This is part of an eight part series on the importance of fellowship. Read the other parts here:
Part 8: Unconditional Love
Part 7: Honesty
Part 6: Fighting Superficiality
Part 5: Sanctification
Part 4: Why You Need It (Yes You)
Part 3: Dealing With A Dead or Dying Church
Part 2: Accountability
Part 1: Introduction
On the opposite side of the spectrum from those who desperately want fellowship but are struggling to get it going, there are also those of us who, for one reason or another, aren’t interested in it whatsoever.
Some of this goes back to what I said in part I, namely that we think because God has a personal, individual relationship with us, that His use of other people to speak to us will be severely limited, or is perhaps some kind of “lesser” intervention than direct revelation of some kind. But I suspect that much of it also is a desire to avoid the consequences of fellowship - change, humility, challenge and accountability among other things.
Risks and Rewards?
For others, we simply don’t like the risk that is opened up with fellowship. Giving someone a challenge means that they might not take it well, and may not like you anymore. We can see the whole world exploding from one single, “I noticed that you tend to call other drivers idiots and make unkind gestures to them regularly.” In response to this observation, we see our friends standing over us, turning bright red and screaming at us - “HOW DARE YOU!” Soon, it gets out and everyone then thinks we’re a self-righteous jerk for saying this. By the time it gets around the church you swore at them, told them off for an hour and punched them in the face. You are excommunicated by the pope himself and when you all go to heaven no one likes you and you sit around your golden mansion all day, alone and miserable while everyone else glories God among the nations.
Maybe that’s not your nightmare, but I would be lying if I told you that I didn’t get tremendously worried and fearful when offering challenge to someone. I’ve botched up some challenges in my life and done everything from making close friends mad for a few days to infuriating leaders and half their family for months. Sometimes it happens because you say and do dumb things when you offer a challenge (by “dumb” I mean “sinful” - there is no nice way to say it), but often it happens because (big surprise) people are proud and don’t like to be challenged.
It is possibly the case that the larger your fear of challenging others, the more problem you yourself may have with the gentle correction of others. I know that I imagine people getting upset with me because I myself don’t really like to be challenged. And while I might not yell at them or threaten them, some part of me is often thinking - “How dare they say this to me! And by what right?”
Look to Your Own Heart
A church leader and friend of mine has an excellent saying that he repeats at times (it may not even be his point originally). He says that when we find ourselves offended or angry at the criticisms or rebukes of others, we need to ask ourselves what kind of idol within us is being challenged. It’s one thing to acknowledge that someone has brought an inaccurate criticism, or that they have brought an accurate criticism inappropriately or with sin themselves. But if you find yourself responding in bitterness or feeling “wounded” by a legitimate point, then you need to ask yourself what kind of idol is being attacked.
For myself, I know that if I am having trouble dealing with a gentle correction from a friend or mentor, its usually for any number of reasons:
- My sense of my own righteousness has been challenged: I think I am generally moral person and shouldn’t have to put up with someone correcting me.
- My vanity or image has been challenged: I want to appear moral or knowledgeable because I feel it gives me status or makes me worthy of respect.
- My discomfort with rejection: I want others to like me and to think well of me.
I’m sure there are others, but these are some things that I have to watch out for. You might recognize these in yourself as well.
The point is that a negative reaction to critique - even if justified - probably still carries with it some sin on your part. Indwelling sin tells us this - that we are all sinners in need of a saviour. We have to look to our own sin first and look for truth in the rebukes of others.
Cultivating Humility
It’s actually really silly if we think about it - why do we make such a big deal about the words and opinions of others? It’s because we’re all - to varying degrees - fighting against our own narcissism. We have a perception of who we are and what we look like inside our head - and it can really be devastating to realise that the person we’ve imagined ourself to be doesn’t exist in the real world.
Who we are, because we have been saved by grace and not our own righteousness, is proud, rebellious, angry, lustful, lying, gossiping, hypocritical, slothful and self-sufficient sinners. This is our nature and it is confirmed by our actions - even if we like to try and cover this. We are sinners. When we’re in church, worshipping God completely - caught up in God’s splendour and beauty, learning great truths that speak to our very souls - we’re still sinners. It doesn’t change just because of where we are, who we are with or what we are doing.
The biggest step to cultivating humility is admitting this basic fact of the gospel. Once we do that, we can derive logically our need for fellowship and why it is so important. Moreover, it follows logically that if we need God, and God acts and intervenes in our lives through fellowship with others, than we need fellowship.
It is no longer some kind of great rejection or public exposure to be rebuked - the unforgivable sin in the eyes of other people. In fact, it is a welcome aspect of our relationships with other Christians. Those people challenging us are motivated by our welfare and, moreover, if what they are saying is correct, it is edifying and building us up.
The ironic fact about this reversal is that the words spoken to us might be exactly the same as those that may normally offend us - but what changes them from an initiator of stresses and discord in the relationship to words that strengthen and purify is one thing: our own heart. The words stay the same, but our heart is more humble and open to receive what has been said because idols have been removed.
If you have trouble with correction in general, or are angry and bitter over specific correction, then you need to address this, and do it now. Without gossiping, speak to a friend or mentor about it. Ask your spouse or a good Christian friend if they see you as a person open to criticism or rebuke.
Another way to cultivate humility is to actively seek challenge. Ask your spouse or a close Christian friend if there is anything they notice about you that is not glorifying God. If your spouse tells you “nothing” - then they are lying! These kinds of conversations increase your fellowship and also enable you to pursue holiness and experience the intervention of God in a direct, applicable way.
If you don’t have friends whom you would trust to speak this way to you, then this doesn’t reveal their shallowness or immaturity, but that you have chosen to surround yourself with people who (for whatever reason) aren’t going to challenge you. In many ways, you have placed yourself on the sidelines of fellowship. Christ wants to be active in your life through the members of His body.
The point is that no Christian has a legitimate argument for avoiding fellowship. We all need it.
On to Part 5: Sanctification.
On the one hand, I would love to have such people in my life. On the other hand, I probably tend to appear unwilling to accept criticism because I automatically challenge any new thing I am told. My intent is to get clarification regarding the speaker’s views, but it often sounds like I don’t want to hear the information. Often by the time I’ve agreed the speaker is right, they no longer want to offer feedback.
To my mind, this feels much more honest though than to silently accept criticism and then forget to assess it more deeply. On the other side, I have NO problem with offering criticism or with defending the accuracy of my critique. My feeling on this tends to be that one shouldn’t say anything they aren’t willing to defend if questioned. As a result, I often mistake defensiveness for an honest review of the criticism, which makes people not want to hear my opinion.
There are very few people who can or want to communicate like this. Since communication is about portraying the desired meaning and heart of a message to the hearer, the above habits make me a poor communicator. This is despite the literal honesty and directness of my words. Even with people who WANT to have fellowship, poor communication can cause offense and pain where it isn’t intended. This leaves the victim NOT wanting fellowship because of the pain it caused.
When engaging in fellowship, we MUST be aware of the limits and preferred communication style of those we are edifying. It isn’t always enough to speak the truth in love, we must also seek to speak the truth in a way that the hearer KNOWS they are loved.
I think there are some very real truths in this article, but what I would like to see is a scriptural basis for the implementation of certain prescribed practices. Certainly I can agree with the reasons why some avoid fellowship, etc., but specifically what is the basis for a fellowship model that encourages the routine challenging of others, particularly those in leadership? Unless I’m missing something, that sort of sounds like rebellion.
1 Tim 5:19-20 Don’t listen to any charge against a church leader, unless at least two or three people bring the same charges. But if any of the leaders should keep on sinning, they must be corrected in front of the whole group, as a warning to everyone else.
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
Gal 2:11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
Further, for anyone outside the Roman Catholic church, by not being part of the church who once represented all of Christianity in the West you ARE part of a church that believes that church authority must at times be resisted.
There are really only two approaches to take here. Either we assume God has granted inerrency to church leaders in the context of teaching their members, or we have a Biblically commanded responsibility to correct false doctrine and false teachers. The Bible does not allow you to idly sit by and ignore false teaching. Honestly, if care so little about the truth of Scripture that you would not correct a human authority when it contrasts with God’s Word, you need to carefully examine your faith. Be wary whenever you begin to worry more about what men think than what God thinks.
Atanamis, I think we’ve been over this same ground before. Those scriptures really don’t address my question, which has to do with a common practice of challenging others in the context of this particular fellowship model Colin has prescribed. No one is arguing that people will not need to be challenged, corrected, and even rebuked. Specifically, though, on what particular ground should anyone have free license to challenge, correct, and rebuke leaders?
I don’t see how any of those scriptures you quoted could be applicable here. Peter and Paul were peers, but they were also part of the leadership of the church. We have one apostle rebuking another, and Peter received his correction. But is that really the same thing as someone challenging their pastor? First, I would hope that no one’s pastor is flirting with Judaism like Peter was, but even if that were the case, I don’t see any scriptural precedent for a person with no such authority justifiably correcting a leader. The instruction Paul gave to Timothy to correct church leaders was just that - instruction for the pastor to rightly govern the church. In the New Testament, church government is identified as a specific area of ministry that God has established for some individuals (not all) to stand in (1 Corinthians 12:28).
“Honestly, if care so little about the truth of Scripture that you would not correct a human authority when it contrasts with God’s Word, you need to carefully examine your faith. Be wary whenever you begin to worry more about what men think than what God thinks.”
Its not that I don’t care, its just that it may not necessarily be my place. Certainly any Christian can and should be aware of false teaching and should resist it. But to correct it or rebuke someone for it is another matter altogether. Certainly someone should deal with it, but not any and everyone. Furthermore, much of what is called false doctrine these days is not on the same order of what the apostles addressed in the epistles or the book of Acts. Some of it is, but most of it isn’t. Look at this passage in Acts 20. Paul is addressing the elders at Ephesus shortly before his departure.
28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.
So Paul is warning the elders that false teachers will come after he leaves. So who is to look after the flock and guard against the wolves in sheep’s clothing? Just any good and honest self-appointed person? No, the elders whom the Holy Spirit had chosen to oversee the church. This is the God-ordained function of church government.
Colin said, “It’s actually really silly if we think about it - why do we make such a big deal about the words and opinions of others? It’s because we’re all - to varying degrees - fighting against our own narcissism.”
Reminds me of that bumper sticker: “You’d worry less about what people thought of you if you realized how seldom they do.”
Chris A said, “Specifically, though, on what particular ground should anyone have free license to challenge, correct, and rebuke leaders?”
I’d say because leaders are fallible people just like the rest of us. We respect, honor, and appreciate the work they do in serving us as leaders, (leading is hard work, especially if one follows Christ’s example of a servant leader) but other than that, I’d say they are just like the rest of us. A leader worth following is one who is willing to accept and even invite correction.
I’m definitely not trying to portray ministers as infallible, and I will even go so far as to say any true pastor isn’t going to have a problem with people posing questions about things. If someone is preaching something that you have a hard time reconciling with scripture, by all means I think you should ask him about it. If that’s what is meant by “challenge”, I see nothing wrong with that at all as long as it is done in the right spirit. Maybe he’ll see something he didn’t see before, or maybe he’ll be able to clarify something or offer further biblical support. But the moment someone tries to convince him that he is wrong in a combative or confrontational way, I think that is plainly out of order even if the pastor is wrong.
Chris, how can it possibly be out of order to confront the pastor in your example (that is, “the pastor is wrong”)? I agree that the confronter shouldn’t be combative–but that is true whether the person being confronted is a child or a lay person or a senior pastor. If the pastor is indeed wrong–and I”m talking here clearly morally wrong, as opposed to me griping about some stupid little stylistic thing I may not like about him or even a minor theological issue–then he needs to be confronted–by anyone willing to do it.
I’d also like to say that being the confronter is not easy for many of us. I personally have failed to speak up when I probably should have because I didn’t want to meddle, or I felt I would open myself up to retaliatory criticism, or I was too lazy to face what might be a long drawn out discussion. It is easy to fall into that “live and let live” mentality, but I believe that attitude is not scriptural.
Atanamis, since I communicate (and value communication) in a similar way to yourself, I agree with your comments and have dealt with those same issues.
Before I found my current church, in many ways, I felt very isolated in the way that communication went about with many of the Christians around me. It is tempting for me to say (and in my arrogance I have even thought this) that I was merely surrounded by “lesser” communicators or “oversensitive” people, and there was nothing I could do about it. And, while I think to a large degree, this was true (in it’s own way) I cannot let myself off for the fact that I didn’t try, try again, work, and make more effort to either find fellowship that would fit my style of communication, adjust my style for the sake of others or educate others in how to communicate with me better.
Christian fellowship has been made a lot easier for me though, because I now fellowship with believers who have been discipled in communication methods similar to my own.
Perhaps it is my own bias, but I think this more direct form of communication is biblical and spiritually edifying. I think an avoidance of this often goes deeper than style preferences, and into areas of sin such as those mentioned - pride, vanity, etc… People don’t like to be challenged.
But in spite of whether this is true, I have to be willing to look at myself and make sure that I am not holding up an artificial standard to measure other people or push them into being more like me (because I’m so great, of course).
Chris, I think the disagreement is more fundamental. You seem to be focussing on a hierarchical relationship here - that leaders are somehow exceptional in some way. If you think this, of course it follows that there should be some kind of “extra protocol” or “special exemptions” when it comes to rebuke and challenge. But I don’t think we see this kind of status/hierarchical differentiation in scripture. I think we see differentiation in the sense that people are gifted differently and called into different positions, some to leadership and authority. But the nature of those distinctions are not to separate status - the bible directly contradicts this - rather they differentiate roles, responsibilities and ministry.
Because one man does not have greater status over another in the body of Christ, it is perfectly acceptable to share encouragement, rebuke and correction. With authority, the way that is done may be different - but this is in respect to their roles - NOT their status.
I just want to add that part of this respect for roles means that it is often better for leaders to be accountable to other leaders. Again, this isn’t because of status - but because these men will have a shared understanding because of their more unique roles and responsibilities.
Chris - I didn’t see the original post as referring to those in leadership, but to all of us. As a pastor’s wife, I see the devastation it causes when people make criticisms of my husband. Some people seem to think pastors aren’t human and so you can say anything you like and it doesn’t matter. Magnify that by the size of the congregation and you have a problem…
BUT I don’t think that’s what this was about.
I understood the OP to be talking about how important it is for all of us to have someone who we trust to be honest with us, even if that involves saying things we’d rather not hear.
I am grateful I do have a friend like this. We pray together, and we have both had times when we’ve had to say things we’d rather not. But things which would have sounded harsh and condemning coming from someone else (and therefore dismissed out of hand) are accepted because they are said knowing it will cause pain to the other, and that causes pain for yourself.
For me, that’s the big difference - is it criticism/feedback I dish out that costs me nothing? or does it cause me soulsearching and pain to do it?
“Chris, I think the disagreement is more fundamental. You seem to be focusing on a hierarchical relationship here - that leaders are somehow exceptional in some way. If you think this, of course it follows that there should be some kind of “extra protocol” or “special exemptions” when it comes to rebuke and challenge. But I don’t think we see this kind of status/hierarchical differentiation in scripture.”
I think scripture definitely indicates that the leadership, or “hierarchy” if you like, is exceptional with respect to correction. I didn’t form an opinion from nothing. Various passages, some that I posted and some that I did not, show there is a clear distinction. I wouldn’t describe this as “extra protocol” but rather “protocol”. The status of leaders is not exceptional in that they cannot or should not be challenged, corrected, or rebuked, but clearly they should not be rebuked by persons they oversee. That is both illogical and unbiblical, and as of yet I have not seen any biblical evidence to the contrary. The license to rebuke means that there is authority on the part of the one doing the rebuking. Where there is no authority, there is no basis for challenge or rebuke.
“Because one man does not have greater status over another in the body of Christ, it is perfectly acceptable to share encouragement, rebuke and correction. With authority, the way that is done may be different - but this is in respect to their roles - NOT their status.”
Perhaps this is just semantics, but in many respects roles and status overlap. No one has a greater status than another in a righteousness sense, but clearly in a governmental sense some do have greater positions of authority. What I’m basically asking is whether you can point to any biblical precedence or justification for a person of lesser authority challenging a person of greater authority.
Look at 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.
How can one obey and submit to someone and still be able to challenge or even rebuke them? Going back to Moses, God has never accepted this sort of thing.
Chris A said, “How can one obey and submit to someone and still be able to challenge or even rebuke them?”
Chris, I do this everyday. It happens with my husband (who is also one of my bosses at work) and it happens with my other boss (I work for a large Christian mission). When the leaders are Christ-honoring servant leaders, it isn’t hard to do. We all love, respect, and have the others’ best interest in mind. Just like we should at church.
(Upon re-reading that paragraph, I don’t want to give the impression that my work place is without problems, but you get what I mean.)
Thanks for that Chris.
I definitely disagree with your position. I see the church as a body of equal members, but with different parts and functions. It’s the same way I see the husband/wife relationship - equal in Christ, but with different roles. My wife has every right to rebuke and challenge me - I rely on this for my own sanctification. Because I have the role and responsibility of spiritual leadership in my family does not make me exempt from challenge.
It’s the same way in the church, Chris. We are submitted to one another and we have leaders, but these are not governors or rulers. The fact that a man is a leader is by the Holy Spirit in giving his gifts, not because he is somehow special or superior. I don’t think this contradicts Hebrews 13:17 or any of the passages you’ve posted. What it contradicts is a worldly hierarchical view (governments, corporations, tribes, etc…) that has been read into those passages.
What is there in the bible is roles and responsibilities that make leaders, pastors, apostles and other authorities - the text you have cited DO support this idea. But what is not there is a kind of status or “archy” (rulership) given to people with such gifts - this is not to say that God has not and does not appoint rulers in the “archy” sense - he has and does (Romans 13 attests to this). But this does not make “rulers” out of anyone claiming that the Holy Spirit made them so.
The Holy Spirit makes overseers and (under) shepherds - not rulers - this is what the text says. The Holy Spirit also distributes gifts - not authority. Again, Romans 13 tells us that no one makes authorities except God the father himself.
I think this needs an article…
“Chris A said, ‘How can one obey and submit to someone and still be able to challenge or even rebuke them?’
Chris, I do this everyday…”
With all due respect, I have trouble believing that you do. Let’s look at some basic definitions.
sub⋅mit
/səbˈmɪt/ Show Spelled [suhb-mit] Show IPA verb, -mit⋅ted, -mit⋅ting.
–verb (used with object)
1.to give over or yield to the power or authority of another (often used reflexively).
2.to subject to some kind of treatment or influence.
3.to present for the approval, consideration, or decision of another or others: to submit a plan; to submit an application.
4.to state or urge with deference; suggest or propose (usually fol. by a clause): I submit that full proof should be required.
–verb (used without object)
5.to yield oneself to the power or authority of another: to submit to a conqueror.
6.to allow oneself to be subjected to some kind of treatment: to submit to chemotherapy.
7.to defer to another’s judgment, opinion, decision, etc.: I submit to your superior judgment.
re⋅buke
/rɪˈbyuk/ Show Spelled [ri-byook] Show IPA verb, -buked, -buk⋅ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.to express sharp, stern disapproval of; reprove; reprimand.
–noun
2.sharp, stern disapproval; reproof; reprimand.
If you are truly deferring to the authority of another, are you going to reprimand them? The moment you do, you cease to submit.
pastasmissus - thanks for your comments. I’m really glad you didn’t take the view that I want to see pastors criticised more. It would be tough for me to think of a more thankless job than pastors. They are doing some of the most important work in all of God’s kingdom, and yet they get little thanks, little money and a lot of resistance - even from their own flock.
Glad to see that you’ve got a friend whom you can trust with part of your sanctification. I hope the series benefits you.
Thainamu, I strongly agree with most of what you are saying. As a libertarian, who believes in “live and let live” as a political philosophy, I have a lot of trouble realising that this philosophy has NO PLACE in the church. In the church, it is my responsibility to help others in their sanctification - even to the point of intervention of some kind.
This is why I think membership is a good institution for churches. It creates a framework for correction and discipline within a local church. It allows people to consciously decide to allow others to help them and to agree to provide support themselves.
Colin, I think you’re right that we need an article to fully hash all this out. Thanks for providing for insight into your views on what you feel the scriptures imply. That’s what I was looking for.
Let me say this, though, so that no one misunderstands my view. The leaders of the church are not to be dictatorial. Just as I believe the scriptures attest to the authority God has delegated to them, I also believe the scriptures give clear instruction to leaders not to abuse their authority.
1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 NOR BEING LORDS OVER THOSE ENTRUSTED TO YOU, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.
(1 Peter 5:1-4)
First Timothy and Titus all speak about the qualifications, and therefore disqualifications, of those who would be leaders. Here is a choice passage:
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence
From this passage we can see that dictatorial personalities are not cut out for positions of oversight. So a pastor should not be a “ruler” or a “governor” in a totalitarian sense, but he definitely is a ruler. Look how verse 5 ties in with verse 4.
5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)
This is a clear implication of governmental authority, otherwise the comparison just doesn’t make much sense.
In response to the comment pastasmissus made, I too understand that the intent of the article is not to be particularly directed pointing out the flaws of leadership. I just feel that leadership is included in a way inconsistent with the governmental structure God has placed in the Church. I am interested and open to learning about fellowship from an experimental point of view. As I stated, I certainly have a lot to learn in this area. But I filter everything through biblical revelation.
Chris said, “If you are truly deferring to the authority of another, are you going to reprimand them? The moment you do, you cease to submit.”
Chris, this is just the attitude that allows preachers and priests to build their own little kingdoms with sins of power-grubbing. We’ve all seen how well that works out.
Let me set up a little scenario: if I go to visit my pastor in his office and he momentarily steps out, and I see that he he has a naked woman (who is not his wife) as the screen saver on his computer–what should I do? Should I go to the assistant pastor with this info (and be called a gossip and turn it into a he-said, she-said)? Should I ignore it because he’s my pastor and I submit to his authority? Absolutely not! I should confront him then and there. How he responds to my “rebuke”–if you have to call it that–is up to him, but I would be morally wrong to walk away and say “Oh, it is none of my business and since he’s the pastor I have no right to confront him anyway.”
Thainamu, I was strictly speaking about what the Bible plainly says, and I was addressing whether it would be possible to submit to someone you felt you would be able to rebuke. I don’t see this as an attitude so much as it is a basic fact about what submission is and what rebuke is.
But speaking of this hypothetical scenario, I’ll give you my opinion, but only within what I see to be the limitations of scripture. If this were to happen, you should go to him privately. You shouldn’t rebuke him, but you should let him know what you saw and give him the opportunity to repent while retaining his honor. (If you got upset, I don’t think anyone could blame you.) If he doesn’t repent, then you escalate the matter to others in church leadership. This could be a church board, the denomination, or whatever (as long as it isn’t the sewing circle). Preferably you would inform at least two other persons who would have the authority to reprove him. If they don’t rebuke him or otherwise correct the situation, I think I’d be looking for a new church.
I know you’ve said in the past that you have been really disappointed by a minister that had a moral failure. I know the seriousness of this stuff. People engaging in things like this should definitely be corrected; what I am concerned with is doing it the right way. But I would say that in matters of gross sin, it may be better to correct someone the wrong way than to let it go unaddressed.
Chris, thank you for your gracious response. Maybe we are having a bit of difficulty with semantics here, because when you say: “If this were to happen, you should go to him privately. You shouldn’t rebuke him, but you should let him know what you saw and give him the opportunity to repent while retaining his honor.” My speaking to him privately IS what I’m terming “rebuke.” That is, I’m intentionally confronting him, hopefully without screaming and dramatic antics, but certainly not letting it go out of some misguided attempt to “submit” to his authority.
Perhaps another problem is that horrible word “submit.” I have grown to hate the word because it is so badly misused and now has a connotation of brain-dead and cult-like obeisance. That is why I can’t accept your statement “…and I was addressing whether it would be possible to submit to someone you felt you would be able to rebuke.” I certainly DO think I can do that and indeed I do it on a daily basis. My relationship with my husband is but one example of this: I “rebuke” him almost as often as he “rebukes” me (he’s got a worse case to work with than I do :-)! When we love, honor, and trust someone in the Lord it is easy to “submit” and it is also entirely possible to “rebuke.”
Chris, before you go any further, define “rebuke”. Directly confronting the pastor and then escalating if he doesn’t repent is EXACTLY what the rest of us mean by “rebuke”. Definite precisely what you mean by the word “rebuke”, give an example of a valid rebuke, and an example of how a member of a congregation would illegitimately “rebuke” their pastor. This should be done still working on the assumption the pastor is engaging in openly sinful behavior, obviously a correction over personal preferences is always wrong regardless of who does it.
How can that possibly be considered submitting? In doing this, aren’t you very clearly putting your own interpretation of Scripture above that of your church leaders? Worse, you are severing yourself from a body of believers to whom you have committed yourself over a disagreement with not one, but all of the church elders. While I will agree this is at times needed, it seems absolutely incompatible with your previous position regarding submitting to the authority placed over you.
Chris, I don’t disagree with your last statement, however, I don’t think this deals at all with the objections that I have brought up. It is one thing to say “I filter everything through biblical revelation” and another thing to do this. This is not meant to be a derogatory statement. Of course it is also MY intent to filter everything through biblical revelation - but I am going to make mistakes, I’m not going to read carefully, I’m going to bring in my own view… I SHOW (not just to others, but to myself) that I am filtering my views through the bible by my views progressively becoming aligned with what is actually in the bible. You should show that you are willing to deal with my objections - these objections may be wrong - but I am making a case with scripture.
Colin, I understand what you’re saying. I was just qualifying my own objections.
Thainamu and Atanamis, I posted all those definitions of “rebuke” so we would all be on the same page. Confronting someone is not the same as rebuking them. The simplest definition, I think, is a sharp reprimand. You can confront someone without reprimanding them.
As a hypothetical example of what a legitimate rebuke might look light, let’s take the scenario Thainamu introduced. Let’s say she confronts him, and he denies what she saw, so she escalates the matter to some officials in the denomination. (This is unfortunate but sometimes necessary because stuff like this is difficult to handle in-house.) One of the representatives from the denomination decides to call the church secretary. He tells her that he and another gentleman from the denomination want to meet with her. When the meeting takes place, they ask her whether she has ever noticed any questionable material on the pastor’s computer. At first, loyalty kicks in and she doesn’t want to say anything, but eventually she admits that she had seen some things of a sexual nature. So the two representatives from the denomination call to schedule a meeting with the pastor and they agree on a time when they will come see him the following day. The pastor knows deep down that these guys are going to confront him about these accusations. When they get there, they tell him plainly that they have two unrelated witnesses who claim to have seen sexually explicit material on his computer. He says something about the fact that he is into the arts, and they might have seen some pictures of statues or something like that, or “maybe they saw the stuff I looked up for my wife about breastfeeding.” These guys aren’t buying it. They say, “Well, pastor. There’s only one thing we know to do to exonerate you. Let’s have a look at your computer.” He reluctantly agrees. When they look at his browser history, they see some very explicit stuff. Upon this discovery, one of the men says, “Herman, you have disgraced your church, our denomination, and the reputation of the Lord Jesus Christ himself! Not only have you defiled yourself by viewing pornography, but you have done it on a computer paid for by the offerings of your faithful parishioners. And when we asked you about it, you lied to our faces. That makes you both a pervert and a liar! You have proven yourself to be disqualified from the ministry. From henceforth your credentials are revoked until such a time as we feel you have been completely restored.” Now that’s what I call a rebuke.
We are to follow our leaders as they follow Christ. There is always room for disagreements about things, but when people get this far off, we don’t have to subject ourselves to this kind of leadership. To do so could adversely affect our relationship with Christ because we are being influenced by someone who is influenced by the wrong spirit. If things like this aren’t corrected, we need to get up out of there. We should submit to the authority God has delegated on leaders, but some of these guys are of the devil.
There was a pastor in Atlanta who had (by all appearances) a great church. He was one of the first churches there to be full integrated. He claimed to have marched with Dr. King during the Civil Rights Movement, and he was preaching unity in the church, etc. But you know what? This guy was a pervert and a liar. He had multiple affairs with women in the church, and he manipulated them with mind control, and actually used fake gifts of the “spirit” to flatter them. Yet people still remained faithful to his church, despite the fact that all these accusations were flying. Later after the truth had come out, his “nephew” announced that he was actually his son. Yeah, this pastor had slept with his brother’s wife - with his approval I might add. This guy recently died. I don’t know what his eternal destiny is, but I wouldn’t be too optimistic about meeting him in heaven.
My mom was a faithful member of a certain church for a long time. There was a lot of stuff she didn’t like, but she remained faithful anyway. The pastor’s oldest son, who was also the children’s minister, was accused of molesting little boys. When he was taken in for questioning, he admitted it. Then when it came time for the trial, he lied and said he didn’t do it. And his parents kept perpetuating the lie. They were saying their son was innocent, when there was no way he was. He is in prison now. My mom stayed through all that, and then eventually left. Who wants to be part of a church headed up by a liar who is covering up for a child molester? Not me. Now let me say this: I know this pastor and I’ve always like him. Maybe he just didn’t want to admit that his son was a pedophile. What parent does? But that doesn’t excuse what he did. You can’t tell lies from the pulpit and be an ambassador of the Truth, especially lies told at the expense of innocent children.
Chris, based on your above definition of “rebuke”, I believe we are in agreement. Only church leaders should make formal rebukes and remove pastors from leadership.
If the pastor of my church were to be engaging in sin, I would first address it with him one on one, then go to the church elders about it. If they were unwilling to take action I would leave the church without making an effort to stir up additional trouble. It isn’t my place to declare the pastor unfit to lead. The elders are recognized by my congregation as being responsible for the future of our church, and if I disagree with their fitness I ought to leave rather than make problems.
I actually asked at our last elder appointment what the candidate would do if he wasn’t able to achieve unity with the other elders on an important matter, and he indicated that he would step down from eldership and leave the church. I’d definitely be concerned about being part of a church with high turnover in eldership. People appointed as elders ought to be strong believers, and if such people are being forced out of leadership again this could definitely be a sign of major problems in the current leadership.
Colin, I re-read your last post and let me just say that I too make mistakes. I’ll do my best to deal with your objections. I ask your forgiveness if I was overbearing in any of my comments. And that goes for the rest of you guys too. I think this forum could also serve as a means of fellowship, and to some extent I think maybe it is.
As for communication, though, it definitely has its pros and cons. The pros are that we can take time to formulate responses and therefore be more precise with our words. But one major drawback is interpreting what is meant by written communication. If we misunderstand each other or are saying the same thing using different words, we don’t have the advantages of in-person communication. The intent of a comment may get lost in interpretation, or one may want to take the conversation in a different direction and the other may not exactly follow, etc.
I am reminded by something a mentor of mine said. He said, “The less you say, the less you have to repent of.” He was a very quiet man. Believe it or not, I’m pretty quiet too “in real life”. I know I say entirely too much here sometimes and muddy the waters of the conversation.
Chris the above example of a rebuke is not what I am talking about at all - but I think a lot in there is problematic for other reasons. But I realise it’s just an example so I’m not going to argue with some of the other points in there. I’ll just say that when I refer to people rebuking and correcting one another it’s not such a punitive experience as you are describing there. I don’t see rebuke as punitive at all - it is there to aid in the process of sanctification - not punish people, “disqualify” them, “remove” them or set up informal kangaroo courts.
Of course, I’ve just realise the mistake that I’ve made - I’ve not defined my own terms. I’ll have to do this in the next piece.
I hope I’m just not being argumentative, but this is not a doctrinally sound statement at all. Sin occurs with what is in our hearts - what we think - when we say and do something we are merely acting out the sin that is already present within us (Matt 15:11).
“I hope I’m just not being argumentative, but this is not a doctrinally sound statement at all. Sin occurs with what is in our hearts - what we think - when we say and do something we are merely acting out the sin that is already present within us (Matt 15:11).”
Well, I have to disagree - not because I think what you’ve said is entirely wrong. But Jesus said that to unregenerate people who had not been made righteous in Christ. Jesus was saying to this to religious Jews who trusted in their outward actions as a means of righteousness. I believe this comment was speaking of the sin nature in the spirit of man, such sin nature as is now non-existent in the spirits of those who believe in Christ. Basically I think this is more of our disagreement about the doctrine of indwelling sin.
Either way, if you’ll read through the scriptures you’ll find that people always repented for their acts of sin. Think about it, it’s basically impossible to repent of a sin nature if it is always resident in you because there’s nowhere to turn.
Are you saying you don’t have lustful thoughts, hate your brothers at times or deal with being proud or arrogant? These are all sin - the scriptures and Christ himself define them as such. Sin is hardly limited to “acts” and hardly limited to unregenerate people.
“Are you saying you don’t have lustful thoughts, hate your brothers at times or deal with being proud or arrogant? These are all sin - the scriptures and Christ himself define them as such. Sin is hardly limited to ‘acts’ and hardly limited to unregenerate people.”
Well, I’m not saying no to all these, but I will say that I never hate my brother. He who hates his brother walks in darkness. Such a person is a liar and a murderer who has no eternal life in him (1 John 2:9,11; 1 John 3:15; 1 John 4:20). Our assurance that we have passed from death to life is the love we have for our brothers (1 John 3:14). And I do not have (denoting possession) lustful thoughts in the sense that they proceed from my heart like they would an unregenerate person. This is what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 15. The Pharisees Jesus was addressing were making everything clean outwardly without acknowledging that they were spiritually dead inwardly.
Bad thoughts still come to us, but they don’t come from within because they are not part of us. If they did we wouldn’t be able to “cast down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). This denotes a degree of control a person with a sin nature could never have. Satan brings thoughts to our minds, but that doesn’t make us sinners. He did the same thing to Jesus. That’s how he tempted Jesus and that’s how he tempts us. There’s no sin in being tempted. Now if we take those thoughts and meditate on them, then it becomes sinful.
I agree that acts of sin are not limited to unregenerate people. Our disagreement stems from whether a Christian has a sin nature or whether he commits sin because his mind is unrenewed. If a person has a sin nature, he commits sin because he is spiritually dead. But if a person has a new nature, being regenerated spiritually by the Holy Spirit, his acts of sin are not the result of his spiritual condition, but are the result of carnal-mindedness. Because even though one’s spirit is born again, his mind is not. The mind governed by carnal desires continues to produce death until and unless it is renewed with the word of God; but once it is renewed it produces life and peace (Romans 8:6). The mind of a man focused on sin, void of the knowledge of the grace within him sufficient to make him free from sin, isn’t much different than the mind of a person under the Law. Once the mind is renewed, then the body can be kept in subjection by the grace of God (1 Corinthians 9:27). Otherwise the spirit is new but the mind is still like that of the “old man”.
The epistles make a clear distinction between the nature of sinners and the nature of saints. We are not the same. We may do the same things by choice or by ignorance, but we don’t do them because it is our nature to do them. I provided some scriptures to prove that out the last time we had this exchange, but perhaps the most explicit and direct one is found in Ephesians 2:
1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and WERE BY NATURE THE CHILDREN OF WRATH, just as the others.
Obviously this means that we are no longer have a sin nature. If we think we do, I suppose we will act like we are, since as a man think in his heart so is he. But if we renew our minds to what Paul is saying here, we think instead:
1. We are spiritually alive to God because we are born again.
2. We used to be spiritually dead with a sin nature.
3. We used to be in the kingdom of darkness.
4. We used to conduct ourselves in the desires of the flesh.
5. We no longer have a sin nature like others.
This freedom cannot be experienced apart from the knowledge of this truth, hence renewing the mind. Remember Jesus said that knowledge of the truth produces freedom. Even a born-again Christian can only experience freedom from sin to the extent that he has knowledge of who he is in Christ - an altogether new creation, completely cleansed from all unrighteousness. Is it really reasonable to assume that God would make a new creation with a sin nature?
Colin, I didn’t mean to write such a long post to answer your questions, but I felt it was necessary so that you understand what I mean.
If a Christian ever hates someone, then he is what - proving that he isn’t a Christian? Is hate an unforgivable sin then? I think what your saying here is absurd. I have hated people, plenty of times. When 9/11 happened, I wanted blood. I have hated other Christians, I have hated my parents, I have probably even hated my wife. Praise God that salvation is not dependent on my ability to “control myself” and perform good works (or not perform bad works). I sin every day. I sin every hour. I probably sin even more frequently than that. If my salvation was based on anything I had to keep - then I would have tossed it away thousands of times.
Your exposition here is not taking into account verse 4, where Paul denotes that the power to do these things is “in God” not “in us.” It is not dependent upon us to do those things presented in the passage, it is dependent on God - and he is the only one with the power and faithfulness to do it. Your interpretation moves directly into a kind of elevation of man, and then a removal of his responsibility for sin (Satan does it, not man).
In your next paragraph you cite 1 Corinthians 9:27 without taking into account that Paul is still speaking in a metaphor of the race. He is literally speaking about the training and discipline required to keep one’s physical body fit - not without sin.
I do not thing that unregenerate people and Christians are the same - they aren’t. One has been justified, one is not. However, sanctification is not the same as justification. Sanctification takes time and it is the active process of God making us holy (not ourselves being able to somehow control, condition or otherwise “fight” sin on our own). When we go to be with Christ, we will indeed be completely sanctified (we have to be, or we would not be able to withstand his presence). But until that point, we are still bound with a sinful body and a propensity to sin. This is gradually removed by God’s grace and his active process of sanctification. It’s not magically gone at the same instant of justification.
Ephesians 2 makes a clear statement about justification (hence the use of the term “wrath”). Justification saves us from wrath - but sanctification is that process that makes us holy and Christlike - a completely different concept. The next verses show that justification is very clearly the concept Paul is talking about.
Colin, I want to quote these verses here and then I will comment on them and hopefully explain more fully some of the thoughts expressed in my previous post.
“We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. 15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” (1 John 3:14,15)
“If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?” (1 John 4:20)
Your initial response to my posting these verses was, “If a Christian ever hates someone, then he is what - proving that he isn’t a Christian? Is hate an unforgivable sin then? I think what your saying here is absurd.”
First, I don’t want to take credit for what John wrote. I believe this to be the inspired word of God written by the hand of John, and I think the verses speak for themselves. We may have trouble fitting them into our theology, but I believe they are nonetheless true. So the question then is: How are they true? I believe they are true because Christians do not have a sin nature. Consider the above verses in light of something John said in the same context.
“He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.”
(1 John 3:8-10)
Now, on one level it would be very easy to say that it is ridiculous for John to write, “Whoever has been born of God does not sin” and “cannot sin”. But he did write it, so again, what does it mean? Is John living in denial? Is he being unrealistic? No, he meant that Christians do not have a sin nature, which is part of justification. God justified you when he made you a new creation in Christ Jesus.
I believe the higher way is to interpret Christianity in light of the knowledge of God rather than in the light of our personal experiences. If you feel anger towards someone, it is easy to say, “I hate that @#*&%!” But that’s not true. That’s a lie from the devil! He’s the one who opposes the knowledge of God. You don’t hate them. It isn’t your nature to hate them. The love of God has been shed abroad in your heart by the Holy Spirit.
If we are governed by our feelings, it’s just because we are being carnal. But rather than thinking carnally, we should think spiritually. We should agree with God rather than agreeing with our fickle emotions. I don’t hate anybody, and I’m not bragging when I say I don’t hate my wife, you, that rascal Darius, or anyone else. I’m simply saying, in agreement with God, that old nature of hatred is completely gone. It doesn’t exist because the Son of God was manifested to destroy it! Praise God!
Regarding justification and sanctification, I agree that they are two distinct works of grace. But I don’t see them as altogether different. The passage I quoted in Ephesians is dealing with both concepts side-by-side. As you noted, the word “wrath” does suggest justification, but you’ll notice that the change in conduct consistent with sanctification is presumed in the very same verse. Sanctification is the result of the natural progression of grace in a believer’s life that begins with justification, but it is wholly presumed as the spiritual development that follows the new birth.
Practically speaking, one must adopt the correct way of thinking as a framework for sanctification. If we are moving toward sanctification, it means that we are first thinking in a manner that makes this a real possibility. We can only do that by thinking God’s thoughts after him, and fashioning our minds to that model, considering what God says before even our own feelings or opinions.
And hey, if we can’t agree, I’m okay with that because I know we can agree that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who saves sinners. And I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable. I don’t even exactly agree with some of the same things I thought two years ago.
Chris A said, “First, I don’t want to take credit for what John wrote. I believe this to be the inspired word of God written by the hand of John, and I think the verses speak for themselves.”
Since you’ve just said you won’t hate me :-), I’m going to make this comment: I find the above statement to be pretty annoying and condescending. First of all, no one is going to attribute John’s words to you, so why would you think we might?
Second of all, we ALL believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God–you’re not exceptional in that regard. (Of course, I don’t actually mean ALL, because a few folks here have said they don’t take that stand. But most of us in dialogue with you would also “believe this to be the inspired word of God written by the hand of John.” Don’t make it out like you’re the only one in this conversation who believes in the inspiration of scripture.
Third, as for verses speaking for themselves, well, that’s where we have a problem. Theologians with completely opposite views on any given topic will both claim that! Also, if the Bible was so obvious in its intention on every little thing, then we wouldn’t need Bible teachers or preachers or the Holy Spirit, for that matter–we’d just need someone to teach us to read.
And lastly, back to the topic, how to you reconcile I John 1:8-2:1 with the other verses of I John you’ve quoted?
Thainamu, I know that no one would attribute what John said to me knowingly. But I was specifically speaking to this comment:
“If a Christian ever hates someone, then he is what - proving that he isn’t a Christian? Is hate an unforgivable sin then? I think what your saying here is absurd.”
That was Colin’s response to my paraphrasing those verses, at least that’s the way I interpreted it. The last post I didn’t paraphrase the scriptures, but quoted them in context so that what John said could made plain, and it could be distinguished from anything that may have been mistakenly attributed to me. In other words, I’m sure I say a lot of things that could be interpreted as absurd, but I think Christians are less likely to think that John is absurd.
And please believe me when I say that there was no intention of condescension at all. I think you and Colin would agree, based on previous conversations that this scripture is the word of God, but not everyone has agreed. If someone disagrees with me personally, that’s one thing. But disagreeing with John or Paul is altogether different, if one appreciates these scriptures to be the word of God.
“And lastly, back to the topic, how to you reconcile I John 1:8-2:1 with the other verses of I John you’ve quoted?”
Can you elaborate here? What do you mean exactly?
Chris said, “Whoever has been born of God does not sin” and “cannot sin”. But he did write it, so again, what does it mean? Is John living in denial? Is he being unrealistic? No, he meant that Christians do not have a sin nature, which is part of justification. God justified you when he made you a new creation in Christ Jesus.”
If Christians cannot sin, then why do they? I John 1:8-2:1 is pretty clear that Christians do, indeed, sin. We sin because we fail to let our new nature be in charge; prior to regeneration there is no new nature for the old one to argue with, just a pile of misguided good deeds (that God views as filthy rags).
Perhaps a better translation of I John 3:9 would be “Whoever is a child of God does not continue to sin, for God’s very nature is in him; and because God is his father, he cannot continue to sin.” That is, a habit of ongoing sin, as opposed to an “isolated” sin that we confess and God forgives.
Chris said, “If someone disagrees with me personally, that’s one thing. But disagreeing with John or Paul is altogether different, if one appreciates these scriptures to be the word of God.”
Chris, my point is that believers who accept the inspiration of scripture and who love the Lord with all their hearts don’t all agree on what EXACTLY John or Paul MEANT when they said X. That’s one reason we have so many denominations and so many discussions. I don’t want you to think that I have such a wishy-washy view of God’s truth that I think we can’t know anything, but on the other hand, everything isn’t as cut and dried as we’d like it to be.
“If Christians cannot sin, then why do they? I John 1:8-2:1 is pretty clear that Christians do, indeed, sin. We sin because we fail to let our new nature be in charge; prior to regeneration there is no new nature for the old one to argue with, just a pile of misguided good deeds (that God views as filthy rags).”
I think we are pretty much in agreement on this. I would add that the “new man”, the spirit that is housed in our earthly vessels, is wholly sinless and that any remnant of the “old man” is the unrenewed mind governed by the desires of the flesh. So spiritually speaking, we are not dual-natured freaks, but we are instead joined to the Lord as one spirit (1 Corinthians 6:17). Here are some passages that I see as key to understanding this:
20 But you have not so learned Christ, 21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness. (Ephesians 4:20-24)
Notice that the “new man” is created “in true righteousness and holiness” pointing to a completely sinless new creation.
21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight. (Colossians 1:21, 22)
This gives us a clearer picture of reconciliation and therefore justification. We are presented, because of the blood of Jesus, absolutely holy, blameless, and above reproach. This is who the new creation is. This is who you are, and this is who I am. I don’t completely understand it, but I don’t have to. I just believe it. So to the question of whether I feel qualified to approach a holy, omnipotent God with confidence, the answer is whoelheartedly yes - not because of anything I have done, but because of what Jesus has done. In fact, I do it all the time.
There are whole factions within the church that, because of what I see as a narrow view of regeneration and justification, refuse to accept this. Despite the fact that the word “sinner” is rarely used in the New Testament in connection with the Christian, this seems to be a dominant theme in their theology. I believe this is actually symptomatic of the Law, because “by the Law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). I know that the argument can be made that this is simply “my view”, but I cannot agree with that. The scriptures could not be more clear, and I have yet to hear a reasonable biblical argument to suggest otherwise. I honestly cannot fathom any way continual sin-consciousness for the Christian can be reconciled with the New Testament scriptures. To me, that is anything but freedom from sin.
But this brings up an interesting point that I think Colin has been trying to make, one that has been amplified by this fundamental disagreement. And that is that in order for fellowship to be functional in a communal sort of way, there must be a certain degree of agreement on doctrine.
I can say with all sincerity that I love everyone here, and that I love Christians everywhere - even the knuckleheads
. A failure to do so would be absolute rebellion against the commandment of Christ, and would constitute a violation of the very nature of my conscience. Heck, I even love Catholics. When the current pope (sorry I forgot his pope name) Ratzinger made some comments against non-Catholics a couple of years ago, my initial response was love towards him. Why? Because he is my brother whether he knows it or not. But would he and I be able to have intimate fellowship? Probably not, but if given the opportunity I think I’d still try.
“Chris, my point is that believers who accept the inspiration of scripture and who love the Lord with all their hearts don’t all agree on what EXACTLY John or Paul MEANT when they said X.”
Right, of course. I would hope, though, that if someone doesn’t agree with a particular interpretation of a scripture that they would be able to articulate why or provide an alternative explanation. I think that’s only reasonable. To Colin’s credit, he has done this previously.