God Uses Human Intervention
Take a moment with me to participate in a thought experiment. Paul stood against Peter to the face. Why would Paul stand against Peter if God predetermined or just determined everything in life? As a free agent, Peter chose not to eat with Gentiles, with whom before he had eaten. He chose wrong because he could. Paul wanted him to change course on that action. The Apostle Paul expressed limitation, temperance of Peter’s actions. God uses men to do this.
Scripture shows direct human-to-human interaction necessary for particular God-ordained change. God intervenes using human intervention. According to the plan of God, He uses men to change men. Galatians 2 is a tale of God’s authority to intervene. Someone goes his own sweet way and someone else stands against him to stop that path of harm. It’s not a violent interchange. It is peaceful. Paul uses truth in arguments to persuade. Peter changes. Happy ending.
Grace Dominated Obedience
God Gets the Credit
God doesn’t force anyone to do everything just like He wants. Pastors can try, but it won’t work that way. If they imitate God, they don’t force it. Grace dominates the believer’s life. This allows for effective pastoral authority. Regenerate men can obey because of God’s grace and true pastors function within that grace for those men to conform to Christ’s image. God of course then gets the credit for it, like the Apostle Paul mentions at the end of 1 Corinthians 1.
Christ the Master
Go back to Romans 14. Paul makes this point in Romans 14:4:
Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.
Paul uses an illustration. Another man has a servant or slave in that day. Would you get away with holding his slave accountable to you? You expect him to obey you, when his Master is his judge. John Gill writes concerning these words:
[O]ne man has nothing to do with another man’s servant; he has no power over him, nor any right to call him to an account for his actions; nor has he any business to censure or condemn him for them, or concern himself about them. . . . [H]e is another’s servant, he is the servant of God: he is chosen by God the Father for his service, as well as unto salvation; he is bought with the price of Christ’s blood, and therefore not his own, nor another’s, but Christ’s.
About the second part of the above quote from Romans 14:4, Gill writes:
[T]he meaning of which is, either if he “stands”, that is, if he serves his Lord and master, of which “standing” is expressive; and continues in the service of him, whose servant he professes to be; this is to his master’s advantage and profit, and not to another’s: and if he “falls”, that is, from his obedience to him, as such who profess to be the servants of God may.
We Live Unto the Lord
Paul expands on this truth in verse 8:
For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.
We live unto the Lord, not unto any man. Whether we live, a positive outcome, or we die, a negative one, either way, we are the Lord’s, not someone else’s. This also relates to judgment and even the judgment seat, which is after this lifetime.
The Judgment Seat of Christ
Paul writes in verse 10:
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
The slave or servant will stand before His Master, Christ, for judgment by Him. A pastor should want not to impede or prevent a direct rapport of the Lord Jesus Christ with His servants. He can do this though by inserting himself in life matters in a judgmental manner. By judgmental, I mean in condemnatory treatment, which is manipulative.
Servants of Christ Serving Christ
Of course, pastors must step in. They must feed and protect. However, a pastor can make it more difficult for servants of Christ to serve Christ, because they inject themselves into judgment so extensively and vehemently. They don’t stand behind scripture as much as they stand behind force of personality and methodology. I’m not saying they won’t use the Bible, but their authority becomes the indispensable force of change.
I’ve been under a leader (in this case not a pastor) so severe that it seemed impossible to serve the Lord, because he made it so palpable that I was serving him. Someone doesn’t have to act in an identical way as him to operate in his manner. He blew his top. He threatened. It also meant hearing that he talked to others in a form of divide and conquer. I wasn’t his enemy — I supported him — but my popularity seemed a threat to him, so he tried to undermine it. In doing so, he really was hurting himself. I knew I could never stay under him as a leader because I wanted to serve Jesus Christ, not him.
Be assured, a church member might use some scheming tactic on a pastor too, to rule him from the below or under side. I fully acknowledge that. I’ve had that happen too. Scripture, including from the Apostle Paul, addresses both good and bad treatment of a pastor. Hebrews 13:17 says these members might cause a pastor to fulfill his office with grief, not with joy.
Treating Men with Respect
Especially Men of Good Will
I’ve read others use the terminology “good will” to describe a trait of a man who overall wants to do right. This man showed a long-time pattern of pursuing a right direction. He followed and continues in a favorable trajectory. He maintained good behavior toward God and others with some exceptions.
A basic human need God created in men is respect. Treating a man like a man means respecting him. One man in authority should approach another man with respect if he wants respect in return. This especially acknowledges past good will, not starting without good will in the exercise of authority. For a man of good will in need of course correction, a pastor should demonstrate respect of him while doing so.
Honor Due to All Men
If you are in authority, and you don’t think a man deserves your respect, you can still give it. You have a much better opportunity to restore someone if you go ahead and exhibit it. You can argue for showing respect. The Apostle Paul in Romans 13:7 says, “honour to whom honour.” Gill says about this:
[T]here is an honour due to all men, according to their respective rank and station, and the relation they stand in to each other.
Here is a common scenario. A pastor starts a confrontation of a man in a disrespectful manner. He renders dishonor to him. How do you think that’s going to turn out? The man responds poorly, maybe with some obvious irritation or worse. The reaction yields more disrespect from the leader. Everything goes down from there, because now both men feel disrespected. From there, interactions turn acerbic. It didn’t have to be that way.
Such a sequence of events one might call a cycle. These types of cycles do occur between people all the time. For the cycle to stop, both parties must admit at least the cycle occurred. It can’t be one or both sides assigning all the blame to the other. The cycle includes alternating wrongdoing that increases in intensity, until it comes to an abrupt ending.
When one retraces the steps, where did the decline begin? Someone may say, “When a man did something wrong, that necessitated confrontation from a pastor. If he never did anything wrong, it would have stopped right there.” Maybe. Everyone does things wrong. However, a genuine trial of wrongdoing follows due process. Without it, genuine God-ordained authority did not occur.
Why We’re Here
As a pastor, many times people didn’t and don’t do what I want. These people are not there to facilitate a successful career for me. The things they didn’t do might relate to their submission to Jesus Christ. What do I do? Do I blow a gasket at them, do I insult them, condemn them, say harsh things to them, or do I threaten them? I hope not. I should try to help them. That’s why I’m there. It’s not about me. They are servants of Christ for which He died.
Recent Comments