What Church?
Leadership: A Lust, Not a Gift
If you have had even a small glimpse at the Christian press, you will
see that Christian leadership conferences abound. Christian leadership
seminars, forums, and all kinds of meetings are arranged especially for
Christian “leaders,” or rather everyone who sees themselves as such.
It is also thought of amongst most Christians, that going into “the
ministry” or at least into “full time Christian work” should be the
goal of every Christian, and certainly a higher sphere of activity than
the ordinary mortal in the church pews. I heard a sermon recently in
which was mentioned a man who was a drunkard, a swearer and a
blasphemer, who came to a knowledge of Christ and gave up all these
things. Excellent! Let us hear more of such testimonies! But then the
preacher relating this story went on to say that the man has now become
a pastor to a large congregation – as though that was the ultimate
position to be in – a higher, more noble calling than the riff-raff who
just sit in the pews week by week and only have “secular” jobs. Why
couldn’t the story have been about a man who was converted and then
went on to be a great Christian toilet cleaner, cleaning toilets for
Jesus? Because that does not fit into our mindset of what a great
Christian is all about. We are brainwashed into thinking that the
Christian minister or pastor has the highest calling of all, and then
there are the rest of us. This is totally wrong. Incidentally, I have
never known of any conferences for Christian toilet cleaners. I suggest
that they are too busy getting on with their work, than to spend all
their time talking about how to be more effective in their calling, and
consequently spending as little time as possible actually doing their
job.
The point of this short article is to show that “leadership” is a mark
of worldliness, not a mark of grace, and that nearly all church splits
have been caused by leadership battles between men, and that doctrine
and righteousness are only used as excuses to leave the church.
Leaders should be aware that there is an army of real, truly born-again
Christians out there who are fed up with the machinations of their
church leaders, are “without the camp” (Hebrews 13:13), and
are
foraging for their spiritual food daily wherever they can find it,
because the self-styled leaders in the churches have let them all down.
Leaders in the church should not play their silly games, thinking
themselves to be something, when they are nothing (Galatians 6:3). This
is a
serious business, and should be treated as such.
The spiritual gifts
Notice I have described leadership as a “lust.” Most people think of it
as a gift (and they would say “from God”), but it is nowhere mentioned
in the list of graces or spiritual gifts in the Bible. The main New
Testament passages where the spiritual gifts are mentioned are as
follows:
Romans 12:6-8: prophecy, ministry, teaching, exhorting,
giving,
ruling, showing mercy.
1 Corinthians 12: word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith,
gifts
of healing,
working of miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, divers kinds of
tongues, the interpretation of tongues.
1 Corinthians 12:28: apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles,
healings, helps,
governments, diversities of tongues.
Ephesians 4:11: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and
teachers
These gifts are spiritual, and together with the offices of elder and
deacon mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament, these are given by
God, as He pleases, to His people. Note leadership is not amongst them.
Let us look at these gifts in turn.
Supposed
supernatural gifts
Firstly, let us take out “giving, word of wisdom, word of knowledge,
faith, gifts of healing, working of miracles, discerning of spirits,
divers kinds of tongues, the interpretation of tongues, miracles,
healings, diversities of tongues.” These are irrelevant to our subject.
Having said that, so many people in the church today exalt themselves
unduly because they think they have one or more extra-special,
extraordinary, miraculous gift. And people in turn blindly follow
someone who has what appears to be something exciting.
Well, firstly,
these gifts are either not miraculous, or were only given until the
canon of Scripture had been completed. Either there is a natural
non-miraculous explanation for them, or they were miraculous (i.e.
against the natural order of things) for a time, only for the apostles
and a few others close to them, because they are described as the
“signs of an apostle”:
“Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought
among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.”
(2
Corinthians 12:12).
Secondly, if miraculous healings and miracles really did happen today,
millions would be following, wanting to be healed. Throngs followed
Christ because He really could heal, although when it came to His
teaching doctrine, they didn’t want to know any more – that was boring
(John 6:66). Maurice Cerullo, Benny Hinn and the like are fakes. They
can do no such miracles. They have the silver-tongued ability to whip
people up to a frenzy in believing that they can, but that is so far
from a true Christian attitude that it is of the devil.
Apostles
This is an extraordinary office for the time before the New Testament
canon was complete. Nobody is an apostle or prophet now. An apostle is
defined as one who had “companied with us all the time that
the Lord
Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John,
unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained
to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” (Acts
1:21,22). Paul was
later counted an apostle, but he was unique, “as of one born
out of due
time” (1 Corinthians 15:8).
And that is it. No apostles for today, despite some men claiming to be
such. The apostles had real authority in the church, and still do so
today through the Scriptures. So when we see the apostles making
authoritative decrees in Scripture, yes, they have authority, and we
should follow them. But no man has this power today. So no man should
emulate the apostles in trying to get followers to follow their every
whim, pretending it is a message directly from the Lord. In fact, look
at how Paul’s character changed. Before his conversion he was a
frightening character, who “made havock of the church,
entering into
every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.”
(Acts
8:3). But after he had been converted, he was given the authority of an
apostle (unlike men today), but “his bodily presence was
weak, and his
speech contemptible”, as the Corinthians were complaining
about:
“For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority,
which the
Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I
should not be ashamed: that I may not seem as if I would terrify you by
letters. For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his
bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.” (2
Corinthians
10:8-10).
His letters were weighty and powerful because of the true apostolic
authority given by God which was behind them, but this great leader,
this “Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness
which is in the law, blameless” (Philippians 3:5,6), had now
become in
himself, thanks to the grace of God, a man whose “bodily
presence is
weak, and his speech contemptible”.
Conversion changes the soul, and cleanses us from our old,
self-assertive, aggressive nature. We should never use Paul or any of
the apostles as examples as to how we should behave with regards their
authority, because their authority was real, and we do not have this
today – we have the Scriptures instead. But we can use Paul as an
example of how the new nature should change our hearts.
Prophets
Well, it depends what we mean by “prophets.” If we mean people who can
miraculously foretell the future, as indeed some of the Old Testament
prophets could, then no-one should ever claim to have this gift in our
days. We do not need it. We have the Scriptures, and they are
sufficient for all our needs. Anyone who claims to be a prophet today,
is too highly regarding himself. No-one has extraordinary revelation
from God nowadays. People who think they have such a gift should stop
trying to pretend that they are anything special, because they are not.
Even Amos, who really did have a true gift of prophecy from God, did
not claim to be anyone special. He was just an ordinary workman; not
even
a church leader:
“Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet,
neither was
I a prophet’s son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore
fruit: And the LORD took me as I followed the flock, and the LORD said
unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel.” (Amos 7:14,15).
Having said that, some people would interpret the word “prophet” as
simply meaning someone who had the gift that the children of Issachar
had, who “had understanding of the times, to know what Israel
ought to
do” (1 Chronicles 12:32). In this case, yes, some people do
have more sense
and insight into applying Biblical truths for our situation today, so
in this sense it is a valid gift for today. But note, these were the
children of Issachar, not the priests, Levites or church leaders!
Minister
This is NOT a man in charge, with “leadership skills,” who speaks ex
cathedra from the pulpit and whom you are not allowed to
question. In
most verses in the New Testament it is the Greek word diakonos,
which
means “servant,” and is exactly the same word from which we get the
word “deacon.” It is generally distinguished in the Authorised Version
from the word “servant” which is the Greek word doulos,
meaning
“slave.” So diakonos implies a voluntary
servitude. This is a far cry
from those men who fancy themselves in the pulpit and love to have a
following.
Other words translated “minister” in the New Testament are uphreths,
which means “subordinate.” i.e. not a leadership position at all, but
the position of an assistant; and leitourgos,
meaning “public servant,”
again, not implying leadership of any kind.
Evangelist
This too is seen by some as an extraordinary office, no longer in use
today. If so, then it means some special gift for the propagation of
the gospel in New Testament times, before churches were properly
established. Once churches had been established it was not needed any
more, so it was only a temporary office. But this view tends to exalt
the role of the visible church today (and consequently the leaders of
it) too highly, as they now become the only ordinary means of hearing
and propagating the gospel.
A second view is just as bad. Today, people think of an “evangelist” as
someone with a special gift of public speaking and persuasion, who
holds special “evangelistic” meetings and gets all the accolade when so
many people come to the front to receive the free literature. These are
called "converts," although how many of them are truly converted by the
Spirit of God is another matter.
A third view is to see this as a gift for missionary work. People who
have the gift of going into a region of the world where the gospel is
hardly known and trying to bring the Good News of Jesus Christ to
people who have never heard of it before. But even this has been
corrupted in our day. “Missionaries” in the past went to the mission
field for life, making great sacrifice and often coming to an early
death – all for the sake of the gospel. Today they are people who live
quite comfortably, far above the level of those around them whom they
are trying to “evangelise.” So long as they send a missionary
newsletter back to their home church every couple of months, with lots
of positive messages in it, and go back with a slide show once a year,
with an upbeat message of how wonderfully the work is progressing, then
people will carry on giving them money to continue their comfortable
lifestyle. And most of them don’t preach Christ at all, but all they do
is (inadvertently maybe) bring Western culture (guitars and
foot-tapping tunes) to a region of the world that doesn’t need or want
it.
It is best therefore to leave this office alone and reckon that no-one
has the gift for today!
Teacher
This is not a position of leadership either. Teachers are those that
can understand the truths of the Bible and have the ability to
communicate
them to others. This is not usually in the way of a man in the pulpit
telling people what to believe. Although sometimes a lecture is a good
thing, the best teachers are those who can sit alongside the pupil one
a one to one basis all the time asking if they have understood things,
and if not, to help them until they do. This should not be in an “I’m
the teacher, you are the pupil, so just listen to me” role at all. The
best teachers really want the pupil to understand for himself,
and this
is the gift that some have, and it is good, and certainly not a
leadership role.
What is the difference between this and exhorting in Romans 12:7,8?
Maybe
exhortation is just a word of practical advice, i.e.
practical
application of the teaching. This is a separate gift to that of
teaching, although closely linked.
Preacher
This isn’t actually mentioned as a gift in the above verses, but
something desperately needs to be said about it, because today people
have such a wrong view of what a preacher is. It is not a separate
office of any kind. The word “preacher” in the New Testament is the
Greek word khruch, meaning “herald.” Someone with
a message to give.
That is all. All of this is a far cry from a leadership position. Today
we think of “preachers” as leaders of churches who give an
authoritative message when they are in the pulpit. Oh no they don’t.
Every message from every pulpit is a mixture of truth and error. We are
to discern the truth, not to blindly follow and accept everything
spoken.
There is in existence a very high view of “preaching” which
believes that it is “The only divinely authorised public
means for the
instruction and conversion of sinners is the verbal proclamation of
God’s holy Word” (Affirmation 2010 document). I have a
really, really
big problem with this. It is as though preaching is some kind of magic.
The proof texts given (Luke 24:46-48; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 2 Corinthians
4:5) show the importance of preaching but not the exclusivity of it in
the conversion of sinners. I was converted by picking up a Bible and
reading it (the Holy Ghost opening my heart to receive the truth of it
of course). Other people I know also had the same experience. Others I
know were converted through talking with Christian friends. Very few
people I know actually were converted through preaching! We should get
away from the Reformation call “The primacy of preaching” and change it
to “The primacy of the Word of God.” The preaching may contain
the Word
of God (and where it does it can be used by God to be effectual), but
the Bible actually IS the Word of God. Where the truths of the Word of
God coincide with what is preached then God may use it, but the primacy
must surely be given to the Word of God, not the other way around. In
its day, the call of “The primacy of preaching” was good, as it opposed
the Roman Catholic “primacy of the ritual,” but nowadays so many
preachers exalt themselves far too highly and love to have a following,
thinking that an ordained minister preaching is the ultimate tool used
by God to save sinners. They claim they have the only ordinary means of
conversion in their hands. This is no different from the Roman Catholic
priest thinking that only he has the power to convert the bread and
wine into the body and blood of Christ. Of course both would agree the
Holy Ghost actually converts souls, but they would believe that it was
only ever (ordinarily) through the means of their actions or words.
To
summarise: I fully appreciate that some men are set apart for the Word
of God as teachers, who ordinarily leave their secular employment to
teach the Word of God full time (1 Timothy 5:18). But THEY ARE ONE OF
US.
They too, just like the rest of us, are growing in grace and the
knowledge of our Lord and Saviour (2 Peter 3:18). They have no special
function, no special powers. To think that they do is to head firmly in
the direction of Roman Catholicism, and is not Biblical Christianity.
Pastors
This word is only found here in Ephesians 4:11 and in Jeremiah. The
Greek
word here is poimin, and means a shepherd. The
Hebrew word in Jeremiah
is reh, meaning “to tend a flock,” which we might
consider as a
leadership position, but the Hebrew definition also has the connotation
“to associate with as a friend or companion.” Yes, there is a gift of
befriending, some people are genuinely good at it, and they should use
it properly, guiding gently, not guiding as a leader in a pulpit,
forever at a distance from the recipient.
Deacons
As mentioned earlier, this is the Greek word diakonos,
which means
“servant,” and is the main word translated in the New Testament as
“minister.” The deacon does have a special position in the visible
church, not as a ruler of any kind, but as one looking after the
practical aspects of the particular congregation to which he is
attached. This is in no way a leadership role, but is a Biblical
office, for a specific purpose. A good candidate for this office is one
who has the gifts of “showing mercy” and “helps” in order that things
are done decently and in order in the church (1 Corinthians 14:40).
Elders
Surely this is a leadership position, isn’t it? along with the gifts of
“ruling” and “governments”? Well, someone has got to do the work of
making decisions in the visible church. God has ordained the office of
elder in order to do this. However, the last people who should be
elders are those who fancy themselves as such, and those with a lust
for leadership that they cannot control.
Primarily, the elders should
be the older men, i.e. the more experienced
Christians amongst the
congregation, i.e. “not a novice, lest
being lifted up with pride he
fall into the condemnation of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:6).
The most
experienced Christians are the ones who should be forming the
presbyteries, where all the decisions are made about the visible
church. Yet often we see people not much more than a year in the faith
becoming an elder, because they have worldly “management” skills and,
after all, are such “nice” people. Indeed in most churches, elders are
elected by voting in the congregations. This is the last thing that
should happen, as most ordinary members of the congregation cannot
discern true spirituality from false management techniques used in
order to deceive.
If the eldership was limited only to those who were
thirty years professing the true faith or more (assuming they fit all
the other criteria mentioned in the Bible for eldership, cf.
1 Timothy 3),
then these people only should in theory to be the ones who have been
humbled enough, sanctified enough, to be able to rule properly
(although this could still not be the case because we cannot see the
heart).
In fact the leadership positions in the church (no matter which
denomination we are talking about) are always going to be filled with
those who fancy themselves as leaders. Men are by nature
self-assertive, and if they want a top position, and they are
aggressive enough and have sufficient worldly management skills, they
will get what they want. Those who, on the other hand, are nurturing their new nature in Christ, would not be self-assertive any
more, they would begin to learn the Christian virtue of self-abasement,
and they will not tend to get leadership positions as the worldly ones will
walk all over them in their lust to get to the top.
Yes, some good men will be in high places, cf.
Joseph of Arimathaea and
Nicodemus, and they should use their position as best they can, but
they will always be marginalised by the majority in the leadership.
The fact is that no matter how good or pure a church tries to be,
worldly men will fight for the positions of leadership. Their worldly nature does not teach them any other way. The brambles
will always end up in control, because the true believers will have
something far better to do than to play management games.
“The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them;
and they
said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us. But the olive tree said
unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God
and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? And the trees said to
the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us. But the fig tree said unto
them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be
promoted over the trees? Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou,
and reign over us. And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine,
which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then
said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us. And
the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over
you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire
come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.”
(Judges
9:8-15).
What leadership is
Leadership is a thoroughly worldly phenomenon, found in all walks of
life, not just in the church. Some people are “born leaders,” and this
is seen in the world as being something good! But it is nothing else
but wickedness and evil.
“Born leaders” are those who have a dominating
personality and an uncontrollable desire for control. You know the sort
of person – someone who, when he walks into the room, has to be the
centre of attention. The conversation that had been going on suddenly
stops on their entrance, and they lead the conversation until such time
as they leave the room again. It is an uncanny real power that they
have, and many people are completely taken in by it, and blindly
follow. Surely this is the ultimate in wickedness. People blindly
follow, and are afraid not to. Where is any Christian virtue in this?
Such people have a great sense of their own importance, they are
totally self-centred, self-assertive and self-confident. The world
revolves around them! This is totally opposite from the self-abasement
that the Christian ought to have. We should see ourselves as nothing,
not as some great somebody who the world must listen to.
They know they have the power to attract a following, and will
certainly use this phenomenon to their own advantage. They also have an
uncontrollable desire for control. They cannot bear it when they are
not in control any more, and many commit suicide when this happens, cf.
Ahithophel (2 Samuel 17:23). They have a lust for a following and make
sure that they get one.
Before you think I am only describing Adolf
Hitler and a few other despotic leaders that have appeared in history,
then think again. This sort of personality usually ends up as a
businessman or a sales representative. They are all around us. You must
have come across many of them in your life. And they are dangerous,
easily persuading people to do or buy what they do not really want.
Further, this worldly phenomenon is everywhere in the church as well,
if only we have our eyes open to see it. It is not a gift of
leadership, but a lust, a craving from the evil one for control. Yet so
many people in the churches think of it as a spiritual gift and that it
is actually a good thing to have dominating personalities in the
church! Of course, people think this so they can justify their blindly
following such men anywhere they lead.
The apostle Paul was a “born leader.” He had just this kind of
personality before conversion, so he knew what it was to have the power
to persuade people to blindly follow him, and could exercise this power
whenever he wanted. But after his conversion, look what he says:
“And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with
excellency of
speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I
determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him
crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much
trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words
of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that
your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of
God.” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).
He, amazingly, did NOT use the power of persuasion that he had known
from before his conversion in order to win converts to Christ. This was
a deliberate decision on his part. His preaching was “NOT
with enticing
words of man’s wisdom,” because that would have ended up
with some
people following him, not Christ. He “determined not to know
anything
among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” He subdued
his carnal
nature, and ability to persuade men with worldly wisdom, and determined
only to present the truth in a straightforward, genuine manner, so that
their “faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in
the power of
God,” i.e. so that their faith would
be genuine. This is against all
our natural instincts. Paul deliberately did NOT use a carnal ability
of persuasion, when he knew he had one and could so easily have done.
How many preachers are like this today?
So, how do we propagate the
Christian faith? Whatever we do, we should not use a worldly,
persuasive power in order to promote the truth. This being against all
our natural instincts, we must trust in the Holy Spirit alone to give
us the words to say, without being tempted by the devil into using
human forms of persuasion.
The disciples had a lust to be greatest in the kingdom of heaven. This
is recorded twice in Luke’s gospel alone, so they must have thought
about it more than once:
“Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them
should be
greatest. And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a
child, and set him by him, and said unto them, Whosoever shall receive
this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me
receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the
same shall be great.” (Luke 9:46).
“And there was also a strife among them, which of them should
be
accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the
Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority
upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that
is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief,
as he that doth serve.” (Luke 22:24-26).
Note, Christ did not say “God has given you the gift of leadership – a
dominating personality that you should use for the building up of my
kingdom.” No. He told them to get rid of all such thoughts from their
minds. Leadership is not a gift from God to be used for the kingdom’s
sake. We are to put such worldly traits away from us. We all have lusts
and desires in our carnal natures that, upon becoming a Christian, we
need to subdue and mortify. Of course the new nature, the new heart,
the Holy Spirit is now within us, to help us to do this. A lust for
leadership is one of these things we must mortify if we are to be
sanctified thoroughly by the Holy Spirit.
The Christian life is one of
constantly being humbled for our sins. God has shut us all up to decay
and death in order that we subdue our lusts for power completely and
utterly.
Nebuchadnezzar, otherwise a great despotic leader, was humbled
by God and saw this:
“Those that walk in pride He is able to abase”
(Daniel 4:37).
The psalmist saw this:
“Though the LORD be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly:
but the
proud he knoweth afar off.” (Psalm 138:6).
The whole Christian message is for us to abase self and exalt God in
our lives – to be like little children, servants. The poor in spirit
are the only ones who will inherit the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3),
not those who know they have a power of persuasion and use it.
So, should we have Christian businessmen and sales representatives?
Well, these callings are not unlawful as such, but try selling your
products without the wicked, humanistic, worldly powers of persuasion
that your rivals will use. It will be difficult, and you might
eventually have to change your job, and become, God forbid, a toilet
cleaner. But your conscience would be clear.
Similarly, a call to all those in leadership in the church. Seriously
reconsider what you think is a “calling from God.” The calling to work
in a church as such is not unlawful, but be careful you are not using
worldly means to get what you want, namely a name in the church for
yourself.
Jeremiah said to Baruch:
“And seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them not:
for, behold,
I will bring evil upon all flesh, saith the LORD” (Jeremiah
45:5).
This is a call to us all.
Church splits
Christ had nothing but contempt for the church leaders of His day
(Matthew 23). “How can ye escape the damnation of hell?”
(v.33). The
Pharisees were the evangelicals of the time who believed the
Scriptures, and the Sadducees were the liberals who said that there was
“no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit” (Acts
23:8). Both together
formed the Sanhedrin, the ruling body of the church in Christ’s day.
One or two were good men, Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus for
example, but most were apostates. The church leadership was utterly
corrupt – a fact which would be proved later as they gave Christ over
to be crucified. Yet Christ never at any time said “OK lads, were
coming out and forming the Free Sanhedrin (Continuing)”! This is an
amazing thing. Christ does not ordinarily call us out of churches as a
body to form new churches, which are supposedly “purer.” We are called
to stay in one visible church regardless of the leaders casting truth
and righteousness to the ground.
That is a very difficult thing to do,
as, again, it is against all our natural instincts. We should never at
any time agree with the church leaders when they decree or do something
wicked, but we are also never called to come out and start something
new either.
Christ said: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’
seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and
do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”
(Matt.
23:2,3). He then went on in the rest of the whole chapter to harangue
the church leaders thoroughly. Note there is no call here to come out
and form a separate church, but there is no call either to compromise
with the truth.
Christ commended the widow (Luke 21:1-4) for putting her two mites into
the treasury, indeed, “all she had,” yet the money
(probably unknown to
the widow) would be going to those who “devour widow’s houses”
(Matthew
23:14). How can this be just? Of course it isn’t, and we should have a
heart for righteousness if we are born again. But there is and always
will be corruption in high places in the church. The point is to put up
with it, and continue in the body of the one church, but not to
compromise with it ourselves. We do everything the church leaders want
us to do, unless it violates our conscience because it is sin. Then we
have to refuse, and take the consequences. The answer is not to get out
and form a new church which, conveniently, agrees with us.
So,
therefore, we are never to compromise on these two things:
(1.) A
desire to know, love and propagate the truth
God treats us all as
individuals. All of us, who are true believers, are growing "in
grace
and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ"
(2 Peter
3:18), so we are all coming to the truth from different positions. So
there will always be differences amongst us. So “church” is NOT all
about one man in the pulpit waxing eloquent and telling us what truth
is, expecting us to blindly follow. A true believer loves coming to a
knowledge of the truth for himself, and it is his constant desire to
further his knowledge from the Bible. We do not need leaders, above
questioning, but need people to help us come to a knowledge of the
truth for ourselves. Once we have understood the truth in our hearts,
we should keep it there, and not compromise at all. As we come to a
knowledge of the truth on spiritual things, we have a desire to share
it with others. But again, we should not try to bulldoze others into
believing what we have come to believe. God works in all of us
individually. We are not to separate from one church to create a church
centred around ourselves and what we have come to believe, even if some
of it is the truth. Most church splits have occurred because men have
tried to do this, “to keep the testimony” they would say. Yet every one
of them still had error in it somewhere, no matter how “pure” they
thought they could be. Christ said “I will build my church;
and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).
God does not need us for
anything. He can keep His own testimony.
(2.) A desire for
righteousness
Many churches have split on the grounds that someone was not
disciplined as he should have been, and justice has not been carried
out properly. We should have a love of righteousness, and it should
concern us whenever this happens. We should do everything we can to
uphold righteousness in the church. But sadly, a lot of the time, men
decide eventually to come out and start a new church rather than stay
in the one church and put up with unjust rulings. This is not the first
time the church has made an unjust ruling! In fact it is wrong to just
wash your hands of the whole affair. In the few years before the split
in the Free Church of Scotland in 2000, allegations of adultery were
made against Prof. Donald Macleod. Without going into the details,
those making the accusations all eventually decided to form the Free
Church (Continuing) and leave. Now, within the depleted Free Church,
no-one is making any allegations any more, those making them have all
left. And the church is continuing on its own sweet way assuming the
completely false logic that now those making the allegations have gone,
the allegations are therefore false. No. It is very convenient for
Prof. Macleod that there are no more people in his cosy little church
making allegations any more, but unless the allegations themselves are
fairly, thoroughly and completely investigated, we will never know
whether he is innocent or guilty. The allegations still stand until
this happens. Similarly a few years later in the Free Presbyterian
Church of Scotland, a minister made allegations against a fellow
minister accusing him of lying. Again, look what happened. Rather that
actually investigating the allegations directly, they sacked the
minister making them on a completely different charge. Now,
conveniently, no-one is making allegations any more, so it is assumed
that they were false. But the truth is they still have not been
investigated. If anyone made allegations against me and I was innocent
of them, I couldn’t live with myself until the actual allegations had
been investigated and I had been thoroughly vindicated. If the church
threw out the person making the allegations, it would be nicely
convenient for me, but I would still insist on the allegations being
investigated, otherwise I could never actually ever be vindicated.
Church courts behave in this manner all the time. It is utter
wickedness. How can it be anything else?
In keeping these two good things in our hearts, namely, truth and
righteousness, we will soon find out that we are in confrontation with
the church leaders. Of course, if we can do anything for the cause of
truth and righteousness, we should do so, but in the end, we will
probably only be able to lawfully go so far before we are stopped by
the wicked men in charge from going any further. In the end they will
not listen. In the past, those who did not agree with the church of the
day were denounced as heretics and put to death. We should be ready for
this to happen to us if necessary, if such times of persecution should
ever come again. But usually, these days, the worst church courts can
do is simply put us out of the church.
This happened in 1662 in the
Church of England, when all ministers were forced to sign the Act of
Uniformity. Many couldn’t sign it in conscience. We should never do
something against our conscience. Those who refused to sign were put
out of the ministry. Many took that as an excuse to start newer,
“purer”
churches, but that would not be right. Philip Henry did the right
thing. He couldn’t in all conscience sign the Act of Uniformity in
1662, so he acquiesced to the decision to put him out of the ministry,
even though he knew it was totally unjust. He accepted the (unjust)
ruling. I am sure if he could have done anything about it he would have
done, but he couldn’t. Many of his fellows, who had also been put out
of their churches, used this as an excuse to form new churches, so they
could now be in charge of things. But Philip Henry, instead, rejected
this idea. He lived on a farm just outside the bounds of his old
parish. He dutifully went to the local Anglican church when there was a
minister (it had no regular supply), but secretly, on the farm he
taught his family and friends the truth at home. His son Matthew was
born in 1662, and spent the first 28 years of his life in this manner,
and he wrote one of the best Bible commentaries ever produced, so it
didn’t do him any harm!
But what about verses like:
“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate,
saith the
Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,”
(2 Corinthians
6:17).
Or “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall
prepare
himself to the battle?” (1 Corinthians 14:8).
Both these verses have been used by separatists to justify their
separate position, but they are both taken completely out of context.
The first verse is a call for individual purity, not church splitting,
and the second is a call against the church not doing things decently
and in order.
The formation of new churches is not the answer. The idea of a church
of true believers operating secretly within an outer single visible
church, whose leadership is mostly corrupt, seems to be the Biblical
pattern.
What then shall we
do?
Well, I could tell you to all go back into the Church of England. Or
even the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church. But the latter two
have become “synagogues of Satan” (Revelation 2:9;
3:9). Very occasionally it
is right to separate, when the church has become completely corrupt, as
in these cases, but it is only right to come out en masse
as a
church-wide movement, as in the Reformation. The Reformation was unique
in history in that respect. So why don’t we all go back to the Church
of England? Well, that would be a good idea. The reason that the Church
of England is so bad these days is simply because all the evangelicals
have left.
But, practically, this is, humanly speaking, impossible. The
can of worms has spilled open, and it would be impossible to get all of
them back into the can again. If one or two of us went back into the
Church of England as a matter of principle, the best Christian
fellowship would still actually be found outside in the separatist
churches.
In the 1980’s, Lord Mackay, the Lord Chancellor, an elder in
the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, went to a Roman Catholic
mass. He was disciplined by the church and it was all over the national
newspapers. A staunch Roman Catholic I know, at the time read about
this,
looked into it, and discovered that the Free Presbyterian church was
actually right! So he left the Roman Catholic church and joined them.
In 2009 he left the Free Presbyterians and rejoined Rome. Why? People
in the Free Presbyterians could not understand it. They really thought
that he was losing his mental capacity to understand all the truths
involved. But maybe, just maybe, he was thinking along these lines I am
describing here.
I’m not going to tell anyone as an individual what to
do with regards church affiliation. We are called to be pure within
ourselves, forage for our spiritual food and spiritual companionship
wherever we can find it, and stick close to the Word of God, not
following dominating men.
Conclusion
If anyone thinks he has the “gift” of leadership – get rid of it. It is
a mark of the self-assertive world, not a mark of grace. Self-abasement
is the Christian way. I know of a minister of a church who was
suspended from the ministry after he was found to have committed
adultery. After a few months he was banging on the door of his
presbytery asking to be reinstated as minister because he had now
repented. They did not let him back in, so he left and went to another
denomination. He stayed there a few months, and he was not allowed into
the pulpit there either, so, the last I heard, he had finally resumed
preaching again in yet another denomination. Why didn’t he just give up
wanting to be in charge all the time? Why couldn’t he just resign
himself to sitting in the pews with everybody else? Because of a lust
for leadership which drove him on.
The ultimate question we have to
think upon is this: Let us suppose these leaders all get into heaven
(let us be charitable for a moment!). What would they do there? No
Synods to attend, no committees to be on, no followers to control. They
would just be bowing down and worshipping God for eternity, as servants
to a holy master. They would hate it! Let that be a warning to us all
to shun the lust for leadership and become as little children. That is
the calling of every Christian in this world.