Publicly challenging a pastor

[JTornado1]

In 1996, I attended a church in which the associate pastor said something that I thought was unbiblical, but I didn't get up and publicly confront the associate pastor. I wrote a letter to the pastor stating why I thought what the associate pastor said was wrong.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

However , just like the Catholics , only the hierarchy has a voice . It is well known in that group . All groups should make sure people know the rules and have them posted for visitors to read .

I don't know why you felt a need to take a stab at the Catholic Church, but that is absolutely not true. The laity have a huge voice.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I don't know why you felt a need to take a stab at the Catholic Church, but that is absolutely not true. The laity have a huge voice.

This appears to be correcting a common misconception ..

sharing some examples of how you came to that conclusion may help broaden the perspective of others.

do any come to mind?

 

[mont974x4]

The point is that in the RCC the laity has very little control of doctrine and very little recourse to address error. Heck, they can't even deal with child molesters.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

This appears to be correcting a common misconception ..

sharing some examples of how you came to that conclusion may help broaden the perspective of others.

do any come to mind?

Their heavy involvement in parishes, their involvement in programs and ministries and their voice on elected parish councils.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

The point is that in the RCC the laity has very little control of doctrine and very little recourse to address error. Heck, they can't even deal with child molesters.

Catholic doctrine is not something that is shaped by popular opinion and current trends in what people fancy. It is eternal and unchanging, given by the apostles through the Holy Spirit, guarded by the hierarchy and advanced by the laity and theologians.

The child molesters thing is yet another stab that protestant churches face in equal numbers.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Catholic doctrine is not something that is shaped by popular opinion and current trends in what people fancy. It is eternal and unchanging, given by the apostles through the Holy Spirit, guarded by the hierarchy and advanced by the laity and theologians.

That is .. an interesting theory . but comparing the teachings of the Catholic church with the scriptures and observing the divisions caused by certain church councils demonstrate that their theology does change from time to time .

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

That is .. an interesting theory . but comparing the teachings of the Catholic church with the scriptures and observing the divisions caused by certain church councils demonstrate that their theology does change from time to time .

Comparing the teachings of the Catholic Church with your interpretations of scripture shows why you aren't Catholic.

Catholic doctrine does not change, except to say that it expands in our understanding of the faith, but it never reverses or turns on previous doctrine and dogma.

 

[JimB]

In 1996, I attended a church in which the associate pastor said something that I thought was unbiblical, but I didn't get up and publicly confront the associate pastor. I wrote a letter to the pastor stating why I thought what the associate pastor said was wrong.

I'm not so sure you handled this in the best way. Why didn't you go to the associate personally before you sent a (anonymous?) letter to the pastor and tattled on his associate? Children tattle on people; adults take it up personally and face-to-face.

As for publicly challenging a pastor (or anyone else, for that matter): Confronting a pastor openly and rudely in a public meeting with an audience in an attempt to correct (or embarrass) him is a malicious act of cowardice. While you may lack good manners and proper breeding, he and the audience probably do not and will most like quietly take the abuse for the sake of trying to obey 1 Cor. 14.40. You may not recognize it as rudeness, but the congregation will, and any future influence you may have had among them will be negated. They will rightly see it for what it really is—a spineless act of cowardism of the worst sort.
​

Writing a letter or sending an email is the next nasty cowardly act. When you hit the “send” button on your Outlook Express you can hide behind your keyboard like some do in public online forums) or like a person who stands up in a congregation, hiding behind the good manners of an audience, mistakenly thinking the crowd admires his bullying tactics. This is what terrorists and snipers do.

The honorable and adult thing to do, if you have a difference of opinion with someone, even (if not especially) a doctrinal one with your pastor, is to take up your differences in private. But in this sort of one-on-one confrontation you are most likely to get your butt kicked. It takes real courage to confront someone privately in an office or over coffee because any pastor worth his calling can probably defend himself quite handily in a private meeting … and what gutless bully wants to pick on someone who can defend himself? \ It’s a lot easier to catch him off guard in a public gathering or snipe at him from the bushes with a letter. In those instances he is less likely to show you up for the terrorist you are.
​

~Jim

Mercy triumphs over judgment. ~James 2.13​

 

[Andy S. Wright]

There is absolutely nothing positive that comes from someone publically challenging a pastor. There is no greater show of disrespect to someone in a position of authority than to publically challenge them, even when observable error is being taught. There is only one reason to bring public challenge (if not outright accusation) against someone and that is to show them up and tear them down. This action is not motivated out of brotherly love (1 John 5:1; 1 John 4:20-21).

Pastors are not above correction or even rebuke (Galatians 2:11) but there is a right way and about 2,000,000,000 wrong ways to go about correcting one of God's shepherds.

"The world" thrives on confrontation and negativity. That system loves to raise people up just to tear them down whenever any weakness is displayed. Sadly, this mentality has seeped into the church like a busted sewer main and there are countless born-again saints who believe it to be their calling in life to bring accusation and condemnation to anyone they disagree with doctrinally or practically regardless of the importance of the doctrine in question ("You use grape juice instead of wine in communion? That's a deal breaker.") or the position of the individual being challenged.

Again, this is not to insinuate that pastors are not correctable. However, Christianity is a lifestyle built upon relationship; both with God and with each other. No one in a healthy relationship lives to find fault with those we relate to. People in healthy relationships are motivated out of love for the other person (1 Corinthians 12:25) which brings a lot of nuances to the table whenever disagreements DO break out. Only a married couple whose marriage is in its death throes chooses to confront one another in public. People motivated by love for the other confront disagreements behind closed doors, face to face with restoration of relationship being the supreme motive (Matthew 18:15). People who have no relationship whatsoever send e-mails, texts and letters of confrontation.

It has become a badge of righteous honor among many in Christianity to make enemies out of anyone who does not see the same jots, dots and tittles as they do. It's as if Jude 1:3 (and those passages of the same vein) are the ONLY commandments in the Bible. "Contending for the faith" is not to be done at the cost of disunity in the Body of Christ. Disagreeing over which version of the Bible is sanctioned by Heaven or which type of music God really gets down to during worship service (just to name but a few examples) does not fall under "the faith" heading of Jude 1:3.

Confrontation of error NEEDS to be Holy Spirit directed. I fear too much of the confronting in the Body is more man-led than God-led. There will be a time when error needs to be identified and "weeded out" of the body of Christ but we all need to recognize that GOD is the husbandman, not us. There will be a culling of the tares/goats from God's wheat/sheep. God's people need to understand that when the culling takes place it is GOD AND GOD ALONE who will be performing the weeding (Matthew 13:24-30; Matthew 25:32-33) not us.

I could go on about how we are all at different levels of maturity and understanding of God's word or even evoke Christ's own words to his eager disciples when they met someone casting out devils who was not with them (Luke 9:49-50) but I don't want to write a book here (I know, too late). I just believe there needs to be some serious focus on passages like Romans 14 in the Body of Christ. We need to learn how to major on the majors and not be in such a zealous rush to insure the Body of Christ is error free. We can easily fall into the trap Ephesus fell into if we're not careful (Revelation 2:1-5). The Nicolaitans may be identified and hated by God's children but I have learned that the more we focus on what we hate we tend to find ourselves leaving our first love and that is not a position any church wants to be in.

Just my .50 (increased due to inflation). Do with it what you will.

ASW

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Comparing the teachings of the Catholic Church with your interpretations of scripture shows why you aren't Catholic.

Catholic doctrine does not change, except to say that it expands in our understanding of the faith, but it never reverses or turns on previous doctrine and dogma.

I visited the Eastern Orthodox part of the forum recently . apparently some of your (not you, the church you are speaking on behalf of) changes in interpretation have caused division of the previous one faith . and your application of what you claim to be the eternal unchanging covenant has borne fruit that has caused much pain to many people . and this continues to happen in your protestant children where ever they may emulate the additions you added to what Jesus was talking about originally .

It is said by Jesus that you know them by their fruit . by looking at the fruit . i just don't see it .

I don't mind you practicing your own faith . but claiming to be the group that has all the answers when it is obvious that you do not . is a matter worth disputing . but if you wish to be in the place "just as clueless as the rest of the Christians" (myself included) then i could accept that .

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Their heavy involvement in parishes, their involvement in programs and ministries and their voice on elected parish councils.

any specific examples of those that you can illustrate?

 

[JimB]

There is absolutely nothing positive that comes from someone publically challenging a pastor. There is no greater show of disrespect to someone in a position of authority than to publically challenge them, even when observable error is being taught. There is only one reason to bring public challenge (if not outright accusation) against someone and that is to show them up and tear them down. This action is not motivated out of brotherly love (1 John 5:1; 1 John 4:20-21).

Pastors are not above correction or even rebuke (Galatians 2:11) but there is a right way and about 2,000,000,000 wrong ways to go about correcting one of God's shepherds.

"The world" thrives on confrontation and negativity. That system loves to raise people up just to tear them down whenever any weakness is displayed. Sadly, this mentality has seeped into the church like a busted sewer main and there are countless born-again saints who believe it to be their calling in life to bring accusation and condemnation to anyone they disagree with doctrinally or practically regardless of the importance of the doctrine in question ("You use grape juice instead of wine in communion? That's a deal breaker.") or the position of the individual being challenged.

Again, this is not to insinuate that pastors are not correctable. However, Christianity is a lifestyle built upon relationship; both with God and with each other. No one in a healthy relationship lives to find fault with those we relate to. People in healthy relationships are motivated out of love for the other person (1 Corinthians 12:25) which brings a lot of nuances to the table whenever disagreements DO break out. Only a married couple whose marriage is in its death throes chooses to confront one another in public. People motivated by love for the other confront disagreements behind closed doors, face to face with restoration of relationship being the supreme motive (Matthew 18:15). People who have no relationship whatsoever send e-mails, texts and letters of confrontation.

It has become a badge of righteous honor among many in Christianity to make enemies out of anyone who does not see the same jots, dots and tittles as they do. It's as if Jude 1:3 (and those passages of the same vein) are the ONLY commandments in the Bible. "Contending for the faith" is not to be done at the cost of disunity in the Body of Christ. Disagreeing over which version of the Bible is sanctioned by Heaven or which type of music God really gets down to during worship service (just to name but a few examples) does not fall under "the faith" heading of Jude 1:3.

Confrontation of error NEEDS to be Holy Spirit directed. I fear too much of the confronting in the Body is more man-led than God-led. There will be a time when error needs to be identified and "weeded out" of the body of Christ but we all need to recognize that GOD is the husbandman, not us. There will be a culling of the tares/goats from God's wheat/sheep. God's people need to understand that when the culling takes place it is GOD AND GOD ALONE who will be performing the weeding (Matthew 13:24-30; Matthew 25:32-33) not us.

I could go on about how we are all at different levels of maturity and understanding of God's word or even evoke Christ's own words to his eager disciples when they met someone casting out devils who was not with them (Luke 9:49-50) but I don't want to write a book here (I know, too late). I just believe there needs to be some serious focus on passages like Romans 14 in the Body of Christ. We need to learn how to major on the majors and not be in such a zealous rush to insure the Body of Christ is error free. We can easily fall into the trap Ephesus fell into if we're not careful (Revelation 2:1-5). The Nicolaitans may be identified and hated by God's children but I have learned that the more we focus on what we hate we tend to find ourselves leaving our first love and that is not a position any church wants to be in.

Just my .50 (increased due to inflation). Do with it what you will.

ASW

Thanks. Contending for the Christian faith has nothing to do with internal contentiousness among fellow believers. To “contend” for the Christian faith is to “defend” it from those who would contest it from the outside.

~Jim

Mercy triumphs over judgment. ~James 2.13​

 

[mont974x4]

I disagree. The context of the passage from Jude is dealing with false teachers from within the church.

Jud 1:3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.
Jud 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[Andy S. Wright]

Thanks. Contending for the Christian faith has nothing to do with internal contentiousness among fellow believers. To “contend” for the Christian faith is to “defend” it from those who would contest it from the outside.

~Jim

Mercy triumphs over judgment. ~James 2.13​

Clearly you haven't been to many fundamental Baptist churches in your lifetime then.

 

[JimB]

Clearly you haven't been to many fundamental Baptist churches in your lifetime then.

No, but I have been a member of fundamentalist Pentecostal churches which are, by their estimation, the ugly stepsister of fundamentalist Baptists.

~Jim

Mercy triumphs over judgment. ~James 2.13​

​

​

 

[Tamara224]

The honorable and adult thing to do, if you have a difference of opinion with someone, even (if not especially) a doctrinal one with your pastor, is to take up your differences in private. But in this sort of one-on-one confrontation you are most likely to get your butt kicked. It takes real courage to confront someone privately in an office or over coffee because any pastor worth his calling can probably defend himself quite handily in a private meeting … and what gutless bully wants to pick on someone who can defend himself? \ It’s a lot easier to catch him off guard in a public gathering or snipe at him from the bushes with a letter. In those instances he is less likely to show you up for the terrorist you are.
​

~Jim

Mercy triumphs over judgment. ~James 2.13​

Terrorists? Hyperbolic much?

What you call terrorists another person calls "freedom fighter". And what you call "pastor" I might be inclined to call a tyrant.

What should the laity do when a tyrant is in control of a church? If you say "move to another church" I would like, for once, to see some Scriptural support for the idea that we should church hop like that rather than edifying the local body we already belong to by being willing to correct bad doctrine - even if it must be done publicly.

Only tyrants seek to suppress the voice of opposition. A true pastor which a heart for God doesn't think so highly of himself or his "position of authority" that he would think it a humiliating experience to be challenged publicly. IMHO.

I honestly am surprised at you, Jim. You might as well start quoting "touch not the Lord's anointed" at us. It has the same effect. And the same motivation, methinks.

Besides all that... I think its presumptuous to lay out a bunch of rules about when it is or isn't appropriate to say what to whom. When did the Church turn into a bureaucracy (or a monarchy)? This reminds me of the hoops you have to jump through to sue the Federal Government (red tape and arbitrary rules designed intentionally to frustrate people and make them give up).

The last time I checked, God was still in the business of choosing foolish things to shame the wise so I would advise everyone (but especially pastors) not to get too puffed up about how spiritually mature and Scripturally-literate they are. Just because you don't like the way the message is delivered doesn't mean that message isn't from God (I'm definitely preaching to myself here, too).

If God gives someone a prophetic word, for example, that publicly challenges a pastor... well, I'm not going to be the one to tell that person not to say what God told him/her to say because it might offend someone's sensibilities.


Something I've observed: if a person isn't willing to humble himself, God will humiliate him publicly.


A truism: It's impossible to humiliate him who is without pride.

 

[Frogster]

Terrorists? Hyperbolic much?

What you call terrorists another person calls "freedom fighter". And what you call "pastor" I might be inclined to call a tyrant.

What should the laity do when a tyrant is in control of a church? If you say "move to another church" I would like, for once, to see some Scriptural support for the idea that we should church hop like that rather than edifying the local body we already belong to by being willing to correct bad doctrine - even if it must be done publicly.

Only tyrants seek to suppress the voice of opposition. A true pastor which a heart for God doesn't think so highly of himself or his "position of authority" that he would think it a humiliating experience to be challenged publicly. IMHO.

I honestly am surprised at you, Jim. You might as well start quoting "touch not the Lord's anointed" at us. It has the same effect. And the same motivation, methinks.

Besides all that... I think its presumptuous to lay out a bunch of rules about when it is or isn't appropriate to say what to whom. When did the Church turn into a bureaucracy (or a monarchy)? This reminds me of the hoops you have to jump through to sue the Federal Government (red tape and arbitrary rules designed intentionally to frustrate people and make them give up).

The last time I checked, God was still in the business of choosing foolish things to shame the wise so I would advise everyone (but especially pastors) not to get too puffed up about how spiritually mature and Scripturally-literate they are. Just because you don't like the way the message is delivered doesn't mean that message isn't from God (I'm definitely preaching to myself here, too).

If God gives someone a prophetic word, for example, that publicly challenges a pastor... well, I'm not going to be the one to tell that person not to say what God told him/her to say because it might offend someone's sensibilities.


Something I've observed: if a person isn't willing to humble himself, God will humiliate him publicly.


A truism: It's impossible to humiliate him who is without pride.

 

[MadameGuyon]

I'm not so sure you handled this in the best way. Why didn't you go to the associate personally before you sent a (anonymous?) letter to the pastor and tattled on his associate? Children tattle on people; adults take it up personally and face-to-face.

As for publicly challenging a pastor (or anyone else, for that matter): Confronting a pastor openly and rudely in a public meeting with an audience in an attempt to correct (or embarrass) him is a malicious act of cowardice. While you may lack good manners and proper breeding, he and the audience probably do not and will most like quietly take the abuse for the sake of trying to obey 1 Cor. 14.40. You may not recognize it as rudeness, but the congregation will, and any future influence you may have had among them will be negated. They will rightly see it for what it really is—a spineless act of cowardism of the worst sort.
​

Writing a letter or sending an email is the next nasty cowardly act. When you hit the “send” button on your Outlook Express you can hide behind your keyboard like some do in public online forums) or like a person who stands up in a congregation, hiding behind the good manners of an audience, mistakenly thinking the crowd admires his bullying tactics. This is what terrorists and snipers do.

The honorable and adult thing to do, if you have a difference of opinion with someone, even (if not especially) a doctrinal one with your pastor, is to take up your differences in private. But in this sort of one-on-one confrontation you are most likely to get your butt kicked. It takes real courage to confront someone privately in an office or over coffee because any pastor worth his calling can probably defend himself quite handily in a private meeting … and what gutless bully wants to pick on someone who can defend himself? \ It’s a lot easier to catch him off guard in a public gathering or snipe at him from the bushes with a letter. In those instances he is less likely to show you up for the terrorist you are.
​

~Jim

Mercy triumphs over judgment. ~James 2.13​

Kudos!
What happened to good old fashioned manners, for gosh sakes!?

 

[Frogster]

Kudos!
What happened to good old fashioned manners, for gosh sakes!?

Well,I understand that,but Paul for sure had a tone,as he put it in Galatians.He even wished they surgically removed certain important organs.5;12.