If Anyone is Above Reproach Tit. 1.6
My Pastor has recently begun preaching through Titus. Our church has been forced to think through many issues with regards to church leadership (organizational structure i.e. Elder Rule), our testimony as believers among "outsiders" (unbelieving co-workers, neighbors etc), and most controversially what means exactly for a minister to be "above reproach". The format at our church is structured in such a way that our small group meets on wednesday nights at someone's home for discussion on the Sunday service/message.
When it came time to discuss the Sunday message it was very interesting when people began to discuss what it meant to them to have their Pastor to be "above reproach". As a aspiring Pastor I am always interested in this kind of discussion. I would like to know what you might think constitutes being "above reproach"? What was in the mind of the Apostle when he was saying that Elders must be "above reproach"? In other words, what brings about "reproach"? It is an interesting phrase in the hands of many people. Many love to use it in relation to "liberty issues", however, what is reproachable about living in freedom? Is being "above reproach" biblically defined and clearly objective? Should Pastors seek to honor the myriad of preferences among those to whom they minister all in the name of being "above reproach"whether those prefrences are biblically defined or not?
Case in Point: Charles Spurgeon (I know, I know, everyone can "use" Spurgeon, and it is true that he is the most misquoted and manipulated minister of the Christian Church but just listen).
In reference to his love of fine cigars and the controversy that surrounded it (i.e. loss of testimony, no longer "above reproach", loss of influence etc) Spurgeon wrote:
I demur altogether and most positively to the statement that to smoke tobacco is in itself a sin. It may become so, as any other indifferent action may, but as an action it is no sin.Together with hundreds of thousands of my fellow-Christians I have smoked, and, with them, I am under the condemnation of living in habitual sin, if certain accusers are to be believed. As I would not knowingly live even in the smallest violation of the law of God, and sin in the transgression of the law, I will not own to sin when I am not conscious of it.There is growing up in society a Pharisaic system which adds to the commands of God the precepts of men; to that system I will not yield for an hour. The preservation of my liberty may bring upon me the upbraidings of many good men, and the sneers of the self-righteous; but I shall endure both with serenity so long as I feel clear in my conscience before God...I am told that my open avowal will lessen my influence, and my reply is that if I have gained any influence through being thought different from what I am, I have no wish to retain it. I will do nothing upon the sly, and nothing about which I have a doubt.
What say you?
Quote taken from:
posted by adam at 10:35 AM
23 Comments:
I like your thinking Thomas, I like your thinking. I know that you don't just run to Spurgeon to "prove an area of liberty" but look at Spurgeon as one of the most respected expositors of the Scriptures and can learn a lot from his life. So what say I? Smoke on brothers if you desire, smoke on.
What if i was fresh off an addiction to smoking whether cigars, smokes, whatever and am around you that 1 time a week or whatever the time frame between cigars and watching my head pastor light up a stogey causes me to fall back into my addition? That is my first question. My second is, And obviously i am no theologian but at what point does smoking become harmful to your body? Isnt our body a temple of the Holy Spirit? (I Corinthians)
My thoughts on your original question.
According to a dictionary:
ABOVE- a higher place
REPROACH- blame, fault, disgrace, discredit.
Used in this sentence: To bring reproach on one's family.
You might even slip "Church" in front of "family" That is how my vision of a church elder or pastor.
Thomas, I say you are one of Spurgeon's heirs. You are committed to reformed theology, you say what think, and truly, you do nothing on the sly!
Jake,
In regards to your first question, for love of the body of Christ I would be happy to not smoke around you, but I think that preference is different from causing you to sin. For most of the church body who are not addicted to smoking or drinking, they tend to confuse what preference really is. So the idea of you falling into sin would be easy to avoid by not smoking around you, but that would not mean giving up smoking altogether. For example, if you struggled from obesity and gluttony and were on the end of a recovery, it might not be the best idea for me to take you to a buffet. However, that does not mean I stop eating forever. That would be ridiculous. Since we care for the body we will do our best to keep you out of sin and bring along the weaker brother to godliness.
In regards to your second question, smoking in excess (along with anything in excess) is definitely not healthy. However, whether the temple verse can be applied in that way is another story. But, if it can, the question of exercise, a healthy diet, and many other everyday practices comes into question. Which is worse for the body, being overweight or smoking a couple cigars a month? As Driscoll would say, most of the guys who say that the body is a temple of the holy Spirit have made an addition to the temple. Consistency is key.
Adam,
I find it interesting that when Paul addresses leaders in the church (including the young Pastor Timothy), he steers clear from liberty issues. He seems to be more focused on the Word and sound teaching (the primacy of preaching) that issues of submission to the weaker brother. I think that if we begin to hold a pastor responsible for our preferences, the Word of God gets compromised. Furthermore, no pastor will ever meet up to everyone's preferences, so whose do we use? Do we always use the more conservative? If we do, then we arrive at present day fundamentalism, the very thing we are all trying to escape. I say we stick to the text, preach what it says (and make known what it doesn't say), and live in love for others. Col. 1:22 presents the idea of being above reproach followed by referring to perseverance in sanctification and faithfulness to the Gospel. Is it possible that this is what "above reproach" is speaking of?
Good thoughts, and pass me an Acid or a CAO! Ha, by the way, St. Patty's day is coming up. What about the Guinness?
AT,
I think that a Pastor should be held to a higher standard than the believers in his congregation. A pastor is a chosen man picked by God to do his work and I wonder....is something like smoking or drinking "cool" enough to justify causing another believer to stumble in there own walk with Christ. You might not be "causing them to sin" but how are you helping them glorify Christ? I would be upset if my pastor had my family over for dinner and afterwards lit up a smoke or threw down a cold one. I would be even more upset if afterwards I said that I was uncomftorable with that he started talking to me about me bieng a weaker brother. I do belielve in Christian Liberty but I also think that hiding behind it for selfish reasons or failing to put others first is not a characteristic of a pastor. If you were the pastor of a church and some of your congregation left after they had seen and or heard that you smoked and you lost your opportunity to sanctify the faithfullness of the gospel with them was smoking worth it? Eating is a bad example. You need food for nurishment so you can survive on the contrary you do not need to smoke to survive. I am not a fundi I just think that a pastor who is leading a chucrh that has many different types of christians that are all on different levels spiritually should want to be above ALL reparoch especially something like smoking. Is bieng a pastor all about you or is it about the people that you are ministering to? Please do not misunderstand me and do not misunderstand my tone I am not being harsh with any of this, I just think that bieng a pastor is special and occupying that office He should be held to a higher standard.
Steve,
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I would agree with you (as I am sure most would) that pastors are to be held to a higher standard. In fact, it is found in the Text (Titus 1; 1 Tim 3). The distinction must made then as to whether a pastor must be held to an extra-biblical standard of preference or not. Furthermore, there is also a distinction between what the pastor does around the weaker brother and what he does in his private life.
I understand that eating can be a bad example. What about language? Should I give up talking around someone who struggles with a foul mouth? Should I give up driving around someone who has trouble speeding? The list goes on and on.
So, the pastor is certainly held to a higher standard, but the standard must be textual rather than preferential. Therein lies the distinction.
Am I wrong in this thinking?
James
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
at,
predictable, telling, and reproaching on so many levels...
jake and steve,
it's great to hear from a non-seminary guy now and again...we can be so stuffy and academic; i am blessed to hear churchmen considering the glory of Christ for the good of His church.
i'm sympathetic with your concerns (as many of them have been or still are) my own.
however, i would tend to agree with james in respect to the text's silence on such issues.
the lists in the pastorals seem to center on truly biblical motifs - that is, those virtues which are explicitly taught in scripture.
at
(per james and g on all things fundamental and liberty-related)
not all of us are trying...
some of us are doing; the others are "saying what they think" but not doing what they say.
can i get an amen, baylor?
Thomas,
Pardon the intrusion, but as far as being "above reproach," it is said that Spurgeon stopped smoking in his later years for such a purpose. Walking down a London street, he saw his picture in the front window of a tobacco shop. The proprietor thought to use Spurgeon's name and position as an advertising tool, since of course, Spurgeon smoked cigars and was a household name in London (and practically everywhere else). Upon seeing this, Spurgeon ceased his practice of smoking, not because he knew the act itself to be sin, but that he would be "above reproach." So use your freedom as you would, as Spurgeon did so clearly explain was allowable, but remember that a pastor must be incredibly careful to maintain the state of being "above reproach.
Eklektos
I think I can guarantee that Thomaswon't be gaining celebrity status any time soon. Imagine seeing his face on the cover of one of those cigar magazines! "Adam Thoms: The Theologian America Loves to Hate".
I do not think that pastors have a secret or extra biblical code or standard that they have to abide in but wether we like it or not people in the congregation(vistors,members,former members etc.)look up to Pastors and look to them for help with finding the answers of life. That is a responsibility that requires so much more than just book smarts. People will be disecting your life wether you like it or not and wether it is right or wrong. We could never be so blind to the fact that there are NO SECRETS in a church. What pastor does in his own home will become common knowledge to the chruch at some point and time in his ministry. I would fear that if a pastor was found out to be a smoker "behind the backs" of his congregation he could be called a hypocrite and the ministry that he so dearly loves and put so much time and effort into for the casuse of Christ is now gone. I guess I am just saying that we need to be carefull with all of our choices and above all things glorify and honor our Jesus Christ.
I think i agree with sthomas. For one it doesnt make sense for a pastor to have to live in hiding (or his private life) because of some grey issues. And if you have ever been apart of a church (and obviously we all have) there are NO SECRETS in a church family. I think there are some people that their sole purpose of attending is to find the latest scoop. So if you think that your "private life" will actually be private, then you must be smokin something other than cigars!
g,
now that's a magazine i would definitely subscribe (and gladly contribute) to.
jake,
more than cigars indeed...
To all,
Ok, let's say for the sake of argument that I agree that "above reproach" is an standard that implies extra-biblical demands on behavior. How then, to all who are in favor of this standard, are we to decide what preferential issues the pastor should concede to? I'll give a list for the sake of discussion. There are considerations to be made about the following: alcohol, tv, movies, smoking, supporting estabslishments or organizations that allow the above, or a myriad of other issues. Where then is the line to be drawn? If the Text is not the basis of being "above reproac," whose standard to we cede to?
Also, I want to put out there again the argument from Col. 1:22. It presents the idea of being above reproach followed by referring to perseverance in sanctification and faithfulness to the Gospel. Is it possible that this is what "above reproach" is speaking of?
Any takers?
Jake,
I certainly agree that a pastor should not hide his behavior. But, if he is living by the Text than there would be no need for that.
In Christ,
James
Great thinking everybody. I must say that I agree with many people on many different levels. Perhaps I share the "reality" of it all with SThomas/Boike, but yet I share the exegetical/biblical drive with James and others. I wanted us to discuss what it meant BIBLICALLY to be above reproach. I think that we have yet to define the text (outside of James), but there has been some great thinking and commenting.
BIGGEST WORRIES FROM IT ALL:
1. "Yeled Elohim" you must document if you are going to suggest historical happenings and use them to defend or bolster your point. Learn to document your thoughts.
2. An awareness to concede to unbiblical thinking just b/c it is so pervasive. I REALLY struggle with that. Is that in itself BIBLICAL? I think not.
3. Smlogan, as always for obvious reasons.
Thanks Guys
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thomas,
An irony that he who documents only Piper sermons should call out another for documentation ;)
AT or friends,
I am starting a study on the book of James. I started by reading the book and then went on to a commentary (The Bible Knowledge Commentary). One of the first things that it is states in the commentary is that the names James actually translates Jacob. He goes on to say "Could it be that King James desired to see his name in the English translation he authorized?" If this is true why do the other translations follow suit? This really has no bearing on my study but I find it interesting. To steal your sentence What say you?
I'll vouch somewhat for what "yeled elohim" said. I've read similar things. In Dallimore's biography of Spurgeon you can find the topic addressed on pgs 179-181. It isn't cast in exactly the same light as "YE" put it, but similarly. I've appreciated all your dialogue. It is an aid to me in thinking through all of this.
The DJ and yeled_elohim,
Spurgeon is a good example to spark discussion, but we all should agree that whether Spurgeon smoked or not is of little consequence. So, I think that the correct "aid," as yeled put it, in thinking through all of this is the Text, not what Spurgeon did or did not do (likewise, not what anyone else does or does not do). Let's stick to what is important.
To all,
The evidence in the text for what "above reproach" is is largely undefined. The Greek word "ανεγκλητο&sigmaf" (anegkletos) (used in 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6,7; 1 Corinthians 1:8; Colossians 1:22) is defined by Louw & Nida as "pertaining to one who cannot be accused of anything wrong." So, the pastor/elder is supposed to be a man who does not give anyone a reason to say anything is wrong with him or the church. Jake's definition of reproach seems to be correct. However, the text gives no definition here of what would actually bring reproach to the name of Christ. It seems here that we must look to the text for guidelines for living to determine what this activity looks like. Unfortunately, I am sure this will bring us back to the commonly used "weaker brother" or "liberty" issues about which we have discussed time after time.
So, in conclusion, we know that the pastor/elder is held to a higher standard, which is given in the text. It would not be exegetically wise to put forth the idea that there is some sort of extra-biblical standard to which pastors/elders must submit. I think that will take us places we do not want to go. However, the weaker brother must be thought of (not for complete abstention but for abstention in his presence), and the law of Christ summed up in love must also be considered.
Adam,
Thanks again for the interesting topic. It has caused me to think through the Text, which is always beneficial. Are you going to throw in your thoughts on "above reproach"?
James
This is a topic I have been studying some lately and still studying. I heard a great sermon on this topic a few weeks ago that was preached by Driscoll last summer and you can listen to it on Mars Hill Podcast if you want. The message is entitled "The Weaker Christian" and was preached on July 2, 2006. I appreciate the comments and thinking by jrgordon. Needful topic Adam.
Thanks for the comment Jess. I also agree that Elders are not to be held to a "higher standard". That is, all congregational members ought to theoretically be Elder qualified (i.e. thoroughly Christian in all manner of life).
All:
"Above Reproach" BIBLICALLY seems to be defined through the text. That is, explained in greater detail v6b-9 and so on into the rest of the letter.
I think that it is most helpful to try our best to stop leaning too heavily on statements such as "what it means to me" and try to discipline ourselves to talk more textually (i.e. the language of the passage itself). I know that we all speak from varying circumstances and experiences which do and should color our conversation and outlook on such matters, but I guess I am an "idealist" in that in a perfect community (explicitly biblical) we could all live according to the text without adding to it a system of man made Pharisaism.
Thanks again everybody. I love it.
Adam,
Well-said. We love the Text around here.
Jesse,
Man, you were making such a good argument until you referred to speeding and copyright laws in the last sentence! Those two actions are sinful because they are not submitting to God given authority in our lives (Rom. 13). Also, your Baywatch example seems to be what we would call in my epistemology class a "borderline case of knowledge." In other words, just like this whole life could be one big god-begat deception (a la Descartes), so also will few straight men watch baywatch without sinning (i.e., lust). Finally, as to your example about smoking and eating, I would argue that neither are worse in themselves (i.e., not sin issues according to the text), but they can lead to sin issues (i.e., addiction, gluttony). I see what you are saying though, and I think I agree with your basic premise...maybe. :)
In Christ,
James
Post a Comment
<< Home