Biblical Criticism of Civil and Church Rulers

Texas Scorecard, one of the most important organizations fighting for liberty in Texas, has several principles which guide their operation. One of those is don’t make it personal.

Michael Sullivan, Texas Scorecard’s CEO, applied this principle to how citizens should approach politics in a recent commentary:

We need to step back, for the sake of our Republic. We must dial down the emotion in our reckoning of political actors’ official actions. Citizens must approach government professionally, even if the politicians do not. We need to stop personalizing our relationship with the elected officials whose names appear on our ballot – even if we actually do know them personally.  And we must never take personally their unwillingness – or inability – to deliver on our expectations.

Despite the focus on not making it personal, Sullivan’s group does not hesitate to talk critically about individual politicians:

In this sense alone, SD 30 is a massive loss to Austin’s swampy, lobbyist-controlled culture. It revealed that the citizens were not interested in what they were being told to buy. The lobby-favored candidate, of course, was State Rep. Drew Springer (R-Muenster). His most notable achievement to date had been (unsuccessfully) helping a Chinese drone manufacturer. Under the Capitol dome, he’s most known for doing what he’s told by whoever happens to be in power.

Yet, there is no conflict here.

Sullivan is warning us not to take things personally, not to let our emotions get the better of us, not to act like a victim. He understands, though, that in one sense all politics is personal because politics–like everything in the world–involves individuals; individuals that are personally affected by government policies and individuals that should be held accountable for those policies.

When we look at the behemoth (more than 24 million federal, state, and local workers, contractors, and grantees) that is American government today, it is easy to forget that at its core “government” is simply a collection of individuals. And the actions of government are nothing more than the collective individual actions of the people that make up government.

Some people squirm when they see Texas Scorecard and others comment on the actions of individuals in government. Trained by the “feelings are reality” culture we live in, they see commenting on the individual, official actions of an individual in government as personal attacks. Rather, properly done, such comments are an effort to hold political entities and individual politicians and bureaucrats accountable for the actions they are taking.

Holding politicians personally and collectively accountable has clear biblical foundations. Each and every politician and government employee “is God’s servant for your good, … an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13). What happens, then, if the politician does bad instead of good, or carries out wrath against someone who does no wrong?

They must be held accountable. Such was certainly the case for mighty King Nebuchadnezzar when he went mad after saying, “Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?” (Daniel 4:28). The same was true for King Herod, who was “eaten by worms and breathed his last” when he accepted the praise of his audience: “The voice of a god, and not of a man!” (Acts 12:22-23).

God also spoke critically of the rulers of Jerusalem collectively. Jesus especially took the priests and other rulers to task throughout his ministry:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (Matthew 23:23-24 ESV)

And

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate (Matthew 23:37–38 ESV).

But biblical accountability for those in government does not come just directly from God. Nathan spoke critically of King David and his adultery. Yes, Nathan was a prophet. But, thanks to the saving grace of Jesus grace, today so are all believers. Similarly, Shimei son of Gera cursed David on the road to Bahurim.

On a broader scale, God did not institute His government of Israel over the people until they had consented to it: “All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do” (Exodus 24:3). He also agreed to hold himself accountable–actually torn asunder–to Abraham and His chosen people should He fail in obligations as ruler (Genesis 15:12-20). And while there is no legitimate criticism of God’s governance of the world, He still has allowed complaints about how His plans have unfolded (Psalm 13, etc.)

Clearly, there is a place for godly criticism of government rulers. Individually and collectively.

But what are we to do when it comes to rulers of the church? How are pastors, elders, deacons, priests, bishops, and popes to be held accountable?

Scripture clearly provides examples for how church rulers can be held accountable individually and collectively for their actions. Paul certainly held Peter accountable–and did so publicly–when Peter walked away from eating and congregating with Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-14). And Jesus’ frequent criticism of the leaders of Jerusalem also included church leaders–who in many cases held dual roles as church and civil leaders.

However, criticism of our church rulers–whether private or public–should not be reserved only for other rulers or the church courts. Accountability for rulers should also come from those who elect them (in many churches), the members of the church. As I have written before:

No man can become an elder or deacon in a PCA church without being elected by the congregation. In most cases, those men are nominated by the session. But the most significant role played by a congregation in church governance is the calling of a new pastor. This is, in fact, the only decision a congregation makes on its own without leadership from the session. When my church went through this process several years ago, spirited discussion and debate by the entire congregation—not just the search committee—played an important and necessary part of the process in the case of both candidates nominated for senior pastor.

I’d suggest that both instances, and others, are emblematic of the representative, grassroots nature of the governance of the PCA. And they demonstrate the importance of the role of the laity in the theological and political debates taking place in Redeemer and the PCA today. 

The involvement of members helps ensure that the councils and courts of the PCA reflect the wisdom of the entire church since, “as a representative system, the PCA system is susceptible to being manipulated by a minority that knows the system, is willing to participate in the system, capitalizes on the most influential aspects of the system, and is willing to be involved for the long term” (Taylor, Uniqueness, 6).

This doesn’t mean I am espousing majoritarian, or congregational, rule; it is just that representative government often fails because it becomes insular and ignores or dismisses wisdom available to it from those it represents. God designed representational church government to provide for a two-way flow of accountability and wisdom for good reason.

If this sounds a lot like how accountability also works in American government, that is because church government–specifically Presbyterian government–served as the model for the American government designed by our Founding Fathers.

The bottom line for accountability in God’s church–similar to accountability in God’s civil government–is that members, individually and collectively, should strive to hold rulers accountable, both individually and collectively. And not just in the church courts. There should be spirited, loving public debates at the local congregational level when members believe that their church leaders are making mistakes that are not being corrected through private communications. Unfortunately today, members are too often not carrying out this responsibility and the result is that many churches and denominations are failing obey God’s command that we “not be conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2).

The examples of this worldliness across the church are many. It allows the ordination of men who deny that Genesis 1 and 2 is a historical account of creation (thus it should not surprise us that a professor at the PCA’s official seminary (Covenant Theological Seminary) supports the idea that “humans had ‘ancestors,’ and that the human population has always been more than two”). Many in the PCA have joined many in the Southern Baptist Convention in promoting or accommodating Marxist-derived views such as critical race theory, white supremacy, white privilege, etc. And of course many in the Presbyterian Church USA, the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, etc. now deny the inerrancy of Scripture, the historical Adam, and even the virgin birth. The Christian laity needs to speak out.

Holding church rulers accountable is often easier said than done, however. One major reason is that Christians are rightly reluctant to speak out in ways that might be disrespectful of their elders. It must be pointed out, though, that if elders are mishandling scripture, speaking out is not at all disrespectful; in fact, it is loving.

Another reason for the reluctance is the hierarchical nature of denominations like the PCA where much of the drift toward worldliness takes place far away from the local congregation in committees, reports, and seminaries. It is almost like whatever you say locally does not matter, and the laity has very little role in the denominational hierarchy.

The Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches has addressed this problem by flattening out its governing structure. For instance, training for the ministry takes place at the local church level, not in denominational seminaries. Likewise, one primary focus of the Vanguard Presbytery–which is comprised largely of churches leaving the PCA–is eliminating the centralized committee structured that has led to many of the PCA’s current problems.

One last reason that church members are hesitant to criticize their rulers is that the rulers often do not like to be criticized and at times use the power of their office to silence critics. I believe this to be what happened to Pastor Warhurst; even if they will not admit it to themselves, a lot of PCA elders are likely ashamed of how they are failing to speak God’s truth about homosexuality and thus supported an illegitimate parliamentary maneuver to rebuke Warhurst.

Similarly, sessions or deacon boards may seek to silence critics; that appears to have been the case regarding cases of sexual sin by leaders in a number of evangelical churches. Often, this takes the form of telling members their complaints must be taken to the church courts, that public airing of complaints is disrespectful or against church polity.

When dealing with errors of rulers of civil government or the church, citizens and church members are obligated to speak out in the forum that wisdom directs them to. Especially in the church, that will more often than not begin with private communications. And while civil and church courts both have their place in this process, they also have their limitations. Thus at some point, wisdom may point citizens and members to public communication in their efforts to correct error. Though even when going public, the communications should be tailored to be as narrow as wisdom directs. For instance, public criticism of a local church might generally be confined to the membership of the church.

Still, human nature is corrupt, and even those who have been born again may often speak out of sinful anger rather than love and respect. Thus before beginning an effort to correct errors–and throughout the time such an effort is active–people should be asking God to search their hearts and thoughts and reveal whether there “be any grievous way in” them (Psalm 139:23-24). The goal here is to glorify and enjoy God–and correcting wrongs with a heart filled with sinful anger does not accomplish that.

But neither does it glorify God to simply sit and watch rulers do things contrary to God’s revealed will. So to stop the decline of our culture and the church into worldly wisdom, we must prayerfully steep ourselves in God’s Word and train ourselves to speak with bold witness to His truth and wisdom (Romans 1:16).

.