(By Nathan Busenitz)
* NOTE: These notes are very abbreviated due to the amount of content Phil covered in his session. Audio of the session is available here.
Phil begins by thanking the full-time pastors for what it is they do week-in and week-out.
This morning, we will look at two verses in Titus 2:7–8. Titus was a young pastor who was extremely precious to Paul. And Paul writes to Titus with the instructions found in vv. 7–8.
Phil chose this text because he is concerned about the tendency among some pastors to use vulgar topics, filthy jokes, and the like in ministry today under the guise of cultural contextualization. There are those who claim that this kind of speech is essential in order to be relevant to reach the culture. But the apostle Paul said otherwise.
The New York Times Magazine recently did a major article on Mark Driscoll, and this was a major issue that was brought up by the article.
What language is appropriate in the pulpit? A decade or so ago, this would not have even been a question in evangelicalism. The number of young men who are enthralled with filthiness and silly talk in the pulpit is astounding; and a number of evangelical leaders are failing to take a public stand against it.
Phil notes that he faces a practical dilemma here—on the one hand, he wants to give examples to show that he is not exaggerating, and yet on the other hand he does not want to drag such smut into a worship service. In a sanitized way, he mentions XXX Church and several other examples.
To claim that it is necessary to use such sensuality to draw people to Christ in our culture is a lie. Yet, that is the very line of reasoning that is being employed. This approach to relevance has swept the evangelical movement by storm in just the last few years. Ed Young and others are examples of the trend to talk about sex from the pulpit.
To a very large degree, the entire use of the word “contextualization” has been commandeered by those who want an excuse for filling their minds, and the minds of their people, with smut. If one’s approach to contextualization is to make himself feel comfortable in a secular culture, then that person has an upside down view of Paul’s Words in 1 Corinthians 9.
Titus was very dear to Paul, was trusted by Paul, and was left by Paul in Crete to appoint elders. The culture of Crete was wicked—detestable, disobedient, liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons, etc. Paul does not tell Titus to embrace the worldly aspects of Cretan culture; nor does the apostle lower the bar of church leadership in order to accommodate the corrupt culture.
Titus’s task was clear. He was not to aid the corrupt culture of the Cretans. In fact, as a young man, he was to be an example of purity, integrity, dignity, reverence, and sound speech—the exact opposite of Cretan culture. Hence, Paul’s address in Titus 2.
The flow of logic in these verses starts with sound doctrine and then moves to outline the behavior that must result. Doctrine is extremely important and some doctrines are vital. But there are likewise certain principles of personal sanctification and holiness that are so vital that we are required to break fellowship with those who violate them (cf. 1 Cor. 5). If someone professes to be a Christian and yet his lifestyle or language is consistently incompatible with godliness, we are not to affiliate ourselves with such people.
Sound doctrine is essential, but right living must go hand-in-hand with sound doctrine. This is the point of Paul’s lists in Titus 2:2ff, stressing those areas of behavior that Titus needed to emphasize with the Cretan believers.
Titus himself is addressed (as part of the young men) in verses 7 and 8. It is in these verses that you have Paul’s instructions to a young man ministering to those in a pagan culture. There is nothing here about Titus adapting his ministry to the lowbrow ministry of Crete. Rather, Titus was to be a model of reverence, purity, and godliness.
On a side note, Phil takes a moment to discuss the context of 1 Corinthians 9:19ff (“being all things to all men”). The context there was not about adopting any and every aspect of a subculture so that would have been considered cool.
Back in Titus 2, dignity is expressly required of the Christians of Crete both young and old. This would have been in direct contrast to the irreverent culture of Crete. As Paul told Titus in 1:13, Titus was to rebuke the culture not embrace it.
If a pastor’s ministry is characterized by lewdness, sensuality, and speech which is not sound and which can be condemned, that pastor is not qualified for ministry and should step down. By encouraging Titus to be characterized by sound speech, Paul was telling Titus not to give the world any reason to discredit the gospel.
The pastor who can fill his sermon with filthy words, coarse jesting, and sensuality without a single pang of conscience needs to get out of the ministry. The pulpit is the place where God’s Word needs to be elevated and exalted. It is the last place where holy things should be dragged through the gutter.
The world thinks that everything, no matter how shameful, needs to be brought out and put on display even in mixed audiences. And the last thing that the church should do is think the world has a valid point.
There are two kinds of profanity that every Christian should avoid: filthy talk and irreverence. Scripture is not silent about the things that fit under those two categories. This is not a gray area. Nor is it a complex issue. Our speech is to be seasoned and good for edification. No unwholesome word is to proceed from our lips, no filthiness, silly talk, or coarse jesting which are all out of place.
Ephesians 5:4 really defines (from the negative) what Paul means by sound speech in Titus 2:7–8. The three words in Ephesians 5:4 deal with dirty words, lewd conversation, and crude joking. Scripture emphatically condemns these things.
What about Paul’s use of skubalon? That word was not considered taboo in Greek culture. It was a strong word, but it was not the sort of vile expression that some want to make it. Moreover, the use of such harsh expressions was very much the exception in Paul’s ministry not the rule. The other example is in Galatians 5 where Paul turns the Judaizer’s argument on its head. His argument is shocking and harsh, but he did not use any vile or smutty expressions. He was certainly not being crude just to be cool. Nor was this kind of earthy sarcasm the characterization of his ministry.
Strong language and profane language are not the same thing. We need strong language in the pulpit, but profane language has no place there.
What about the Song of Solomon? The book of Song of Solomon elevates the expression of marital love by speaking of it in beautiful and poetic terms. This is the exact opposite of what is happening in the church today, where the beauty and dignity of marital intimacy is being dragged through the gutter. Ecclesiastes 9:10 should never be the butt of a smutty joke.
All of us minister in ungodly cultures. You need to be reverent, dignified, sound in doctrine and sound in speech. Those are the qualifications for a true minister and they apply in every subculture. Unclean lips are a disqualifying factor. There is nothing truly prophetic about a trash mouth.
Our lives and our lips must reflect the holiness of God.