The thrills and discouragements of church planting (Titus in light of 1:5)

We've started looking at the book of Titus because the churches Titus was trying to plant parallel our own in many ways. First, the church in Crete was faced with a predominantly pagan culture, and this church looked kind of strange to the pagans. Scott Polski told me last week that our church is a peculiar church. And he hastened to say, "I mean that in a good way. I love it." We're beginning to grow on him, and he doubts that he would be able to find such a church in Texas. That's what makes it peculiar. We're one of a kind. Of course, I said "You're right! That's why you need to stay here." But Scott is right. When a church maintains a clear-cut antithesis, they will look somewhat peculiar to the culture. And rather than minimizing such differences, the apostle encourages Titus to make sure that he continues to strive to maintain an antithesis of black and white in a world of gray. We will be seeing that Crete was degenerate, and Paul challenges the church to holiness. Crete was noted for dishonesty, and Paul admonishes the church to be radically honest. Crete evidenced very weak family life, and Paul wanted Titus training the older and younger men, and the older women training the younger women on radical family life That church couldn't take anything for granted. From the bottom up, it was preparing to be a Gideon's army — a Christian counter-culture. And I think we can identify with that.

Secondly, this church was not only different from the world, it was different from the Jewish synagogues. Titus was seeking to influence the Jewish church with Reformation, and he was receiving backlash. The Jewish synagogues were in just as serious a need of Reformation as the evangelicals of today are. Paul said that they professed to know God, but they seemed to be making zero impact upon their culture. Rather than transforming culture, even the believing Jews in those synagogues tended to retreat from culture and argue about things that Paul calls "foolish disputes" in chapter 3. The evangelical scene was discouraging — just as discouraging as ours is today. And in trying to make a difference, Titus found himself in a constant state of controversy. What does Paul do? Paul encourages Titus not to waste his time arguing with theologians who would never make a difference in culture anyway. And I think we would be wise to heed that admonition. There will be all kinds of nay-sayers who will criticize us, and we shouldn't worry about what they say. The proof is in the pudding. We should ask them what they are doing to make a difference. If they don't like God's law, we should ask them, "What is the alternative?" Humanistic law? If they don't like Biblical principles of courtship and marriage, who do we look to? Do we look to the pagans? Titus was called to promote a godly church (chapter 1), a godly home (chapter 2) and a godly culture (Chapter 3), and to stop worrying about what the critics were saying.

Another parallel that we see between his church and ours is that his church was for the most part a solo church plant. Titus had the powers of evangelist that I have been given, that gives me permission to ordain and install elders. Ordinarily, that's done by a session, right? I mentioned two weeks ago that the ideal is for churches to be planted by a team. But that was not always possible. Paul's team focused on the huge cities on the mainland. And strategically that made sense. Titus was assigned the task of establishing churches in smaller cities such as were found in Crete. Though Zenas and Appolos delivered the message to Titus, they couldn't stay. I'm sure Titus would have loved for them to stay and to help out. And it can be discouraging to have a church develop so slowly.

How slowly had it taken this church to develop? If William Hendriksen is right, then it was thirteen years later that Paul writes this letter, and they still didn't have ruling elders. The fastest range it could have possibly been was five to seven years from the time that Paul and Titus first came till this letter was written. Even in Biblical times it sometimes took awhile to establish a church. We can relate to this church, can't we?

Hopefully another parallel is that church history says that Titus remained in Crete for the rest of his life.

Another parallel is that they started with a core group, and it appears (by comparing Acts 2 with Titus 1:5) that there were core groups in other cities waiting for a church to get going. In Acts 2, some of the converts listed were from Crete. After they were discipled, they went back to Crete. They must have either stuck it out in the synagogues, or formed their own Bible study groups like we have up in Oakland, Nebraska and in Sioux City, Iowa. We give oversight to those works, but they do not have elders, and probably won't be able to support a pastor for quite some time. Can you see why I am very interested in the instructions that Paul gives to Titus? His situation parallels our own in so many ways.

Last week we looked at the fundamentals of ministry that are outlined in verses 1-4. Let's pick up at verse 5. For this reason I left you in Crete... Gordon Clark points out that almost always, the Greek phrase "for this reason" applies to what precedes it. If that is the case here, it would be a reference to Paul wanting the fundamentals of ministry we looked at last week established everywhere. If it refers to what comes afterward (and I take that view, as do most commentaries), then Paul's main reason for leaving Titus was to establish elders. In that case, Titus had made very slow progress in achieving that. And we can sympathize with him.

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you... We saw last week that though a church can survive for a long time without ruling elders, it is not healthy. It is lacking. And our church is lacking. We looked at some reasons why we need more people resources.

The second thing that we see in verse 5 is that Paul has a tremendous vision for Crete. He's not going to be satisfied with Titus establishing just one church. He wants to transform society in chapter 3. Well, how do you do that? Chapter 1, verse 5 indicates that you need to establish vibrant churches with elders in every city. Chapter 2, you need to strengthen the families in those churches. Chapter 3, those families must impact culture for the glory of Christ. That's how you do it. But here's the problem. Titus hasn't even been able to get one church off the ground yet. You see, the fact that elders had to be established in every city implies that there was not even one city in Crete that had an established church yet. There was not even one church in the whole of Crete that had elders yet. So we are talking big vision before the church is even started. Thankfully, the MNA committee was not on his case telling him that his funding would dry up if he didn't get results in two years. That sometimes happens in the States. No, Paul encourages Titus, sends Zenas and Appolos, spells him off with extra help in chapter 3:12. And right from the beginning, Paul makes sure that Titus maintains a high vision for what can be accomplished to turn the world upside down. Amen? Isn't that encouraging? There are thrills, and there are discouragements in church planting. And I think you are going to appreciate this book as we go through it.

The need for fellow-elders to share in pastoral ministry (1:5 with 6-16)

Let's go on to point II. Paul also speaks of the need for fellow-elders. I see that need in two phrases in verse 5: "things that are lacking" (which we have already looked at last week), and the phrase, "should set in order." The Greek word for "set in order" was a word that was used by physicians to describe the process of setting broken bones or straightening out crooked limbs (cf. Wuest). On Labor Day the bones in Elizabeth's left arm were snapped and her arm looked very crooked. At that point I realized that I needed a physican. And this term used by Paul implies that the congregation in Crete had spiritual problems (broken limbs as it were) that needed ruling elders to be physicians. Why? Wasn't Titus' preaching enough to set those bones? Surely all we need is Sunday morning preaching, and Wednesday night teaching! And Paul says, "No. The public preaching is not enough to set those bones." If it was, Titus would have been able to accomplish the task all by himself. And you can look at the life of Christ to see the exact same balance. He engaged in public teaching, but it wasn't enough. And so He was also involved in personal discipleship of twelve leaders. His public teaching wasn't enough. I have over the years been amazed at how people can hear sermons that clearly spell out what they need to do, but there are still people who are not able to implement those sermons. They need the one-on-one accountability, shepherding, and coaching to get them past the obstacles and into righteousness. They need counseling. Did you realize that Christ Himself was amazed that people didn't get His public teaching? How many times did He say, How is it you do not understand...? He had to work with them one on one. And if Christ had to train the apostles in one-on-one discipleship, and then tell them to teach others in this same discipleship model, then we need to do that as well. One of the books that revolutionized my thinking on this model of discipleship was Robert Coleman's book, The Masterplan of Evangelism. Christ's plan was to divide the work up into public ministry, and then the one-on-one discipleship of a small number of people. Paul gave as the model: the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Tim. 2:2)

And so, verse 5 clearly shows that discipleship cannot happen by Titus' preaching alone. Nor can Titus disciple hundreds of people. If Christ didn't, we shouldn't expect Titus to. Christ trained the leaders, and the leaders trained the people. That is my vision of eldership. Actually, all of verses 5-16 show that there can be no substitute for personal shepherding. Any time there are new believers, there will be a lot of baggage - long standing sinful habits and patterns, that the elders will help to fix. And as we go through the book you will see that there was an unusually high number of problems infecting the church in Crete because they had been without elders for so long (probably thirteen years). They had gotten into sinful patterns that would not have happened if they had had elders fulfilling their godly roles. So verse 5 commands Titus: appoint elders in every city as I commanded you.

Under point #III we will get to the differences in role between Teaching Elder Titus and the Shepherding work of these Ruling Elders. You're maybe getting a little bit of a feel for that already. But under point II, I want to defend the idea that all share the shepherding ministry; all are elders; all are overseers and all are pastors. Only one oversees the whole, but all of them are shepherds. By the way, though it's not mentioned in this book, other Scriptures also indicates that all the elders have parity or equality with the teaching elder when it comes to court decisions and they all have pastoral work. Lord willing, next week we will see why there is such a high standard that is set for ruling elders in verses 6-9. But we shouldn't think that because there is a division of labor between Titus and these elders, that Titus is somehow superior to or has a higher authority than the other elders do. No. It's a division of labor issue.

Now here's the problem: not everybody in the evangelical world buys into that. And that means that we do need to deal with a controversy. I wish we could go on without dealing with it, but you will run across Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans and even a few Presbyterians who insist that the elders do only what is in verse 6, and bishops like Titus do what is in the rest of the chapter. And since we want to follow the Scripture, and the Scripture alone, I think we need to take their arguments seriously. Some of these men would absolutely deny that these elders are fellow-elders with Titus. They would deny that they share in Titus's pastoral ministry. They would completely rule out point II. And they would use this passage to do it. This is probably the strongest passage they could point to in order to prove their form of government. So we might as well deal with it.

I have a very good friend who is an Anglican. I love him and he is faithfully serving the Lord. But I think he is dead wrong on church government. But here is how he would see this passage. First, he would say that even if Presbyterianism can be shown elsewhere (and some admit that other passages do clearly teach Presbyterianism), they insist that the Bible doesn't mandate one form of government. And so, if episcopalianism works, that should be sufficient. You just use human judgment. And he would probably say that we Presbyterians are being legalistic to say that we have to stick to the Scripture. Divine right Presbyterianism says that we may not go beyond the Scripture, and that there is only one form of government in the Scripture.

Second, my Episcopal friend would say that even though other passages can allow for other forms of government, this one clearly teaches at least some parts of an Episcopal form of government. Now granted, he would admit that Titus acts differently than their archbishops do (that ought to be a clue all by itself), but it is the implied hierarchicalism that they appeal to. Hierarchicalism means that there are levels of officer in a long chain of command. You have deacons, deans, priests, elders, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and other offices. But in Presbyterianism that is not the case. All the elders have equal authority and rule. An elder who goes to General Assembly has no more authority than an elder in our church, and I have no more vote on a court case than a ruling elder would.

Anyway, back to their argument: they make Titus out to be an ArchBishop who himself is under Paul. So you have four layers of authority. They have more, but at least this gives them a start. They say that Paul commands Titus, Titus commands a bishop and a bishop commands an elder who is under him.

Likewise, they claim that verse 5 clearly teaches that Archbishop Titus unilaterally appointed bishops and elders without any congregational approval. Unilateral means that only one person makes a decision, and he makes it without consulting others. How would you like it if someone came along and decided that I couldn't be your pastor, and substituted a pastor from down the street. In the Episcopal system used by Methodists, Anglicans and others, you would have no say-so in the matter. And they would say, "Well, Read verse 5! That's exactly what it says!" For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you... "Where's the congregation?" they ask. "There is no evidence of an election here. Titus does it all."

And we would reply, "First, you don't pit one Scripture against another. Second, this can be brought into perfect harmony with the rest of Scripture, which does involve the congregation. Third, an argument from silence ("there's no mention of congregation here") is a fallacious argument. We could just as easily say, 'But neither is there any evidence that an election didn't occur — and other passages most certainly indicate that elections happened every time elders were appointed to tasks by a pastor." Let me give you one. It's Acts 14:23. The technical Greek word for an election (that was used by the Greek democracies) is used in Acts 14:23, which says, "when they had elected [literally "chosen by a show of hands." "When they had elected"] elders in every church. If they did it in every church, that would eventually include the church in Crete, right? So when you compare Scripture with Scripture you see that Titus had a role to play and the congregation had a role to play. You see the same interplay in Acts 6: the congregation elects, and the apostles appoint and ordain. We would have to have very good reason to believe that Crete did things differently than other churches did before we would be willing to buy that argument.

But, they will respond, it is clear here that Titus was not elected by this congregation either. Verse 5 says that Paul left him there, and chapter 3:12 says that Paul was planning to replace Titus with another person. He doesn't ask for the congregation's permission. Paul just does it. Doesn't this show appointment without any congregational input? They think it is clear that there were no elections. But that doesn't logically follow either. These verses are only talking about Paul's role in involving Titus, not the congregation's role. Actually, if you look at church history you will find out that Titus never did end up leaving this congregation after all. He stayed in Crete for the rest of his life. Anyway, let's look at a previous church plant in 2 Corinthians where you can see that Titus was appointed by Paul to a certain temporary ministry in Corinth, and that Paul appointed, but he didn't do it unilaterally. 2 Corinthians 8:19 is the verse, but let's start reading at verse 16. It's not totally the same situation as in Crete, but there is an analogy. 2 Corinthians 8:16

But thanks be to God who puts the same earnest care for you into the heart of Titus. [This shows that Titus has a desire to minister there. Verse 17] For he not only accepted the exhortation, but being more diligent, he went to you of his own accord. [Paul had exhorted Titus to go. In otherwords, he wanted to appoint him to this church. But notice that Titus is not forced. He went to Corinth of his own accord, which was a brave thing to do, given the nasty habit they had of beating up pastors. In any case, verse 18 says,] And we have sent with him the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches, and not only that, but who was also chosen [that's the same technical Greek word for being elected. Literally it means to choose by a show of hands. "Who was also chosen"] by the churches to travel with us with this gift, which is administered by us to the glory of the Lord Himself and to show your ready mind.

Both Titus and this other officer are said to be chosen or literally "elected by a show of hands" by the churches for this task. And so, even though this is a different situation than Crete, it at least demonstrates that Paul can appoint, yet it still be consistent with Titus' own desires and the vote of the people. Acts 6 also shows that the word "appointed" that's used in Titus is perfectly consistent with the congregational elections that happened in the same passage. They were elected by the people, and appointed by the apostles. And so that argument really doesn't hold up.

Here are some other arguments that Episcopalians and Baptists sometimes give: They would say, "Titus is there by himself." Well, we don't question that. Phil Kayser is here by himself, but I'm a Presbyterian. I am under authority. It is the authority of a Presbytery oversight committee. They are composed of elders. Elders are always involved. And by the way, Titus was under authority. He is being given instructions here, and he is asked to meet with a Presbytery committee. So the fact that he was by himself proves nothing. That's the way most new churches start. The question is, should they stay that way? And secondly, once elders are established, do they have parity of authority? Verse 5 indicates that Paul doesn't want it to stay that way, and the rest of the chapter gives ample evidence that elders do have parity of authority. And we will look at that.

Here's another argument they use: "Titus himself ordains the elders rather than a session ordaining the elders." We don't question that. Our Presbytery has authorized me to do that under Presbytery oversight. That's the only way it can work when there is no church established yet. That does not prove episcopalianism. What would prove episcopalianism would be if Paul thought this state of affairs is ideal and should be permament. But verse 5 says that it is temporary and is not ideal. Something is lacking.

They would counter, "But in verse 5 it implies an organizational and overseeing ministry in Titus when it says, you should set in order the things that are lacking. Likewise they would point out that in the rest of the chapter Titus clearly takes the leadership in the church on what is taught. In chapter 2, Titus organizes all the ministries and has the primary teaching responsibility. And they say that all of this implies a clear distinction between Titus in his overseeing and teaching role and the work of the elders. And most Presbyterians wouldn't disagree with that. They would say that there is one office of elder, but two orders within it. Think of the priesthood in the Old Testament by way of analogy. There was one office of priesthood, but there were different orders of priest. There were several Levitical orders and there was also the order of Melchisedek. And they dared not take on tasks and duties that another order was given. One office, but quite different orders. And in both the Old and the New Testament, there was one office of elder, but two quite different orders: that of a scribe (which would be me) and that of a ruler (which would be the ruling elders). And that's what the PCA teaches. There has to be one person who oversees ministry, but that doesn't prove that the pastor has a higher office. It doesn't prove episcopalianism.

One of their arguments that I think is a real stretcher is when they point out that the word "elders" is plural in verse 5, but "bishop" is singular in verse 7. They say, "Obviously they are different people. There is one bishop over a region and several elders in a city because the city has multiple churches." There are two things that make this a ridiculous argument. First, they themselves agree that verse 6 is describing these elders, yet it uses the singular too. But more importantly, the word "For" in verse 7 completely blows episcopalianism out of the water because it proves that an elder is a synonym for bishop. They are one and the same office. Verse 4 doesn't say, in addition to elders, you need bishops. It says, For a bishop must be blameless... The word "for" shows that this is explaining the previous verse. Why do elders need to have the qualifications listed in verse 6? Here's the reason: For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, etc. Now in case you think that our ruling elders are going to need to wear pointy hats and funny looking dresses, the word "bishop" simply means "overseer." Philippians 1:2 lists only two offices in a local church: bishops and deacons, or overseers and deacons. Now within the overseers there is a division of labor. Scripture speaks to that clearly. There is different training, ordination, different orders. But I think this passage is a beautiful summary of PCA teaching. No contradiction whatsoever.

Their last argument against us is that the passage doesn't say "elders in every church" but "elders in every city." They hold to one elder overseeing a church, and if there were multiple churches in a city, there would be multiple elders. But that proves nothing. Scripture clearly affirms that there were elders (plural) in every local church. If that was true everywhere else, it's going to be true in Crete. So if we need elders in every city, it simply means that we need a church planted in every city. Acts 14:23 says, So when they had elected elders [plural] in every church [singular]. Acts 20 speaks of the elders (plural) of the church (singular). Philippians 1:2 speaks of the overseers (plural) and the deacons in the church (singular). So the fact that he wants elders in every city does not do away with the general rule in Acts that there be elders in every church.

Turn with me to Acts 20 and we will wrap this section up. Notice in verse 17 that Paul calls the elders of Ephesus. From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them: This whole speech is a speech to elders. It was the elders that he sent for, it was the elders who came, and this verse says that he spoke to them: to the elders. Now look down at verse 28 in the middle of the speech to these elders. Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [that is the same Greek word for bishop. So an elder is a bishop. And then he goes on], to shepherd [that's the same word for "pastor" to pastor] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." So here is a clear example where Paul calls elders bishops and shepherds. They are synonymns for the same office.

Now you might wonder, "What difference does this make?" It makes a huge difference. Let me outline seven ramifications of what we have just talked about:

1) First, it means that ruling elders truly share in my shepherding ministry, even though there is a different focus.

2) Second, it means that the discipleship that Coleman describes so beautifully does not take place with just any lay person (as he implies). It takes place with ordained lay officers — ruling elders. Well, that's got radical implications.

3) Third, it means that there is no way that a ruling elder will be able to effectively do his job if he is discipling more than 10 men (or ten families). The kind of work we will be looking at in verse 10-16 requires smaller, one on one relationships. This is where by far the most of eldership ministry takes place. It doesn't take place in the board room, though elders are there as well. It takes place in ministering the word in discipleship.

4) Fourth, it means that we need to take the qualifications in verses 6-9 very seriously. Even though the ruling elders do not have a preaching ministry, the one-on-one discipling ministry requires more than just a warm body. In many evangelical churches, the discipleship is so informal, with immature men discipling brand new believers, that you wonder if any real discipleship occurs. Our discipleship program is really an eldership program, and the small group ministries has just been jettisoned by me unless it is an elder ministry. It was reworking Exodus 18 that finally convinced me of that.

5) Fifth, it means that even though there is a division of labor, that all elders are called to a shepherding ministry. In a sense, they are pastors.

6) Sixth, it means that Titus finally gets his team ministry. Yeah! Church history tells us that he got other teaching elders as well, but this was the start of his ministry team.

7) Seventh, it means that ruling elders are in no way inferior in office to the teaching elder. You can see that there are enormous implications to how you interpret Titus.

Specialization and the division of labor between a teaching elder (Titus) and the ruling elders.

So we have looked at the thrills and discouragements of ministry; secondly, the value of having a ministry team. But the last thing that I want to just very, very briefly look at is the fact that there are indeed differences of ministry between the order of Teaching Elder and the order of Ruling Elder. The PCA Book of Church Order gives a large number of those differences related to sacraments, to teaching, overseeing of the church's ministries, the worship service, counseling, etc. The pastor is the moderator, has to have special training and ordination. And those differences are very clearly spelled out in 1 and 2 Timothy, but you can see hints of the differences in this book as well. And I just want to take a couple minutes looking at those hints.

We have the ruling elder's task spelled out in verses 10-16. Then, look at the contrast in chapter 2:1. But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine... William Hendriksen says, "Not only must the elders do their duty over against teaching of false religion (chapter 1), but Titus himself must give the example." And in the rest of the book that "but" is contrasting the work of the ruling elders with the broader work of Teaching Elder Titus. Now he is one of the elders, but he has work in addition. Down to verse 15: Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Chapter 3:1 — remind them. Chapter 3:8 — This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly... All of these verses refer to a teaching ministry that is what? It is public. And so it is the contrast between one-on-one discipleship (and the giftings needed for that) and teaching before the church as a whole and overseeing the ministry as a whole (which Titus was especially gifted in). Now, even the teaching elder is involved in some one-on-one ministry just as Christ was. I mean, I do a ton of one-on-one. But there is a difference in emphasis and training.

Secondly, there is a difference in ordination. Chapter 1 indicates that ruling elders are ordained locally, whereas teaching elders are ordained in Presbytery. In fact, in this case, since there was no Presbytery in Crete, all the Teaching elders mentioned in this book were ordained outside of Crete. They were imports. Timothy, Titus were ordained by the laying on of hands of the Presbytery (1 Tim. 4:14). The same was true of Artemus, Tychicus and Apollos. Titus was not a native Cretan. Verse 5 indicates he was left there, whereas the ruling elders exist in the cities — they are locals. And that's consistent with the difference we see between the scribes and the local elders in the Old Testament.

Now, it's not mentioned in this book, but this explains why Teaching Elders do not have membership in the local church. Their families do, but my membership is in Presbytery, whereas every ruling elder would be a member of this local church. God started this system with the Levites. They were the Teaching Elders scattered throughout Israel. And though they ministered in every tribe, they always maintained their membership in the tribe of Levi, whereas the local elders were not transplants. They were of their own tribe and clan. It's one of the checks and balances in Presbyterianism. And even though it is not explicitly mentioned in this book, you can see hints of it here. In the whole book it is clear that Titus is accountable to Paul and to Paul's ministry team. And the book of Acts makes clear that Paul's ministry team itself reports to Presbytery and was commissioned by Presbytery. Titus 3:12-13 speaks of some of the names on this ministry team that Titus needs to report to. I have a ministry team that I meet with and report to regularly. The elders, on the other hand, mainly have local accountability to the session.

We covered other differences in great detail in the elder training classes and looked at a wide range of Scriptures. But I wanted to at least point out that the fact of differences is present in this book as well. And if you want more details, I would encourage you to read 1 and 2 Timothy. The contrast between the two ministries is most clearly stated there.

And you know what? A team ministry functions the best when there is not only a common basis for their shared pastoral ministry, but where the division of labor and specialization makes each person the most productive. The ruling elders aren't frustrated and the teaching elder is not frustrated. This model that the Lord established provides the maximum flexibility (since Titus is freed up to truly lead). It provides the maximum accountability (because of the parity of elders), the maximum of decentralization (since discipleship is split up and apportioned among elders). It may be hard for you to understand in one sermon how all of this works. But it is a wonderful system. It has 3500 years of practice behind it. And in the next two weeks as we look at the qualifications and work of the ruling elders, I think you will appreciate the genius of the way God laid it out. May it be so. Amen.