On a day when untold millions are celebrating the Republican nomination of Sarah Palin for Vice President, I cannot but help to wonder just how many people are not sharing in the elation that is currently dominating cable news, talk-radio and the blogosphere. Every conservative pundit that I have heard today is lauding John McCain’s choice to nominate, not only a conservative, but more importantly–a woman. This monumental decision comes on the heels of the anniversary of women’s suffrage, and many will see this as a step forward in the progression of equal rights for women in America. But what if someone had reservations about the nomination of a woman for the second highest office in the nation? Would it be fair if he, or she for that matter, were labeled a male chauvinist? Is it wrong not to share in the joy that currently permeates so many on the conservative side? 

I must confess that I am one who is carefully considering what it means to nominate and support a woman for VP. I say this because I must wonder if this comports with the biblical definition of leadership. This is not an attack upon Palin (or any women) in any respect nor is it a tacit charge of inferiority. In fact, the more I hear about her credentials the more I am impressed with what she has been able to accomplish. The issue then is not one of superiority versus inferiority, but of the defined roles God has established for men and women. Holy Scripture tells us that God created man and woman in His image but with different roles. Man is the leader, provider and protector while woman is the helper, life-bearer and nurturer.   

The Bible unabashedly defines the man as the leader in the home and in the church.

“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” (1 Cor 14:34-35)

“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint." (1 Tim 2:12-15)

“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” (Eph 5:22-24)

Now let me be clear lest any confusion persist. While some have used these passages as a license to assert hegemony over women, they are distorting the very words of God. These passages do not speak of man in terms of superiority but simply in fulfilling a specific role as defined by God. Scriptural evidence to support egalitarianism can be found in the New Testament:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28)

One must remember that submission to authority does not imply inferiority as some would suggest. There are a great many today who accuse Christians of suppression, misogyny or chauvinism because they choose to follow the biblical pattern of leadership. But those who are quick to use these terms do not truly understand how God has structured His creation. Just as Jesus submitted to God’s will, and by doing so it did not make Him inferior, when a women submits to her husband she is not considered less nor does it follow that she is incapable of leading. In fact, in many cases the opposite might be true. The woman might do a better job in leading the family but that is not her calling. God instituted a divine plan in the Garden after the fall in which He said to the woman, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16b). When the harmony, intimacy and complementariness of relationships are distorted they are turned upside-down and are then operating outside of God’s design.

With that said, what do we do with women who desire to run for public office? What do we do with someone like Sarah Palin who upholds Christian values but wants to serve as leader of the free world? I personally believe this one of those gray areas where it is not explicitly forbidden in Scripture. Nevertheless, when the totality of God’s word is taken into account I believe we could find our answer with the leadership paradigm as expressed in Scripture for the church and for the family. Other than that, it is one of those moments where we are afforded the liberty of conscience.   

If you are looking for an easy yet thorough read about divisive doctrines within the Christian Church look no further than Erwin Lutzer’s Doctrines that Divide: A Fresh look at the Historic Doctrines that Separate Christians. I first discovered Lutzer’s book some time ago while meandering the aisles of a Christian bookstore desperately searching for an alternative to the theological tripe that dominates most of the bookshelves. After perusing for nearly an hour my eyes came across a book nestled on the bottom shelf with a title that caught my eye. I started thumbing through the pages and found myself enthralled with the ease and clarity of this work.

Lutzer, senior pastor at the famed Moody Memorial Church in Chicago, succinctly deals with some of Christianity’s major doctrinal errors that have crept into the Church of Jesus Christ since its inception nearly two millennia ago. Lutzer discusses an eclectic array of issues including the nature and deity of Christ, Petrine supremacy, Mariology, Justification, the Bible, baptism and the Reformation principles dealing with soteriology.

Any Christian, no matter his theological persuasion, who wants a better understanding of the historical background surrounding these issues, the key players involved or just wants to understand the arguments better should read this book.

The historic Reformed position describing the inherited nature of man is known as total depravity. This simply means that man inherits the guilt of Adam (Rom 5:12) and is a child of wrath (Eph 2:3). The term ‘total’ might be misleading to some as it does not mean that man is as sinful as he could be. Rather, it means that sin has affected the body, mind and will, and as a result, man does not seek after God because he has no desire to do so. Because he is dead in his transgressions and sin God must first change his heart and give him the faith to believe.

In stark contrast to this doctrine is the Arminian position that teaches mankind is depraved to some extent but not so much that he is unable to choose God when given the grace to do so. Kangaroodort at Arminian Perspectives explains it this way:

The Arminian position affirms that God equips man with the possibility of making a choice and it is up to each individual to chose for himself if he is to accept the free offer of the gospel. However, it is with this presupposition that the Arminian position fails in its compatibility with Scripture. If every man has an equal ability to choose or not to choose God what is it that makes some make the right choice while others choose to remain in their unregenerate state? The only consistent answer with which the Arminian can reply is that he is either more intellectual, more spiritual or more godly than his neighbor who refused to accept Christ. It then is no longer a matter of grace but of a superior and more Godly decision that resulted in the salvation of one and not the other. It is almost reminiscent of the Pharisee and the tax collector as recorded in Luke’s gospel:

"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.' "But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' "I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:10-14)

The Arminian position would allow him to proclaim with the Pharisee, "God, I thank you that I am not like my neighbor. It was my righteous and morally superior decision that brought upon salvation." This of course would be a prayer that is rejected by any Arminian, but he would be inconsistent if he did so. He would have to affirm that his position, when carried to its logical conclusion, allows for such boasting. 

Furthermore, just as the Pharisee was beguiled in his thinking, anyone who removes the sovereign choice of God and replaces it with a man-centered decision (no matter how much he might protests that it is of grace) is guilty of denying the sovereign choice of God who "raises the dead and gives them life…to whom He wishes" (John 5:21). It is only within the Reformed tradition that one can wholly say that salvation is all of God and removes all cause for boasting. Anyone who says that they made the correct choice resulting in his eternal salvation has every cause to boast in his perspicacious choice.

"…[T]he strength of Calvinism relies on another factor outside of the Bible which is valued as much, if not more than the Bible, i.e., unassailable logic. In their system of theology, one doctrine builds upon the other with perfect consistency with the whole. I actually admire the consistency of the Calvinistic system, and can see how this peerless system could be so appealing to so many, especially those with an analytical mind." So writes the Arminian apologist Jeff Patton. His perspective on the Reformed position is similar to that of many Arminians who affirm its logical consistency. Starting with the presupposition of the sovereignty of God, this foundational point serves as the springboard from which everything else logically follows. Conversely, the same can not be said of its antithesis. When one takes an objective look at the Arminian perspective it becomes apparent that both diametrically opposing positions cannot both lead to the same conclusion - that God reigns supreme.

For years I have been plagued with what I see as inconsistencies within freewill theism. From a strict philosophical level I would argue that the Arminian concept of God and His sovereignty is the greatest barrier against reason.The contradiction inherent to this soteriological framework cannot be overlooked. Thus, the question is posed; does the Arminian position preserve God’s sovereignty over His creation? Does the Arminian position firmly support the concept that "salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9).

The Calvinist would answer with an emphatic, ‘No!’ while the Arminian would repudiate any notion that he is denying God’s sovereignty. Rather, he would object and claim that his position maintains God’s sovereignty but would insist that he defines sovereignty differently from the Calvinist. So, how then, does the Arminian reconcile God’s sovereignty in salvation with freewill theism? Jack Cottrell explains:

He continues:

Simply put, Cottrell argues that God demonstrates His sovereignty by deliberately limiting His sovereignty over His creation. That is, God could have used His power to elect a people unconditionally, but instead, chose to give us "free will" thereby willingly limiting His control over His creation. Since He could have elected a people unconditionally but instead chose to let His creation choose for themselves, He displayed His sovereignty by abrogating His sovereignty in salvation. (One has to immediately wonder how this does not violate the law of non-contradiction.) 
 
Nevertheless, four questions come to mind after reading Cottrell’s paper:

1. Is it a rational possibility that God can limit His sovereignty?

Can God limit His omnipotence? Can God limit His omniscience? Can God limit His Omnipresence? Can God limit His power? The answer, of course, to all these questions is, ‘No!’ There are certain things God cannot do…meaning, God cannot act contrary to His nature. God cannot sin, God cannot make an equal, etc. God cannot limit His sovereignty because to do so would be to violate His nature – something that He cannot do. (And yes, allowing man to become the final arbiter in his eternal destiny IS a manifestation of sovereignty over God despite objections to the contrary.)

2. Even if such a possibility could happen, can this limitation be substantiated with Scripture?

Cottrell never appeals to Scripture in his attempt to substantiate his claim. Rather, his argumentation is centered in the philosophical realm. The biggest problem I have with this approach to theology is that it can neglect what the Scripture has to say concerning a particular doctrine…

3. Is the Arminian concept of free will compatible with the biblical view of man’s natural state?

Since Cottrell never bothers to appeal to Scripture I would be remiss if I acted in kind. The bible unabashedly describes man’s condition since the fall and his attitude towards God.

These are just a few of the myriad of passages describing man’s natural enmity towards God. Unless God changes the heart and grants a desire, man will freely choose to follow his natural instincts – which are "evil continually" (see Gen 6:5). This leads me to the final question…

4. What does Scripture actually say about God’s role in the salvific process?

Is God an impotent bystander hoping that every sinner will choose Him as the Arminian position tends? Or, is God proactive and sovereign from beginning to end? Is He the "author and perfector of faith?" (Heb 12:2) Paul’s words to the Ephesians answer our question:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory." (Ephesians 1:3-14)

God is represented in Scripture as the Supreme Being who is absolute and unchanging. He is not frustrated, disappointed or dissatisfied. Nor is the Holy Spirit being defeated through the working of Satan in deceiving the nations. Instead, God’s purpose is being fulfilled in that He gives a new heart, He takes away the heart of stone and He keeps His people. God does not stand by idly and wish His creation would accept Him. Such is not the God of the Bible and that is why I must reject the God of freewill theism if I want to remain consistent with Scripture and reason.  

I have noticed over the years that the people I have tried to help the most have been the quickest to turn against me. This is not my observation alone for other pastors and Christian leaders have testified to the same experience. Nevertheless, it is heartbreaking when those who have been shown great kindness and no condemnation in private counseling sessions suddenly demonstrate a self righteousness when they find an opportunity to criticize those who have helped them. Why do these people not show grace? Why do they make quiet statements by avoiding those who have helped them or not so quiet statements if they are gifted with verbal or written skills of communication? It is perplexing.

In the gospel of Matthew Jesus told the parable of an unforgiving servant who, despite having been forgiven much, turned on others when he had the opportunity (18:21-30). Is there any explanation to this? A biblical inquiry reveals the following thoughts.

First, the heart of a person is deceitful and remains a great mystery. Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Second, there are depths to sin which are deeper still which may help to explain why hell is described in the Bible as a bottomless pit in Revelation 20:1.

Third, a sense of righteousness is deeply ingrained into the human soul for man was made in the image of God. Sin has marred that image but a sense of "oughtness" cannot be removed from the heart. What God condemns and what some of us find so frustrating is the self righteousness that comes so quickly to the lips of individuals who should be more humble, more understanding, more compassionate with someone they believe is not doing right. But instead of a quiet and gentle spirit there wells up within the heart an emotion of anger that must be expressed in some form such as withdrawal of fellowship, no more correspondence or worse open condemnation.

In the Day of Judgment all the skeletons will come out of the closets for "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is" (1 Corinthians 3:13). In that day, individuals will be judged on the same basis they have judged and treated others which is why Jesus told us to be careful. "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye" (Matthew 7:2-5). Christian be aware of a self censorious spirit that produces anger. Be careful of avoiding someone who has shown you great kindness and mercy because you find some fault. You that are so spiritual now, beware and work to "restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted 2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:1-2).

What are new parents to do who are Reformed Christians but fail to find biblical support for infant baptism? That is, what do parents do who look to the New Testament model of baptism and see that only those who made a public profession of faith were baptized? Are they missing out on a blessing? Many face this dilemma and are not certain what to do, or if they should do anything at all. Having become a father for the third time just today, I too am faced with this particular situation. Now, if I were like most Reformed Christians the next step would be to have the infant baptized. But for those of us who are of a different persuasion, we are left with the practice of dedicating infants or as J. I. Packer calls it, performing "dry baptism". Whatever term one wants to use, I firmly believe there are Biblical precepts for conducting a baby dedication and believe that it is necessary for several reasons:

1. Baby dedications serve as an opportunity to thank God for the gift He has given. In a society that is oftentimes openly hostile to the idea of family first, this places the proper perspective of children and the family. Children should not be seen as a burden or a barrier to great worldly achievements, but rather, they are the "rewards" given by God. As the Psalmist succinctly declared, "children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward" (Ps 127:3).

2. Baby dedications give the parents the opportunity to declare their intentions to raise the child in a Christian home. This is not only a promise before men, but it also serves as a covenant with God. Parents commit themselves to biblical principles and promise to "train up a child in the way he should go" (Prov 22:6). By doing this, the parents reaffirm their commitment openly to live and abide by God’s laws.

3. Baby dedications acknowledge God’s sovereignty. Fathers and mothers do not enter into parenthood with infallible knowledge. There will inevitably be times of great stress and uncertainty. Most parents will have to rely on those who have already gone through the process. Many will turn to parents, relatives or friends for advice on how to handle certain situations. But the greatest help will ultimately come from the Lord who will grant grace and wisdom. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive" (Matt 21:22). 

4. Baby dedications are a time to express publicly the desire for the child to come to a saving faith. It is never too early to beseech the Lord in prayer for the salvation of our children. Nor do any of us know the means by which God has ordained the salvation process to take place. If you have ever heard of St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, it is because of the faith and constant devotion of his mother, Monica. Each day, she pleaded with the Lord to save her son. Despite his concupiscent lifestyle and continuous rejection of her Christian faith, Monica prayed daily for the salvation of her son. And because of her commitment from the earliest stages, her son eventually gave the world doctrinal insights which inspired men such as Martin Luther and John Calvin to contend for the faith. Had not Monica been faithful from her son’s infancy, we might not have had the great Reformation of the sixteenth-century.

If you have never heard about baby dedications you are not alone. This practice seems to be anomalous among many Baptist churches. However, I would exhort you to consider having your child dedicated to the Lord. You will surely be blessed for your commitment, and I can say for certain that you won’t be sorry you did.

Henry Martyn Robert served as an engineering officer in the Army in the late nineteenth century. One day he was asked to preside over a church meeting but soon realized that he did not know exactly how to do so in an appropriate matter. Nevertheless, he ruled over the meetings but it turned out to be an embarrassment. He vowed never again to let that happen. He resolved to write a manual for churches to use as a guide. But instead of searching the Scriptures for direction concerning spiritual matters, he turned to his knowledge of parliamentary law. In 1876, his Robert’s Rules of Order was published. Since that first edition, his book has undergone 10 editions and is a world-wide best seller. As a consequence, many churches have adopted his Rules as the guiding stone for church conduct and it has since become an impetus for ruling the church like a business. Below are ten reasons why I believe that God cannot be very happy with Robert’s Rules of Order:

1. This worldly book, more often than not, usurps the authority of God’s Word. People tend to set the Scriptures aside to resolve internal conflicts in the congregation with Mr. Robert in tow instead of searching out the mind of the Lord in a given matter through weeping and prayer and Bible study. For the more than thirty years of public ministry I have witnessed this happen time and again. It is an abomination to the Lord.

2. This worldly book presses God’s people into it mode of operation. The Christian is commanded not to be pressed into the thinking of the world.

3. This worldly book gives the church a non-Christian vocabulary which has proven to be counter productive. "Motions", "first" and "seconded", "discussion" and "voting" are not biblical words or concepts. Righteousness is not to be voted on. God does not rule His church by democracy but by His Word, through His Spirit with the undershepherds He has given as gifts of divine grace.

4. This worldly book has little regard for spiritual concepts such as preferring others and extending grace for law is law and rules are rules. No where will it be found, “and the Spirit said” (Acts 8:29; 10:19).

5. This worldly book robs God’s people of a spiritual blessing. The only blessing found in the Scripture is when God’s work is done God’s way by taking heed to God’s Word.

[Joshua], This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success (Joshua 1:8).

[Matthew], Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4).

6. This worldly book leads to people being manipulative as individuals look for legal loopholes and technicalities.

7. This world book invites the manifestation of the will to power and the seeking to control instead of the submitting to the will of God.

James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

8. This worldly book elicits an emotional attachment that should properly be reserved for the Bible. The love of the followers of Joseph Smith for their Book of Mormon and the Muslims for their Koran is the same misguided emotional attachment some have for Robert’s Rules of Order. Only the Bible is God-breathed. Only the Bible is adequate to conduct the affairs of the church.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.   

9. This worldly book has become a substitute for personal and congregational security. The church is exhorted to trust in the Lord.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

10. This worldly book has the practical effect of not only usurping God’s authority but God Himself. Who needs divine wisdom when every conceivable parliamentary situation is laid out in minute detail?

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 

In the fall of 1986 I witnessed with great pain and emotional duress a group of deacons in a large congregation challenge an unpopular pastor. Among a number of issues the following question was raised: “Pastor, who is in charge of the local assembly?” The appropriate (and biblical) response to the combative question posed should have been something along the lines of, “Men, since you asked, the ultimate authority in the local church belongs to elders not to deacons.” 

But the pastor was intimidated. He wanted to keep his “job”. Alas, for many today the ministry is no longer a divine calling but a career opportunity. So the pastor cowered and said in essence, “Why dear deacons, you are in charge. Of course!” Actually, he was silent but his silence spoke volumes. The meeting went on. 

In a similar but more audacious meeting in July of 2003, another congregation comprised of three deacons did not even bother to ask for discussion about the biblical nature of church leadership and how to handle concerns with pastoral leadership. One summer night they simply declared with great emotional force, “We are now in charge.” 

What those individuals did in a moment of time was to overstep their boundaries and thus invite the judgment of God upon themselves while doing much harm to the people of God. 

From a human perspective, a revolt against reason and divinely ordained leadership is understandable within a given context. Those who are rebelling sincerely believe they have the best interest of others in their heart as they move against the leadership they once embraced and whom God raised up. Certainly this was the mindset of the deacons. It was the mindset of Miriam and Aaron when they moved against Moses to wrestle authority from him and take charge of the congregation. The story is told in Numbers 12. “And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. 2 And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? Hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it. 3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.).”

What a heartbreaking scene that was. Moses had done something Aaron and Miriam did not like. Gathering emotional support in secret from others in the assembly of Israel they became bold enough to challenge openly the leadership of Moses but they did so in spiritual sounding language. 

It is always a tactic of the defiant to appear to be spiritual - or at least as spiritual as the leader they are angry with and want to replace. So it was with Aaron and Miriam who asked a rhetorical question, “Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? Hath He not spoken also by us?” They asked this question to intimidate Moses. They asked this question to justify their hostile take over. They asked this question in order to vindicate their objective to replace Moses and to promote themselves in his place. No doubt, they sincerely believed that God would honor what they were doing. In their view a desperate situation demanded desperate action. But would God honor them? The biblical answer is, “No.” We read in Numbers 12:9, “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed.” 

Aaron and Miriam would soon learn the anger of the Lord was against themselves, not Moses. Whatever Moses had done to displease the people would never justify them openly moving against him. It is this concept that is hard for many people, some deacons in particular, to comprehend. Whatever congregational concerns may arise even with leadership, it is not right to address them by a hostile takeover of a place of authority God never intended for certain individuals to have. 

In countless local churches there is a constant state of agitation between pastors and people as to who will lead the congregation. Some will try to intimidate the pastoral leadership by asking questions in the same vein as Aaron and Miriam. Christians, beware of those who come and pose rhetorical questions to you. They are up to no good. 

Others will move in boldness to say, “We are in charge” and in that moment such individuals will cross an invisible but real boundary that brings forth the anger of God. Often they get away with this social madness because they control the money supply and ministers do not want to lose their “job”. (The person who believes he or she can take food from the children of the pastor because they “pay his salary” does have a certain advantage over him—unless the man believes that God is His supplier and not humans). 

Nevertheless, the Lord has a right to organize His church the way He sees fit. The Lord has a right to raise up pastoral leadership He deems best. The people have a responsibility to submit to divinely ordained leadership. Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. 

To be specific God never ordained for any deacon at any time in any congregation to declare, “I am now in charge” or “We are now in charge” for it is the will of the Lord that His pastors or elders are the ultimate authority in the church. Jeremiah 3:15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. In the New Testament expression of the church the highest form of congregational oversight are the elders (also called pastors, or bishops). Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 

In contrast deacons are to assist the elders. Deacons are servants of the church, not masters. Whatever leadership roles they may temporarily assume, they are first to be servant-leaders as their very name indicates. Because of this lowly status, is it any wonder the position requires the most humble of individuals lest they decide, like Aaron and Miriam to take matters into their own hands? 

When individuals rebel against divinely constituted authority God hears what the rebels say and He is angry.

What should individuals do who, like Aaron and Miriam, have moved against divinely ordained authority? What should individuals do who have overreached their position, however well meaning and self justified their actions seemed at the time? What should people do who have brought discord to the body of Christ because of their own wounded pride and secret agendas? 

The biblical answer is to repent. To repent means to change one’s mind. To repent means to stand in judgment upon self. This will not be hard to do if the Scriptures are returned to and allowed to stand in judgment upon all attitude and actions. 

Whatever concerns congregations may have with their pastoral leaders, and in some cases the congregational concerns are legitimate, the best solution is still to do God’s work God’s way for this much is certain: smite the shepherds God has appointed “and the sheep will be scattered” (Zechariah 13:7). 

The apostle Paul wept when he left the church of Ephesus because he was aware of strong willed individuals who wanted to be in charge, first in secret and then openly all the while feigning spirituality. Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:28). 

Those who take it upon themselves to declare they are “now in charge” in order to remove pastoral leadership do not spare the local assembly. They are more than willing to destroy it for their own power and self interest. And they do. Time and time again. And the sheep are scattered. 

The only hope for local assemblies in times of congregational concerns is for God’s people to return to a biblical practice and not overthrow the biblical pattern. 

Congregations, choose carefully whom you will follow but then follow those pastors whom God has chosen for you. And deacons, remember Aaron and Miriam. The anger of the Lord is against you when you act like them. The Lord will have mercy and will forgive you, but you must change. You must repent. In pointing out the faults of others, do not forget your own souls.

Alcatraz serves as testament to the draconian punishment awarded to criminals who committed egregious crimes in the United States. Oftentimes compared to Devil’s Island because of its brutal enforcement and austere routine, Alcatraz will forever be remembered as the federal penitentiary that housed some of America’s most notorious criminals of the twentieth century including Al “Scarface” Capone, Robert “Birdman” Stroud, George “Machine Gun” Kelly, Alvin “the Creepy” Karpis and John Dekker...okay, so perhaps the latter is not as well known as the rest but all served hard time in Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary.

I mention John Dekker in the list with the other criminals because I recently had the opportunity to meet Mr. Dekker. After touring the 12-acre rock island that first served as a light house to guide ships to safety, then a military garrison in 1850 and finally America’s most infamous prison, I had occasion to speak with the aged, white haired man who was there promoting a recent documentary about his time spent on “the Rock”. 

It only took a few minutes to discover that Mr. Dekker served time at Alcatraz for his involvement in copious bank robberies. I never learned how many banks he robbed, or how much money he had stolen, but I was told that he successfully robbed the same bank as John Dillinger and at the apex of his heists he escaped with upwards of $100,000 -- a lofty sum in the 1940’s.

He was eager to answer audience questions so when I stepped to the front of the line I asked him if he had any regrets. I asked the question with the anticipation that with his time served at Alcatraz and with his life nearing the end he would give some sort of testimony about how prison had transformed his life, or how he was sorrowful how his life was tainted because of his illicit actions. Instead, his answer surprised me. He looked up at me from the table, paused and replied, “Absolutely not. The only thing I regret is getting caught. I would do it all over again if I could.” 

I wasn’t sure if he was joking or serious but I was initially taken aback. He continued, “As a matter of fact, I think you should rob a bank too if you think you could get away with it.” By now, it became quite evident that he was serious. He proceeded to justify his illicit behavior by asserting that he had a poor upbringing and had no other choice to succeed in life but to rob banks. 

Thinking back to that poignant encounter with John Dekker brings two lessons to mind: First, the bondage to slavery under which mankind now operates. I should not have been surprised by his obstinate refusal to admit that what he did was wrong nor should I have expected otherwise. The Bible is unequivocal in expressing the complete inability of man to see his own depravity because of the extensive effect of sin. Since the fall of our first parents all parts of our being have been corrupted - including the body, mind, and will, rendering man incapable of spiritual understanding and any love towards God, or in the case of John Dekker, incapable of repenting of his criminal past and encouraging others in similar pursuits. Apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11). There is a natural but total inability to come to faith in Christ independent of a divine work of grace in the heart (Eph 2:1-5, 2:8,9).

The second lesson that can be gleaned from my experience is realizing that only misery ensues when we do not trust in God as our provider. Just as John Dekker turned to a life of crime after he thought there was no where else to turn, the Bible is replete with anecdotes of men who decided to take matters into their own hands - Adam who tried to cover Eve’s iniquity, Abraham who took Hagar in order to produce the promised offspring, Moses who killed the Egyptian, etc. Nevertheless, if we have faith in God and are patient, He promises that all things are being worked out for those who are His. If not, we remain obstinate to the end.

 Further Scripture study:
Genesis 6:5
Genesis 8:21
Deuteronomy 32:18
Psalm 51:5
Jeremiah 17:9
John 6:44
John 6:65
John 12:39
John 15:25
Romans 3:10-18
Romans 7:18
Romans 8:7
1 Corinthians 2:14
Ephesians 4:18