New Thoughts (08/09/08-08/13/08)
Coming into this passage, I had originally outlined the text such that I would be considering verses 10 through 24 inclusive. However, as beneficial as it is to be reminded of the big picture, it seemed to me that an attempt to cover so much ground in a single study would be an overwhelming task. When I consider how long it has been taking me of late to be finished with much smaller passages… Who knows when I might emerge again from such a consideration!
However, there are definite benefits to backing away from the picture somewhat, as one must in looking at so lengthy a passage. Indeed, I should probably be doing this more often – reacquainting myself more fully with the context presented by the chapter, and by the flow of the narrative leading through the passage in question. To some degree, this happens naturally, as I come to each passage with a fair part of what has preceded still in mind. In other cases, I discover I have forgotten my outline, and see things on the other side of my current study that are immediate in the text, but remain in the distance as I have organized my approach.
In this case, looking at the scene of Jesus come to this Feast of Booths, and bringing along what I had looked into in the previous section of this study, as regards that Feast, I was put in mind of Psalm 23. After all, here we have Jesus come up for this Feast, this celebration of God’s bounteous provision for His people, and He knows full well that He is coming into the center of power for those who have set themselves against Him. This scene put me to thinking of that passage, “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies” (Ps 23:5).
I don’t know as I have ever heard this Psalm described in any sort of Messianic sense, as pointing forward to the Christ. However, the passage certainly seems wholly apropos to what is transpiring in the life of Jesus as we look at this section of the Gospel. He has come to this feast, fully aware of the danger. His enemies, we discover, have been actively searching for Him in the crowds. The implication of that question in verse 11, “Where is He?”, is that the same guards they would shortly be sending out in hopes of seizing this Man were out – in the midst of what was to be a joyous celebration! – interrogating the celebrants. Is it any wonder they were afraid? I will look at that more fully soon. However, the point at the moment is that the opposition was actively seeking out this One that they might remove Him.
Let’s be clear about this: There was no confusion in the minds of anybody there as to what their intentions were. One doesn’t send armed guards out to seek news of a friend. The ban that we hear more about later in John’s gospel was no doubt already known at this point. After all, the remainder of this gospel, as lengthy as it is, covers a relatively short period of time. And yet, here is Jesus, in the presence of His enemies, and what is He doing? He is doing what the Law commands for this Feast. That being the case, in spite of the vehemence of His message when confronted, we can have no doubt as to His joy. He can remain joyful in the face of it because, “I know Him. I am from Him. He sent Me” (Jn 7:29). He can remain joyful because He knows Who is providing. He can remain joyful because right here, in the presence of His enemies, there is that table prepared.
It may not be that abundance of food that we would appreciate. It may not be a matter of meat and drink at all, let alone any particular delicacies. We are, after all, considering the One Who could say, “I have food you know not of” (Jn 4:32). “My food is to do His will and accomplish His work” (Jn 4:34). Here, then, is a feast indeed for one with such a mindset and such a purpose! Here, He will not only be fulfilling His purpose, but He will also be proclaiming the fulfillment of the purpose of this whole Feast. Here, He will even be declaring the fulfillment of certain rites that had been added to the Feast, for in this case, those additions had a prophetic purpose of their own. We will come to it in due course. The ritual drawing of the water libation down at the Pool of Siloam has come, and there stands Jesus, on the Last Day, the Great Day of the Feast, crying out: “I AM the libation. Come drink of Me! Believe in Me, and rivers of living water shall flow from your innermost being!” (Jn 7:37-38).
Indeed, all this in the very presence of His enemies! They had even sent out their guards to arrest Him, for in spite of the cautious mutterings of the crowds, they had heard. They had heard the crowds reacting to the Teacher who taught right under their noses, and they felt their authority, their power, being chipped away. This, they could not tolerate. But, then, neither would the Father tolerate their insolence. The table was prepared in the presence of His enemies not to allow them an easier job of it in overcoming the Christ, but to display the power of God in defying their attempts. They could not detain Him, for it was not His time.
With that, I am going to draw this big picture portion to a close, lest I begin wandering entirely too far afield! There is just so much that could be said about this whole trajectory of the story line. But, there is a topic that has come forcefully and persistently to the foreground of the close-up view I have taken to this discussion of the state of Jerusalem as Jesus is arriving, and I really must turn my attention to that which has been pressing on me. This is the matter of fear. Most specifically, it is a matter of fear misplaced, or misdirected. It is because of this topic that I chose verse 13 as the key to this passage: no one spoke openly, because they feared the leadership.
This fear of the leadership was something the leadership had cultivated in their congregants. It is one of the common side-effects of power abuse. Those in power discover in themselves a very strong desire to remain so. This is not something that the church is immune to. That, to me, is the critical thing we can learn from this passage. We have to recognize that the Temple and its network of synagogues stands in the place of the Church, just as the Jews stand as the people of God. Whenever we look at either of these two in Scripture – the Temple authorities specifically or the Jewish people generally – we do well to consider that we who stand in that same relationship now are subject to the same failures.
In this verse, then, we have both. We have the general populace of Israel represented by ‘no one,’ and we have the Temple leadership, the Sanhedrin, the priestly hierarchy, and the experts of the Law, represented by ‘the Jews’. This much should be clear from the setting. In other words, we shouldn’t need any great assistance to recognize that John is not pointing out the entire nation as the ones causing the fear. In fact, this tension between the Temple and the people is something that recurs throughout John’s telling of the events, particularly the events from this moment forward in the remaining time that Jesus ministers.
Consider: We will meet the blind man that Jesus heals, and we will find his parents dragged before that same Sanhedrin who now seek to arrest Jesus. Why? Because they have issued clear orders: Anybody who confesses Jesus as being the Messiah is to be expelled from the synagogue, and their son has been making claims that Jesus healed him of his birth defect (Jn 9:22). So, they question his parents. But, his parents are clear about the ban, and they are clear that the ban has to do with far more than just the synagogue membership. It’s not the country-club membership card that church membership can be in our day. It’s a matter of membership in society period. It is potentially a matter of life and death. They are not going to risk such a thing, not even for their son. They are not going to lie to save their own skins, but neither are they going to go out of their way to save his. Just the facts. Yes, he was born blind. Yes, he can clearly see now. We weren’t there. We don’t know what happened. But, hey! He’s of age, and he’s not dumb. Just ask him. I’m sure he’ll tell you for himself (Jn 9:20-23).
What led them to so abandon their son to his fate? After all, they knew his story. They knew the leadership. They knew what must happen if that story confronted that leadership, and it wouldn’t be good news for their son. Fear. Fear has led them to set aside even the natural bonds of family to preserve their ‘good name’.
John also makes it clear that it was not just the common folk who were being swayed by this fear. He lets us know that there were not just a few, but ‘many of the rulers’ who believed, but they would not confess Him at that time (Jn 12:42). OK. The skeptic could put forth that John was simply making claims to support his own efforts to get Christianity going. However, the evidence seems to support the fact that John was more familiar with the goings on in Jerusalem than the others. He’s the one who was known at the high priest’s house. He’s got contacts in this hierarchy. And, he is writing at a late date. There is sufficient cause to believe he has heard from these formerly silent rulers in the ensuing years. So, take him at his word.
Why have they waited so long to speak up? For the very same reason as that blind man’s parents. Fear. They, too, were at risk of being put out of synagogue and out of society. Now, in their case, John states the issue much more bluntly. In a way, it is reasonable that he should do so, for these were the ones who not only should have known better but did know better. And yet, they did nothing. Why? Because they loved the approval of man rather than the approval of God (Jn 12:43). Let me move that back into our own context. They hid away their faith because they feared man rather than God.
We find that same problem in the rich and the poor. Joseph of Arimathea, in spite of his wealth, was in the same boat (Jn 19:38). He was a disciple, but in secret, for he feared that same leadership. In fact, as we follow the disciples in their post-crucifixion daze, they suffered the same fear, only more so. After all, they were as good as marked at this point. They had been seen with Jesus for some three years now, and the those authorities that had cowed the nation were determined to quash any remnants of the movement Jesus had started. If there had been fear of the ban before, now it was escalated by the death of Jesus. These men were not going to be satisfied with a mere ban anymore. They had tasted blood and they would doubtless seek the same against any of the disciples they could lay hands on. So, we find the disciples cowering behind locked doors in a secreted place. Why? For fear of the leadership (Jn 20:19).
I have to say that the fear they felt proved well founded. If there was any doubt as to how far that leadership would go to retain their power, one has only to consider Paul’s pre-conversion activities. He was no rogue element. He was sanctioned by that same leadership to do as he did. Power has such great capacity to pervert!
We must recognize that these things were not happening in secret. If they were, then there would have been no fear, for no one would have known. For fear to be an effective tool, the reasons for fear must be advertised and advertised heavily. The record shows that those who held power in the Temple had done just that. Throughout Judea, and doubtless even in Galilee, their message was clear. You support this Jesus at your own risk, and that risk is great.
In much of the world, that risk remains. It is a matter of life and death indeed to choose this Christ. His enemies will threaten bodily life to deny Him a follower. But, this is the farthest their threats can reach. The truth is that the one who truly believes in the Christ will know that these threats are empty, however earnest. The one who truly believes knows that there is only One who has the power to condemn to an eternal death, and it is this One who has instead granted them the promise of eternal life. This is the strength of the martyrs. This is the strength of every true believer. To die is gain, for to die is to enter into life in its fullest! This is not the nihilistic abandonment of life that we hear from various groups today. It is the joyful anticipation of a life that has seen an end to sin. It is the certainty of entering into perfect love.
That perfect love which is in Christ alone has cast out fear in those whom He loves. That perfect love has strengthened His chosen ones across the millennia. In His perfect love, they have found the strength of will to stand firm in their faith, to face the worst torments that man or demon could devise, knowing those torments to be but a light and transitory burden when held up to comparison against the eternal weight of glory stored up on their behalf. Perfect love has cast out all fear of man in such believers.
Many of us, myself included, have never been faced with the test of that love in ourselves. To date in this country we do not worship in fear of such lethal reprisals. Yes, there are the occasional shootings in one church or another, but by and large, we do not find it necessary to conceal our worship. On the other hand, put us in a typical workplace setting, or put us in a typical educational setting, and what transpires? There is a great societal pressure to at least keep our religion private. The reality is that the pressure seeks to get us to deny faith, to put on a face that pretends it cares little about the things of God, lest we suffer the pains of not belonging. The sad truth is that we largely succumb to these pressures.
This should serve as a warning sign to us. We are in a place where we fear man rather than God, and that should not be. We are at great risk of denying Him before man, and what has He said about that? The one who denies Me before man, I will deny him before My Father. That should strike us to the core, and yet we are far more moved by the responses of those we see around us. We forget the limit of their power, because we feel it more directly. And so, we slip into the place of fearing man, of fearing everything but God, when fear of God would reflect His own perfect love for us, and release us from every fear.
This is one aspect of fear misplaced. This is certainly a problem that besets the believer at every turn, and one that we must steel ourselves to face and defeat. However, this is not primarily the problem that is on display in the passage before us. Here, the issue is much more dire, for the fear is misplaced upon the very shepherds of God’s flock. Here, the issue is far worse because those shepherds, those leaders, are cultivating the fear. They seek it. They have in a very real sense sought to set themselves up in God’s place. Sadly, that tendency to abuse the power of the Church did not disappear with the destruction of the Temple. Neither was it eradicated in the Reformation. It remains a constant danger to the Church to this day.
No one spoke openly, John writes, because they were afraid of their leadership. This is the state of affairs in too many churches today. There was a time when men of God took matters of Truth seriously. There was a time when men of God would choose death over denying what they knew to be the Truth of God. There was a time when matters of doctrine mattered. Today, looking around the greater portion of the Church, it seems we have lost our taste for Truth. Doctrine divides, we are told. Therefore, doctrine should be ignored. Well, could we not as easily declare that heresy divides, and therefore heresy should be ignored? Perhaps we could suggest that denouncing sins divides, and therefore we should cease from denouncing sins. Oh, wait. That’s been done in some corners. Well, on what basis do we in the other corners condemn them, if we treat other aspects of doctrinal purity just as lightly?
Part of the problem is that we don’t trust our own understanding. To a point, this is as it should be, for Scripture warns us against leaning too heavily on our own understanding. But, that comes with the caveat that we are to acknowledge Him, straighten up and fly right (Pr 3:5-6). Notice what follows on that point! Don’t be wise in your own eyes, but rather, fear the Lord! Turn from evil. This will be healing for your body. This will strengthen your frame (Pr 3:7-8). The point is not to stop thinking. The point is to trust the Lord, to think as He has taught you, and to act as that thinking directs.
An even greater part of the problem is that we really don’t want to be found wrong. If our church leadership is in error, and we are in that church, then we must be in error; and to depart the church is to admit that error in ourselves. This gets worse the longer one has been in a particular congregation. If there is a problem with certain denominations, this is probably it. Tradition has once more taken the place of doctrine. Nobody even looks to discern the Truth anymore, because it’s all been done by our forebears. If membership in this denomination was good enough for our fathers it’s good enough for us. If this is what they determined faith in God meant, then it must be so.
If our own study of the Word of God and our own prayerful considerations of the God revealed in that Word lead us to different conclusions, we discover in ourselves a certain pressure or tension. We have been faithful members of this church, confessed their good confession, and now we discover ourselves in conflict with some tenet or another. What are we to do? Of course, it’s a matter of degree. If it’s a minor matter, then it ought to be treated as such, as something which men of good conscience can agree to differ over without breaking fellowship.
But, what if it’s a matter that strikes more deeply? What if it seems to you that this really is a matter touching on salvation? Surely, we must pursue the path of church discipline, even as that path ought to have been pursued had we been the one in sin. Somehow we get it in our mind that the leadership is supposed to be immune to such things, but they aren’t. They are worthy of respect, to be sure, at least until it is proven that they are at odds with God and unwilling to be reconciled. But, if it turns out that they will insist upon holding to their false idols rather than preaching the True God, then we must overcome our own pride and free ourselves from their influence.
Here is exactly where we find the crowds gone wrong at this Feast. Some in that crowd understood that this Jesus was a good man. They also understood what the authorities in their church were doing in regards to this good man. And yet, for fear of their leadership, they said nothing. They would not stand by that good man. Do you see that what they have done is to bear false witness by their silence? Do you see that this is what we do when we know that the things taught under the name of Christ are completely at odds with His message and yet say nothing? To maintain membership in a church that suffers to be taught so falsely is to bear false witness to Him. To lay claim to the title of Christian and yet associate with such liars and charlatans is to bear false witness to Him. Can there be a worse treason?
So, recognizing that this fear that so constrained the crowds is a fear to which we are also subject, it behooves us to understand that fear and its multiple causes more fully. Yes, there is the fear instilled by the leadership. However, that fear can only be effective if those being led allow it. What do I mean by that? If, as a people, the nation of Israel had stood up and decried the abuses of authority that plagued their temple, there would remain to those authorities no further basis to inflict their fear on the people. What was their power, after all? It consisted of proclamations. It consisted of pronouncing this person or that excluded from temple, synagogue and society. Well, I dare say that if society chose to ignore these edicts and embraced the one excluded, then pretty soon both synagogue and temple must follow suit or become irrelevant.
In considering this response, I am thinking in terms of one wrongly excluded from the society of faith. Sadly, what we find happening in our day follows the same arc, but in favor of those whom faith ought rightly to exclude. We find the church at large accepting any manner of blasphemous practices into their ritual in hopes of remaining relevant to a culture that has little interest in true Christianity. That is a separate issue. What is happening in the scene we are considering here is that the populace, or at least certain portions of it, are more attuned to true faith than the officialdom at the top of the religious hierarchy. The Temple is not moving to exclude members for blasphemy, although they will use that charge as a basis. They are looking to preserve their own power. They are looking to maintain the prestige that they struggled so hard to obtain.
Now, take notice of this point: the charge of blasphemy is a weapon used by both righteous and unrighteous when it comes to battles in the house of faith. This is, after all, one of only two reasons we have for exclusion from fellowship, the other being constant, unrepentant sin. One could argue that the former is just a particular example of the latter, but let us view them as unique. Of these two charges, the charge of sin carries somewhat less weight with us, particularly if it has come to such extreme judgment as exclusion from fellowship. Why is this? Quite simply, we know ourselves subject to the same failings. We know ourselves (even if we deny it with great regularity) to be sinners equally deserving of that same punishment. Therefore, to see the punishment administered must give us pause in ourselves.
However, a charge of blasphemy we can hear and feel ourselves secure against such charge. No! We are not blasphemers. We may sin in any number of ways, but we would never blaspheme! Indeed, where that charge is being abused, it is actually pretty easy to avoid. Just maintain the party line, whatever the party line is, and one is safe. The only fear one has is when there is fluctuation in that party line, or when the line is blurrily ill defined. I would maintain that the crowds we are observing here are in just such a situation. It is clear that there is consternation amongst the leaders. It is clear, as well, that they are not yet unified in their perspective on this Jesus. So, whatever opinions the people may hold, they fear to make them overly well known, lest they find themselves on the wrong side of the line when things clear up.
Now, I can say by first-hand observation that these issues still exist in our house of worship today. They exist even where the lines are much more clearly discernable. There may be no real basis for having a fear of expulsion over one’s doctrinal views, yet it is felt that some of these views are so antithetical to the majority perspective that the fear arises anyway. What would happen to us if they knew we believed this doctrine? Surely, we would be thrown out!
I suppose we really ought to reverse that question and ask, if we hold this doctrine to be the Truth and we are in a house that clearly teaches its opposite, what are we doing here? It’s a question I find myself asking on my own behalf on numerous occasions. Is it akin to a marriage in which one partner has entered the union with a clear agenda of changing the other? If so, my situation is surely more hopeless. If it is, as we so readily understand, impossible that one partner should change the other by force of will or argument, then surely it is even more unlikely that one man should effect a doctrinal shift in a congregation that holds the opposite.
The first question that one must answer, for it is a prerequisite to answering the question above, is whether the difference in view is a matter upon which the reality of salvation hinges, or a matter upon which men of good conscience can differ amicably and both remain true Christians. That can be a difficult distinction to determine. If more care were taken to answer this question first, we would have far less denominations than we do. On the other hand, there are things that have been tolerated which by all rights should have long since led to a rejection of those who held to that particular point. But, by and large, while I would maintain that a devotion to Truth cannot help but stir up one’s passions in support of that Truth, I would simultaneously hold that much of the divisiveness this leads to is unnecessary and of no benefit to the body of Christ.
Where is the line? I am not fit to say, honestly. You see, in spite of a devotion to Truth, I must confess the weakness of my understanding. His ways, however diligently I may study them, remain far above my own. It is not, as some would suggest, that God is unknowable. He has bent over backwards to make Himself known to His children. It is more the case that my facilities remain impaired by sin’s effects, and I am subject to interpreting His revelation through the filters of my own foibles.
One can find some of the most heated arguments in the history of the Church surrounding those points which are deemed as declaring the differences between Calvinist and Arminian viewpoints on the stuff of true belief. These were sticking points when those two men were alive and they remain so today. Indeed, I suspect that if one looks to the fracture points in the Church, the great majority of them will be found emanating from one or more of these points. Yet, one must ask and ask earnestly, are disagreements over these points truly grounds for breaking fellowship?
Let me ask it in more stark terms: can a Calvinist truly look at a holder of Arminian views and say with conviction that this man is not a Christian? Or can an Arminian look upon a proponent of Calvinism and declare him an unbeliever? I don’t think so! You see, in spite of the wide and earnest differences between the two, the differences are not, in the end, matters upon which salvation depends. They may, given the power of Truth on a man, lead us to draw into separate parts of the body, as it were, but we remain members of the same body. Perhaps we might hold that such differences are the things that distinguish hand from foot, were I to borrow Paul’s analogy.
That which belongs to the hand has no real desire to be joined to the foot, nor the foot to the hand. Yet, both, if the body is functioning in good health, recognize each other as belonging to the same body. Both will willingly work together to promote the wellbeing and growth of the body. The foot will gladly do its part to bear the hand to the place where sustenance can be found. The hand will gladly lay hold of that sustenance and bring it to the mouth. Both hand and foot share the benefits that flow from these actions. Both hand and foot would suffer were one or the other to refuse its services to the united effort. This, I think, is the proper view of the Church (as it exists in health) today.
Now, a geneticist would inform us that the genes which form hand and foot are not all that very different. Indeed, in many cases, we are learning that a cell is capable of becoming part of any number of different organs or tissues until certain determining factors have played out in the cell’s growth. For my own part, in the earlier days of my coming to faith, I held a largely Arminian view of things.
In particular, I was vehemently, absolutely certain that there was the possibility of a true believer falling away from a true faith. Salvation was not permanent, and even after salvation, there must be for the believer a continual struggle to remain saved. My, but how strongly I would put the case for that belief! Look! Here’s the Scriptures to back it up! But, with further study, particularly as I began diving deeper into the Word, and more particularly as I digested the book of Romans, I had to face the fact that what I read contradicted what I thought.
This is one of the greatest fears that holds people! Here is a doctrine I have held to be true, and now I am finding that opinion threatened. Yet, to admit my error is too much to bear. I have spoken so boldly in support of my beliefs, how could I allow them to change now? People would think me a fool! And so, in spite of the clear message we may be receiving as we study the Scriptures, we choose instead to bend the meaning in support of our opinion. It’s entirely backwards, and somewhere within us we know that.
For the godly man, I would offer the following as the best curative: Paul writes of such thinking when he says, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, for what is known about God is evident within them because God made it evident to them” (Ro 1:18-19). How willing we are to apply that passage to the atheists around us, to unbelievers. But, I ask you, is it not just as applicable here? God has been explaining to you that your understanding of Him, your confession of Him, is inaccurate. He has been speaking to you, making evident to you that your doctrine is off. If your response to the inexpressible privilege of having Him so correct you is to reject the correction, why shouldn’t His wrath be revealed? You have spurned a great gift from a merciful God. Surely, at best you can expect the discipline of a loving Father who hopes to bring His willful child back into His good graces!
Let us take that to heart, then, if we suffer such fears!
Now, if it is so hard for us to face a change in one doctrinal consideration, how much greater the fear when and if we are brought to the point of questioning the entire framework! Let us understand at the outset that this is exactly the sort of charge one will find the atheist leveling at the believer. For that matter, the believer is inclined to level the same charge against the atheist. It is fear of confessing that their belief (or unbelief) has been so utterly in error that prevents them from chucking it all and coming over to the right side. But, it is this same sort of fear that can hold one in a particular church in spite of discerning that its teachings are beyond the pale of Christian faith.
This is not yet fear of the leadership, as we see it in these crowds. It is more the fear we call peer pressure when we think of our own children. We tend to think that as adults we are above that particular fear, but we aren’t. Not by a long shot. It is in human nature to crave human acceptance. In the fellowship of membership in the church, we have found that acceptance. We find ourselves amongst people of like mind and we know that, at least within the bounds of our beliefs, we are well accepted here. But then one day we find ourselves at odds with the prevailing beliefs. What to do? To reject the church fellowship is to be rejected by that fellowship. However right we may know ourselves to be, and even though we are the ones to initiate the parting, we will still walk away feeling like the one rejected, and we know that. So, what to do?
Again, I would turn to Paul for the answer, as he provides the answer God gives. Be alert! Stand firm in the faith. Play the man! Be strong! But at the same time, let all that you do be done in love (1Co 16:13-14). This is not an occasion for acrimony. But, neither is it an occasion for acquiescence. Inasmuch as it lies with you to do so, be at peace with all men (Ro 12:18). If the issue you are dealing with is such that it does not touch on matters critical to salvation and if the differences are such that you and your congregation can agree to differ amicably, then abide. Be at peace. This is a doctrinal dispute whose pursuit would be akin to the wrangling between Pharisee and Sadducee or the disputations of the Sophists. Let your belief guide your conscience, and by all means be prepared to give answer for your belief, but in love. If, however, these conditions are exceeded, if the matter does touch on salvation or if those differences are causing undue friction that threatens the community of love, withdraw. Withdraw for the safety of your own soul, or withdraw for the sake of love, but withdraw.
It may be as simple as a stage of growth. It may be that God is seeking to put you in position either for service or for further training; quite probably both. I speak now of those cases that are not, as it were, life threatening in their implications. We are creatures disinclined to change, and quite often when God needs us to move He must first make us exceedingly uncomfortable where we are, else we will simply remain.
Look. There is every reason to remain faithful to the local body. With all that is within us, we should prefer it and strive for it. But, the time may come to break away. The time may come when we are sent out to another local body. We go, if amicably, as ambassadors bearing with us that which has been our former body. We may find ourselves having to go with more animosity than we would like. But, go we must when the time comes. It is not a decision to make lightly, but it may be a decision that is made necessary. It must be considered prayerfully and with good counsel, where such counsel can be found. It is difficult, but if we consider such a thing, it must be freed of emotional considerations. It is, in this sense, rather like a family dispute or an act of discipline. If emotions are allowed to rule the day, then neither dispute nor discipline will proceed along godly lines. Likewise, our prayers in this circumstance should certainly lean towards a revealing of ourselves to ourselves. It’s a time to ask God to show us any personal foible, any grain of error in our own perspective that might cause us to choose the wrong course.
If I can offer one piece of advice that I think ought to be applied diligently in almost every case, it is that when we find ourselves at odds with the direction of our church, our prayers should be that whichever of us is in error, God would bring correction. We are none of us so sharp that we can lay claim to perfect understanding of the Truth. We are none of us so studied that we will never discover in ourselves a need to adjust our doctrinal stance. We are certainly not so righteous that we will always pursue God’s course in perfection. So, we must own up to the fact that we are as likely to be the one in need of changing as those we differ with. Let God correct the one that needs correcting. If our conflict is with a godly man, then we are both by definition capable of hearing and heeding God’s correction. Should we not trust Him to correct?
With this crowd, though, the fundamental fear we are witnessing is the fear of a leadership that is clearly wrong and clearly abusing the authority that has been vested in them. The very first thing we should understand in such a case is that having abused their vested authority, they no longer have true authority. They may still occupy the office, but they no longer do so in any fashion that we need consider binding.
Let me also address what strikes me as a particularly dangerous teaching that seems to be creeping into church thought, at least in some circles. We have certain leaders who are actually teaching their charges that following that leader, however wrong he may be, is the righteous choice. Now, I cannot advocate the sort of skepticism and anarchy that sometimes cropped up in those who followed Moses in the desert. I cannot begin to suggest that at the first sign of disagreement we should simply chuck our leadership and strike out under our own flag. However, the leader is never such that he relieves his followers of their own moral responsibility.
The best of teachers and preachers in no way relieves the congregant of his personal obligation to study the Word of God, to maintain a vigorous prayer life, or to obey that which God is giving him to do. The best of leaders will, in the end, prove to be every bit as much a fallen sinner held by grace as you are. The leader will err, just as you do. The leader will, if he is a godly man, accept God’s correction, even if God so works His will that the correction must come from one who follows. But, look at the model we are given for church discipline. If, after good and earnest attempts to bring correction, both personally and with the counsel of a greater witness, the member refuses to repent of his wicked ways, there is a time for breaking fellowship. Yes, that fellowship is to be broken in the earnest hope and desire that restoration may yet come about. But, unless and until repentance is manifest, the breach must remain. I tell you, this form of discipline is not such that it only applies from leadership downward. It applies equally to the greatest leaders of the Church. If they are out of order and refuse correction, let them be as a publican and a sinner to you: no longer leaders but rather candidates for salvation, men who need to be reached, evangelized.
Listen, the risk of abusing power is no less real inside the church than out. It is no less real because the church consists of fallen and imperfect men, just as the outside world order does. Yes, we have the benefit of the Holy Spirit. Yes, we have Christ abiding in us. However, our own experience must surely convince us that in our own case neither Christ nor Spirit has absolute sway. We know ourselves fallible and yet, somehow we figure that those in charge are not so. That is dangerous thinking! It is dangerous for us to believe so in more than one way. Obviously, to hold such a belief puts oneself at risk of being misled. What we may not be so aware of, though, is that it also puts our leaders at risk. The more we treat them as infallible guides, the more we invite them to view themselves as such. We become a means of temptation to them, and it is a means our common enemy will gladly exploit, for nothing makes him happier than to see a leader in the Church fail.
Let us learn something from the Pilgrims in this regard and follow no man farther than he follows God. That is the bounds of his authority, after all, and certainly the limit on his benefit to our spiritual wellbeing. If we have any sort of authority as we serve in the body of Christ, let us be ever diligent to make certain that our exercise of that authority is solely within the bounds of submission to the Headship of Christ. Let us recall ever and always that we who have authority are ourselves men under authority. We will always have at least One higher to whom we must answer. Let us likewise bear in mind that those we lead will also answer to that same One. It is not to us they answer but to Him. Even as leaders, we are, in the end, but fellow servants of one Master.
Inasmuch, then, as we are followers of Christ, if He has placed us under a particular leadership, let us be faithful to those leaders as they are faithful to Him. For, in doing so, we, too, are faithful to Him. But, never blindly! Even Paul, when he taught, had his teachings subjected to the scrutiny of men of faith. They would return home and study the Scriptures for themselves to ascertain if what he was saying was of an accord with God. I would note that they went at this from a base of hope, not of skepticism. They went at it in hopes that he was right, not tearing apart his every word in hopes of proving him wrong. But, they checked. Any pastor or teacher worth his salt will tell you to go and do the same. The pastor that expects his declarations of truth to be taken upon his word alone is a pastor at risk. Any teacher who places himself beyond correction is a teacher no more. Any student, any believer, who allows himself to begin viewing his pastors and teachers as experts beyond questioning is on very shaky ground.
Whatever our position in the Church may be, the fact cannot be avoided that we have a responsibility. At a minimum, we have a responsibility for our own faith, our own sanctification if you will. Work out your salvation, Paul says. It’s your responsibility in the end, not your pastor’s. Somebody somewhere preached the gospel to you and, thanks to God’s choice to open your ears to belief, you have believed it unto salvation. Salvation is settled. But, what are you doing with it? What are you doing with the gift of grace that God has given? Work out your salvation. It’s a matter of exercise! If you are found wanting in the final measure, you will find nobody upon whom to lay the blame except yourself. If you have been led astray, my friend, it is not the fault of the leader who led you, it is your fault for following.
We are called to be a people who walk in the fear of God. Woe to us if we choose instead to walk in the fear of our priests, pastors and elders. Woe be to us if we become so cowed that we will not speak openly for fear of those who lead us. We have a responsibility to ensure that this never happens.
