September Roundup: My Experience Presenting Communion, Sound Doctrine (Part Six), Protecting Children

Written By Kerry & Becky

My First Experience Presenting Communion Thoughts

On a recent Sunday I presented some thoughts at the Lord’s table. It was the first time I had done so for our new church family. In this post I want to share a few things that impressed me from that experience.

As you read about my experience, I’m sure there will be times when you’ll say to yourself, “Yeah, we do that in our church, too.”

Conversely, there may be things in my experience that are new to you and what usually happens where you worship. I’m hoping my experience will be educational to some. Maybe a few will be able to identify some valuable takeaways from my experience.

I’ll start six weeks prior to my serving at the table when I received an email from a church office assistant inviting me to share communion thoughts on a specific Sunday morning.

Becky and I were planning to be in town that Sunday, so I said, “Yes, I’ll do it.”

One week prior to my scheduled date at the Lord’s table I received an email reminder of my commitment from the same office assistant. She also informed me that I would be receiving further instructions a few days later.

Sure enough, those instructions appeared in my inbox soon after. The email requested that I meet with every person who had a leading role in Sunday’s assembly in the auditorium twenty minutes before worship was scheduled to begin.

The email also included a detailed worship order, listing each component of that Sunday’s worship assembly, along with the length in minutes allotted for each. So, the plan was to begin our worship in song with “Heavenly Sunlight”—time allotted, 1:51—continue with “Clap Your Hands”—time allotted, 1:55—followed by a Welcome and a prayer for our summer youth interns, three more songs, Communion Thoughts and Prayer, Offering Thoughts, two more songs, the Sermon, Response to the Word and Dismissal, another song, and a Shepherd’s Prayer.

On this particular Sunday morning, I was allotted four minutes for Communion Thoughts and two minutes for Offering Thoughts. Our preacher was given thirty minutes to present his message, and one of our elders was allotted two minutes for the Shepherd’s Prayer. Those who designed and planned our worship determined that the entire assembly would take 65:46.

Twenty minutes before worship was to begin I met at the front of the auditorium with every one else who had any kind of leadership role in the service, including those who would be managing the audio and video from the sound booth. The worship leader reviewed the worship order with us, and a prayer was offered for us all and our worship together by a person who did not have a role in the 65:46 worship assembly and had been invited to come and pray.

What do you think? Any thoughts or reactions you’d be willing to share? I’d love to read them!

—Kerry

👉 Subscribe to our Newsletter—Growing Steady, Together—and get all the latest articles, podcasts, and videos.

What Is “Sound Doctrine”? (Part Six)

** If you are new to this series and would like to start at the beginning, this link will take you to our newsletter archive where we re-post all of our articles. Enjoy!

What constituted “sound doctrine” for the Apostle Paul?That’s the question I’m trying to answer.

To recap, Paul used the phrase, “sound doctrine” or “sound teaching,” four times in his letters. I’ve examined two of those references, 1 Timothy 1:10 and 2 Timothy 4:3, in previous posts in this series. From my study of those two passages I’ve concluded that Paul seems to identify sound doctrine with the gospel, the Christian story. You may take a look at the five previous posts in this series if you are interested in what led me to this understanding.

In this post, I want to take a look at the remaining two passages where this phrase is found.

In Titus 1:9, Paul tells his co-worker that the overseers he is to appoint in every town should be “able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.”

In the second reference, Titus 2:1, Paul commands Titus to “teach what is consistent with sound doctrine.”

What does the apostle consider to be the content of “sound doctrine” in these passages?

First, I think we can assume the obvious.

Whatever constitutes “sound teaching” in Titus 1:9 makes up “sound teaching” in Titus 2:1. That is, the content of “sound doctrine” would be the same in both passages. Actually, I think we can assume that whatever content Paul has in mind for “sound doctrine” in his letters to Timothy, he has the same content in mind when he uses the phrase in his letter to Titus. Surely, the meaning of “sound doctrine” is the same in all four passages in which it is found in the Pastoral Epistles. Wouldn’t you agree?

If so, that may immediately bias us toward what makes up “sound doctrine” in Titus 1:9 and 2:1. It, too, will likely refer to the gospel of Jesus in these passages.

Alright. Let’s first consider what Paul writes in Titus 1:9.

Paul instructed that the elders on the island of Crete should be able to preach with sound doctrine. But, what is it specifically that elders should be “able to preach”? From my study, I believe there are two, primary options. One is that Paul meant that elders should be able to preach whatever the scriptures teach.

This seems to be the option Burton Coffman had in mind when he commented on this text:

“The primary duties of elders, namely, that of watching over and protecting the flock of God, requires that they be students of the holy Scriptures, having a broad knowledge of what is and what is not sound doctrine.”

Then, he adds:

“This shows why an elder must be apt to teach and must possess an accurate and extensive knowledge of the holy truth revealed in the Scriptures” (https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bcc/titus-1.html).

In other words, Coffman seems to believe that “sound doctrine” includes whatever is revealed in the scriptures on any topic addressed by the scriptures.

We can certainly see value in God’s shepherds having an extensive knowledge of the Bible. But, is this what Paul had in mind when he considered what made up “sound doctrine”? Would it have been what the first readers of this text understood?

I doubt it.

The Old Testament scriptures may have been available to them, but the New Testament canon had not yet been completed when Paul penned his letter to Titus. Furthermore, the number of New Testament documents that may have been circulating among first century Christians would have been limited.

The second interpretive option is that the content Paul feels elders must be able to proclaim is the gospel of Jesus.

James Thompson favors this option:

“What the elders actually teach is suggested by the many occasions when Paul tells Titus, ‘Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority’ (Titus 2:15). These teachers do not give university lectures. The content of their teaching is suggested by the Pastoral Epistles themselves: they give lessons on Christian conduct; they recall the Christian message. We note how often the basic preaching is repeated. ‘The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners’ (1 Tim. 1:15). ‘For us there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all’ (1 Tim. 2:5-6). ‘Great indeed is the mystery of our religion’ (1Tim 3:16). These teachers are to know the basic Christian story” (bold text mine, Equipped for Change: Studies in the Pastoral Epistles, 88-89).

Because of what he wrote in the above paragraph, I was not surprised to see that later in this text Thompson claimed that “the most basic qualification for the task of elder is knowledge of the Christian faith” (Ibid.). Note that his claim is that elders must know “the Christian faith,” a specific part of what is revealed in scripture, rather than the scriptures in general.

Gordon Fee sees the content of “sound doctrine” in the same light.

Referring to Titus 1:9, he writes that an elder “must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, which repeats his need to be absolutely devoted to the gospel [italics mine] (cf. 1 Timothy 3:9 about the deacons). He must be so, however, not just for himself but so that he will be able to fulfill his twofold task of exhorting/encouraging the faithful and confuting the opponents of the gospel” (New International Biblical Commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 175).

Then, Fee encourages his readers to see his discussion on 1 Tim. 1:10 where he writes that the term, “sound doctrine” is a “medical metaphor referring to the ‘healthiness’ of teaching ‘found in the gospel’” (Ibid., 46).

Another clue regarding the content of “sound doctrine” may be found in the last part of Titus 1:9. There, Paul lists a second task of elders. After writing that elders must be able to preach with sound doctrine, he adds that they must also be able “to refute those who contradict it.” The “it,” of course, is sound doctrine. So, elders must not only be able to proclaim sound doctrine, but must also be able to answer those who contradict sound doctrine.

We might ask: Who were the opponents of healthy teaching Paul has in mind?

The context, as it always does when trying to interpret scripture, helps us here. Paul seems to describe those who were contradicting sound doctrine in Titus 1:10-16. (The “for” at the beginning of verse ten links verse nine to verses 10-16.)

What did those who contradicted “sound doctrine” believe and teach? Paul writes that at least some of them were of the circumcision party who were paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men (1:14). They rejected truth, likely truth related to food laws and what Christians were allowed and not allowed to eat, by insisting on keeping certain food regulations (1:14,15).

We should add that in Titus 1:10-16 we learn that the opponents of “healthy teaching” in Crete had character issues. They were rebellious, idle talkers, deceivers, and liars (1:10,12). They were mercenaries who taught for money (1:11). Their minds and consciences were corrupted (1:15). They were detestable, disobedient, and unfit for any good work (1:16). Finally, their actions demonstrated that they in fact did not know God (1:16).

Here is what Gordon Fee writes about these false teacher in his commentary on 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus:

“The picture of the opponents that emerges has many correspondences to the situation in Ephesus (1 and 2 Timothy) and also to the slightly earlier situation in Colossae-Laodicea (cf. esp. Col. 2:16-23). It looks as if this subtle, and apparently attractive, deviation was ‘catching on’ all over this part of the world. In this instance, its particularly Jewish nature comes to the fore. It is in fact being promoted by some Jewish Christians (v. 10), and the whole of verses 14-16 reveals an emphasis on ritual regulations, comparable to the asceticism in 1 Timothy 4:3 but of a decidedly Jewish character” (Ibid., 177).

Fee goes on to write that these opponents “were rejecting the truth, meaning the rejection of the gospel, whose ‘good news’ of salvation by grace stands in sharp contradiction to all forms of religious rules and regulations” (Ibid., 180).

We might say that the false teachers in Crete who were contradicting “sound doctrine” were proclaiming a different “gospel,” one that in some respects demonstrated an affinity for the law, and one to which Paul may have referred when he wrote the churches of Galatia: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ” (Galatians 1:6,7).

Perhaps the false teachers in Crete were contradicting “sound doctrine” by teaching a different gospel, perhaps a message that was more law-centered than grace-centered.

The last passage in the Pastoral Epistles that mentions “sound doctrine” immediately follows Paul’s description of the false teachers in Titus 1:10-16. It’s Titus 2:1 where Paul writes: “But as for you, teach what is consistent with sound doctrine.”

What would be “consistent with sound teaching”? The context shows that it is moral behavior. What Titus is to teach is ethics, how to behave as a Christian—whether one is an older man, an older woman, a younger woman, a young minister of the gospel, or a slave (2:2-10).

Unfortunately, Titus 2:1-10 does not spell out what constitutes '“sound doctrine,” only the kind of living that follows the acceptance of teaching that is sound or healthy.

That said, some identify “sound doctrine” in Titus 2:1 with biblical teaching in general, rather than with the gospel, or more specific biblical teaching on a certain topic or topics. For example, Burton Coffman seems to equate “sound doctrine” with whatever is written in the Bible when he writes: “The Christian life is not merely commendable behavior, but such conduct as it relates to the great principles of the truth of God” (italics mine). He follows this sentence with a quotation from E.M. Zerr’s 1954 Bible Commentary: “Sound in the faith means to be true to the word of God which is the basis of faith (Rom. 10:17).” (https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bcc/titus-2.html)

Permit me to boil this down.

After an examination of Titus 1:9, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 1:10, and 2 Timothy 4:3, I believe we are left with two, principal interpretive options regarding what constitutes “sound doctrine.”

Either “sound doctrine” has to do with what Burton Coffman calls “the great principles of the truth of God”—we might say, scripture in general, biblical teaching in general, any and all teaching that is found in the Bible and especially in the New Testament—or “sound doctrine” has to do more specifically with the gospel of Jesus, the Christian message about Jesus and what God has done through him.

I have concluded that “sound doctrine” is most likely made up of the latter. For Paul, what constituted “healthy teaching” was the gospel or the story of Jesus.

Again, I would be interested to hear what you think.

In the next post in this series, I plan to discuss what, for me, are some of the implications of viewing “sound doctrine” more specifically as the gospel of Jesus. That is where the proverbial “rubber meets the road.” Until next time, thanks again for your interest in this series!

—Kerry

👉 Again, I would be pleased to hear your thoughts on these posts! Hit reply, or send me an email.

Protect Our Babies!

Some friends who are looking for a new church home recently shared a church experience with us.

Their Sunday morning visit to a particular church went well and their middle school daughter was even invited to a youth group activity! Their daughter wanted to attend the activity so Dad decided to take her. (And what a GREAT sign that a youth group is doing some things right when one visit by a teen results in a desire to go back!)

The two of them arrived at the gym where a number of teens were already engaged in activities, and the youth minister was there to welcome them. When Dad asked if he could stay, the youth minister was hesitant. He shared that they only allow pre-screened adults to supervise and chaperone the teens.

However, since Dad and daughter were new, he understood where the Dad was coming from. Subsequently, an exception was made and Dad was allowed to stay and observe and make sure his baby girl was safe.

Isn’t this wonderful?! The wise youth minister was able to reassure the dad that chaperones for the teens were always carefully selected and screened and that “onlookers” were not part of a safe church youth environment. But he also understood the Dad’s heart and made provisions for him to supervise the youth leadership’s safe-keeping of his daughter.

Oh friends, if we want young families to become attendees and members of our churches we must make sure that the spaces where their children will be dropped off are safe, clean, updated, and age-appropriate. We also must give attention to those who are caring for and interacting with their children! They must have already been screened, trained, and had background checks completed.

Even though this may seem strange to some of us, it is not. It is a different world these days and it is often not a safe place for our children. Why wouldn’t the Lord’s church be the first ones to step up and make sure parents feel comfortable knowing their babies are safe and learning about Jesus so they can too?

—Becky

Kerry & Becky
Next

August Roundup: 23 Leadership Problems, Sound Doctrine (Part 5), Be the Church.