Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. (1 Timothy 5:19, ESV)
Recently, certain deeply flawed and overly broad interpretations of the above verse have come to my attention. At best, they enable ministerial misconduct. At worst, they are themselves literally criminal. This essay seeks first to set firmly in place some appropriate boundaries for the application of the verse. Second, it seeks to identify the proper biblical context of the verse. Third, it seeks to define exactly what constitutes a charge, and perhaps more importantly, what does not constitute a charge. Getting this verse right will preserve appropriate levels of pastoral accountability. Getting it wrong so erodes accountability that it amounts to something of a license for ministerial misconduct.
Criminally Broad Application
Suppose I am in a room with a fellow Pastor and a Deacon—just the three of us. The Pastor pulls out a gun and shoots the deacon, killing him. Conjuring up my inner Chuck Norris, I manage to wrestle the gun out of his hand and apprehend him. Now what? There is only one witness, and that witness is me. Does the Bible permit me to bring a charge against this elder if I am the lone witness? In such a case, there is surely not one Southern Baptist who would argue for the strictest, broadest and most literal interpretation of this verse. I am the witness to a felony and am morally obligated (though perhaps not legally obligated) to report it.
An even clearer case is the lone victim of sexual abuse by a clergyman. May this person press a charge even without a second or third witness? Because the accused is an elder, is he allowed a second offense in order for the victims to accumulate the appropriate number of firsthand witnesses? May it never be! In fact, because clergymen are mandatory reporters, in certain cases, it can actually be ILLEGAL for a person NOT to bring a charge against an elder despite the existence of a solitary witness only.
Clearly, the strictest and broadest interpretation of this verse cannot be extended to such felonies as murder and child abuse. You simply do not need two witnesses in order to press a charge. However, in the case of job fraud, a felony may or may not have been committed. An undocumented minister who lies about their citizenship in order to get a job has committed a felony. One wonders why two witnesses would be required for reporting this crime. We have already established that felonies may be reported by one.
Moving to less serious charges of job fraud by a U.S. citizen simply making false claims in the hiring process, claims which in some cases are not even criminal but merely involve civil proceedings and termination, solo reporting without two or three witnesses may actually be considered nothing more than a moral responsibility—as in the case of murder, rather than a legal responsibility—as in the case of child abuse. In any event, it is clearly evident that applying this verse in its broadest and most literal sense can be not only morally questionable but even in some cases legally prosecutable.
Doctrinally Related Context
Beginning with the first chapter and running throughout the entire letter, 1 Timothy is dealing with the subject of false teaching. Such concerns provide the backdrop for understanding the entire book. While the more immediate context of verse nineteen is the rightful honoring of the elders so as to protect them from the false charges of the congregation, it is worth noting that verse seventeen specifies that Paul especially has in mind here the “elders who labor in preaching and teaching.” We have already established in the previous section that the scope of this verse cannot be allowed to extend in its broadest sense. Moving then to the other end of the spectrum, one legitimate interpretation that significantly narrows the scope is that the kind of charge being addressed here relates to the work of the very elders who are “preaching and teaching.”
In light of the book’s overall interest in addressing false teachers, it is possible that the type of charge really being addressed here is a charge concerning the minister’s doctrine. Before a church member rises up and declares the Pastor a heretic, he or she should find one or two others with similar concerns about the content of the elder’s teaching. Perhaps they misunderstood what he said. Perhaps no one else feels the same way. This verse may be instructing us merely on the proper manner of addressing charges of false teaching within the church itself—in keeping with the primary emphasis and theme of 1 Timothy, which is preserving sound doctrine. Other matters—such as financial impropriety, sexual harassment, murder, manslaughter, various types of fraud, negligence and so on—may not really be in view at all.
Ask yourself the question: “If I was the ONLY one who saw my Pastor do _______, would I still call the authorities and bring a charge against him?” Personally, I can think of a significant number of items that could be legitimately placed in that blank, for which this requirement for two or three witnesses would simply not apply at all. However, if I heard him say something that sounded to me like modalism or a denial of substitutionary atonement or an awkward way of describing antinomianism, I would bring one or two people with me as I spoke with him about my concern for his doctrinal purity. Elders say a great many things. Being misunderstood is a common occupational hazard. Such misunderstandings should always be handled with the greatest of care.
Allegations or Conversations
Regardless of how broadly or narrowly one interprets the orbit of 1 Timothy 5:19, it is imperative that we clearly understand everything involved in the process of observing this verse, especially the critical distinction between a formal allegation on the one hand and an informal conversation on the other. Before exploring this critical distinction, it is helpful to review the step-by-step process a bit further:
- OFFENSE—the offender says or does something.
- RECOGNITION—the offended realizes a concern.
- CONVERSATION—the offended seeks witnesses.
- ALLEGATION—the offender is dually charged.
These final two stages of the process deserve further elaboration. Once a particular situation is deemed to be within the parameters of 1 Timothy 5:19, and once the offended experiences the RECOGNITION that they do indeed have a concern, they know that a charge is not to be admitted against the elder without two or three witnesses. How are they to find such witnesses? Should the witnesses be expected to divine in a dream or vision that the offended has a concern? Or is it not fully expected, if not absolutely required by the timeline intrinsic to the logic of the verse itself, that the offended will engage in CONVERSATION with others? These conversations do not represent formal charges, as will be clearly demonstrated below. Rather, they seek to determine if others also believe that a formal charge would be justified in this case.
In the conversation stage, believing that a charge against an offender would be completely warranted and legitimate if made is not at all the same thing as actually making the charge. The offended might talk with five people. Two might say, “I don’t believe this person is guilty of anything at all.” Three others might say, “I totally believe your instincts are correct about this, and that the person has done exactly what you say they have done.” At this stage in the process, even though people have opined as to their view of the guilt of the alleged offender, no one has charged the elder with anything at all—not the offended, not the three witnesses, not anybody.
In the allegation stage, the previous informal conversations in which the offended and the witnesses simply expressed their opinions of guilt or innocence, are finally and formally reduced to specific charges against a named individual in the company of that individual’s appropriate authority by two or three witnesses. When I say O.J. Simpson committed murder, I am expressing an opinion regarding his guilt. Opinions are like belly buttons–everybody has one. But it is simply untrue that I would be CHARGING Simpson with murder. Such an accusation would take place in a courtroom in front of the proper authorities.
Similarly, if I find myself merely in the conversation stage of this process and not standing before the appropriate authority of the accused, and I state that I fully believe the statements made by the offended are true, I may have given the offended another willing witness, but neither the offended nor I have charged anybody with anything at all. Furthermore, in every situation where a known person is specifically charged by someone else, the identity of that person is named. The first thing the police will ask when you report a crime is if you can identify the name and describe the appearance of the accused. On the other hand, in any sort of academic exercise where the accused is unnamed, where the offended is undecided about making a charge, and where the proper authority is nowhere to be found, you may have an interesting discussion about right and wrong, but you cannot charge anyone with charging anyone. When neither the offended nor the offender nor the court is named, you may have a case study, but you do not have a case. You may have conversations, but you do not have allegations. You may have opinions, but you do not have charges. And 1 Timothy 5:19 does not restrict opinions.
To conclude, in light of the incontrovertible illegality of certain extreme interpretations of 1 Timothy 5:19, it is unwise to interpret this verse so broadly that every manner of ministerial misconduct is immune from the prosecution of a solitary witness. We should humbly come to this verse, admitting the distinct possibility that its specific intent is actually so narrow as to include only the matter of false teaching comprising the theme of 1 Timothy itself. Regardless of your interpretation, it is simply not a charge at all for one to opine in the conversation stage that another person is guilty. Until the proper authority admits a formal allegation against a named individual, no one has been charged at all by anyone. Therefore, anyone charging an elder with charging an elder would be mistaken.
Let’s keep the discussion focused on this article, not the one from yesterday.
One reason to get two or three witnesses against an elder is to make sure that you are not in the wrong yourself.
If you think that what the elder is preaching is false or heretical, it could be that you are just either ignorant of the truth in question or simply have misunderstood what was said.
Jesus told us that if we have a problem with a brother to go to him and speak to him about it. Again, we may have just misunderstood, or maybe our brother is wrong but sincerely so, and would appreciate a ‘heads up’. But iof that fails to address the situation, we are to take two or three witnesses with us. Again, we consult with others because in the disagreement, it could be us that is in error, not our brother.
But the situation is more serious when accusing an elder, for if you are in error, and the brother is exonerated, it still may leave a cloud over his ministry and serve the cause of our enemy all the more.
If I am going to a church that I think has a certain view and a rather new pastor comes in and uses materials that seem against that view and/or brings in speakers who are not completely in line with what I think is right, I should go to him first and express my doubts. I should not start spreading words about the man. If my conversations with him are unsatisfactory, than I should seek other mature believers who I respect within my congregation, including other elders, and with them share my concerns in a private confidential way.
It is only then, if these other brothers agree with me, and have also confronted this elder with unsatisfying results, that we [not just I] should bring the matter up before the whole church for a proper discussion with an eye towards reconciliation and unity.
-mike
“But the situation is more serious when accusing an elder, for if you are in error, and the brother is exonerated, it still may leave a cloud over his ministry and serve the cause of our enemy all the more.
If I am going to a church that I think has a certain view and a rather new pastor comes in and uses materials that seem against that view and/or brings in speakers who are not completely in line with what I think is right, I should go to him first and express my doubts. I should not start spreading words about the man. If my conversations with him are unsatisfactory, than I should seek other mature believers who I respect within my congregation, including other elders, and with them share my concerns in a private confidential way.
It is only then, if these other brothers agree with me, and have also confronted this elder with unsatisfying results, that we [not just I] should bring the matter up before the whole church for a proper discussion with an eye towards reconciliation and unity.”
Excellent, Mike.
This article is focused on one from yesterday. My comment should be reinstated.
Not going there, Adam.
Obviously, there was a discussion of this in Rick’s previous article, but this is a post in which Rick engaged the biblical teachings related to this verse.
You are free to disagree with him and to articulate why you think his interpretation is faulty.
But if I wanted to continue the discussion from yesterday, I’d have kept the discussion open. That one is done.
Very good Rick.
There is more than just one witness. There is the witness of forensic evidence.
Rick,
You said:
Similarly, if I find myself merely in the conversation stage of this process and not standing before the appropriate authority of the accused, and I state that I fully believe the statements made by the offended are true, I may have given the offended another willing witness, but neither the offended nor I have charged anybody with anything at all. – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/charging-elders-with-charging-elders/#comment-229060
You are not another witness simply because you believe what the first witness is saying. Even if that first witness is your mom or your wife and you know beyond doubt that they are telling the truth, as they see it, it does not qualify you to be a witness against the alleged wrong doer.
If the matter is doctrinal, then the path is simple, simply ask the person what he believes about [a] and [b] or [c]. If he has reportedly taught, say in Sunday School, something different than what he is now answering to your inquiry than the next step is to consider whether
[1] he was misheard or
[2] he simply misspoke or
[3] he is a deceiver.
Go to the others in attendance and ask them what was taught. [ still thinking Sunday School class here]
These then are the witnesses [if he did indeed teach in error] that you confront him with.
He still could have simply misspoke.
If he preached it from the pulpit, simply get a tape of the sermon, or inquire of mature-in-the-faith men in attendance.
Then these are your witnesses.
-mike
Okay, I hear you. I don’t want to rehash yesterday really, but it should be pointed out that the charge she would most likely make, if she made one, would not be doctrinal, but job fraud–basically misrepresenting oneself in order to get a job.
The primary point here is that people can talk about innocence and guilt and express their opinion without that opinion constituting a charge.
I too am opposed to people committing job fraud and lying to gain position.
I’m glad we agree on that.
Rick,
you said:
Regardless of your interpretation, it is simply not a charge at all for one to opine in the conversation stage that another person is guilty. – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/charging-elders-with-charging-elders/#comment-229062
There is no charge made by simply having an opinion that another is guilty.
BUT…
To opine that someone is guilty simply because you hear what seems to be a sincere allegation is rash and immature.
-mike
I gave her the benefit of the doubt, believing the best about her honesty. But even she is only at the conversation stage here. There are no allegations yet, just people talking about whether or not to make one.
Rick,
She may be 100% correct.
But you can not know that, nor should you affirm the charge in any way.
Instead, you should point her to the proper Biblical steps in resolving a grievance, all the more so since it is an elder who is the alleged wrong doer.
-mike
I cannot affirm a “charge” when she has not yet made one, but is merely deciding if there is anything to all of this. I can affirm her instincts if I share them, which I do. There are no charges yet.
Trust me, I’m familiar with Matthew 18. As mentioned in the post above, sometimes you don’t go to the Pastor first. Job fraud is a pretty big deal. Most church members just move along.
Rick,
Most church members just move along?
I am not sure what you mean.
Do you mean that most members in the church leave that church?
How can you affirm her instincts when you do not know if they are true or not?
She might be sincerely mistaken.
Gentlemen, if the conversation continues to be about yesterday’s post, I will shut comments down.
There was really no way for the comments not to be about yesterday’s post. The original article is in reference to the comments on yesterday’s post. Do you see why it is frustrating that my comment was immediately deleted while these comments are left up?
Adam,
I tried not to speak directly about yesterday’s post in responding to Rick, i guess in certain places I did not try hard enough. They certainly are related, but this post and its responses are to be about doctrine and not about the specifics in the previous post.
-mike
Yes, I agree that my initial comment addressed the situation directly and your comments were more general but obviously related to yesterday’s situation. However, Rick addressed the situation directly in his responses and if his comments are not deleted there is an obvious double standard being employed.
Yes. I understand. Though, in fairness, the tone of your comment was more pointed than the others.
I am determined that we are not going to rehash that one. I am fighting a losing battle and my only recourse seems to be the nuclear option.
Gentlemen, please discus the content of thus post.
Adam, since you seem to be feeling put-upon, let me explain what happened here.
Yours was the first comment I saw, and I deleted it with a note that I hoped people would not rehash the closed thread from yesterday.
When I returned to the site a couple of hours or so later, I found that in fact there had been several more comments that ignored my request. I reissued the request.
Those comments, while referring to yesterday’s post, did not have (in my estimation) the combative tone I felt yours had. So, I left them up with the request.
That’s what I did. Moderation is not perfect here, but I continue to be determined that yesterday’s brouhaha will not carry forward to today.
If you will note the time stamps, 3 hours passed between my first comment and my second. I was not on the site during that time. I actually spend way less time on this site than I should – especially recently. But I use the time I have to do what I can.
The other comments took place while I was not looking and there were enough of them that deleting all of them became cumbersome.
Dave Miller,
IMO, in fairness censoring Adam and/or others on this thread is unnecessary.
It’s unecessay because none of this should have never happened.
There is no possible way to discuss Ricks article today without discussing his incendiary article from yesterday that is inextricably connected to it. This article only exists because Rick is “rebuking” those of us who dared to question him yesterday. The title says as much. Adam, and we, Shoud be able to present specific defense to that “rebuke” – Especially since this article relates to a specific, and significant, comment discussion in the other article post.
Mr. Miller, If you are so determined to not rehash Ricks proactive ” Calvinism Thursday” article then you, IMO should not have allowed this post at all….as I’ve pointed out – the two are inextricably connected.
You, brought this stress on yourself by doing so.
The way it is now….Rick is getting (or appearing) to get special allowances and commenters are hamstrung in a way he is not.
* provocative not proactive. 😉
I think what that passage means is that no one should just take the word of an accuser against an elder without some sort hard and concrete evidence. He’s warning to beware of petty and frivolous accusations.
Obviously there are times when there is no other witness, but there should be strong evidence just the same.
I think your summary of Matthew 18 applies particularly if the matter is indeed simply doctrine. Again, her primary concern was not his teaching, but misrepresenting himself to gain employment–job fraud. It only involves civil litigation in this case, but termination often results. Many people in such circumstances decide to overlook the transgression and just move quietly along to another church. Not wanting the drama or the conflict, they pray about it and just leave, without ever making a formal accusation.
Rick,
Matthew 18 is about relationships between and in the family of God in a church setting. It says that if you have something against your brother…
And what we are talking about also includes hypothetically what one should do if they hear such an accusation/complaint against an elder. In that hypothetical place, one does not just simply give the accuser the benefit of the doubt and proceed to counsel her based on that.
If she has a complaint against her pastor/elder, and in this case, she THINKS he has misrepresented himself to gain employment, than we can surmise a few things:
[1] She is not alone in her assessment [or she is in the wrong herself].
[2] Her deacon/elder board and her search committee have a responsibility to her and her fellow church members.
[3] These groups are then who she should go to and press her complaint.
And from that we might see:
[a] She is wrong in her assessment, no matter how sincere.
[[Don’t you have Calvinisitc speakers at your church???]]
[b] She is wrong in her understanding of what her church actually believes.
[c] She is right and the deacon/elders confront him and he leaves hopefully without a fight.
But it is wrong to assume she is right and to give her advice based on that assumption especially since we are speaking about an elder.
-mike
Rick,
Any non-criminal wrong doing by an elder, especially an elder, needs to follow the proper procedures set up in the New Testament.
If a pastor misrepresents his theological positions in gaining a post, the person who discovers it should go to their deacon/elder board and bring it up for their consideration.
They should not leave the church simply because a deceiver has gained a prominent place, but instead should seek the proper redress from the brothers who are in the proper place of oversight.
No one should abandon their church and the sheep because a wolf is there, but instead raise the alarm in the proper channels.
“should go to their deacon/elder board and bring it up for their consideration.”
Therein lies one of our problems — a problem of slippery-slope ecclesiology in Southern Baptist churches.
Ladies and Gentlemen, there has never been, nor should there ever be any such monster in a Southern Baptist church called a “Deacon Board.” Nor should there be an “Elder Board” in a Southern Baptist church. Ruling “boards” of any kind are alien to the founding of congregational church governance.
Boards are bad in free churches such as are congregational churches such as are Southern Baptist churches. No Boards! None. As a matter of fact, “Skate Boards” in the Ed buildings of Southern Baptist Churches should be frowned on also.
CB,
I used board in a loose way.
Isn’t there a group of men in most churches charged with oversight who report to the congregation?
How does it work in your church?
-mike
In my church there were deacons who reported to the body, until we went to elders, who report to the body.
parsonmike,
First I want you to know that I am not arguing for deacons over elders or elders over deacons. Congregational governance can work with either or both.
My contention is with the use of the word “board.” In Western culture the term “board” is always consciously or unconsciously received as a “Board of Directors.”
I have fought the use of that term forever. Deacons are not boards in congregational churches. Elders are not boards in congregational churches. The very word “board” as used in our culture is in diametric opposition to the meaning of “deacon” or “elder” in the New Testament, as I am sure you already know.
I think we get in trouble when we allow a group of deacons or elders to acquire the use of terms like “board” in Southern Baptist churches.
CB,
Thanks for the info.
Like i said, i was using the word board in a loose manner and not meaning it as an official Board but simply to refer to a group of men who are charged with oversight.
I don’t mind refraining from using the term.
-mike
Mike,
At least we’re talking about exceptions now, both to 1 Timothy 5:19 and to Matthew 18:15-17. You are now talking about “non-criminal wrong doing.” I agree with you. Can we agree the biblical text makes no such explicit exception? So we are in the realm of application here. And sometimes we don’t apply these verses to the letter.
I used to apply them much more broadly than I do now. Truly, I’m not as far away from you as you might think. In fact, until today when I did a bit of legal research, I thought job fraud was at least a misdemeanor. It turns out that’s only the case for things like government security jobs. It is actually legal in America to lie on your resume or job application. The penalty is civil–job loss–but you don’t go to jail for such fraud.
Rest assured, in cases where there is some minor complaint against a pastor, I routinely encourage people to go talk to their pastor directly. Some situations make for a tricky determination of criminal versus non-criminal.
Rick,
Certainly the Biblical text makes no explicit exception between criminal and non criminal wrong doing. But if there is legal wrong doing that is also wrong doing by our church standards than it is a matter for the civil authorities.
If there is a law passed that makes one of our religious practices illegal, yet we still hold to that practice as God-worshiping [example: communion], then it is a different matter all together. In the early church, they were accused of cannibalism because they took communion and ‘ate’ the body of Christ. Thus many times they had to hold their services in secret. Likewise in many places in our world, the services themselves were illegal and had to be held in secret.
But here in the USA, we still have the freedom to worship as we see fit as long as we do not break criminal/civil laws. So a pastor lying on his resume is not breaking the civil law but it still makes him a deceiver and liable to in-house church discipline up to and including removal.
But the proper disciplinary process should be followed. Maybe the man will leave before it gets all the way to the whole church level but they still will need to be informed of why their pastor left.
But to assume a complainant is right in their grievance [to give them the benefit of the doubt] is an improper way to counsel such a person. they should be pointed to the proper Biblical path as outlined by the Scriptures.
-mike
Again, at the risk of redundancy, I was viewing job fraud as a criminal matter, mistakenly as I have now twice confessed. In such a case, I would neither be comforting nor giving the benefit of the doubt to a mere complainant with a grievance, but rather to a victim with a case. (It turns out only to be criminal in certain rare cases.)
While Rick has tried and tried to keep this conversation about when to confront and elder, I believe the issue should be centered around congregational unity.
If there is an issue within the congregation where one member speaks with other members about it, then certainly, the person should be encouraged and even accountable to go and speak with other elders/deacons. If the person will not do that then the person should be encouraged and held accountable to drop the matter. If that does not take place then the person should be encouraged to find another body because continued speaking in the “conversation” phase will do nothing but cause a bad split.
If an issue arises in a congregation to the point that a member of that congregation seeks outside advice from me I am going to encourage that person to go and seek to work out the issue with the pastor. If that person is reluctant to do such I am going to encourage that person to find another church.
If it is a doctrinal issue they do not see becoming resolved, then I am going to encourage that person to find a church with his/her same doctrinal position. By doing that one alleviates possible doctrinal disagreement in the future of that person but also creates a safe harbor for the church the person left to continue.
Now, let’s say the person is concerned because the pastor is teaching baptismal regeneration, or modalism. It is not my place as an outside pastor to confront the other pastor. I will encourage that person to saturate that church with his/her absence. But, from what I understand of congregational ecclesiology it is the members of the church God will hold responsible for allowing such teaching to come from the pulpit.
So very true. It is my opinion that these words, spoken by Tim Rogers, are the most accurate in accord with the New Testament, that have been written in the comment threads of Rick Patrick’s two most recent posts here on Voices.
I agree his approach is good…and, it’s pretty much in line with what many of have been saying.
I’d add this parenthetical statement to the last two of Tim’s paragraphs.
“If it is a (non essential) doctrinal issue (but important enough to warrant seperation) and they do not see becoming resolved, (after speaking with church leadership including the pastor and exhausting reasonable endeavors toward reconcilation of the issue) then I am going to encourage that person to find a church with his/her same covictional doctrinal position. By doing that one alleviates possible doctrinal disagreement in the future of that person but also creates a safe harbor for the church the person left to continue.”
“Now, let’s say the person is concerned because the pastor is (clealy, intentionally, and steadfastly resisting biblical admonishment) teaching (a doctrine contrary to the essentials/fundamentals/orthodoxy.) It is not my place as an outside pastor to confront the other pastor (on behalf of the complainant). I will encourage that person to saturate that church with his/her absence.”
I also say that the only way to see if the pastor is clearly, intentionally, and steadfastly resisting biblical admonishment … Is to actually discuss the matter with the pastor.
I think All pastors deserve at least that much deference and respect from thier members before essentially kicking them to the curb so to speak…and certainly thy deserve that much from an outside fellow pastor rather than any automatic assumption made about heretical teaching simply because a member of thier church told me so.
Now if I KNOW that pastor is an “intentional” heretic then surely I’d say to the congregant “get your hind parts outta there.”
Congregational unity is the most fragile of all the assignments given a pastor/shepherd by the Master. Therefore, those of us who are charged with the care of God’s flocks should be very sensitive to the way we speak to the sheep of another pastor/shepherd’s flock.
There are times, as Rick’s post has pointed out, that wrong has occurred. There is pastoral malpractice that is evident among us. Frankly, I am not convinced that a pastor’s moorings to a specific soteriological dogma is necessarily the primary problem. Instead, I believe it has to do with a weakness in the pastor’s moorings of relationship and fellowship to the True Captain of the Ship, Jesus.
If I do anything that endangers the unity of the the flock to which I have been assigned by God with willful intent, such as lying to them and leading under false pretense, I have failed in my accountability as a shepherd of God’s flock and He will not bless my ministry as a pastor/shepherd.
However, Satan may lead many of his goats and God’s straying sheep into my fold to their own destruction and other foolish pastors/shepherds may think me successful based upon numbers alone. However, God will know my heart and will not bless me due to my being a false shepherd.
True, God called shepherds will always struggle with the specifics of such matters as soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. There are concepts among such disciplines that are simply beyond us and demand our humility before God in seeking more and more light as long as we draw breath.
However, if we, by willful intent, lie to people, deceive people, and lead according to a false pretense, we are truly guilty of pastoral malpractice and God will not bless such leadership regardless of how strong our moorings are to any specific soteriological dogma within orthodox, Christian faith.
“However, if we, by willful intent, lie to people, deceive people, and lead according to a false pretense, we are truly guilty of pastoral malpractice and God will not bless such leadership regardless of how strong our moorings are to any specific soteriological dogma within orthodox, Christian faith.”
Agreed.
I also agree here;
“There are times, as Rick’s post has pointed out, that wrong has occurred. There is pastoral malpractice that is evident among us. Frankly, I am not convinced that a pastor’s moorings to a specific soteriological dogma is necessarily the primary problem. Instead, I believe it has to do with a weakness in the pastor’s moorings of relationship and fellowship to the True Captain of the Ship, Jesus.”
I’ve said ll along its an integrity and character issue (and as you put it a Lordship issue), those failings are simply manifesting themselves in “soteriological moorings”.
PS. I agree with rest of that post too. 🙂
Tarheel,
I do want to make myself very clear here though. Scenarios of deception as Rick has described in these posts do occur and they do occur more often than in the past.
As a matter of fact, I will be preaching both services this coming Sunday in a church that almost the exact situation of which Rick Patrick has shared has, in deed, happened.
Now, let me quickly state that in many churches wherein a Traditionalist pastor has/is served/serving terrible things have happened. Frankly, I know of more such stories of pastoral malpractice from past years dealing with what we are now calling Traditionalist pastors in the SBC than those of Calvinists, simply because there were less of them.
However, it cannot be denied, that many churches among the ranks of those affiliated with the SBC are suffering due to lying, dishonest Calvinists who did not act with integrity during the interview process. That is just a fact whether anyone likes it or not.
Nonetheless, I will stand all day long and declare that pastoral malpractice has everything to do with integrity and very little to do with soteriological dogma as long as we are talking about a soteriology that is within the parameters of orthodox faith.
That is just the way it is and the devil can take the hindmost parts with the rest of it.
“Nonetheless, I will stand all day long and declare that pastoral malpractice has everything to do with integrity and very little to do with soteriological dogma as long as we are talking about a soteriology that is within the parameters of orthodox faith.”
AMEN, CB
Is there any appeal I can make that will get you folks to yield to my desire that we not keep reopening Thursday’s duscussion. Since my request has been disregarded over and over my solution is pretty clear
“There are concepts among such disciplines that are simply beyond us and demand our humility before God in seeking more and more light as long as we draw breath. ”
Bravo, C.B.
+1
I don’t see this in scripture anywhere. I see that each will be held responsible for their own sin (in this case allowing bad teaching) BUT that doesn’t trump that the teacher will be held to a higher standard and thus MORE culpable for false teaching.
OR are you saying that both the teacher (held more responsible) AND the people will be held responsible? I only ask because my first take from that sentence was that congregational ecclesiology applies primary or sole culpability to the people and not the pastor. That would be crazy and so I’m doing a double take.
Is there a biblical requirement that a church member go to his pastor first if he or she has a complaint about some pastoral decision not involving heresy or personal sin or similar?
William Thornton,
I will go out on a limb here. I think there are times when a person does not have to go to a pastor first. There are pastors who stink to high heaven and cannot be trusted one iota and it would be foolish to go to them first with anything. 2 Timothy 3 describes such wretches and the woods are full of them today as surely as the woods in South Georgia are full of rattlesnakes- the rattlers being less dangerous of the two.
Especially is this true in the case of females. There are situations wherein it is simply wrong for a female to approach an erring pastor about his sin. Frankly, I think such is the case in understanding the actually meaning of 2 Timothy 2:12, because we are just being intentionally ignorant and hypocritical if we think Paul intended for women to always be silent in the church.
There certainly is if it causes aught in the heart of the member toward s fellow believer – this applies whether the offender is pastor or not.
William,
Where else should he/she go to complain about the decision? If it is not an issue involving sin (as in the alleged case hinted at here) Matthew 18 is not necessarily invoked. But is not Matthew 18 still applicable? The principle involved seems that if any of us has an issue (complaint) with someone we should go to that someone. What redress can we hope to gain by talking to someone else about it?
“What redress can we hope to gain by talking to someone else about it?”
Answer: None that is restorative of a broken relationship. None that is promoting of unity and respect for the fellow beleiver who has allegedly aggressor someone.
What they do typically get though is commiseration and and a sense of justification for their taking offense, which more often than not is the reason the offended party will go to someone else rather than the who offended them.
Tarheel,
“None that is restorative of a broken relationship.” And that of course is my point. Exampla:
Pastor Jim, not sinfully, decides that a Tuesday evening visitation program would be better changed to Thursdays. He announces it. New night for evangelistic outreach. He will be leading it.
Mrs. Mildred doesn’t like the change. Her husband has always participated on Tuesday nights and now will switch to Thursday nights, which means he will be driving their only car on Thursday nights when she gathers with other ladies to mall walk.
What does she do with her concerns. Is there any rationale anywhere in scripture or anywhere else for her to go and talk to other people about the pastor’s decision? Any? I certainly can’t think of any. Who made the decision which is now the basis of her complaint? The pastor. That she goes to him is a slam dunk decision.
Unless the pastor is a Calvinist. It is obvious that Pastor Jim knows that the consequences of his decision will be to reduce the number of people available to participate in the visitation program. He reasons that it doesn’t matter how many people participate in the visitation program or whether they even have a visitation program at all. God will save who He wills regardless of their efforts.
Then the obvious solution would be to email Connect316.
The fact is that sometimes people just don’t like a pastor’s “style.” They get all bent out of shape toward him because he isn’t as personable as Pastor X, he doesn’t preach like Pastor Y, he doesn’t visit like Pastor Z, etc. So “charges” begin to be leveled against him. It becomes a character issue, a negligence of duty issue, a doctrinal issue, etc. Been there myself, and it ain’t no fun having to defend yourself against such “charges.”
I think Rick has laid out a great way to approach these kinds of problems. Many times difficulties can be dealt with in private if people are just willing to talk about it. Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen much. The “charges” get publicized and it becomes a true mess really fast.
Several years ago, I adopted a personal policy. If someone comes to me with a personal grievance of any kind, or if I hear that someone is talking about me and not to me, I go to the person and try to resolve the problem. If we aren’t able to resolve it, I tell them that I will bring it up at the next business meeting (which I consider to be a public forum) IF AND ONLY IF they are at that business meeting. I will give them the floor to air their grievance against me and lay it out line by line. If that person isn’t in attendance at the next business meeting for us to discuss it, I will consider the matter closed.
If that person then continues to talk about the problem when they were unwilling to do so in a business meeting, I will then bring the subject up at a subsequent business meeting whether they are present or not. I will announce publicly in a worship service that the subject will be discussed in the business meeting.
So far, I’ve never had anyone take me up on the offer.
Duckman Dale,
I think you are right. I became pastor to a church once wherein I followed a pacifist.
Thank God they called you to correct that.
Duckman Dale,
I must admit, it near killed us all.