an elder's children have to be under control? The only way to determine the meaning of this adjective as either passively interpreted or actively interpreted is the context. That happens often in the New Testament, as you know. I believe without any hesitation that the context here is one of submission, not salvation. In fact, throughout this entire list of qualifications, every one of them is under the power of the elder candidate to pursue and at some point in some way, though not perfectly, to achieve. The salvation of his children is not under his power.

That isn't under his ability. Even though every leader in the church would desperately long for and pray for the salvation of his children, that ultimately rests in the sovereign grace of God. No matter how godly, like godly Samuel in the Old Testament, his sons grew up to abandon God. Or an elder in the New Testament who cannot make his children Christians.

You can't command it. In fact, no matter how good an example you set, you can't guarantee it. So the issue at stake here as it relates to an elder's qualification is not the belief of his children but their behavior. And that fits perfectly the context of these qualifications not only here in Titus but in 1 Timothy where the elder is to manage his household well, keeping his children under control. You might write into the margin of your Bible as I've done next to the phrase having children who believe. I've written having children who behave.

Now let me add a point here. If Paul is referring to an elder's children as to those being genuine Christians, if that was the qualification Paul had in mind, he shifts away from the role of the elder and he talks about the state of the children. If they have to be Christians and they are indeed then genuine Christians, the next phrase that Paul clarifies would be absolutely unnecessary. Notice verse 6 again. They're not accused of dissipation or rebellion. That explanatory clause would be unnecessary if they are genuine Christians. All you have to do is dig a little bit into the meaning of these words.

Dissipation was a word used of drunken revelry at pagan festivals. If Paul means to say here that an elder's children have to be Christians, that's all he needs to say. He can put a period there to go on to say, oh and by the way, they can't have as a pattern of their lives being involved in pagan ritualistic drunkenness. That would be unnecessary. That would be like saying your children must be nice to people and they can't be cannibals.

You wouldn't need to say that. If they're going to be nice to people, they're not going to eat anybody, right? In other words, this clarifying phrase at the end of verse 6 further explains that Paul has conduct in mind, not conversion. Whether or not they are saved does not eliminate the father's responsibility to maintain order for those children still under his authority. By the way, did you notice that the text implies that these children are old enough to go to a drunken festival? They are old enough to now resist their father's authority even though they're still in the home and discredit him in so doing. They can't be as a pattern accused of dissipation. Let's not lower the bar and say it doesn't matter.

It does matter. Further notice Paul writes these children can't be accused of rebellion. Rebellion, that word Paul uses here for rebellion is used for someone entirely unable, unwilling to be ruled. You reach that point while the child is still under your authority where you lay down the guidelines and the rules and they throw them back in your face and go live the way they want to live. That man has lost his credibility and his ability then to lead in the larger home or house known as the church. It's a word used of someone who refuses to submit to the law of God. It's not a brief period of rebellion by the way because children aren't perfect either. They fall too. They sin too.

This is a reference to a pattern where they are as a pattern openly rebelling against the standards of morality and civility represented by their father. Before we close here, I remember serving part time in a church while in Bible College my senior year. This was after my jump off Baptist Church days.

This was my last year of college. I was leading the choir in this Baptist Church and working with the young people. I remember not long after taking the job that I would hold only for a few months before marrying my bride and heading off to seminary, I found out that one of the young women in the choir was openly involved with a married man in the community. To make matters worse, I found out she was the daughter of one of the leaders in the church. It had scandalized the choir. It was a scandal in the congregation and I just kind of walked into the middle of it.

Even though at the time I was in my early 20s, I believed something ought to be done about it. The pastor didn't want to do anything about it and neither did the leaders. When this man was eventually confronted, he not only refused to confront his daughter, but he got angry and berated the other leaders for exposing the issue. That nearly destroyed the church.

It all sort of fell apart when I left that summer. In the words of Paul to Titus, that man would have been unqualified to lead. He refused to exercise his authority over one who needed it most. To deal with sin. To set a pattern of dealing with sin.

It would become a pattern for those who followed him in dealing with their own sin. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to raise the bar again. It's time for the church to represent holy living in an unholy, ungodly world. May we all in our marriages and our homes, if you're single in your pursuit of these qualities as well as those who are widowed, resist the natural pull of the flesh and our culture to lower the bar.

Instead keep it high. Jesus Christ is deserving of nothing less, right? Nothing less than that. The church is deserving of nothing less than that.

We believe it. That his love, which is so amazing, demands my soul, my life. Say with me, my all. Thanks for joining us today here on Wisdom for the Heart. Our Bible teacher, Stephen Davey, is in a series from Titus chapter 1 looking at the qualifications of church leaders. The message you heard today is entitled, Raising the Bar. If you'd like to listen to today's lesson in its entirety, it's posted on our website which is wisdomonline.org.

You'll also find it on the Wisdom International app and I encourage you to install that app on your phone today. I also encourage you to share the ministry of Wisdom International with others. That's one of the most significant ways that you can support what we do. Our goal is to encourage and equip believers with the truth of God's word. If you have friends and loved ones who could benefit from this teaching ministry, be sure and tell them about it. I also want to remind you that Stephen has a book exploring the book of Titus in detail. There's information about that on our website wisdomonline.org. Thanks for joining us. Come back next time to discover more wisdom for the heart.
Whisper: medium.en / 2025-01-16 00:07:59 / 2025-01-16 00:17:27 / 9

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime