The Narrow Path Ministries

I received the following email, and sent the following reply, earlier today. I was not sure whether this question had been raised here previously (a quick search didn't turn it up), so I thought I would post the correspondence, for the edification and response of all.

*****************************************************

Mr. Gregg,
My Pastor sometimes will quote 1 Chronicles 16:22 ("Do not touch my anointed ones") to the congregation; I don’t think he’s talking about physical injury but verbal disagreement against him. Is this how this verse is used today? J—

My reply:

Hi J—,

Your pastor is certainly misapplying the command in 1 Chron.16:22, as I have heard pastors do on many occasions. The biblical command has to do with physically attacking or killing a person whom God has clearly placed in a position of authority (e.g., 1 Sam.24:10; 26:8-9). In 1 Chronicles, it is apparently referring back to Genesis 20:7, where Abraham is "the anointed" in question—and, possibly, Genesis 35:5, where it is Jacob's family that is protected.

Your pastor's position invites two pertinent questions:

1) In one sense, all Christians are "anointed" (1 John 2:20, 27). If this is the sense in which he wishes to take the expression, then it will be as much a violation for him to "touch" you as for you to "touch" him. However, he is no doubt thinking of a special "anointing" or "gifting," that God gives to some whom He calls to lead others.

How are we to be sure that this man is "the Lord's anointed" in this special sense—just because someone hired him to fill a pulpit? There are thousands on men in pulpits that are not even converted, much less "anointed" to lead God's people. One does not wish to make negative judgments against one's pastor, but he should not think it to be a "given" that, just because he holds a job leading a church, that he is ipso facto "anointed" by God to be a leader (one can only hope that he may be);

2) Since the biblical expression speaks of doing physical harm to a man, how does one justify extrapolating from this to the matter of mere disagreement with—or even criticism of—a pastor? Though David refused to "touch" the Lord's anointed (Saul), he certainly had his disagreements with him, and stated them (e.g., 1 Sam.24:12-15)! Is your pastor claiming to be beyond correction? A wise man welcomes reproof and correction (Prov.1:7; 10:17; 12:1; 13:18). How is it that your pastor counts correction to be harmful? Is he not a wise man?

In his citation of this text, the man is simply twisting the Word of God to his own advantage—a strong reason to question whether he is really "the Lord's anointed" or not! He needs to repent of this scripture-twisting, and get down off his high horse. If he would concern himself more with washing the feet of others, rather than protecting his own interests, he might actually begin to look enough like Jesus to convince his congregation that he really IS the Lord's anointed.

Having said all that, I need to say that I genuinely have compassion on the man. He is clearly extremely insecure in his ministry (why else would he not welcome dissent?). He may well be a victim of a system that trained and conditioned him to believe that he should be a top-down kind of spiritual tyrant over the congregation. If so, he may merely be trying to do his [tyrant] job faithfully, and may feel very inadequate to hold such awesome authority, a feeling only amplified by every criticism from his flock. Do be gentle with him (2 Tim.2:24-26).

Nicely put. Much more tactful than I would have been.

Nicely put. Much more tactful than I would have been.

Just what I was thinking, reading Steve's last paragraph.
I guess the trick is to respond with spiritual wisdom, not react out of soul.

And even if that pastor really is anointed, would he place himself above David, for example, or perhaps think the prophet Nathan was out of line when he prophesied God's judgement after the Bathsheba episode?

I know some leaders will point to what happened to Korah in Numbers 16 when he challenged the leadership of Moses. The leadership structure was quite different under the Old Covenant and this particular circumstance seemed to be based on jealously more than anything else.

On the other hand, even under the Old Covenant leadership scenario, God apparently had no problem with congregants having issues with leaders when they made genuine mistakes.

For example, Joshua made a deal with the Gibeonites without consulting the Lord. Later the mistake was realized and this was the people’s response.

Jos 9:18 ……..Then all the congregation murmured against the leaders.

You would think , based on how some leaders talk today, that Joshua would reply, “Touch not God’s anointed”, and the earth would open and swallow them up.

Instead, the leaders owned their mistake.

Jos 9:19 But all the leaders said to all the congregation, "We have sworn to them by the LORD, the God of Israel, and now we may not touch them.
Jos 9:20 This we will do to them: let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the oath that we swore to them."

God seemed to have no problem with the congregation’s legitimate complaint, because nothing happened to them. After the leaders admitted their mistake, there is no mention (that I'm aware of) that the congregation continued complaining.

God is so good. I was thinking about this earlier. This is the first time that I have heard of the "top-down" view put in the way it's described. Interestingly enough, this is the view of the pastor (and some if not all of the congregation)of the church I go to. Most of them that have embraced this view don't know any better. I remember talking with one of the members at my church after a service about the need for discipleship. His friend supposedly got saved that night, so I started a conversation about how the bible has certain truths new believers need in order to grow. I mentioned how I'd like to talk with some of the elders and deacons about started a discipleship class or something along those lines to the guy, and he responded (in what appeared to be a rebuke) that God has placed the vision for the church with the pastor, and if God is going to do anything like that (what I was talking about) He's going to do it through the pastor. So he told me I should talk to our pastor. This vexed my spirit. I've only been part of this church for a few months, and sensed he would not withstand me challenging this belief. If I did, I'd suspect that I'd be catagorized as someone who has "an agenda" and am not behind the pastor of the vision of the church.

SE--

i could see talking to the pastor (out of respect, if nothing else) before starting up a discipleship class. assuming he is not against the idea (if he was, i probably wouldnt stay in the church for more than a few seconds), he would have a right to know who would be teaching the class, etc etc.

My pastor encourages (and expects) people to start ministries. however, he would not expect them to do so w/o him knowing about it. i dont think this is necessarily a bad thing. what do you think? maybe i am missing something.

TK

No, it is not a bad thing.

There is such a thing as spiritual authority, which should be honored. My view, however, is that spiritual authority does not inhere in one holding an office, necessarily. Churches that have such officers are usually organized and run like a corporation, with the senior pastor in the CEO position. The authority held by such a pastor is organizational. The same man may also be one in whom God has invested true spiritual authority, but that should not be automatically assumed.

If the organized church has by-laws that give the pastor organizational authority, all those wishing to participate in the organization should honor that authority. He is authorized by the people (or legal entity) who own the building. Your presence on their property is conditional upon their approval, just as your presence in a restaurant is contingent on the approval of the management.

Any overlap between such an organization and the actual Church of Jesus Christ is strictly coincidental. No one needs to play the organized church game. But if one chooses to play the game, he should abide by the rules of the game owners.

This means, if you wish to be a member of the organization, and they want all members to tithe to them, you should tithe to them. If they want members to wear fancy clothes to meetings, then you should comply. If they say that the pastor is the supreme ruler in this game, then he is. If you get tired of the game, you can quit without incurring any penalties. The freedom you will experience will be exhilarating!

True spiritual authority resides in God, and, therefore, in His Word. Thus, those who possess genuine spiritual authority, to whom submission is obligatory, are those "who have spoken the word of God to you" (Heb.13:7). Even they do not possess innate authority, in my opinion. The authority is in the word of God when they speak it. On occasions when the same men speak contrary to the word of God, they are operating outside their sphere, and are, therefore, speaking without authority.

I have no problem with the pastor having knowledge of such a ministry at my church. In fact, I'd want him to know so he can include this in his prayers and pray for it as it starts and continues. The truth is, I don't even feel the need to be part of it, other than recommending certain material for the elders to read and experience in their daily life, in hopes that they'd in turn teach it to new believers. All I want is for new believers to be grounded immediately in that which will lay a foundation in their lives, and then them be established in the faith, steadfast and immovable in truth. That's all I want.

I'd also take this passage to support the idea of disciplining a truly anointed leader:

1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

If I read this correctly, elders can sin and should not be viewed as above the correcting love of the flock.

If a teacher were going to try to represent church authority or structure in a diagram, as taught from scripture vs. denominational hierarchies, how might he best do so? Classic charts of organizational design showing president at the top, vice-presidents under the president, dept. heads under the VP's, etc. give the impression of a structure foreign to scripture but obviously followed by many denominations. If I were to represent Jesus as head of the church, apostles as the group closest to Jesus in some sense, and then possibly elders as appointed by the apostles, I wondered if placing Jesus in the center of the page surrounded by apostles, elders and the various spiritually gifted individuals would be helpful to counter the top-down approach or if that would also convey some inappropriate understanding. Demonstrating a chain of servanthood vs. a chain of command is something I have not seen done. Would you attempt or avoid such a diagram?

livingink

I saw such a diagram once, with Christ in the centre. Various persons were gathered around him. Underneath was the inscription:

THE CLOSER WE ARE TO CHRIST, THE CLOSER TO ONE ANOTHER.