The Man of God

Even if a pastor requires church discipline, our motivation should be for his welfare and the purity of the church. It should never be done in a spirit of revenge or rebellion, or for the defense of personal rights.

In your case, if you think the pastor is sinning (not just that you disagree with him) in commanding women to wear skirts, I'd recommend the following. Be sure you're not motivated by a spirit of rebellion. Have your wife and daughters wear the skirts for a while. Find a couple of respected men in the congregation who agree with you. They too need to have their wives and daughters in skirts, and not have a spirit of rebellion. Confront your pastor in private, and present your biblical case for why he in sinning. Personally, I don't see it, but wisdom doesn't begin and end with Timothy1769. If after this discussion, and his defense, you think he is clearly sinning, and in rebellion against God, the matter needs to be brought to the church. But all of this needs to be done meekly, and not in a spirit of rebellion against authority.

I think a good test of motivation is the following - would this issue bother you as much if you didn't have a wife and daughter(s) (assuming you do)? The motivation in discipline always needs to be the benefit of the sinner and the church.

 

Not that it really matters, but here's my take on the issue -

Deuteronomy 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I think this applies to us because the Lord does not change, so this practice is still an abomination to Him. Note this verse doesn't say "Women shall wear dresses", I think men's and women's garments are culturally defined, and at this time in America pants are no longer exclusively men's attire. So I think they should be permitted.

But I think the approach that perhaps we shouldn't just look at today, but should look further back in history to determine this is reasonable too. So if I were in a church and the pastor demanded skirts based on this verse and his understanding of history, I'd submit and require it of my wife and daughters. His argument is biblical and reasonable, I just don't agree with it. IMO he would not be wrong in preaching it as sin based on this understanding.

 

Originally posted by Don:
But that's where you'd be wrong.

Brother, I disagree. Apparently the Holy Spirit is not guaranteeing 100% correct biblical interpretation or we wouldn't have so many saved brethern who disagree about so much. Note that if a pastor restricted himself to only what all born again believers agreed on, many fundamental Baptist distinctives would be excluded. I think a pastor can preach anything he truly believes and that is biblically reasonable without it being sinful. For example, classifying pants as men's clothing and thereby prohibiting it to women is reasonable even if I don't agree.

First off, my wife and daughters have always worn dresses; the pastor in question (and mind you, I'm talking about something that happened 2 years ago) wasn't addressing me or my family. I believe in modest dress for both men and women (not just skirts for women; men shouldn't be jerking their shirts off every chance they get either).

That's great, I respect your stand.

Timothy, legalism is when you require something of others that God doesn't really want. For instance, in Acts 15, there were those that claimed Christians needed to be circumsized. Peter asked them, "Why do you put a yoke on the people that God never intended?"

I disagree. Legalism is adding to what God requires for salvation, though I agree that requiring something that you know God doesn't want is sin.

You haven't come out and actually said it: Do you think I'm proposing these statments and discussion from a spirit of rebellion? Or do you see at all what I'm talking about?

Since you demand it, based merely on what I have seen up to now I admit that yes it does look that way to me. Of course I could be wrong, it's not like I really know you.

Your most telling statement is where you said "I'd submit and require it of my wife and daughters"; why would you require it of your wife and daughters if the pastor doesn't actually require it of his own wife and daughters?

From what I've been told, he may not require it for yardwork. You haven't yet shared his reasons for requiring it. Or perhaps he does require it, and his family is in rebellion. If so it makes me suspect his qualifications to pastor.

But even then, I think one should submit and obey until that question can be properly settled by the church.

Look at the qualifications again, and then also look at James 1: "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways."

THAT'S the kind of pastor I'm talking about, and warning all of us to be careful towards.


I think the answer to that situation is church discipline, not immediate individual rebellion. He may need to be disciplined or removed, but until he is he remains your pastor and needs to be obeyed, except in clear cases of sin.

There are many, my brother, that claim the mantle of "man of God", whether it was conferred upon them by God or not.

I agree. Eldership has requirements, not just some vague feeling of being 'anointed'.

Just so you'll feel a little better, I'm currently sitting under a bona-fide bible-thumping hell-preaching salvation-seeking IFB pastor who, although he never finished seminary, really knows his stuff, and knows how to lead. The only things I've found wrong with him so far are things that are so minor and petty that I refuse to even discuss them with my wife. I have no problem submitting to this man at all.

What if he told you to do something he thinks is biblically mandated but you don't? Or if he told you to do something he thinks is for your own good, when you both agree it's not biblically manadated (other than perhaps through your general responsibility to submit to him)?

And one other thing on that subject, for all to consider prayerfully: If you've never submitted yourself 100% to another man, then you'll never understand fully submitting yourself to God.

Amen! Submission is a dirty among many Christians, and it shouldn't be.

[ November 14, 2003, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: timothy 1769 ]

 

I meant to say:

Amen! Submission is a dirty word among many Christians and it shouldn't be.

--

Stung yet again by our miniscule editing interval!

 

In general I think one should question his pastor when his commands are obviously sinful. But I think pastors are subject to church discipline just like all other believers and need to be truly qualified according to biblical standards.

 

Timothy,

May God be merciful to you and keep you out from under the authority of an abusive pastor.

I've been there, as have many of my friends. It's the most damaging spiritual experience I know of--even long after it's over.

In Christ,

Tim

 

"Touch not God's anointed" refers to that no one kills the man of God such as David and Saul in the Old Testament.

 

If you've never submitted yourself 100% to another man, then you'll never understand fully submitting yourself to God.
I totally disagree. Since when did God give pastors (and BTW I am one) the right to be equal with God. I submit to God 100%, or, at least, I try. That place in my heart is reserved for God not a man. There are too many "KING" Pastors out there anyway, especially in IFB circles. A true pastor will lead, not dictate or command to be obeyed. God gave us the Holy Spirit to help us know who truly we should follow.

 

Sounds like a good approach. It may well have been a lost cause, but I think you probably should have tried again with another couple of witnesses, and then with the whole church if necessary. I know how hard that would be, I honestly don't know if I could do it myself, certainly not without the Lord's help. On the whole the whole experience sounds like God's way of moving you on to a more Biblical church and godly pastor.

 

If you can't vote them out, then leave the church. A church with no one in it will not long survive. I would go one on one and talk with them. Then I would talk with the deacons. After that, I would simply leave.

This problem is a problem that is Catholic in nature. This "head that no one can question" is not Baptist. I encourage my people to study the Bible. My leadership is not so insecure that I am worried by that. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen Pastor Larry. Very well said.

Joseph Botwinick