The Man of God Syndrome

I wanted to follow up yesterday's post with a few thoughts on what I would call the "man of God" syndrome.  I'll set it up with a story.

When I was in college I attended a fine Southern Baptist Church in Gainesville, pastored by a guy who was a dynamic preacher.  In fact, my best friend transferred to UF his sophomore year after spending a year at Georgia Tech and attending First Baptist of Atlanta during Charles Stanley's heyday, and he said that the guy in Gainesville was every bit as good as Charles Stanley.

I realize that many SBC churches are now going toward a plurality of leadership but back then there was a good deal of tension/conflict over who ran the church.  Some felt the pastor should, others felt the demon deacon board (which was often a power block) should.  In my church a conflict developed between the pastor and the demons deacons and things got very ugly as they tried to remove the pastor.

I was in a weird place, I loved the pastor and had dated the daughter of the chairman of the deacons.  But I do remember one conversation with the pastor where there were three of us and he said that he feared for those men because they had raised their hand against the Lord's anointed.

To be sure, I thought the deacons were out of line and were acting demonically in some respects.  Yet, looking back now I find it troubling the way the pastor insinuated that he was the Lord's anointed, and not to be touched.

I thought of this in relation to the Steve Flockhart story I referenced in the last post.  I don't see anywhere in any of the news items that Steve had this hyper-inflated opinion of himself, but as I have followed some comment threads on some of the stories, there are many who treated him as a specially anointed "man of God." 

I have heard this many times through the years and I think it goes back to an Old Testament model of the priest or prophet as a specially anointed and therefore specially authoritative man of God.  And while I think our modern views of church leadership can and should be informed by these Old Testament models, I am not sure that we should look for too strong of a correlation.

Of course the modern pastor does deserve respect and honor, and I don't mean to play that down.  But it seems to me that there were offices, gifts and/or functions given to Old Testament prophets, priests and kings and even to the New Testament apostles, which don't transfer exactly to today.

For one, the offices of prophet, priest and king all pointed to and are summed up in Jesus.  Jesus is our great high priest, and there is no need for another.  He is the final prophet and though there may be some kind of "forthtelling" (as opposed to "foretelling") type of prophetic gift today, there is not a gift of prophecy which corresponds to His or to the Old Testament prophets.  Similarly, Jesus is the final Davidic King who sits and reigns on the throne of David, we don't look for another king.  On the other hand, the church carries out priestly, prophetic, and kingly functions, but it carries them out collectively as a body, not individually. 

I believe there is a diffusion of giftedness and authority in the post-apostolic era.  In the apostolic era there were certain individuals given the gift of healing and we can see this in the book of Acts.  But it is interesting to note how the sick are addressed in James 5:13ff.  Those who are sick are not told to find someone with a gift of healing, but to call the elders of the church who will pray for them.  In other words, this gift, which was vested in particular individuals in the apostolic era, seems to be diffused and given to the leadership of the church, acting collectively.

I offer this as an example to say that leadership and authority in the post-apostolic church is a joint and several affair.  We see in the pastoral epistles that a plurality of elders is appointed to govern the affairs of the church, not individuals.  We see in Acts 17:11 that even the apostle Paul's words were not to be taken at face value based on his giftedness or position.  Paul was not the apostle, he was one of many and his words, as his words alone, carried no particular authority, they had to be shown to conform to the Word of God. 

And so, while modern day pastors are to respected, honored and appreciated, I think we need to be careful about treating them as specially gifted, specially anointed and specially authoritative "men of God."  The modern day pastor is at best the equivalent of Peter, who occasioally deserves sharp rebuke as we see in Galatians 2.  The modern day pastor is, at best, like Paul in Romans 7 a man who struggles deeply with his own sin and who needs the body of Christ as much as the body of Christ needs him.

When we treat a modern man as a "man of God" in the OT sense, he can become untouchable.  People can revere him too much to hold him accountable.  Thankfully, although it happened a little later than they probably desired, the folks at First Baptist of West Palm finally did investigate their pastor and held him accountable for his transgressions.  But this "man of God" syndrome can create an aura where people become followers and yes men.

Also, some can become untouchable in their own minds.  Again, praise be to God that Mr. Flockhart has responded well to the confrontation.  Yet, when you take upon yourself the mantle of "man of God" you can cease to be self-critical.  You can assume that you are always operating under godly motives, and can use and abuse perks and privileges in ways that others would not.

So, my suggestion is that there is a man of God to whom we owe all our reverence - His name is Jesus.  As for the rest of us undershepherds, please love us, pray for us, be kind to us, help us, and yes even honor us appropriately.  But please don't elevate us to a position to which we have not attained.  Pedestals may look nice but they are easy to fall from.

Comments

[Catez]

Excellent post. I've seen it happen in the past and it hasn't ended up very well for the leader or the people.

[pgepps]

Quite so. Many a church has fallen prey to excessive pastoral authority. A tiny side note: While I am persuaded that a plurality of elders is preferable, can we note that many, many churches do in fact effect this through the mechanisms of congregational polity? In many Baptist churches that I'm familiar with, the pastor as chairman of the deacon board and various committees does in fact function almost identically to the session of a Presbyterian church. It may be a misnomer, but it seems that faithful congregations are led through these things to serve the Lord honestly and honorably, nonetheless.

Cheers,
PGE

[GL]

Pasters ARE anointed and therefore special-- specially responsible for 1) a stricter jugdment, 2) to give account for their flocks and 3) to live up to Scriptural standards for elders (1 Timothy, 1 Peter).

They're also entitled to a double honor. It seems to me that a few celebrity preachers claim a quintupled honor, and live in dread mostly of the judgment of their peer reference group (other celebrity pastors).

To be big is not bad, but to desire to be big is bad. To desire God's glory and to be faithful and obedient in the use of one's gifts is wonderful. IF God then gives increase, great. If not, no matter because one has succeeded if God is glorified, if one is faithful and obedient to God, and if one has used one's gifts.

[PamBG]

In their book The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse David Johnson & Jeff VanVonderen define spiritual abuse as the fobidding of disagreement.

In this Sunday's lectionary reading, Peter says "God forbid" to the suggestion that Jesus would be a Messiah who suffers, dies and rises and Jesus calls him "Satan" for holding onto the "conquering hero" image of the Messiah.

Latter in the Gospel narrative, Jesus has to convince Peter to allow Him to wash his feet.

If our Saviour washed the feet of his disciples, who are we to say that the congregation should crown their pastor sovereign and infallible?

God's annointed, indeed. Now let's just go back to our bibles and see what happened to all those whom God annointed. Mark 8:34 - also from this Sunday's lectionary reading - comes to mind.

[David]

The witnesses to the inappropriate behavior, should consider doing an "intervention" as laid out in the web address below, and the should be joined by all those who have witnessed wrong doing by the pastor. Many pastors are so well insulated, the are virtually "unconfrontable" unless there is an alternate power base established. And, multiple witnesses are required to confront an overseer.

http://www.wikihow.com/Perform-an-Intervention