derkrash-at-yahoo-dot-com
I posted this to a Oneness Pentecostal site and received strange responses, but mostly silence:
++++++++++++
There is a great danger in our society, among men who wish to go the way of their own. It is the concept that a church should be like an army with a commander at the top, complete with lieutenants and colonels. With this mindset, one gets the idea that whatever one says higher up the “chain of command,” those lower on the chain of command can never question. For to ask such questions is “rebellion” or a breach in the “chain of command.” For a board member to politely ask a pastor to quit teaching on certain things and taking scripture out of context would be “rebellion” against someone higher than him in some mystical “chain of command” against the established “leadership of the church.”
I am not sure that scripture can support this military structure of church. I will grant that one might find a peculiar scripture, rip it out of context of the Biblical whole and make it sound as if it supported army structures of church, but I am not sure the general theme of the epistles grants such “command” over a church to a pastor or anyone else.
The problem with interpreting such scriptures like “Obey them that have the rule over you” in such an extreme militaristic concept is the fact that Man has something within him that we all must consider in any institution: SIN. Identifying the concept of submission only for the laity to obey the pastor is to deny the existence of sin in all of us. We must also consider that we are to submit ourselves “one to another” which is indeed opposite of the militaristic interpretation of a pastor as Commander-In-Chief. This concept of submission “one to another,” interpreted in light of the other scriptures on obedience puts things in their proper perspective. For to understand the evil nature of men is to understand why nobody is to have absolute authority over anybody in any institution with the obvious exceptions of the military and law enforcement. And the fact that the military is under the watchful eye of the civilian authority and most law enforcement is under civilian county control, one gets the idea that men are prone to sin and cannot ever be trusted with absolute authority without the existence of a check.
For a pastor to refuse to submit to the proper authorities in his own congregation is itself a form of rebellion against established authority. It appears that some think that they are not prone to sin and failure and are not to be bound up with the necessary checks and balances for any serious institution. We even have the scriptural example of Paul confronting Peter. By what authority? Well, the Christian concept of submitting one to another. Does what Paul did constitute rebellion against the one who supposedly has “the keys?” Some might retort that they were both Apostles and thus could have the privilege of challenging each other. I can grant this only in a very narrow sense. Paul had authority because of his knowledge, experience and position. Furthermore, Jesus set the example that leaders must submit to those they follow by setting the example of the Son of God washing the feet of his followers. If there is any more blatant example against the militaristic concept of church structure, Jesus is the prime example. And if anyone thinks one cannot challenge the highest of the apostles, one should look no further than Paul challenging Peter to his face. They submitted themselves one to another. Was Peter so presumptuous to tell Paul that he was in rebellion against the “authority” because he was granted the “keys” to the kingdom? No, it is obvious that he noticed the fact of human nature: we are all prone to sin and can fail, and thus, we all need to be checked by each other. Others look after our blind spots where we cannot see. There are times when we ignore the voice of the Holy Spirit within us and go our own way and thus we need our brothers in Christ to confront us, and, if necessary, depose us if we are in a position of honor and authority. For church board members to refuse to confront an abusive pastor is a breach of their duty. Duty sometimes requires us to do dirty work, so to speak, and confront those with whom we have great respect for because we all are prone to sin and we all have blind spots. If a pastor is abusive and close to sin, and the leaders within the church do not depose him, they are in part responsible for his behavior, as he is also responsible, and this is sinful in both cases.
In conclusion, I think it very dangerous to interpret scripture on authority in a militaristic sense of pastor as Commander-in Chief. It is a denial of man’s sinful nature, and a denial of the command of all of us to submit to proper authority: one to another, as a form of checks and balances.
JP Istre
