More and more I hear reference to "control freaks". This is not a new phenomenom, but appears to be much in the limelight today. Defined, this must be the person who is totally set on being a controller of something, or someone. I'd like to raise some questions about this matter. I believe God has placed individuals in positions where are to "control" what needs to be controlled. But there is much misuse of this responsibility. We need to address the matter and get closer to God's pattern from His word. I believe the Bible teaches there are to be leaders in the church, where they are to take biblical responsibilties that arise within the body. No one disputes this in the Lord's church. But is it possible that evangelists, or elders or teachers could assume more than God wanted them to assume in leadership and responsibilities? I heard of one preacher who would disfellowship a member if they missed more than 3 Sundays in a row. We have all heard of of the wall things like this. Isn't that going a big too far? How about all the other matters that come up for responsible leadership. It appears to me that men of God could become dictators, or so dogmatic in their leadership that they would become what is referred to as "control freaks". Some of you may be saying, "I wish we had elders or evangelists or teachers who had enough on the ball, and enough gumption to take a firm stand"! When does a firm stand become a "control freak" situation? How about situations where members end up controlling in the church because they have money? It that a "control freak" situation? Or people who won't attend the services until the leadershilp will do things their way? Or people who won't give their $ because the $ won't be designated for "their own criteria". Or in the homes where dad, though he is the head of his home, acts like some kind of dictator, or sergeant at arms, or "Mr. Macho", ruling with an iron fist. This is not biblical. So what gives with this total control thing? What about a preacher who still wants to control things from a former congregation, or considers himself some kind of "super bishop"? That is not biblical either. What about the husband who doesn't give in to everything his wife demands. If this happens often enough, he doesn't get any. Now, I've gone to meddling, right? No brothers, you know it happens. What about children, or teens that rule the roost, or learn to rule the roost by their own scheming and planning, and minipulating of their parents. Control freaks? Or even little children learning to holler and scream when they don't get their ways? I say brothers, it is time to back back to the book. Teach, lead, nurture, guide, set the example. Be the leader God wants you to be, but be His kind of leader!! We need to show what true leadership is in this world, and the church, that is so confused. This world is going to hell in a handbasket, and it is time for men and women to get back to the book, back to setting or following a Christ like example. We need leaders, not dictators. We need men and women who are controlled by the Holy Spirit, not by their own ego's or selfish whims, and desires. I love you. Bob

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2000

Answers

I can relate to what you are saying.The preacher who disfellowships someone for missing three Sundays ina row reminds me of Diotrophes, who cast people out of the church for receiving the brethren that John sent. Christian unity is very important, and we should not disfellowship people for violations of our own rules. That is a severe thing deone in such cases as when someone will not repent after being rebuked by one saint, then two or three saints, and then finally the entire church. Imagine the situation in Rome. Paul encouraged the saints to receive one another. There were apparently vegetarians and perhaps sabatarians in Rome. But Paul instructed the other Romans to receive them without arguing about disputable matters!

Some consider the system of having one hired pastor as a system of having a 'Diotrophes.' I think this is more of a heart issue. One person on the Plymouth Brethren list pointed out that in a church with a plurality of elders, there could be Diotropheses. Just imagine if you have more than just one control freak ina church trying to tell people what to do.

Paul is a good example of how to exercise authority. It seems like some professional pastors and some church elders try to exert more 'control' over Christians than Paul did, and Paul was an apostle! Paul didn't do a lot of bossing people around in his letters. Instead, he tried to persuade them to follow the truth, so that they would obey the Lord from their hearts. 'Obey them that have the rule over you' can also be translated 'be persuaded by them who guide you.' The word for 'obey,' here, I've read, refers to yielding to persuasion. It is interesting to see that Paul used persuasion himself.

Another thing to notice about Paul is that, generally, he doesn't seem to push people unless it is an important issue. He really exhorted people to live consistently with the Gospel of Christ- not to sin, to do what is right, etc. Even then he wrote to persuade people to do these things willingly.

But we don't see him saying 'I am an apostle. You must SUBMIT. Bow down and let me put my foot on your neck. I am an apostle, therefore I have the right to pick out the color of carpet to go in the new sanctuary!' Peter was an apostle, but when asked about what went on in Cornelius' house, he did not say 'How dare you question your leader.' Rather he gave an account of his actions, even though he was right. Paul submitted to the advice of the elders in Jerusalem, though he was an apostle.

One case where Paul did seem a little more bold to give orders or instructions was with those who ministered with him. Titus and Timothy seem to have acted like apprentices of Paul. He was like a father to them, and he charged Timothy to do his ministry. Of course even this was a commission given to Timothy from the Lord. This is another case where Paul was a little more insistent on something, and it was also something that was God's will. I don't see Paul being forceful about his own will in his letters.

Paul tried to get Apollos to go to Corinth (I Cor. 16.) Apollos didn't think it was a good time. Yet we don't read about Paul calling Apollos an unsubmissive renegade who would not obey an apostle. Besides, the boundary of Paul's authority extended to the area where he had preached the Gospel. Maybe Apollos was included in this area.

One problem arises when you get leaders with weak consciences who are also dogmatic and try to impose their own man-made rules on others. For example, some preachers preach that drinking alcohol is a sin. I had a friend once who was sick of hearing fat preachers preaching agaisnt alcohol. Drunkeness and gluttony are often treated togehter in the scriptures.

Something to keep in mind is what Jesus told the apostles when James and John wanted the two top positions. The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, but it shall not be so among you. The greatest among them will be the servant of all.

Peter passed on instructions to elders to pastor the flock of God, and not to lord over the flock, but to be examples. 'Do as I say, and not as I do' is not the way elders should minister. Elders should model good Christian behavior and ministry. As pastors and teachers, they should equip others saints to care for one another and to learn and teach the word.

The passage continues to tell the younger to submit to the elder (indication of the age of elders) and for all of you to submit to one another. elders must be in mutual submission. Even the apostles were in mutual submission, as seen above. Elders should be too. Elders should remember that one is our Master, even Christ, and we are all brethren. Elders are 'older brothers' who are to model the Christian life and take the lead among us.

Elders are not to hog all the ministry opportunities or the teaching time in church. All may prophesy one by one in a Biblical church meeting. Elders are supposed to be good examples of Christian ministry and are to know the truth to be able to resist false doctrine.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2000