One of the things that modern Christians have a hard time doing right is loyalty. We don’t know how loyalty is supposed to work. We don’t understand the spiritual requirement of personal allegiance to your church and its leadership, and in addition we have a very poor understanding of what disloyalty actually smells like. Not a few Christians think they are contending for the peace and purity of the church, just like it said in their membership vows, when they are actually stinking up the sanctuary. We think that if a letter begins it is with grief in my heart, the letter that follows cannot be disloyal.
Let me begin by noting that—in this as in so many other situations—there is a ditch on both sides of the road. One ditch might be called the “Dear Leader” ditch, the insistence that everyone applaud like they were a spectator at a North Korean missile parade, clapping in sync with the goose-stepping soldiers. What we have there is not likemindedness, but rather mindless conformity, baptized automata pretending to be disciples of Jesus. That really is cultic. But in the other ditch we find ornery cussedness, pretending to be valiant for truth, but in the last analysis they are loyal only to their own thoughts, opinions, and perspectives. These people are disrespectful, disloyal, and disruptive. Fully three quarters of them would be astonished to be told that they were being disloyal. But they are, and it’s bad.
However, there is a ditch on both sides of this road. And so allow me to give the best illustration I know of on how to stay on the road of righteous personal loyalty. That example is provided by Trumpkin, the doughty Narnian dwarf.
First, let us take a look at his intense loyalty to his sovereign Caspian. He doesn’t believe in Aslan, doesn’t believe in Doctor Cornelius’ knick-knacks from the past, and doesn’t believe that any help is going to come to them from the high past. But nevertheless . . .
“Thimbles and thunderstorms!” cried Trumpkin in a rage. “Is that how you speak to the King? Send me, Sire, I’ll go.” “But I thought you didn’t believe in the Horn, Trumpkin,” said Caspian. “No more I do, your Majesty. But what’s that got to do with it? I might as well die on a wild goose chase as die here. You are my King. I know the difference between giving advice and taking orders. You’ve had my advice, and now it’s the time for orders” (Prince Caspian, p. 92).
Now that’s loyalty right there.
But earlier, when some Black Dwarfs had suggested the possibility of bringing in a Hag or an Ogre or two to help their cause against Miraz, Trufflehunter objects to that on the basis of what Aslan would think about it. Trumpkin responds to Trufflehunter in a telling way. There are plain limits to loyalty.
“We should not have Aslan for our friend if we brought in that rabble,” said Trufflehunter, as they came away from the cave of the Black Dwarfs. “Oh, Aslan!” said Trumpkin, cheerily but contemptuously. “What matters much more is that you wouldn’t have me” (PC, p. 72).
Trumpkin knew instinctively, in his bones, the way a hierarchical world works. Not only are persons ranked differently, so also differences are ranked differently. There is a stark distinction between disagreements over this policy or that one, on the one hand, and compromises with evil on the other. Since there is a difference, they should be treated differently. The debate over this tactic or that one should not be treated as a battle between light and darkness. There are times when absolutely no one should say, “Yes, sir,” and yet there are other times when the only ones who don’t say, “Yes, sir” are the anarchists and rebels.
Since I am leaning on C.S. Lewis so much here, let me quote him again, this time from Screwtape. “The game is to have them all running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under.”[1]
When it comes to life in our modern congregations, we think we have to guard against mindless conformity when what really threatens our spiritual health is our radical individualism. The Scriptures tell us what we should be laboring for, striving for, and praying for. We are not told to work at maintaining independence of thought. We are not told to build some ecclesiastical variant of academic freedom. We are commanded to strive for likemindedness, to be of one mind.
“Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits” (Rom. 12:16).
“That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6).
“Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you” (2 Cor. 13:11).
“Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27).
“Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind” (Phil. 2:2).
“Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous” (1 Pet. 3:8).
“Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus” (Rom. 15:5).
“For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state” (Phil. 2:20).
Allow me the privilege of translating all of this into modern American English for you. Drink the Kool-Aid. Join the cult. Surrender your independence. Swallow the party line. Go baaa like a sheep. Strive for the nirvana of acquiescence.
Modern Christians allow the Bible to talk that way because it is their sacred book and so they are technically stuck with it. But if any Christian leader, anywhere, anytime, teaches that obedience and maintaining a teachable spirit are virtues to be cultivated by church members, then that guy is now a hazard with blinking lights all over him. He is clearly power-tripping. He must be a Diotrephes. He is Diotrephes automatically.
But . . .
“Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation” (Heb. 13:7).
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you” (Heb. 13:17).
It is not possible to pursue likemindedness biblically without having a biblical view of authority.
These two verses, incidentally, taken together, provide a compelling argument for membership in a local congregation. These individuals have to know the names of the men who rule over them—you cannot obey an undefined leadership. And a body of elders cannot render an account for an undefined membership. If you don’t know who your rulers are, you cannot consider the outcome of their conduct or way of life. And if you don’t know who you are responsible for, you cannot watch over their souls. These two verses, taken together, require two lists of names—a list of the elders and a list of the members. Obedience to Scripture at this point is impossible otherwise. Pastors and elders are not allowed to look at their flocks on a distant hillside, as painted by an impressionist at a low point in his game, and working with dirty brushes. “Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks, and look well to thy herds” (Prov. 27:23). No, giving an account means counting.
Now this means that members of churches have assigned duties of loyalty and obedience. But what a number of Christians today believe is that their membership actually requires honest and sometimes impudent feedback when they disagree, preferably online. I have seen some behavior in that department that, as one of my daughters might put it, makes my eyeballs sweaty.
So this year marks my fortieth year as a minister of a church—of the same church. May I be allowed the wise observations of an elder in Zion, or perhaps, failing that, of a wizened old geezer? I cannot tell you how many times I have seen Christians flame out in the loyalty department. I have seen disloyalty to the mission, I have seen disloyalty to friends, I have seen disloyalty to membership vows, I have seen disloyalty to previous positions taken, I have seen disloyalty to spouses, I have seen disloyalty to our confessions, I have seen disloyalty in business commitments, I have seen disloyalty to an elder board, I have seen disloyalty to a deacon board, I have seen disloyalty to benefactors, I have seen disloyalty to teachers, I have seen disloyalty to parents, and I have seen disloyalty to pastors. And as a pastor, I have often seen it up close and personal. And lest anyone get the wrong idea about this, like every Christian who cares at all about true religion, I have seen it in my own heart.
But people today are nevertheless hungry for true community, and true community is impossible apart from shared values and mores—likemindedness, in other words. But once community actually starts to form, the attacks on the “cult” will begin. Vulnerable and sophomoric Christians in the community will be taunted—prove your independence. Whatever your leader asks for, vote no, drag your feet, raise a stink, and put some daylight between yourself and that guy. As if you could establish independence by always finding the North Star, and always sailing south by it. But that’s not independence.
Don’t try to pretend that learning to deal with all this is somehow an unnecessary part of learning pastoral ministry. Remember that Jesus prayed all night before He selected Judas.
More needs to be said about all this, of course. And maybe I will.
Notes
[1] C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (HarperOne, 2001), 138.
The leaders, and those led, both need the faith of the centurion. The Word says this even better than Lewis. We are all under authority.
In my situation, there are leaders who are disloyal and disobedient to the Word.
The faith of the centurion is just the thing in this situation, because there is a Lord over all! ????
Let this mind be in you which was also in Fanny Price: “Heaven defend me from being ungrateful!”
Just so long as misplaced gratitude does not make you one of the Grateful Dead! ????
And you probably don’t want to be like Fanny at every point, but I do especially like that line!
It is an excellent line, and she is an excellent example of demonstrating gratitude under trying circumstances. I have often wished I could bring myself to like Fanny Price.
As I’ve said before, I think we would all like in her real life, while finding some aspects of her personality off-putting, or pitiable. You know, the way it is with most of the real people in our lives. :-)
I have no doubt that I would find her admirable, sweet-tempered, and truly virtuous. But I can’t imagine her making me laugh.
No, but there are people in my life I like who don’t make me laugh. The ones I’m most drawn to, do, but I don’t take dislike to people who don’t just for that reason.
You’re right. I hope that I wouldn’t undervalue Anne Elliot or Elinor Dashfield because they, while having a sense of humor, would probably not make me laugh as much as Emma would.
Jane Bennet is possessed of a truly angelic temperament and thinks the best of everyone. Do you think this tends to make her more likeable than Fanny? Would Jane have been as critical of Mary Crawford?
Maybe, but Jane’s thinking the best of everyone was potentially dangerous. She advised Lizzie against exposing Wickham out of hope that maybe he was sorry, and when Wickham ran away with Lydia she was shocked beyond belief that anyone could do such a bad thing — despite knowing the whole story of Georgiana. Fanny held herself aloof from people she didn’t approve of, but she didn’t speak ill of anyone. She didn’t believe she was entitled to express her views on other people’s character. Remember that what we hear from her in the way of opinions comes almost entirely from… Read more »
I think loyalty and likemindedness are things to grow in. I think they can be fostered by spending time with people and discussing things you don’t agree on, praying for one another, loving/serving one another, worshiping together corporately and generally striving for personal holiness. These are all things to do – applications – and not so much things to believe. But growing in knowledge and understanding of the word is important as well, and one of the best ways to do that is through sitting under regular (weekly) biblical preaching and teaching. Appreciate the article. Convicting to me. I’ve got… Read more »
There’s another disloyalty. Even today, my family is under duress to staunch the wound’s flow…again. Pastor’s can be disloyal too. My little family of four stood and took our vows like we believed was right, but vows are useless when the pastor is slack in addressing his own young and old relatives who took issue with the ham I brought to the weekly potluck. I won’t allow my kids to be bullied by food law loyalists. Not even if I seem disloyal. Our membership was officially transferred to a second reformed church, and things went well for a time. That… Read more »
There is someone there to make sure that pastors practice what they preach, you, and the Lord!
See Luke 17:3.
Humans are not tasked, with making adults obey.
If they won’t repent, who judges who’s been disloyal when “sinning” by leaving or sinning by staying are my only options?
The answer I got was “no one” according to my experience.
Sometimes, leaving is loyality to Christ.
God judges all of these things, in His timing, not ours.
All we can do is speak the truth, as long as we are led to.
Both of these seem like excellent cases to appeal to the presbytery/classis about.
That is unless your request is ignored, or your kid was excommunicated in an effort to become more “Presbyterian”.
I need the greater church to act on my behalf.
Elders are weak men too.
God, have mercy on us all.
Seeing this otherwise explains things. I’m not sure if CREC people have the right to escalate all the way to the national synod/general assembly like you would in any NAPARC church. And an independent church of course has nobody to escalate to at all. I’m deeply sorry this was your taste of the Reformed world, and that your children saw such ugliness at such an age, and I pray you find a people you can trust.
“who took issue with the ham I brought to the weekly potluck. I won’t allow my kids to be bullied by food law loyalists. ”
They were upset you brought pork? Really?
Yes. And my kids we teased about it.
It totally sucked.
We wrote to the overseeing elder, who is CREC by the way, and nothing.
I’ll clarify.
I signed up to bring ham to the Easter potluck, changed my mind and brought turkey ham.
Just the threat of ham was enough to set little tongues a wagging.
Heaven forbid I get involved in the great ham debate, but I have stepped into the cool whip versus real whip cream war. And the, “I can’t believe that trashy woman didn’t wash the strawberries she brought,” brawl. It really is tragic but the foolishness of it all is a bit funny, too. One thing I have had to do is pour endless grace all over some pretty thoughtless and hurtful people. Over and over again. I know nothing of your situation, but in my own, wag thy tongue, mock my children, faceplant your leadership responsibilities, and I shall still… Read more »
Proverbs 12:15-16
15 The way of fools seems right to them,
but the wise listen to advice.
16 Fools show their annoyance at once,
but the prudent overlook an insult.
Proverbs 19
11 A person’s wisdom yields patience;
it is to one’s glory to overlook an offense.
Young children being mocked at church does not encourage them to grow up with the sense that the church is a good place for them to be.
Sounds like there was a ham fisted response by some at the church! ; – )
Heidi, please tell this vegetarian what turkey ham is. A pig with wings and feathers?
OK, I thought these were Rushdoonyites who still follow the dietary laws. I didn’t think they existed any more.
I don’t think Rushdoonyites ever existed, did they?
Rush & Dorothy never pushed dietary laws on others, did they?
I’m not sure. A friend of mine claims he saw Rousas eating a ham sandwich. But I heard of a few zealous types who followed the dietary laws. A few people took the theonomy/recon movement to weird extremes.
I’m trying to understand here…. pork was objectionable because unclean? They called themselves Presbyterian?
Two different churches.
First was a CREC with a heavy food law influence in the pastor’s family.
The second was non denominational trying become more “reformed” by kicking the kiddos out of the Lord’s Supper.
We were officially members at both places.
There was no way to arbitrate the differences so we had to leave or continue to misrepresent the new covenant to our kids.
Hmm. Well I think scripture more than allows you to exit the food law sect. As for children, or anyone else, partaking communion, it should depend on their having made a credible profession of faith. Below a certain age I would question if that is possible. Of course I would have no idea about your daughter.
A most curious phrase: credible profession.
If the elders overseeing believe you to be a believer, should that suffice?
Replace “credible profession” with baptism and you won’t be forever chasing your tails on this.
And yet it is precisely paedobaptism that has led to this tail chasing. If you precede baptism with a profession of faith you won’t be forever debating which baptized members may partake in communion.
There’s zero tail chasing when baptism is the entrance to the church and table.
CHer,
Sorry, I’ve been out town. Apparently there is in fact such tail chasing where infant baptism is practiced. That is what started this string.
This just moves the tail chasing to prior to baptism. The credibility of a profession of faith is always an issue. Unless we just baptize anyone.
Kilgore T. Durden,
Unless we just baptize anyone. Right. So don’t do that. Require that they profess faith in a way that indicates they understand it. We might get it wrong, but less often that way than when we baptize on no better basis than being born to church members.
“If the elders overseeing believe you to be a believer, should that suffice?”
Elders and/or congregation.
If you can and do express personal faith in Christ for salvation, in a way that indicates you understand it, that should suffice.
JohnM —
Doug doesn’t abide by your requirement that a cognitive “profession of faith” by the individual being baptized as a necessary determinant in his assessment of whether that person is a believer.
He has determined that little infant Lillie is a believer by other means.
That’s why he baptized her.
That’s why he gives her communion.
Eric,
I know Doug doesn’t abide by the requirement which is not mine. That’s why he hasn’t determined that little infant Lillie is a believer at all. Hopefully she will become.
She is a baptized, confessing, professing , and covenant child of two baptized, confessing, professing parents.
Heidi,
She was not confessing or professing until she was though, and that wasn’t from day one of her life.
Heidi smith wrote: Just the threat of ham was enough to set little tongues a wagging. Hopefully no one would deny that such gossip and teasing can and does happen, even coming from church leadership itself, but there are safeguards that exist within CREC churches that are intended to address this sort of thing, including other elders and the presbytery itself. Because these layers exist, we need to make full use of them. But even if we believe all of these have failed, it’s still possible to gossip in the opposite direction. We don’t want to set any little keyboards… Read more »
The only way the kids would have expected the “unclean” food ahead of time was if an adult in the congregation had warned them.
There is more to the story, a lot more, but let’s just say that I had to teach my kids to say “gentile food for a gentile dude” when the subject inevitably arose.
Yes, our request for help was blown off, or was received without notice.
Heidi has come to the blog to present her perspective of selected facts with no means for any of us to discern or cross-examine, or to let the accused party speak in their defense. How is this approach not simply tale-bearing gossip?
I just don’t see how it belongs in this forum. We aren’t equipped to judge her case here, especially not based on her testimony alone.
Heidi smith wrote:
I find it difficult to believe that such a charge was simply blown off by other elders, or by the CREC presbytery. I suspect there is more to the story than what we are seeing here, which begs the question of why we are seeing it here, under a post about church loyalty.
Yeah, something seems a bit off.
To require “loyalty” requires reciprocal loyality to be healthy. Twice, my loyalty vows were worthless when I needed arbitration within the group to which I had vowed loyalty.
To whom can one go when the judgement is needed between the pastor and parishioner?
My only choice was to leave the church and all of the relationships I’d built in the congregation.
If I could just put “loyality” above my understanding of scripture, none of this would have happened. Ignorance is bliss.
I still find it difficult to believe that such a charge was simply blown off by other elders, and by the CREC presbytery. If the facts are as simple as Heidi has portrayed them, then the CREC pastor wouldn’t have had any legs to stand on. But why air one side of it here on this blog? It’s one thing to be wronged and feel that one has to leave for another church. It’s another thing to air the matter in a way that none of us can sort out because we don’t have the other side of the story.… Read more »
The food law I would like to see is that everyone just shut up about the contents of other people’s plates.
True. As odd as it was to have to defend the wonders of bacon, the paedo-excommunication was way worse. My little girl sobbed her eyes out. She though she was a member in good standing, and couldn’t figure out what she’d done wrong.
Once terminology like Membership becomes co-opted into anti-Biblical form like “official” and “good standing”, you now have a quasi-para-church entity.
Call it St. XYZ Church all you want, it’s really just a business or club.
Romans 14 comes to mind.
I wish Church were not so hard. Most, maybe all, have sad stories to tell. It could be from the pastor’s side. It could be from the congregant’s side.
It does make me long for the new heavenly Community. How grand and glorious it will be!
Yes, yes, amen! Thank you too for all the Narnia references.
When the going gets tough, which usually means the pride is offended, people tend to just bolt. Our churches are like family, blood is thicker than water, loyalty matters, walking our way through conflict matters.
I say this as a rather experienced bit of churchian collateral damage who has seen the harm that can come from walking away, from walling yourself off. We people tend to forget we have to learn how to become good followers and to stay loyal.
Doug, you & your elders need to define & count your members?!
Agreed.
But can you acknowledge that taking “membership vows” NEVER makes one a member?
Only baptism in Christ, and being there with rest of the family does that, even without vows, correct?
A shepherd (elder/father) who refuses to recognize his own sheep (local church folk/children) & feed them (teach/lead) is worse than the heathen!
Caspian: “Trumpkin, we shall never be your King or recognize you as one of our number until you wear to a love of these knick knacks.”
I guess starting a new denomination – like The CREC – would be a good example of the like-mindedness/unity mentioned in this post.
It would, if elders of the CREC recognize, accept & fellowship with believers in all other denominations.
There’s nothing wrong with a leader (or many leaders) crafting their services to emphasize certain practices & positions — AS LONG AS they don’t thereby disclude folks holding a different take.
Shepherds who don’t exclude false teachers fail in their duty to guard the flock.
That’s why no respectable PCA Session would allow someone like Chesterton to teach!
This is so on point right now. Church membership in our modern individualistic society is looked at like a useless relic from a past culture. But it is so vital. A biblical church requires commitment and membership to the body that means something. But church “shopping” and church “hopping” is killing the community that the local church is supposed to be about.
“A biblical church requires commitment and membership to the body that means something.” Amen, BUT …! “Official Membership as practed in most assemblies — including Doug’s — does NOT equal what we call membership in Christ’s body. Church elders must require this commitment from all of the body that is worshipping there, not just those who took some recently innovated “membership vows” the local session or larger body invented. Peter: “Okay already, Lord, you told me feed your sheep. But how in the world am I supposed to find out which sheep are yours?!I Surely you can’t expect me to… Read more »
Local membership is for the purpose of establishing practical accountability (in both directions). Formalizing membership with a local congregation is not an attempt to define the boundaries of membership in Christ’s body. Half of the time Stampher seems to acknowledge this, but the other half of the time he seems to take it all back again. Membership in a local congregation shouldn’t entail adoption of any “invented” doctrines, or anything that isn’t abundantly supported by Scripture in the first place, so Stampher seems to be inventing his own hypothetical dilemma for the purpose of remaining uncooperative. If erroneous doctrines have… Read more »
Establishing accountability?
What vow did your baby girl take to establish her accountability to you?
What words did the delivering midwife require you to recite, which then established your accountability as daddy?
“Feed my sheep” = all the establishment needed, no?
Stampher wrote: Establishing accountability? Yes, establishing accountability in both directions.: Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. — Hebrews 13;17 Stampher wrote: What vow did your baby girl take to establish her accountability to you? False analogy. Babies arrive as the offspring of one set of parents. Babies aren’t born into multiple overlapping local parental jurisdictions, but, even if they were, a rightful set of parents would need… Read more »
How practical is the Spirit’s baptism?!
It makes us members, one of another!
Katecho, you want that we should UNmembership what the Spirit has made?
Was it a membership vow your baby girl recited that “established” you as daddy?
Local Church membership is as organic as Catholic membership.
You are where you are.
He blesses you with pastors.
They are everywhere, including where you are.
You don’t need to spout vows to find them, or for them to find you.
Stampher wrote: He blesses you with pastors. They are everywhere, including where you are. You don’t need to spout vows to find them, or for them to find you. This is about as sophomoric as declaring that: He blesses you children with parents. They are everywhere, including where you are. You don’t need to spout vows to find them, or for them to find you. Whether a formalized membership involves vows or not, Stampher is supposing that every shepherd must give an account for the soul of every sheep that wanders in and out of the meadow in search of… Read more »
Katecho, let’s get practical and specific. If the Seventh Day Adventist pastor who lives two doors down from you sees you smoking weed, comes over, says “My son, you must stop, and as one of your elders in the Lord (established as such when God called me to this work and when He adopted you into this Church in which you are thereby a member and I am an elder) I will follow up to help make sure you do. What’s the name of the elder where you regularly attend? I’ll get him up to speed.” Would you scoff and… Read more »
Stampher wrote: Would you scoff and avow disloyalty to such a one who would dare feed you as His Elder has so commanded? I have no problem with a Seventh Day Adventist pastor showing sincere concern, or even sharing his perspective on my activities. I wouldn’t even mind if he wanted to hold me accountable by informing my elders. But if he attempted to enforce church discipline, he would be rustling from someone else’s flock. I notice that Stampher didn’t address my question about parents disciplining other people’s children. Does Stampher recognize separate jurisdictions of parenthood, or does Stampher also… Read more »
Obeying pastors in all things godly doesn’t equate to all things customary and added to God’s design, like handwashing and your formal membership.
Again I notice that Stampher didn’t address my question about parents disciplining other people’s children. Does Stampher recognize separate jurisdictions of parenthood, or does Stampher also see parenthood as one undifferentiated authority over any children in the vicinity?
Katecho —
Separate jurisdictions?
More a difference of degree than kind, often fungible.
You & your pastor both have certain separated responsibilities / authority over your kiddos.
Likewise, a pastor who’s assembly you don’t attend has certain practical limitations of degree.
He must defer many things to the shepherd standing closest to you.
“Does Stampher recognize separate jurisdictions of parenthood, or does Stampher also see parenthood as one undifferentiated authority over any children in the vicinity?”
Wait……are you trying to tell me it isn’t? :)
This “every Christian submit to every pastor” notion is akin to “every woman submit to every man.” Just as a wife is obligated to submit only to her own husband, so a sheep is obligated to submit only to his own shepherds. You are advocating for anarchy or bondage.
God forbid you should you should fall into bondage to His shepherds!
Right! We are all supposed to follow Joel O or Tammy and Jim B and start naming and claiming because they said to.
Naming & claiming themselves elders doth not make it so.
Stampher wrote:
So the Seventh Day Adventist pastor who names himself my elder doesn’t make it so? Stampher’s argument seems to have just flown out the window then.
Naming himself a pastor did not make SDA Mike a pastor.
Attending seminary did not make SDA Mike a pastor.
God made SDA Mike a pastor, if God made SDA Mike a pastor.
Stampher wrote:
Stampher is trying to avoid the problem of jurisdiction and authority that his position creates. His view supposes that God made every pastor as an interchangeable pope, operating as chief over the whole Church. However, God established Christ as the Great Shepherd of the sheep. All other shepherds are under-shepherds, responsible for “those allotted to their charge”, to give account for particular souls, until the “Chief Shepherd appears”.
I’d kinda buy the: “responsible for “those allotted to their charge”’ —
If you’ll allow that allotment arrives from upstream? — God establishes it?!
It doesn’t get established by our doings with vowish ceremonies.
We baptize not to make one a member in Him, but because He has already baptized this one and thereby made them members with us.
Stampher wrote: If you’ll allow that allotment arrives from upstream? — God establishes it?! It doesn’t get established by our doings with vowish ceremonies. Allotment of parent-child jurisdiction arrives structurally, by God’s design, without vows, but there are occasions where a breakdown occurs, paternity is denied, children are abandoned, etc, and so a process of reestablishing parental responsibility and authority must be formalized to restore jurisdiction and proper care. The motivation is love. Stampher needs to broaden his imagination to recognize the greater magnitude of this kind of breakdown of loyalty, and need for care, that occurs because of the… Read more »
This one always cracks me up: “sheep … come and go because no one knows whose sheep they are”!!! This picture conjures up vast arenas wherein pastors pere through an endless mist of dust stirred up by wandering bovidae endlessly snaking in and out the doors. The reality is that “no one knows” these sheepies history or situation because they don’t give an ounce of effort to get their number, pick up the phone and call them! The reality is that “pastors” with 100 attendees spend about ZERO time regularly & in a scheduled manner connecting with their charges. The… Read more »
Stampher wrote: This picture conjures up vast arenas wherein pastors pere through an endless mist of dust stirred up by wandering bovidae endlessly snaking in and out the doors. Stampher seems to be unaware of, or in denial of, the existence of faceless revolving door mega-churches. Stampher wrote: The reality is that “no one knows” these sheepies history or situation because they don’t give an ounce of effort to get their number, pick up the phone and call them! Apparently Stampher’s imagination only permits of one kind of reality, namely one where the pastor is completely at fault, and the… Read more »
Stampher wrote: We baptize not to make one a member in Him, but because He has already baptized this one and thereby made them members with us. Once again, Stampher is confusing local church membership with membership in Christ, the Great Shepherd. We’ve tried to warn him against this category error. We are not saying that local church membership is required in order to be a member of Christ. However, an objective local church membership is required if we want to do things orderly in a highly mobile culture like ours, to clearly establish allotment and charge for a local… Read more »
I agree that the more mobile the culture, the greater the need for identifying the sheep in an elder’s midst.
That’s why God invented Al Gore so that he could invent email.
Whatever means at a pastor’s disposal — USE it to connect with these wandering bovidae!
Where a sheep treads, the shepherds nearby need to extend their crooks!
Stampher wrote:
This sounds more like an argument for not giving out your email address to itinerant shepherds.
Stampher still hasn’t addressed the dilemma that kyriosity pointed out.
It’s ironic that Stampher seems to be recoiling against any imposition of coerced oaths of loyalty, yet he is all in favor of shepherds unilaterally extending multiple crooks around whatever sheep get within range. So is he against coerced loyalty and submission, or not? It’s hard to tell.
Thank you for hitting Eric’s false thinking right over the fence!
God, mercifully, does not require His under-shepherds to be accountable for every sheep that wanders through, nor does He require His sheep to submit and obey every shepherd (or “shepherd”) they encounter.
“Every sheep that wanders through”!!
We do need to step around the road kill inconveniently blocking our way to the Table.
Stampher wrote: We do need to step around the road kill inconveniently blocking our way to the Table. We’ve already addressed distortions like this from Stampher. I already pointed out that there are basic duties of love that every believer owes to every other believer, but this is not the same as having to give an account for the soul of one given to a shepherd’s charge. This is a distinction that Scripture makes very clear. Also, I’ve never suggested that local membership vows are necessary to access the table, or to be a member in Christ. However, a spirit… Read more »
“require … sheep (to) move on”
Say what?!
If they’re sheep, and they’re here, require them to obey, and to quit the bitchin’!
Exercise discipline, if you need to.
To push sheep out of the fold & into the cold to fend for themselves?
You either don’t believe you’re a real church or you know it’s bankrupt.
If you have the words of truth — get the sheep to toe the line!
Stampher wrote: If they’re sheep, and they’re here, require them to obey, and to quit the bitchin’! Exercise discipline, if you need to. I thought that’s what I already said. If revolving door sheep are disturbing the peace of the flock, then a good shepherd will send them down the road, rather than watch his flock suffer. It won’t be up to the disloyal sheep to determine whether he can continue to disregard warnings. Stampher wrote: To push sheep out of the fold & into the cold to fend for themselves? You either don’t believe you’re a real church or… Read more »
“must not permit an indefinite spirit of contention against their orderly practices and orderly worship” — true.
“I’ve never suggested that local membership vows are necessary to access the table” — awesome, UNLESS, like the PCA, you DO require they take membership vows at a fellowship you’ve vetted as legit.
Stampher wrote:
Not sure what Stampher is getting at here. He’ll need to clarify.
Katecho — you had said: “I’ve never suggested that local membership vows are necessary to access the table”. That’s good. UNLESS you’re saying, as the PCA organization does, that even though local membership in this parish or any other PCA church is not required, one MUST be an official member at a denominational church assembly that the session recognizes as a legitimate church that excercises excommunication authority in a way that the PCA agrees complies with Scripture. So, you can’t be a regular attender at a Calvary Chapel, and take communion at the PCA when you visit. (They won’t raise… Read more »
I appreciate the clarification. I don’t have any strings to pull regarding how some other denominations “guard” the Table. Stampher would do better to take it up with them. The CREC views on the Table are quite catholic (in the non-sectarian sense of that word), and I think that is worthy of encouragement.
Yes. God forbid I should be bound to obey every contradicting authority!
Then you will obey all that comports with the Spirit?
That’s all that’s asked of you.
Stampher wrote: Then you will obey all that comports with the Spirit? That’s all that’s asked of you. No. That’s not all that is asked of us. God’s Word doesn’t merely say to honor and obey all that comports with the Spirit. It also requires particular things like, “honor your father and mother”, not merely, “honor fathers and mothers in the abstract”. It doesn’t say “wives submit to husbands”, it says “wives submit to your own husband”. Suppose Eric’s mommy requires an 8PM bedtime, while Johnny’s mommy lets him stay up until 10PM. Which one comports with the Spirit? If… Read more »
Katecho — are you having trouble navigating the unimportant, nonessential commands of your pastor folk? Obedience = directly proportional to history + proximity / divided by the Spirit. Pastors do not = husbands or fathers. Even at your own assembly. You need not obey your pastor, if he tries to get between you & your wife. Come up with a hypothetically plausible example, Katecho! Give us a “How DARE that pastor tell me to …!!”? I’ll give you another from my side of the road — this one actually was taught by Doug, which I’m pretty sure he got from… Read more »
It’s not clear which Stampher I’m addressing now. This one just said: Pastors do not = husbands or fathers. Even at your own assembly. You need not obey your pastor, if he tries to get between you & your wife. But the other Stampher said: Separate jurisdictions? More a difference of degree than kind, often fungible. You & your pastor both have certain separated responsibilities / authority over your kiddos. Stampher thinks that he and his pastor both have the same “kind” of authority over his wife, right? It’s fungible, right? It’s just a matter of degree, right? The degree… Read more »
Stampher wrote: I’ll give you another from my side of the road — this one actually was taught by Doug, which I’m pretty sure he got from Jim Jordan… “Going to church nearby?” — Nope, not really my thing. “Well, then, I’m your pastor, and I want you to know I expect to see you this Sunday at 9am!” And how does Stampher imagine the rest of the conversation going? Perhaps something like this?: — Well, since you put it that way, I’ll see you then! Thank you for being proactive and grabbing me by my baptism. No one is… Read more »
The most effective crooks all shepherds carry = prayer & the Spirit.
The rely on these most regularly.
When a pastors’ neighbor refuses to obey the godly admonition, can you guess what that pastor does next?
Eric, as Valerie said about a wife answering to her own husband, not every husband, I would probably not be inclined to recognize the authority of a Christian pastor or elder who is not in my chain of command–unless I was sinning publicly in so outrageous a manner that anybody, including everyone on social media, felt free to rebuke me. I would listen respectfully, and decline to provide any information that would enable him to call the local parish office–not that they would care because Catholics are not encouraged to report other people’s sins. Joining a church involves giving up… Read more »
Jill — correct. But all pastors (real pastors) always have some part in that chain of command. So none of this lessens Father Greg’s obligation to approach & admonish & guide you. While “Catholics are not encouraged to report other people’s sins,” how about assisting lost sheep? Shall we think better and snake around to the side of same? Of course not. Being a member of Christ’s flock involves giving up some privacy rights, and demands loyalty to whereever we find His annointed. See Abraham find Melchizidek and trek forty miles to drop off a load of goodies. For what?… Read more »
So I think what this boils down to is that we as individuals get to sit in judgement on which pastors are real pastors “by the Spirit,” and then they all have to be responsible for us. But we only have to be responsible to the ones that we, as sovereign individuals, pass on as legitimate.
Shepherd, what obligations are you under? Does God outrank you so that, on being shown that God wants something, you’d do it? (Me to a pastor, one-on-one: If that verse means A, then it also means B. Pastor: Of course we don’t do B!) If your sheep see a fillable gap between God and you–Jesus used wine, and you’re using grape juice–are you under obligation to say more than Be loyal, get with the program? (Let every man be ready to give answer for the hope that is in him.) Not saying he was a devout Christian, but I think… Read more »
(It’s the Lord’s table, not the PCA’s.) True, but … When they spied this child-feeding infraction from me, they took me aside nicely and kindly questioned, then informed me that (1) they want me to refrain from repeating, and also please refrain from partaking myself (Book of order requires it the session to administer in this fashion, and (2) please do keep coming, though, and politely, quietly watch as the rest of the folk eat in front of us. Do they have the responsibility & authority of administering the Table as they understand it? Yes. Do I have the responsibility… Read more »
Pastor, I would find it very beneficial to me and several friends if you were to discuss what it looks like for believers to Biblically oppose leadership that is making numerous decisions that are, at best, unbiblical, coupled with consistently poor preaching. I want to be a David with proper loyalty to the Saul placed, by God’s sovereign will, above me while also protecting the Body. Thanks.
Why would one need to oppose?
No decisions will always be so biblical — why not just politely pass on those?
Not much consistently good preaching out there — find some good ones online, read good blogs like this one, et.
I.e., ignore the bad, encourage the good!
It looks like John the Baptist calling out Herod for his illegitimate “marriage”, or Stephen rebuking the Pharisees for their fraudulent “conviction” of Christ.
Don’t be surprised when simple truth is not accepted by entrenched leadership.
Correct adad0 — it’s an epidemic.
“Entrenched leadership” are often protecting nest eggs too easily disturbed by unwieldy sheep.
So they’ve devised these prevenient oaths of obedience.
They’ve been taught it provides some legal shield should a bovid get testy and take them to court for defamation of character over disciplinary measures.
A lot of them throw their hands up in mock despair:
“I can’t be your shepherd unless & until you sign on the dotted line!”
Stampher wrote: So they’ve devised these prevenient oaths of obedience. They’ve been taught it provides some legal shield should a bovid get testy and take them to court for defamation of character over disciplinary measures. Is Stampher proposing that local churches should have no legal shield against such accusations? What is his motivation for that? Is he supposing that sheep never get testy and never bring churches before courts of unbelievers? Does Stampher also propose marriages without any public vows? Oaths are merely one, very effective, form of manifesting loyalty and honor. Loyalty and honor and accountability aren’t optional. What… Read more »
“proposing that local churches should have no legal shield against such accusations?”
YES!
“Does Stampher also propose marriages without any public vows?”
YES! — sometimes.
Even sans vows = marriage.
Stampher wrote: Even sans vows = marriage. Even Adam made a public profession of one flesh union with Eve (“bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh”). But let’s suppose that couples had the option to just shack up together and hope for a common-law recognition of their marriages at some point, how would this in any way promote loyalty and accountability in marriage, as compared to the Scriptural pattern of public vows? It’s as though Stampher wants to actively lower the bar of accountability and loyalty across various institutional relationships. Why? To what end? Why not follow the… Read more »
I’ll tell you how to lower the bar of marriage or church membership! =
Put it in the minds of folks that marriage or church membership
gets established (brought into being!) by means of vows & ceremonies.
That’s club talk.
Membership in Church = implanting / transforming / adopting / baptism by the Spirit.
Membership in a Marriage = cleaving to your woman.
Such an argument for loyalty is undermined a bit when spoken by a Protestant and it doesn’t get any more Protestant/schismatic than a denomination formed 30 years ago. As an individual church member I have an expectation that the doctrine I sign on for is going to be consistent and consistently applied over time. That’s not what I’m seeing. The church is chasing political fashion off a cliff so I’m going to be a good Protestant and go with my own thoughts, opinions and perspectives. I understand the risks involved with this but there are clearly risks to delegating truth… Read more »
No, your lead Pastor Jesus would have you NOT identify as a dissenter, but as fiercely loyal to every word of truth your elders bring.
Should they thow something at you with which you must unavoidably disagree, do so quietly and with all humility.
Stampher wrote:
Does this mean Stampher will stop jumping up and down on his hobby horse against formalized church membership?
I think this is a good forum for such ponies.
If our pastor here should like to say I’ve done sufficient jumping for now, embarrassed and chagrined, I’d take a nap.
By your reasoning, any pastor ought to be able to tell you that. Of course some other pastor might tell you elsewise. Since you’re equally obligated to both, you either have to implode with the self-contradiction or do whatever you felt like doing in the first place. If every pastor is your pastor, then no pastor is your pastor.
Of course any and all pastors can and should instruct any and all of us to fall into line.
Obey all who are right.
“Obey all who are right.”
That’s not obedience, that’s doing what you wanted to do anyway.
I’m not sure if it’s the conservative temperament or inherent to ideology but the conservative doesn’t advocate, he exits.
Eric, how does this fit with the doctrines of the Protestant reformers? My recollection is that every man is ultimately his own interpreter of scripture, following such light as he is given by the Holy Spirit. Aren’t Protestants supposed to be like the Bereans, testing everything they are taught against scripture?
I’m reading a book that discusses this issue: “The Shape of Sola Scriptura” by Keith A. Mathison. I’m no good at summarizing his ideas, but he does claim that the Reformers did not teach the “lone ranger” type of interpretation of Scripture which much of current Evangelicalism teaches. The Reformers included a form of tradition, based on the rule of faith. Guess you’ll have to read it if you want a better understanding! Or maybe one of the knowledgeable commenters here will add some thoughts.
Let’s say God gives pastors.
Well there you are, not all alone in your interpretation!
Protestants (including me) might conduct the following thought experiment. Imagine Wilson giving Martin Luther the following advice before his break with the Roman church: “Drink the Kool-Aid. Join the cult. Surrender your independence. Swallow the party line. Go baaa like a sheep. Strive for the nirvana of acquiescence.” Now imagine Luther following the advice. How about Calvin, Zwingli, or Knox? Should they have done so? If Wilson is worth listening to on this point, should the Reformers also have listened (and obeyed) as we are being admonished here on this blog?
Nirvana = LOVE OF the brothers, whether they by RC or OPC, not acquiescence to.
Love = eating together.
Now PCA & OPC & ?? folks would not allow a Chesterton to take communion!
It’s one thing to formulate your own ceremonies, it’s another to shut the door.
Hi Jill.
The Lord reveals Himself to all of us, and (for now) in different degree.
Interpretation & intuition are faculties we’re given to perceive Him.
Bereans use scripture plus any truth they find under a rock.
So, what are my options? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty
One can never exit the Church or her pastors.
She is not a business, running along and established by a mission statement.
She is not a club, with establishing initiaion rites that we must do.
Her baptism and her elders are gifts from above.
“Her baptism and her elders are gifts from above.”
Indeed. It is sad that your comment was down voted, just based on that one sentence, because that is the essence of the issue. Our leadership is a gift, and as challenging as that can be sometimes, we need to hold that thought, to approach them with some gratitude and humility, learn to be good followers. Everybody wants to hang their leadership from the nearest yard arm,but we need to be thinking of them as a gift, not as an offense and a chronic and epic fail.
Unfortunately, down votes aren’t line item. I can fully support the last sentence, but didn’t have time to clarify earlier.
What earned the down vote from me was his first sentence, which is completely false: “One can never exit the Church or her pastors.” Apostasy happens all the time.
“One can never exit the Church or her pastors”
Well, I think it’s a good line in context of the church as a whole. There are many Christians in the world who have simply washed their hands of the church,as if they really can exit the church and her pastors and therefore not be contaminated by all us churchians.
Self-exile can be a wonderful tool of the Spirit.
Even apostasy won’t open the door to the cold dark outside.
Not by might or will did you get in, and they can’t get you out.
“These two verses, incidentally, taken together, provide a compelling argument for membership in a local congregation.” But do they provide a compelling argument for the administration of extra-biblical membership vows? At what point do the responsibilities of these verses commence? Do they commence following a profession of faith and baptism? Or do they commence following the administration of the club vows administered by a local congregation? What governmental jurisdiction needs the consent of the governed in order to carry out their responsibilities? Is that the way it works in Idaho? Does the church need the consent of baptized Christians in… Read more »
jfk, To be fair, Doug does not in this article / blog, advocate for membership vows.
He (biblically, IMHO) advocates for a concrete list of the laity in a given assembly.
And I know within his own domain he views many (probably most, maybe all) of the regular “NonOfficial, non-vow-taking folk as members, just not secret-handshake voting members.
For him to say these verses argue for membership is indeed badly put.
The verses don’t argue for something that should be, they describe the reality that is.
Couldn’t agree with you more on this…
It’s been a while since I read it, but if you look at their documents, you will find that they treat club members differently than non-club members. My recollection is that they will avail themselves of the full disciplinary process for club members, but only to the point of admonishment for non-club members.
That’s their definition — I’d say they’re giving about equal discipline to both. Their stated doctrine is not as good / helpful / biblical as the reality of the their practice, PTL. Likewise they promote “Voting Privileges” of membership, as though this were a real important aspect of what the body is supposed to do, as members of Christ’s body. Mostly just promotes motivation, my guess. Rubber meets road when Doug says “Welcome & Come” to the Table — all. Major points in my book. And if you’ve heard him get trembling shaking almost incensed at the exclusion of the… Read more »
Without a way to protect my kids from my church, you might as well bind my conscience to a millstone.
Sympathy here — but of course, it’s not the Church big C members-in-Christ As Church that you need to be afraid of —
It’s the clubs.
It’s the quasi businesses — perhaps well-intentioned — that folks have morphed their associations into.
They’ve got folks with labels that say “pastor” — but they’re really salesmen.
So then… unless the pastor is dancing with snakes and preparing vats of Kool-Aid is there no respectable reason to leave one church and go to another? Can there be a just cause that does not involve disliking the carpet no heresy being preached? I ask because my family (wife and two young kids) are going through this now after 12+ years of time at our current church.
Andrew, there’s no problem with moving around, as long as you still acknowledge the authority coming from any & all legit authority. If you’re moving to avoid detection & hide from confrontation (like Adam & Eve) — that’s another issue. Legit reasons to fellowship regularly somewhere else could include: *the chairs are uncomfortable **the music has gotten to funky ***the preacher’s voice is funky ****the doctrines promoted are funky *****many of the people are now behaving just plain funky None of the complaints above permit you to deny your continuing obligation to the godly authority a pastor has over /… Read more »
Thank you Eric. How about next to 0 discipleship being taught. Connecting the church to things like the Azuza rallies going around now. Connecting to things like “Draw the Circle” to lead people in prayer? My wanting to move has more to do with feeling that we no longer fit in with the current culture than anything as silly as the music or chairs. :) I’m on the worship team and play drums so I am generally OK with the music though I think it tends to be shallow and too focused on what God can and or will do… Read more »
Yes there are a gazillion good reasons to attend where you fit better — BUT
DO love those funky folk anyway
DO accept any authoritative admonitions that come your way
DO know you’re hyper-sensitive to funkiness and tolerance & acceptance & grace is always something you, Andrew, would do well to improve upon (me too)
I appreciate your frankness Eric.
Thanks Doug. You’re a prophet. I am dealing with the exact issue this past week at the church where I serve. I’m encouraged to be of the same mind and strive for unity (good) but allowing for more leeway in the authority of the Bible (bad).
“Drink the kool-aid, etc…”I don’t suppose the scriptures could sway you at this point, but we should at least quote them for the record: “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” (Gal 5:1) The entire book of Galatians was in a sense written to combat the above stated brand of like mindedness and kool-aid drinking. There is by contrast a way to create and secure an even deeper and more fierce loyalty. An actual biblical loyalty that requires none of the nouthetic heavy… Read more »
By way of followup, I now understand this blog post to be a confusion of scriptural authority with fiat rule. There is a blur being created between the two here. You’re saying here to drink the Kool-aid, but the scriptures commend us to search the scriptures. There comes a point when people must grow up beyond always needing to be governed, and you must grow up past the point of always wanting to govern. People don’t flourish under that type of structure.
Eric, no. The Bereans are the counter-example. “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). Both/and, not either/or. They received the word with great eagerness AND they searched the Scriptures. Both.