An Encounter With Authoritarianism

Note: Due to the sensitive subject matter being discussed, the names of the people involved have been changed to protect their identity.

An Encounter With Authoritarianism

by Paul Sue

This paper has not been a labor of love; it gives me no pleasure in sharing this story. However, I thought that my experience might be of encouragement to others who may be experiencing similar situations. I will frankly share what happened as accurately as I can without unfairly portraying others.

Table of contents:

If You Want to Serve in Our Church

Though I was relatively new at Our Way Church (1) (hereafter referred to as "the church"), I had already become quite involved in various ways, such as: heading the retreat planning committee, conducting several seminars on biblical interpretation, and serving as a small group leader. It was in regard to my role as a small group leader, that I was interrogated about whether I was a member of the church yet or not. I was told that the church's policy was that membership was a prerequisite to serving in any capacity. (2) Furthermore, I was also encouraged to consider teaching Sunday School; I was informed that I would have to fill out a membership application as well as another form for Sunday School teachers.

The membership application form included a section where the applicant pledged to carry out five specific responsibilities, including this clause: "To practice the truth of tithing willingly." (3) This struck me as odd, so I simply made a brief (two sentences or so) comment on the back of the form, stating that my belief that tithing was an OT institution, and that New Covenant giving was modeled after Christ's sacrificial example (2 Cor. 8:9; 9:6ff). I was particularly surprised that they would single out something like this, but not require me to confess my allegiance to their Church Statement of Faith! I've attended many churches, and have never come across any that made tithing a test of membership.

After submitting the completed form, I was subsequently summoned to a meeting with one of the pastors (let's call him Rev. Joe) and one of the elders (let's call him Elder Fred) (4). They commented briefly on my testimony of salvation (I had written them a 3 page account), and then launched into an inquisition about my comments on tithing. I tried my best to explain myself, but it was difficult when both of them began bombarding me with proof-texts. As you can imagine, things were getting a bit heated. I was even asked if I believed that the Bible was God's Word! Realizing that there was no hope of having my views heard, I asked that I be given time to pray about the whole matter, and to set forth my position in writing.

The Sad and Sorry Saga

At this point it may be helpful to name the major players and give a timeline to help the reader understand the chronology of the ensuing events.

The Cast of Characters
Pastors:	Harry	Senior Pastor
	Joe (5)	Assistant Pastor (designated Senior Pastor-in-line)
	Albert	Associate Pastor (main Preaching Pastor)
	Dan	Associate Pastor (Youth)
	Barry	Associate Pastor (Visitation)
Elders:	Fred, Tom (Sunday School Superintendent), Peter
Laymen:	Me, Allan, Kathy (Dan's wife), Laura (Peter's wife)

Chronology of Events

2000
March 26	Submitted membership application form (with a comment on the tithing clause) to Dan.
week of April 9	I received call from Dan to schedule an interview.
April 20	Interview with Fred and Joe. They took strong exception to my comments on tithing. I ask for some time to pray and study further on the subject.
May 10	Submitted my paper to Joe; he called to acknowledge he had received it and would get back to me.
Sep. 24	Submitted memo entitled My Membership Application to: Albert, Joe, Dan, Fred, Tom.
Oct. 4	Joe left me a message.
Oct. 5	I called Joe and he apologized for not getting back to me sooner. As I was about to leave out of town, I requested a meeting upon my return.
Oct. 9	I called Joe to schedule a meeting for Oct. 14
Oct. 18	Met with Joe; no discussion on specifics of my paper; he apologized for delay: apparently, a communication breakdown between himself, Albert, and Dan. (He said he had passed on my paper to Albert and Dan for them to deal with). Joe then asked to sign a new form "as is".
date uncertain	Peter (on his own initiative) spoke with one of the pastors about my situation. Peter later told me that he agreed with my paper, and that he himself had struggled with the tithing clause when he became a member.
Nov. 5	Submitted memo entitled Tithing & Membership to Joe. Submitted memo entitled Sermons to Albert (commenting on his sermon on Mal. 3:1-12, preached a few years ago)
Nov. 5	Approached by Barry - he said someone left a copy of my memo (My Membership Application) in his box. He said he spoke with Harry and that if I fill out a new form (without commenting on the tithing clause), it would be accepted.
Nov. 7	Barry called to schedule a meeting for Nov. 9.
Nov. 9	Barry left me a message.
Nov. 10	I called Barry; he suggested a meeting with Harry.
Nov. 15	Allan called Albert to schedule a meeting (Nov. 18).
Nov. 18	I met with Albert and Allan. Albert said that he never knew about my situation until a staff meeting in late Sep. He said he was never asked by Joe to respond to my paper (see Oct. 18). Furthermore, at that staff meeting, Harry decreed that none of the pastors or elders were to deal with me. Albert said that he would love to discuss my paper and concerns with me, but his "hands were tied", since he had to obey his "boss", namely, Harry.
Nov. 29	I met with Harry, Barry, and Joe.
Nov. 29	Left copies of papers on tithing in Albert's mailbox.
Dec. 10	Left memo and summary of Nov. 29 meeting in Albert's mailbox.
Dec. 19	Albert called to ask me to meet him.
Dec. 20	Met with Albert briefly (he was only able to spare about 45 min.). He said he was concerned for me and how the situation was deteriorating. He agreed to meet me again in Jan. to discuss some more.
Dec. 20	At this point, I prayerfully decide that it'd be best if I just quietly move on, so my wife and I decide to phase out over the next month or so. Only Allan knows of our intentions to leave.
2001
Jan. 17	Allan met with Joe and Dan regarding his reasons for leaving the church, part of which was his disgust with how my membership was being handled. Tithing was briefly discussed and both pastors insisted that the word "tithe" does not necessarily mean ten per cent.
week of Jan. 21	Allan tells Dan to read my paper, who acknowledges that it was a good paper, but had some flawed theological premises. Allan asks to meet him for further discussion. When Allan asks if I can attend the meeting, Dan hesitates and becomes uncomfortable, but he agrees.
Jan. 28	Albert announces his resignation from the church.
Feb. 1	Allan and Dan meet to discuss tithing. Dan claims that my paper is flawed because I don't have the proper perspective on the Law, but he does not try to explain his position. He also makes some personal attacks on me. Allan rebukes him, saying that the proper thing to do is for him to call me.
Feb. 4	In response to an earlier e-mail in which Allan informed Tom of his decision to resign from his Sunday School teaching position, Tom unleashes a harsh and slanderous attack on me (even calls me a heretic) in his e-mail to Allan.
Feb. 6 or 7	Allan responds and exhorts him to accuse me directly. Tom immediately goes to see Allan and offers an apology.
Feb. 8	Tom calls me to arrange to meet with him. He said he was going to reply to my memo he received from me on Sep. 24 (see above), but was told by the pastors that it was already taken care of.
Feb. 9	Dan calls to extend a general apology, and agrees to meet me to clarify any outstanding issues.
Feb. 11	In his Sunday morning sermon, Joe launches into a tirade, chastising the congregation for not appreciating Harry as much as they ought to. He also chides the Albert faction for "taking sides", saying that if it weren't for Harry, Albert wouldn't even have been a part of the church.
Feb. 26	Tom comes to see me. I ask Allan to be present as well. Unlike his earlier meeting with Allan, he is arrogant and on the offensive. Tom begins the meeting by stating that my views on tithing are "heretical". He also refuses to apologize for slandering me in his e-mail to Allan. In his attempt to refute my paper, he adopts a flat, hyper-literal reading of the Bible, and resorts to "proof texting".
Mar. 1	Dan meets with me. It is clear that he does not want to discuss my paper. He waffles and skirts around some difficult questions I asked him w.r.t. how the leaders handled (mishandled!) my membership application. He affirms that he did not know about my tithing paper until the staff meeting in Sept. (see Oct. 18, Nov. 18 above) We pray together and say good-bye.
Mar. 3	Laura runs into my wife at the mall and bluntly asks, "Is your husband happy now?" She insinuates that she is privy to what has happened. My wife points out that she doesn't know the full story, including my side of it.
Mar. 4	I receive an e-mail from Allan's sister. She said that Kathy and Laura claim that at least 20% of the congregation tithes on a regular basis, the implication being that these are the "mature" Christians of the church.
Mar. 16	Left a copy of my farewell letter (written in Jan.) in Dan's mailbox, thus completing the circle (see March 26 entry above).

Bereans Not Welcome Here

Let me comment further on some of the key events noted above with a view to learning from what happened.

First of all, the reader will notice that the whole episode dragged on for almost a year. In particular, after I submitted my paper, I did not receive any response. I had to take the initiative (4 months later) to contact Pastor Joe to ask what was going on (Sep. 24). Perhaps I shouldn't have waited so long; but the question is: why didn't any of the pastors get back to me?! As "shepherds" of the flock, shouldn't they take an interest in me? For example, since they also received my memo (Sep. 24), why didn't Pastor Albert, Pastor Dan, Elder Tom, or Elder Fred at least inform me (out of common courtesy) that I should go see Pastor Harry?

encounter

Secondly, Pastor Joe's excuse was that he had delegated the matter (i.e. responding to my paper) to Pastor Albert and Pastor Dan (see Oct. 18). However, both of them denied that they were asked to do this (see Nov. 18; Mar. 1). So, Pastor Joe either has a bad memory, or he was lying (6). At our meeting, Pastor Joe said he read my paper and thought it was very good, even though he didn't agree with some parts - however, he didn't point out what parts! He said that he was comfortable with my view, and that he would personally talk to Pastor Harry to ensure I would be accepted. He said none of the elders or other pastors needed to know about my paper. He then produced a new membership form and told me to sign it as is, without making any annotation about the tithing clause. I was surprised, since I made it clear in my paper why in good conscience I couldn't sign the form as it was.

In my subsequent memo (Nov. 5) I expressed my disappointment that no one was willing to study the subject of tithing with me. It seemed that my paper was just brushed off. If Pastor Joe didn't agree with parts of my paper, then why didn't he make the effort to correct me? After all, an elder is supposed "to exhort in sound doctrine" and be "able to teach" (Titus 1:9; 1 Tim. 3:2; NASB). In my memo of Sep. 24, I wrote:

If you disagree with what I have written, then isn't it your duty as shepherds of God's people, to gently show me where I am wrong? If I am correct, then perhaps you should be humble enough to admit it. In either case, Christian love and common courtesy should have prompted a response from you. Ignoring me is simply not an option!

It is fascinating how Christians often presume that the only faithful perspective on an issue is their own. Theirs alone, they believe, is the only vantage point that does justice to a particular biblical teaching.

Jon Zens, "Only One Speaks" In a Dialogue?
Searching Together 27:4 (1999): 1.

An inability (or unwillingness) to seek like-mindedness over the meaning of Scripture is a primary cause of division within the so-called Christian Church ... What are believers supposed to do when disagreements in matters of interpretation arise? Should they simply "agree to disagree" and avoid any further discussion on the disputed passage? Or should difficult matters of biblical interpretation be left to the "elders" to settle by pontifical decree?

If a local assembly of believers is going to "reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature" (Eph. 4:13), such disputes must not be left unresolved. It is vitally important to the spiritual growth and oneness of the body that believers take as long as it is necessary to come to agreement and thereby regain the "unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3). And what is needed in order to confirm the Spirit's leading is body consensus - not simply a successful majority vote.

Cliff Bjork, "Hermeneutics: Six Essential Principles of Biblical Interpretation
You Won't Find in the Textbooks",
Searching Together 22:1-4 (1994): 57,58,60 (emphasis mine).

At my meeting with Pastor Albert on Nov. 18, not only was I surprised to learn that he had not been asked to review my paper (contrary to what Pastor Joe had said), but I was shocked when he told me that he was under a "gag order". He said that my only recourse was to speak to the Senior Pastor (Harry), since he was the "boss". He further likened the church to a business, with the Senior Pastor as the CEO. He said he'd be glad to discuss my paper after I met with Pastor Harry. (7)

After this meeting, my wife and I felt that it was best if we quietly leave the church. Throughout the whole ordeal, we had tried our best not to let other members of the congregation know what had happened, so that we couldn't be accused of being divisive. Certainly we did not tell anyone to leave the church.

My meeting with Elder Tom on Feb. 26 was an "enlightening" experience. For the first time in my life, I was called a heretic to my face. Since I wanted to hear his response to my paper, I refrained from showing him the door. He was very proud and arrogant in his presentation. He repeatedly reminded Allan and I that he "sees the Scriptures more clearly" than us because he has taken a few courses on hermeneutics. However, it soon became apparent that either he forgot everything he learned, or he misunderstood his teachers (or he had bad teachers!), because he proceeded to commit one hermeneutical faux pas after another: he showed no recognition of the progressive nature of God's revelation; he ignored the historical context of the passages; he did not consider authorial intention, etc. When he labeled my position as heretical, I told him that my position is not unique, and is adhered to by many Christians. (8) No matter, he insisted that I was a heretic! Interestingly, one of the professors at one of this church's denominational Bible college shares an experience he had as a seminary student:

I [was leading] a small group home Bible study at ... [Church]. We had several newly converted couples in the group. One was a pair of nurses that were ridiculously well off and were so ecstatic as they discovered the joy of giving away their money instead of continually spending it on themselves. "Tithing is such a blessing" was their refrain--and they did more than simply tithe.

Another couple was struggling financially and terribly distressed as their first child was on the way. They both felt very insecure about their parenting abilities and finally the woman admitted to crying herself to sleep every night. When asked why, she said she thought that God wouldn't bless them because they were not tithing (indeed it really was beyond their means to do so).

It was one of those moments when God blesses you with wisdom because somehow I was able to both affirm the giving couple and release this other couple from bondage simultaneously. Imagine how lost the God of the good news of Jesus is when someone cries themselves to sleep at night thinking God won't care for them because they're not making the 10% line. Absolutely tragic isn't it? And yet how many pastors never think of the consequences as they seek to hammer home the great "principle of tithing." (9)

My last meeting was with Pastor Dan on March 1. He is the sort of fellow that prefers to sweep problems under the rug. I'm glad to say that it was a calm and respectful meeting. However, I was disappointed that it really didn't accomplish much. Part of this was my fault, since I should have pressed him to answer my questions. But I guess by this time, I was pretty worn out and discouraged.

What are some of the lessons I learned from this sad saga?

I should not have waited so long (4 months) to get back to the pastors, when it became apparent that no response from them was forthcoming. Memories get fuzzy and facts get distorted over time.
I'm glad that I documented everything. In particular, I'm glad I communicated to them in writing (10) (memos) so that they couldn't misrepresent me or my position. However, I should have still followed up with a phone call or direct personal contact after a few days. In some cases, I had to wait 2 weeks before getting a reply; in some cases, I didn't even get a reply!
instead of meeting the leaders individually, I should have called for a meeting with all of them at once (although I have a feeling that I would have been shouted down) right at the beginning. Furthermore, having a friend or fair-minded third party present at meetings is probably a good idea.
At one point, I though to myself, "This is crazy, why are we arguing over such a minor point as tithing?! I should either sign the form anyway, or just leave!" But as I said earlier, it isn't a minor point, because the root issue was one of interpretation. The church leaders refused to provide a clear statement and defense of their position, and a refutation of my position. In other words, how can they dogmatically ask prospective members (and Sunday School teachers and elders) to acquiesce to their "tithing pledge" without any biblical justification?!

As for leaving the church, that seemed like a cop-out. After all, can't Christians disagree without dividing? Can't we discuss our differences in a calm and irenic manner, with an open Bible and an open mind? I felt convicted to follow brother Bjork's entreaty to strive for unity and body consensus. (11) If his principles are Biblical (and I believe they are), then I wanted to try and follow them as best I knew how in a real-life setting.

I should confess that there were many areas where I disagreed with this church. Perhaps I was na�ve in thinking that I could somehow stimulate change for the good. It was my foolish but honest "dream" that through the patient and careful teaching of the Word of God, I would be able to make some impact. God is sovereign, and he certainly could have used the feeble voice of one to be the channel for renewal.
When I was able to meet with the different pastors, I shouldn't have been so timid. I should have pressed for a resolution of the issue; in particular, I should have just opened up my Bible and invited them to study the relevant passages with me. In particular, I should have invited another pastor from another church (12), or a seminary professor to act as a moderator (since they view me as only a "layman"). Churches tend to be too isolated and leaders are often not accountable.
Though my motivation in keeping this matter "hidden" was to avoid charges of divisiveness, in retrospect, I think biblically, the whole body should have been aware of my situation.

As I reflect back on the whole saga, I am saddened by the failure of Christians to act as a body and their reluctance to engage in open dialogue over differences. Though this church is perhaps more hierarchical than some, I believe that the whole matter of authority and leadership in the church needs to be re-examined afresh (13), for what I've gone through is certainly not uncommon.

Concluding Reflections on the Issues Involved

(Note: the following is based on my farewell letter to the church.)

Loving Each Other

It is sad that many modern day pastors find themselves doing everything but shepherding the flock. In my three years at this church, I've only been invited over once by one of the pastors (there are 6 pastors and 6 elders), despite the importance placed on hospitality (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8).

Why do Christians major on minors, but forget about more important things like "loving one another" (John 13:34,35)? I believe that the hierarchical leadership structure and non-participatory nature of most churches today is an impediment to developing genuine, loving relationships. In most churches, most of the "laity" and the "clergy" hardly know one another!

Listening To Each Other

I recently finished reading a fascinating account of the Christian Identity doctrine that is at the heart of many of the rising religious racist groups in North America. The authors set out to let these groups speak for themselves by conducting numerous interviews, attending their meetings, reading their literature, and trying to understand the people behind the beliefs. Here is their explanation for their approach:

We do not share those beliefs nor is it our intention to advance the separatists' or any other cause ... But we do feel strongly that problems, if they are to be resolved at all, must be examined honestly and from every possible perspective. We also feel strongly about the free exchange of ideas and firmly believe that convictions cannot be killed by the simple refusal to hear them. (14)

I felt that this was a key problem in my own situation at this church. None of the leaders seemed to be genuinely interested in hearing me out. They were more interested in persuading me to join "their" church.

In his very helpful article, Dr. Roger Nicole comments that in any dispute it is helpful to ask these three questions: "(1) What do I owe the person who differs from me? (2) What can I learn from the person who differs from me? (3) How can I cope with the person who differs from me?" (15) He further goes on to say,

There is, therefore, an obligation if we are going to voice differences, to make a serious effort to know the person with whom we differ. That person may have published books or articles. Then we have an obligation to be acquainted with those writings. It is not appropriate for us to voice sharp differences if we have neglected to read what is available. The person who differs from us should have evidence that we read carefully what has been written and that we have attempted to understand its meaning. (16)

Listening carefully to what others have to say is not only a common courtesy, but can also prevent disagreements from escalating due to misunderstanding the other person's position. It is a shame that some pastors are like upper management in corporations who pay no heed to their employees' concerns.

Learning From Each Other

Historical exegesis is fast becoming a lost art in the pulpit. Rather than explaining the historical setting of a passage, texts become springboards for devotional reflection. Biblical passages are taken out of context as the preacher searches for those stories that evoke the responses or attitudes desired. The heart of a "good" sermon is fast becoming the "emotional work" that can be done in 20 minutes preaching time. (17)

I am amazed at the dogmatic stance that this church has taken with respect to tithing. It has imposed extra-biblical standards for membership, Sunday School, teaching, and eldership by adding the requirement of tithing. Are the leaders that confident that their position is correct? Dr. Vern Poythress, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary, cautions us against simplistic handling of the Bible:

The transcendence of the word of God has implications for our approach to it. Humility is necessary. We should be suspicious of any supposedly simple solution to the profundities of interpretation, or any claim to have mastered language and communication. (18)

It is here that I have been most disappointed. The few discussions I've had with the pastors have been merely a case of throwing verses out of context at me, or giving anecdotal testimonies of the blessings of tithing. Surely you must realize that "proof-texting" is the most basic hermeneutical faux pas that one can make! Furthermore, I suspect their position as paid "staff members" of the church have somewhat colored their perspective and interpretation with respect to the subject of tithing. This is not necessarily a bad thing as long as one is cognizant of it. In his insightful article, Walt Russell, professor of NT at Talbot School of Theology writes:

In reaction to modernism's radical individualism and lack of emphasis on group identities, the recent rise of postmodernism has helped to regain an appreciation for both the corporate dimension of the self and the influence of one's group or interpretive community on the interpretive process.

Without embracing a relativistic understanding of texts and meaning we should nevertheless be far more sensitive and healthily self-conscious about our interpretive assumptions. These assumptions are a major factor in the interpretive process, and we can no longer pretend that they do not exist. Rather, we should accept their existence as a very real part of our finite human experience. Nowhere is this truer than in the interpretation of very ancient and culturally distant texts like the Bible. This does not place the understanding of these texts beyond our reach. But it does demand a stronger emphasis on understanding those means that bridge these temporal and cultural gaps -- that is, the genres of the Bible and the generic conceptions of each Biblical book and its various sections. (19)

Though it is never enjoyable to be in disagreement with other Christians, it is at times unavoidable. As one pastor has remarked, "It is the unhappy lot of any man who cares a fig for truth to be called on to engage in controversy ... It is true: we cannot make progress by controversy alone. Real progress toward unity is the work of God. This is also true, however: We are unlikely to make progress without controversy." With this in mind, he then goes on to list a "few rules for guidance in the minefield of vigorous controversy":

show respect for the persons with whom you differ;
give your opponents accurate definitions of your key ideas;
when in doubt, put an orthodox construction on your opponent's words;
never attribute to your opponent more than he asserts;
suspect a man's judgment before you suspect his sincerity;
be ready to believe that the truth is larger than you have understood it to be.

He concludes by saying,

Given the importance of controversy we must not avoid it out of cowardice. No one likes to lose friends or be scorned unnecessarily, but there is only one person who commands our absolute allegiance: God ... Faithfulness to Him has always occasioned controversy and it always will. Controversy is to be done as gently and compassionately as is consistent with zeal for the truth. (20)

Therefore, let us be humble and open-minded enough to allow for other views where the issue is not an essential of the faith, or where Christians genuinely disagree. When it is necessary to clash swords theologically, we are not out to draw blood, but to sharpen each other: "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens his friend." (Proverbs 27:17; NET).

The proper procedure is to read the Bible self-critically and in community ... Accordingly, we must embrace those with whom we disagree and carry on our discussions with them in the rich love of Christian fellowship. While we are called to make decisions, we must be sure to exercise exegetical humility and tolerance for other Christian viewpoints. (21)

Lastly, are we more interested in maintaining traditions than we are in seeking a fresh understanding of the truth? Or, in the words of one writer, "Do we act as if we really believe that the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written?" (22)

Leaving Each Other

Writing from the perspective of some problems in Reformed Baptist churches, John Reisinger, long-time pastor and evangelist, rebuked the pastors involved thus:

When you cannot sit down with an open Bible and instruct as well as learn in gentleness, then your only recourse is angry name-calling, using the authority of "your duly authorized office of pastor". (23)

He then asks, "What can be done by an individual if it is absolutely impossible for him to get a hearing for the truth in his local assembly?". (24) Well, this was the question that I had to face when it seemed that I had reached an impasse. I can still recall the stress of contemplating leaving during many restless nights of praying and pondering. It is easy to just get up and go elsewhere; that takes no effort at all. But I was bothered by the barrier that had suddenly been erected simply because I dared to question the church's policy. For this I am subjected to the "silent" treatment. As one author has written: "How much longer can we and our communities prosper with so little personal warmth and trust? What are the chances of vocal warming?" (25) Why can't we work things out? Instead, they seemed content to wait for me to give up in frustration and leave! Why aren't the leaders interested in resolving disputes?

Paul is not so much concerned about the existence of disputes among Christians as he is with how disputes are resolved ... Resolution of disputes among believers, then, is a matter of first-rate ecclesiastical significance ... We must move ministries of peace from the periphery of Christian concern to the center where they belong. (26)

It seems we're hypocrites when we sing hymns like this one:

Blest be the tie that binds
Our hearts in Christian love
The fellowship of kindred minds
Is like to that above.

When for a while we part
This thought will soothe our pain
That we shall still be joined in heart
And hope to meet again.

In closing, as I've said earlier, the root issue is one of authority and leadership. One pastor begins his article "Authoritarianism in the Church" with these words, "A tragic and dangerous trend can be observed in some contemporary evangelical churches. While standing against the lawlessness and anti-authority mood of this generation, some conservative, Bible-believing churches have drifted into deadly authoritarian tendencies." (27) And in a very insightful article, Cindy Maki notes that "Christian leadership, not just church finances and facility maintenance and development, has been defined in purely professional terms." (28) I'm sad to say that I would have to concur with these statements, based on my experiences.

Appendix: Taking It To The Top

It was a wet rainy Wednesday, the 29th of November. I was feeling very nervous as I rang the bell. The door was promptly opened by Pastor Barry who courteously led me into Pastor Harry's office where I was cordially greeted by Pastor Harry and Pastor Joe. I sensed a bit of tension in the room, perhaps amplified by the proxemics of the seating arrangement: I sat on a chair in front of Pastor Harry's desk, Pastor Joe sat a few chairs away along the adjacent wall, and Robert sat facing me against the other wall. It would have been nice if we all sat closer together in a circle.

My heart was racing, and I was hoping that one of the pastors would commend us to God in prayer but Pastor Harry wasted no time in getting the meeting underway. Taking a deep breath in a futile attempt to calm myself, I narrated the events that began in March when I submitted my membership application form. I concluded by stating that I was disappointed and frustrated with: 1) the lengthy delay in responding to my paper on tithing; and 2) that none of the pastors/elders have been willing to discuss the paper with me.

Pastor Harry took the offensive by asking me how much I gave to the Lord, to which I replied that it was a matter between the Lord and I. Nonplussed, brother Pastor Harry said he gave a lot (I can't recall if he specified a certain percentage or not). While I have no doubt about the sincerity of his motives or the generosity of his heart, perhaps he might be wise to keep Matt. 6:2-4 in mind. I also mentioned that giving goes beyond just "tithing". For example, we try to give in other ways too, such as hospitality, helping the poor, spending time with people, and simplifying our lifestyles by not giving in to consumerism and materialism (which many North American Christians are guilty of). But Pastor Harry didn't seem to care to acknowledge this.

As the meeting progressed, it soon became apparent that Pastor Joe was present just as an observer, for he never spoke one word throughout the entire meeting. As for Pastor Barry, his main contribution was sharing personal anecdotes about how his life was blessed when he began tithing. He also shared a similar story about his brother. While these testimonies are interesting, we cannot measure truth by mere experiences. For example, many Catholics would testify that their blessings multiplied through faithful devotion to the rosary.

In a similar vein, Pastor Harry tried to buttress his argument by appealing to Watchman Nee. While I appreciate some of Nee's writings (especially his insightful comments on the Headship of Christ in the church and its implications for church life), he is certainly not a reliable exegete, and has been rightly criticized for his authoritarianism and aberrant views.

Then isolated "proof texts" were cited (such as Mal. 3:7ff and Matt. 23:23) (29), to which I replied that I had already dealt with all of the biblical passages on tithing in my paper. When Pastor Harry and Pastor Barry admitted that they hadn't even read my paper, I was so frustrated that I was tempted to walk out. Why couldn't they at least have the courtesy of reading my paper?! Pastor Barry countered by saying that if all the pastors of this church agree about tithing, then I should accept their view, since they are the pastors, and should know better!

In response, I appealed to the principle of sola scriptura, and the need for the whole body to reach consensus (see the quote by Cliff Bjork). (30) I also reiterated the need to consider the context of those passages. I had already repeated over and over that the issue was not so much "tithing" per se, but rather, one of hermeneutics.

Here, I gave some examples of issues that divide evangelical Christians today: continuation or cessation of the "sign" gifts (e.g. speaking in tongues) and the differing millennial views (pre-, post- or amillennial). At this point, Pastor Harry vigorously stated that he believed in tongues because the apostle Paul prayed in tongues. I said that this was true, but we would need to consider all the other Pauline passages. In particular, in church meetings, Paul mentions the need for orderliness and interpretation in 1 Cor. 14. Surprisingly, Pastor Harry seemed very impatient with me about this, saying I was trying to confuse things! Here was a clear example of why I'm so frustrated: an unwillingness to look at the matter calmly, contextually and comprehensively (not just firing off proof-texts).

Sadly, the meeting degenerated further when Pastor Harry accused me of being stubborn. He said that I knew in my heart I am wrong, but in an effort to "save face", I was putting up all this resistance. That really hurt me. Why would I expend so much time and energy over the past 8 months writing memos and papers and meeting with various pastors if it was just a matter of pride? This seems rather judgmental on Pastor Harry's part. He then sarcastically remarked that maybe "we should all start reading your version of the Bible" (words to that effect). At this point, I pleaded with Pastor Joe to intervene, but he didn't say a word; rather, he gave me a very strange look instead.

The overseer then must be above reproach ... temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, ... gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money.

1 Tim. 3:2-3; NET

As I reflect back on the meeting, the words of the old Simon and Garfunkel song seem very apropos: "people talking without speaking; people hearing without listening".

Some Helpful Resources

The Truth About Tithing You can find a copy of my paper on tithing here, as well as an extensive bibliography.
Who Let The Dogs In?: Breaking Free From Abusive Fellowships An excellent article by Mary A. Chrnalogar on "breaking free from abusive fellowships".
Setting Things in Order: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Leadership An excellent article on biblical leadership.
The Gathered Community: The Experience of Discipleship You will find links to some Web sites that call for a re-evaluation of modern church life and structure.

I would also encourage readers to go through past issues of Baptist Reformation Review (BRR) and Searching Together (ST). Some relevant articles include:

Cliff Bjork, "Hermeneutics: Six Essential Principles of Biblical Interpretation You Won't Find in the Textbooks", ST 22:1-4 (1994).
Bruce Davidson, "'You Are All Brothers': Growing in Our Understanding of Authority", ST 14:1 (1985): 30-39.
Eddie Johnston, "Biblical Interpretation and the Church", BRR 9:1 (1980): 21-31.
Alan Lear, "Concerns About Traditional Ministry Patterns: An African Perspective", ST 24:4 (1996).
Paul Miller, "Excerpts from Leading the Family of God: Coming to a Consensus in the Church", BRR 11:1 (1982): 41-44.
Hal Miller, "Leadership in the Church: Ten Propositions", ST 11:3 (1982): 39-45.
various authors, "Coming to Truth in Fellowship with Others", ST 12:1 (1983).
various authors, "Studies in Christ-Centered Authority", ST 13:1 (1984).
various authors, "Discernment, Dialogue & Decision-making in the Church", ST 13:3 (1984).
various authors, "Studies in Christ-Centered Fellowship Oriented Hermeneutics", ST 13:1 (1984).
David Wong, "Church Leadership: Contrasts Between China and the West", ST 20:4 (1992): 11-12.
Jon Zens, "Building Up the Body: One Man or One Another?" BRR 10:2 (1981): 10-33.
Jon Zens, "Sticking it Out with Fellow Disciples", ST 12:4 (1983): 14-16.

Footnotes

The following is a true account; only the names have been changed. The church would be classified as being part of the mainstream evangelical tradition. (back to text)
It became apparent that this policy was adhered to rather loosely and inconsistently. (back to text)
The tithing clause is also on the Sunday School teacher form. Also, prospective elders (nominated by the congregation) also have to re-affirm their pledge to the tithing clause. (back to text)
I'm aware that the terms pastor, elder, and overseer are used synonymously in the NT, but I'm using the terms based on this church's usage. I'm also purposely using clerical titles in keeping with this church's practice; but see Darryl Erkel, "Church Leaders & the Use of Honorific Titles". (back to text)
Joe was a successful businessman before deciding to enter the ministry (around 1995), based on a "vision" that Harry had about him. (back to text)
Sometime in Jan. 2001, two women in the church were "relieved" of their duty of producing the church bulletin by Pastor Joe with no explanation. To others in the church, however, Pastor Joe said they had "resigned." One of the sisters went to see Pastor Albert, quite upset that Joe would lie about the situation. In his response, Pastor Albert hinted that it was not the first time Pastor Joe had done such a thing. (back to text)
See the appendix for an account of that meeting. (back to text)
I had many seminary professors as well as pastors review my paper on tithing. (back to text)
Personal e-mail correspondence. (back to text)
This point is strongly recommended by Kenneth Gangel and Samuel Canine in their helpful book, Communication and Conflict Management in Churches and Christian Organizations (Broadman, 1992). (back to text)
Cliff Bjork, "Hermeneutics: Six Essential Principles of Biblical Interpretation You Won't Find in the Textbooks", Searching Together 22:1-4 (1994), especially the chapter on "The Body: The Hermeneutic of Consensus", pp. 53-64. (back to text)
Jon Zens kindly offered to get involved, but I think the situation is beyond hope, humanly speaking. (back to text)
See Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, rev. & exp. (Lewis & Roth, 1995). (back to text)
Howard L. Bushart, John R. Craig, Myra Barnes, Soldiers of God: White Supremacists and Their Holy War for America (Kensington Books, 1998): xi, emphasis mine. (back to text)
"Polemic Theology, or How to Deal with Those Who Differ from Us", Peacemaker Ministries. See also Ken Sande's excellent book, The Peacemaker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict, 2nd ed. (Baker Books, 1997). (back to text)
ibid, emphasis mine. (back to text)
Gary M. Burge, "The Greatest Story Never Read: Recovering biblical literacy in the church", Christianity Today (August 9, 1999; Vol. 43, No. 9): 45. (back to text)
Vern Poythress, "Awe in the Study of the Bible", Westminster Theological Seminary Bulletin (Fall 1999). (back to text)
Walt Russell, "Insights From Postmodernism's Emphasis On Interpretive Communities In The Interpretation Of Romans 7", JETS 37:4 (Dec. 1994): 511, 526 (emphasis mine). (back to text)
Tom Wells, "On the Ethics of Controversy", Reformation & Revival Journal 5:4 (Fall 1996): 147-158. (back to text)
Tremper Longman III, Making Sense of the Old Testament: 3 Crucial Questions (Baker, 1998): 51, 54. (back to text)
This was the title of Wayne Grudem's presidential address at the 51st annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society on Nov. 17, 1999; see JETS 43:1 (March 2000): 5-26. (back to text)
John G. Reisinger, When Should a Christian Leave a Church? (Sound of Grace, n.d.): 7. (back to text)
ibid, p. 11. (back to text)
John Locke, The De-Voicing of America: Why We Don't Talk to Each Other Anymore (Simon & Schuster, 1998): 194. (back to text)
Ronald Kraybill, Repairing the Breach: Ministering in Community Conflict (MCC, 1981): 12-13. (back to text)
Steve Martin, Founders Journal 15 (Winter 1994). (back to text)
"Gentle Giants: The Paradox of Authority and Humility", Evangelical Journal 18:1 (Spring 2000): 37. (back to text)
For example, the Matthean passage (23:23) is the middle of seven woes that Jesus pronounced on the scribes and Pharisees. Note the insightful comments by D.A. Carson in "Matthew", Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Zondervan, 1984): 480-481. (back to text)
"The first thing all of us should do when faced with a biblical text that goes against our ideas, even those taught us by mentors or respected pastors, is to allow the Scripture to have its magisterial role. Authority for all true faith and practice is to be found here, in the Word of God alone ... Private judgment is the responsibility of all, the privilege of the most humble Christian." (John H. Armstrong, "The Religion God Accepts", Viewpoint, 4:5, Sept/Oct. 2000). (back to text)