Shepherding vs. cult

[Guest]

Hi Steve,

Out of curiosity, how would you personally distinguish between "shepherding the flock" (1 Pet 5), and a "cult-like" mind control of a congregation. There seems to be a fine line there and I suspect that more than a few Christian churches today are dancing on it. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on what the warning signs are.

I'd like to hear Steve's comments but anyone else is welcome to join in as well.

[_Steve]

Hi Chris,

I have come to see any attempt on the part of leadership to control non-sinful behavior of the flock as the beginnings of a cultic attitude. In other words, if leaders insist upon the surrender of certain personal responsibilities of individuals (e.g., decisions regarding lawful employment, legitimate marriage, child-rearing philosophy, travel, family relocation, personal stewardship of money or leisure) to be handled or dictated by the leaders, this is cultic control.

I see nothing wrong with leaders rebuking or advising a church member in any these areas, when deemed appropriate, though there should be no penalties imposed on those who, in good conscience, make decisions contrary to the advice of the leaders.

I also believe in church discipline for those who, without repentance, defiantly commit acts which the Bible defines as sinful. Vague sins, like "rebellion," "wastefulness," "unspirituality," "lack of involvement," which cannot be objectively quantified, generally should not be controled or disciplined by leadership, unless specific acts associated with these accusations can be shown to be harming the church or other individuals.

Generally, a leader who would like to control the elective behavior of other Christian adults has the makings of a cult-leader in him/her. Jesus said that the leadership of the church should be altogether of a different order than that of the rulers of the Gentiles, who exercise authority over their subjects. The Christian leader is not to do this, but is a servant of all (Matt.20:25-28).

All Christians are to be servants, of course, and each serves the church with his/her respective gifts (1 Pet.4:10-11). The gift of leading is simply another of the gifts (Rom.12:6-8), and should be honored in those who do the most serving in this way. A servant, however, does not impose his gift or service on others against their wishes. Leaders are given to the church for those who need to be led and want to be led. The Bible nowhere suggests that a mature Christian needs to have a leader (other than Christ—1 Cor.11:3) to keep him/her walking in the right direction.

Leaders are charged with the responsibility of oversight of the assemblies (1 Thes.5:12/ 1 Tim.5:17), and are required to "feed the sheep" (Ezek.34:2). They are forbidden to be "lords" (1 Pet.5:3) and are expected only to be good examples of mature, normative Christian discipleship (1 Pet.5:3).

Cult-like shepherding occurs when leaders mistake their task for that of micro-managing the sheep, and/or driving the sheep into conformity with the leadership's "vision" (which is a spiritual-sounding euphemism for "agenda"). The shepherd who wants all of his sheep to be high-maintenance, requiring him to make all important decisions for them in their lives, is some kind of deranged control-freak.

A "good shepherd" is relieved to have 99 low-maintenance sheep, who know on their own how to remain in the right pasture (God's, not necessarily the leader's) and who require little pastoral attention, so that he can devote himself to the one high-maintenance sheep that can't seem to get it right (Luke 15:4).

There are a few mistranslations in the KJV (and sometimes in the NKJV) which have given the wrong impression about the nature of Christian leaders.

One of these is the wrongful translation of "proistemi" (literally, "one who stands in front of" or "one who presides"—i.e., over the assembly) by use of words like "one who rules" (Rom.12:8/ 1 Tim.5:17) and one "who is over you in the Lord" (1 Thes.5:12). These translations obviously give a very wrong impression, reflecting the translators' own acceptance of a hierarchical structure such as Jesus denounced.

The references to church leaders as "those who rule over you" (Heb.13:7, 17, 24) mistranslate the Greek word hegeomai as "rule," when it really means "lead" or "guide."

Another unfortunate translation is the use of the term "office of a bishop" in 1 Tim.3:1. The word "office" has no corresponding term in the Greek text. The whole phrase is represented in the text by a single word, that means "overseership."

In fact, the very word "bishop" is a very unfortunate translation, reflecting the high-church ecclesiology of England in 1611. "Bishop" sounds like an office-holder in some ecclesiastical "chain of command," but the word it translates (episkopos) simply means "overseer." "Bishop" seems to place emphasis on an office, whereas "overseer" speaks of an activity.

There is no evidence that an overseer or "bishop" exercised anything like political power over the lives of those in the apostolic churches. In the second century, the idea of a "monarchial bishop" arose, with the first evidence of its existence in the letters of Ignatius (AD 110).

I suppose it was inevitable, given the fallenness of human nature. The original spiritual relationship of older Christian men ("presbuteros" means "older man," and is used interchangeably with "overseer" in Paul's writings) overseeing the well-being of younger Christians gave way to a political hierarchy where church leaders "rule" over the congregation in a similar manner to that of the rulers of the Gentiles. When the Holy Spirit ceases to be the director of the church, carnal institutions take His place.

Some may wonder how the church could function at all without a clear locus of authority. It can't. But authority in the church resides in Christ and His words (Matt.28:18-20). The ultimate authority of the teacher/leader lies in the faithfulness with which his words and recommendations correspond to those of Jesus Christ.

Your "leaders" are those "who have spoken the word of God to you" (Heb.13:7). Their authority does not reside in their persons, their office or their uniform. Their authority extends exactly so far as they speak the word of Christ. When they speak contrary to this, there is no office they hold, nor personal charisma, that can confer authority upon them over other believers.

Thus an "elder" or "overseer" need not hold some "office" in order to weild proper authority in the church. He needs only to speak the words of God. Everyone in the congregation is under the authority of the word of God, and when a man (office-holder or not) speaks the word of God faithfully, he is speaking with authority. The church is obliged to listen and obey.

If any do not do so, they should be confronted by "you who are spiritual"—no mention of office-holders (Gal.6:1). If one remains obstinate against the word of God, he/she is eventually brought before the whole church—not just the leaders (Matt.18:17/ 1 Cor.5:4-5).

This form of church functioning, of course, presupposes a high degree of submission to the leading of the Holy Spirit on the part of every member of the church. This means that the church must be comprised only of members who are actually saved and who possess the Holy Spirit.

As soon as the church receives members who are not converted, and who, therefore, cannot be expected to be led by the Spirit of God (Rom.8), the church then must resort to carnal organization and carnal controls, which require political office-holders to be placed in charge. When this happens (as history has shown), the bride soon degenerates into harlotry.

[Guest]

Would you say that soft-censorship in the congregation falls into this category? What if the pastor wants protect "his" flock by making sure that only the books and bible teachers that agree with his views are promoted within the fellowship? For example:

Let's say I'm Joe Churchgoer and I go to a Wesleyan denomination (Arminian). I read a book by someone like R.C. Sproul (Calvinist) about Christian living and I like it and begin recommending it to some of my friends in the church. The church leadership finds out about this and tells me that they don't agree with this man's views and I need to stop recommending his book to people in the fellowship or else they will need to take "action" to address it.

Would you say that this is a valid way to protect the "sheep" from harmful divisions within the church? Or is this a form of attempting to control the thoughts and minds of people?

I think I know your answer, but I believe it would be worth posting for the benefit of others who may someday run into this very thing.

Thanks.

[_Steve]

I would consider that policy to be paranoid thought-control. The leaders should expect their people to be discerning—and if they are not discerning, the leaders should teach them to be discerning. The leader whose relationship with his people can't survive their reading books by Christians of other viewpoints (to say nothing of books and articles by non-Christians) is doomed to lose all of his sheep to the world or to other movements.

By the way, though I don't believe in Calvinism, I am not sure that those doctrines are necessarily "harmful" for Christians to be exposed to, even if they embrace them. The church leadership should be able to straighten out those who have gone into false doctrine by appeal to scripture, not by rules and regulations. The church is healthiest where all legitimate Christian viewpoints can be openly discussed and tolerated.

[Guest]

I'm especially interested in Steve's comment that a leader, whose relationship can't survive his followers reading other viewpoints, is doomed to lose all of his sheep. In Acts 2:47 the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. In Ezekiel 34:10, the Lord God is taking back the unfed sheep from apparently false shepherds. If I understand correctly, God will add or subtract sheep based, at least in part, on the availability of a shepherd who is willing to meet the description given by Christ of the Good Shepherd. First, can I say that that is taught by these scriptures? Secondly, can I expect that God may go so far as to scatter a church's attendees if the leader is teaching obviously false doctrine?

Respectfully,

Mark

[Guest]

I have read things with Pastors not wanted the flock to visit other churches or go to a Bible study because he doesn't want them to here anything other than what he teaches.

Not only does this show lack of trust for the flocks discernment but also a possibility that the pastor is teaching the wrong thing.

[Guest]

I was just wondering if anyone had a comment on my 2/3 post on this thread. I believe it got buried in all the other subjects or wasn't a coherent question.

livingink

[_Steve]

I think your suggestions are reasonable. The passage in Ezekiel is particularly talking about removing the corrupt leaders of Israel (probably through the impending destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar) and eventually to replace them with the leadership of the Messiah. There is no reason, however, to think that God would only follow such a policy one time. It could well be a pattern in God's dealings with bad leaders.

[Guest]

Another sign of a cult is trying to separate people away from their present connections. This is another reason why I think the local church is essential.

If you sever those relationships that are established because you are following some other teacher and the teacher says it's ok to do this, my reg flags immediately go up.

John 10, Livingink, indicates who scatters the sheep.

[Guest]

Hi JJB,
I see in John 10:12 that the hireling left the sheep and thus allowed the wolf to catch some sheep and scatter others. I take this to mean that some were caught by false teaching while other more discerning sheep remained loyal to the voice of The Good Shepherd. In fact, John 10:28 tells us that no man will pluck Jesus' sheep from his hand and 10:29 tells us that the Father gave the sheep to Jesus. I think this agrees with the 2 previous scripture references.

I believe that part of the problem that some of us are having with your emphasis on "the local church" is lack of clear scriptural precedent for it. While other topics and threads on the forum discuss the development of denominations and local churches, we see no example of that during the time of Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc. In fact, as I read the letters to the Romans and Corinthians, I see Paul giving great liberty of thought and discussion to a body of believers. Some were eyes, mouths, arms and they did meet by the river, or a public building, or the synagogue, or in their homes. In general, it appears that there was always some semblance of being one church and that they gathered in one place from time to time. While they didn't always agree (I think of Paul and Peter here or Paul and Barnabas), they did stick together and come to a workable solution based upon the teachings of Jesus and the writings we now call the Old Testament.

Contrast that with what some are advocating on the other thread. We differ in doctrine so we retreat to a comfortable building where we meet only with those who hold the same doctrine that we do. We don't meet with those other so-called believers across town nor do we discuss Christianity when we see them away from our gatherings and we probably don't even know their names. I assume that Paul was able to go into any church, begin to speak about the foundations of repentance or resurrection of the dead, and have an audience capable of asking questions that would lead the body on to perfection. (Heb. 6)

It would also be quite dangerous to assume that some outside teacher must always be the cause of attendees leaving a " local gathering". The example you cite in John 10 reveals that. The hireling, (a pastor afraid of losing his pension?), may follow the doctrine of his particular denomination even when it disagrees with clear biblical teaching or may exclude Bible Study teachers from attending the fellowship if they teach according to scripture but against denomination doctrine. In such a case, the true remnant of believers will recognize the approaching wolf and leave while those who hold the denomination in a higher regard than scripture will stay and be ravaged by the wolf. You can look at some of the past discussions of that particular situation, I believe, in a thread called 1 Timothy 2:12.

I have asked a separate question on the other thread regarding how one goes about choosing a church to attend. I don't expect many responses, frankly. That requires us to research whether the denomination supports homosexuality, abortion, etc. rather than which one has the best monthly fellowship dinner. After all, we should just go join one so the pastor (another non-New Testament concept) can know he can count on us to pay for the new bell tower.

My reason for asking the question about the passages in Ezekiel and Acts was to determine if I could reasonably predict that God would be removing the false teachers from my former church any time soon. I was interested in ascertaining whether scripture could be seen that way. Based upon Steve's answer and my own reading I would reason that such a prediction is , at least, a possibility. If you're going to convince us that a "local church" , as you describe it, is revealed in scripture then you need to find a specific group of verses that teach it. The ones you cited previously don't specifically do that.

I appreciate your comments.

livingink