Congregational Authority pt 1 of 7

Fear and Trepidation

To oppose or depose a pastor is a dangerous path to follow. Scripture is replete with warnings for those who would seek the harm of one whom God called or anointed. The strict statements of David regarding Saul, God regarding David, and again David regarding Ishbosheth, we see clearly that God does not take lightly opposition to, or plotting against, the ones He chooses to govern.

This pattern, however, is not as clear in the New Testament. New rules come into play regarding how we deal with one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. Passages abound from the Gospels to the Epistles, each laying out God’s instructions for us regarding an errant brother. And there is no Scripture that exempts pastors from these passages. In fact, pastors are held to a higher standard, being admonished that they who teach should be few because of the grave responsibilities that go with such an office.

It is obvious from New Testament Scripture that God seals and ordains certain people to lead His flock—proxies, acting in His authority. In the New Testament, however, theirs seems to be more a matter of election by a congregation rather than selection by God. God no longer verbally speaks when pastors are selected. He moves through His Holy Spirit. Presumably this movement is felt in both the heart of the would-be pastor and the hearts of his would-be flock.

Given that we rely on the Spirit’s promptings and no longer bask in the certainty of incontrovertible, verbal direction from God, sensitivity to the Spirit is paramount when a congregation decides on issues of spiritual leadership. Such sensitivity may be present, impeded, or even non-existent on the part of the congregation, pulpit-committee, and/or perspective pastor. If it is present, presumably God’s will is done and the transition goes as smoothly as can be expected. If sensitivity to the Spirit is non-existent, the chances of a successful incoming pastorate are very doubtful. After all, if the congregation (or the part of it conducting the call) is out of fellowship with the Spirit, the chances that they will elect the one whom God has for them are infinitesimally small. Finally, fellowship can be impeded: sin can be present on some level in members of any of those institutions, the flesh can predispose itself to act without regard to the Spirit’s promptings, and the enemy can work to disrupt the believers’ thoughts and ideas.

This method of election as opposed to Old Testament selection presents the obvious problems of potential uncertainty and debatable legitimacy. Without a direct word from God, anyone can claim that the congregation mistakenly called the wrong person. Defense against such attacks is difficult to mount because the validity of such calls ultimately comes to rest on the pillars of spiritual maturity and unhindered fellowship with God. These are non-falsifiable claims in that anyone who lays claim to them cannot prove that he legitimately possesses them—there is no logical or physically undeniable proof of spirituality. Likewise, those opposing the would-be pastor can claim the same qualification; and again these are non-falsifiable.

And this brings us to the real question: What does a minority of the congregation, being mature, experienced believers of no common intra-church sect or clique, do when they sincerely believe that the pastor called by the church 1) may not be God’s man for the job or 2) may have been God’s man, but has now erred and shows no desire to change direction?

What are legitimate criteria for a minority (or even majority) to make such an assertion? If a minority makes this assertion, is the minority behaving un-Biblically? Does church government allow for the ejection of one whom a minority believes to be unfit, or more complicatedly, a misfit for the office?

The question of criteria for removal is perhaps simultaneously the simplest and most complicated. Certainly in the case of a minister who falls into, or has been and continues to be, dominated by some sin is a legitimate candidate for removal. Such a statement is undeniable within the evangelical church. The question complicates, however, when the proposed criteria for removal is less than black and white.