Meeting Transcripts

‍Opening Remarks

The Minister Resources Page of the Website

We are a little way away from finishing the Minister Resources Page of the website. We are also still confirming the ministers at every location around the world, requiring directors and district superintendents to inquire of pastors about each one. That will be true for another month or so.

Camp Meeting 2022

As far as camp meeting, we do intend to hold the 2022 camp meeting as in 2019. We must go forward, by the grace of God. For Portland, that means we will have a Memorial Day picnic and cleanup day. If people in the congregations where you attend intend to stay in a cabin, I hope you will make sure they understand that the cabins are very primitive. The cabins basically have just beds, and there are bathrooms and kitchenettes nearby. We do not want anyone to arrive and be disappointed. As far as the new camp housing units, we have been able to construct a few more but there is still a waiting list to rent them. If you hope to stay in one, put your name on the waiting list.

Eventually, pastors and ordained ministers will receive information about the brunch that normally precedes camp meeting. This year it will be on Friday morning, June 24, at 9:30. On the middle Saturday, which is July 2, we invite all ministers and spouses to a continental breakfast at 9:30, with a short session to follow as well.

Ministerial Character

“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: ⁶ If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. ⁷ For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; ⁸ But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; ⁹ Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:5-9).

Introduction

This session is titled “Ministerial Character.” On the first email I sent about these meetings, I called the session “Ministerial Conduct,” but decided to change the title because if our character is right, our conduct will be right. So, we will focus on ministerial character.

Paul’s Criteria

The writings of Paul to Timothy and Titus constitute a minister’s manual. If we had no other manual, that would suffice. In Titus 1:5-9 in particular, we see a description of what a minister should be like.

A minister’s good conduct can mask bad character for a while. In contrast, exemplary character will consistently produce blameless conduct. Blameless is defined as “unimpeachable.” That word is repeated once in these few verses to Titus and is also used in Paul’s writing to Timothy.

In verse 7 we see “steward of God,” which is one who has oversight. This is true of pastors, ministers, Sunday school leaders, department heads, and so on. We are “stewards” of this manifold grace of God. Verse 7 also gives several traits that must not describe us. These are basically symptoms of a flawed character. It is notable that in verse 6, the phrase “riot or unruly” gives the sense of one who is insubordinate. It does not refer to the type of rioting we have seen in recent months across this country. In a church, someone who is unruly is not rioting; he or she is insubordinate. Verse 8 gives qualities that should describe us. What we see here is basically self-mastery. To put it in other terms: serious minded, devout, and faithful to teach the sound doctrines that one has been taught.

Challenging experiences are what shape our character. We would avoid challenging experiences if we could, but we cannot. Those experiences will come, and they will shape our character. At the same time, those experiences reveal our character. Every man’s work will be tried of what sort it is. That trying will reveal our character to others, but more importantly, it is revealed to ourselves.

Some challenges are self-inflicted; others are imposed by external circumstances. Our character is revealed by how we respond, even when the challenges are self-inflicted.

Our calling demands a high standard of personal and professional ethics. It cannot be compartmentalized. We cannot be one thing at church and something else on the job or in the home. We must be consistent. If you want to find out what someone is made of, go into their home. Ask the children or the spouse or go into their workplace and ask there. Chapter 2 of Titus teaches this, and it speaks to elderly men, younger men, elderly women, younger women, and even servants and masters. Christian character begins at home and in the personal life, and that was very much a part of what Titus was to look for.

This reminds me to repeat, upon request, the need to employ proper boundaries when dealing with those of the opposite gender. This bears repeating because I deal with problems in this area every single year somewhere in the world. If I look distressed, it is because I am distressed. I do not understand how one can be compromised and fail along these lines.

Particularly, we are thinking of ministers or pastors who are men and are dealing with women. According to 1 Timothy 5:1-2, we are to treat elderly women as mothers and younger women as sisters “with all purity.” You have heard this said before. When we are conferring with a woman, we do not do so in a windowless office. Notice our world headquarters building; by design, it has no windowless offices and no blinds to shut. When you go over there, you can see what we are doing, and there is a reason for that—we have nothing to hide. If one of us happens to have an office where there were no windows (and we have some of those in Portland too), we would not meet with a woman alone there. We would only meet there if we could bring along another person, probably a woman, such as a spouse. We are not going to meet one-on-one with someone of the opposite gender behind closed doors. If it is necessary to meet alone, we leave the door open and have another woman outside nearby. Basically, we are not going to fall into a situation where it can even be alleged that there was misconduct on our part. We will be able to declare any allegation impossible because we have never had a meeting in private.

Once, when a woman was having some troubles and wanted to meet with me, a peer suggested that I meet with that woman in a public place over coffee. I said, “Absolutely not.” I am not going to sit down for coffee with another woman; that would look odd. I recognize that there could be professional circumstances where such a meeting would be necessary, but even then there is risk. We must be careful. Certainly, in a church setting and in our personal lives, for ministerial conduct, our character demands that we be very careful.

As an illustration, consider praying for the sick. We do not ask a sick woman, “What’s wrong?” It is none of our business what is wrong. Our job is to follow the formula given in James 5. We anoint with oil and then put one hand on the head—not the shoulder or the back, but the head. We do not mess up their hairdo, shake their head, or holler. Our other hand could perhaps be behind our back. This is common sense.

The life of a messenger away from the pulpit must be consistent with the message we deliver in the pulpit. Our listeners do not hear our words as much as they hear the person behind the words. Our words are meaningless if the listeners sense that the character of the person behind those words is horribly flawed.

Regarding immoral conduct, it certainly disqualifies one from the ministry. However, even careless words or actions outside church will undermine our effectiveness in church, and certainly at the pulpit. Stomping feet, waving arms, and raising our voices at the pulpit will not compensate for a lack of content in the message, nor for a lack of character behind the message. It has been said that it is one thing to prepare a message and it is another to prepare the messenger. In The Heart of the Yale Lectures it says, “When words do not penetrate, it is because a feeble man is behind them. When ideas do not kindle, it is because there is no divine fire in the lips that speak them.” Next, it gives a metaphor from the 1800s that I would not use from the pulpit today, but I will use it here in this venue: “Bullets may be of equal size and of like material, but the distance to which they travel depends upon the gun. Sermons are bullets. How far they go does not depend upon the text or upon the structure of the sermon, but upon the texture of the manhood of the preacher” (page 19). To inspire prayer, we must be prayerful. We can set that example in the prayer room and at the altars. To inspire consecrations, we must be consecrated; there should be no task beneath us. It is one work; we are not rewarded in Heaven based upon the role we filled. To inspire loyalty, we must be loyal. This does not only apply to leaders we like, but to those whose personalities we may find less than inspiring.

It is ironic that some who have been frustrated by those who were disloyal to them, have not demonstrated loyalty themselves. People will learn from our example, whether we set a favorable or unfavorable one. If we teach them by being disloyal, they will be disloyal. If we do not follow the one we answer to, they will not follow us. We have taught them! If we as a ministry are in a state of disharmony, the saints of God will be in a state of disharmony. If we are unified, they will be unified. If we are loyal, they will be loyal. If we are consecrated, they will be consecrated. We do not tell them what to do; we show them.

Do We Vet Candidates?

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;³ Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; ⁴ One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; ⁵ (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) ⁶ Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. ⁷ Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil” (1 Timothy 3:2-7).

This question applies not only for pastors and ministers but also for workers, department heads, teachers, and so on. Certainly, we do not vet like political candidates do. We do not hire firms to do opposition research or private investigators to find or create something that can be used to attack an individual. However, we absolutely do vet. In a way, you are being vetted right now, and you are vetting me right now.

We do not have a convert get saved on Monday and have him or her teach Sunday school on Sunday. In fact, we do not take one who was saved in January and use him or her in March, and maybe not even in July or August, especially if we did not know that person beforehand.

Actually, I was saved in March of 1974, and as I recall, I began teaching Sunday school that September, though it could have been the year after that. I was given a class of five-year-old boys in Dallas, Oregon. There must have been seven or eight of them. I was going through the Bible stories with them because they already knew as much as I knew. I was reading the Bible, but it is one thing to read the Bible and another thing to teach it. The same is true of preaching, and as far as that goes, I started preaching less than four years later. Again, I was standing at the pulpit and the congregants likely knew more than I did spiritually.

With regard to vetting a worker, consider: Are they faithful to attend church? Do they testify? Do they tithe? Do they get along with others? Are they loyal to leadership? Do they pray? As we observe an individual’s work over time, that is vetting. Our vetting process is certainly based upon trust as well. If no evidence has emerged that would cause us to doubt the individual, then we do not have any doubt.

Beyond that, we have a worker application form that provides character witnesses. It also gives permission to conduct a background check, though we are well aware that a background check may not disclose everything problematic in a person’s background. The form also requires applicants to acknowledge allegiance to the policies and procedures of the Apostolic Faith Church and subordination to the leadership. We are in the process of revamping the application form because it has been a few years since it was last reviewed. Though it will change some, the current version is available on our website under the “Safety” section.

For potential preachers we ask: Are your finances in order? Is there anything in your past that could come back to haunt you, and us, if we have you start preaching? We need an honest answer to that question. If someone shares something that we need to be aware of, depending on what it is, we will likely pause our process and keep the matter before the Lord.

Another element to consider is: Will the congregation be surprised to see this one stand up to preach his or her first sermon? If they are shocked, it is a good indicator that we should not have asked that one to preach. Just because individuals want to preach does not mean they should preach. In fact, it can be an indicator that they should not.

We also request a questionnaire of potential preachers, which is available on the website as well, and Brother Bob Downey may speak more about that in his session. Ultimately, our vetting process is to compare what we know of the individual to the criteria established by Paul.

Does the vetting process prevent failure? It did not for Paul. He named the names of those who abandoned him and were disloyal to him. In the secular world, vetting fails. Employees embezzle, employers abuse power, and financial advisors victimize investors. In the church, sadly, it also happens. Demas was one named because he forsook Paul—that failure was the responsibility of Demas, not Paul. 2 Timothy 4:10 tells us he, “loved this present world.” Diotrephes, mentioned in 3 John 1:9-10, “loved to have the preeminence.” He went about “prating against,” which means chattering against, or blathering malicious words. Against who? Against the Apostle John. Similarly, the eleven disciples could not have predicted the failure of Judas. Recall when Jesus said, “One of you shall betray me,” and they looked around and all asked, “Is it I?” Unexpected failure among ministers and workers does happen.

Those who fail typically do so for one of two reasons. One is moral collapse, and the other is insubordination, which is disrespect for God’s order. I see this multiple times a year around the world, and both causes are the result of a lack of character. The poor conduct is merely a symptom of poor character, which was an underlying condition that existed for a very long time before we saw it manifested.

On a related note, if anyone begins attending our branch after having left another of our branches, we would be wise to find out from the other branch why that individual left. This is part of our vetting process for people that we are contemplating using in the work. We would not hesitate to ask the individual about it as well.

Moral Failure vs. Carelessness

It is important to distinguish between moral failure and carelessness. That relates to the distinction between carnality and humanity, and purity and maturity. It has to do with the distinction between absolute perfection and Christian perfection.

“Absolute perfection” is the attribute of God alone. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. “Christian perfection” is short of absolute perfection. After we are saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost, we are still human beings. We have not even achieved the state that Adam had before the Fall in the Garden. “Christian perfection” is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves.

Carnality is manifested in inappropriate affections or thoughts that are a product of the old man. Humanity is manifested by less than stellar actions or words that are the product of us being human beings. Purity is God’s solution for carnality. Maturity is God’s solution for our humanity; we learn, grow, and develop.

We do not expect godlike or absolute perfection of others because we realize we lack it ourselves. We should not exact a standard of others that we lack ourselves. This is also a common theme of what I deal with regularly—individuals who expect their brother or their sister to perform at a level that they do not perform at themselves. Have mercy and extend grace, and perhaps mercy and grace will be reciprocated to you. While we do not expect absolute perfection of others, we do expect Christian perfection, of ourselves first.

Pastors, ministers, and Sunday school leaders deal with clashing personalities in their churches and departments, and I deal with clashing personalities amongst ministers and pastors. Philippians 3:14-15 says, “I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” We want God to reveal to us where we lack so we can develop and grow.

The solutions to moral failure and carelessness have a parallel. With moral failure, repentance and restitution are required. With carelessness, we are required to seek forgiveness and then fix what we did wrong. Philippians 3:15 refers to this; the pure in heart recognizes his deficiencies and takes corrective measures. We apologize, and not with excuses, but by simply owning our actions, acknowledging that we were wrong, and saying we are sorry for it. That goes a long way.

Though sanctification is an instantaneous experience, the process of maturity goes on for the rest of our lives. First, we experience sanctification, but then we respond to our own deficiencies appropriately. These two together are a description of Christian perfection.

Workers Who Leave

Everyone who leaves our church is not backslidden. People do not have to attend our church to be saved. So this becomes a matter of whether they were reckless or careless in leaving. Depending upon the circumstances under which they left and what resulted, the response to this question could vary. Basically, the damage caused going out must be fixed coming back. The repair must be as public as was the damage. This is nothing new; I have read these principles in Bible teachings over the years. Individuals cannot create havoc going out one door and silently come back through another door. They need to fix their damage.

Isaiah 55:7 says, “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Here, “return” is more than merely turning in a particular direction, but it has a sense of retracing one’s steps. Like the Prodigal Son—he went out one road and came back on the same road. In that example, he came back appropriately.

In cases of moral failure by individuals in leadership roles, as you well know, they have disqualified themselves from resuming as leaders. They no longer meet the criteria that Paul established in his writings to both Timothy and Titus, and really, the spirit of the Bible. Some religious leaders outside our organization have had very public failures, and they were prayed over and restored to their positions. In the meantime, they often leave a crowd, usually of women, in their audiences whose lives have been forever damaged. No; leaders from our church are not going to be restored to their roles and then taunt and disrespect the audience. We cannot lower the standard God has set to accommodate those who have disqualified themselves and forfeited their right to be in a leadership role.

Understandably, many want to show mercy and love to individuals who have had a moral failure. However, restoring a person to a role that he or she is disqualified for is not love. Neither is it love to subject the audience to that. A person of high moral character accepts this reality rather than fights against it.

In cases of dissimulation (short of moral failure), we accept overtures of regret. I dealt with one from our worldwide work who left the church, and though I would not say that person backslid, I was aware of some toxic comments made while leaving. Later, that individual contacted me and said, “Could I please come back to church? I just want to be able to come and sit in the audience. I miss the church.” In this case, absolutely! Come! As time went by, that individual was able to rejoin the work. Quietly and humbly, that person began serving the Lord the same as before being swept away by some foolishness.

This is our policy with anyone. I can only think of two people that I have asked not to attend our church, and they were both predators. One I mentioned a few years back, whom I told, “You can get saved somewhere, but you will not get saved in the Apostolic Faith Church.” I will not describe that failure again, but it was way beyond acceptable behavior, and as a result the individual was disinvited. The second instance was an older person who was acting weird, and we found out he had spent time in prison. He was a pervert and was told he is not allowed to attend here again.

Restitution vs. Retribution

Restitution is “to make amends.” We expect those who have done wrong to make it right. We want to “have always a conscience void to offence toward God, and toward men” (Acts 24:16), and as much as possible, to “live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18).

Zacchaeus made restitution; it was a spontaneous result of being saved. I made restitution after I got saved. Even before I knew what had happened to me, I began making some things right. That is why, when I later went to church and salvation was explained to me, I could say, “Well, that happened to me two months ago.” That is restitution.

“Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, ⁵ Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering. ⁶ And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: ⁷ And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein” (Leviticus 6:4-7).

In Leviticus 6:4-7 we see that restitution was an Old Testament condition for being right with God, and really it is a New Testament condition too. The first thing mentioned in that passage is to make amends with people you have wronged. The second thing is to bring an offering to God and obtain forgiveness of Him. Some, like me, may obtain forgiveness first and then begin to make amends, but the two steps of making amends with man and seeking forgiveness of God still exist in New Testament times.

Retribution is “to exact revenge.” We see it referenced in Romans 12:19, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [retribution] is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” One who has been offended is forbidden from taking vengeance. Some who claim to want justice really want vengeance, but that will not go well. James 2:13 says, “For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.”

Consequences vs. Retaliation

We live in a culture where villains recharacterize themselves as victims, often with success. As a result, consequences are sometimes regarded as retaliation, and discipline is considered harassment.

Retaliation was when Haman built the gallows to hang Mordecai. That did not go well for Haman. Consequences were what happened after the Fall. In Genesis chapter 3 we see that the consequence of disobedience was the curse, even though blood was shed to provide a covering, and we assume not only a covering for their bodies but for their committed sins as well.

Does the fact that thistles still emerged afterwards constitute harassment on God’s part? Were Adam and Eve now victims, or were they villains? Did God fail to forgive them? Many villains make that claim. They make it all about a lack of forgiveness or a lack of grace extended, instead of the consequences of their own failures.

Galatians 6:7-8 says, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. If you plant wheat, do not expect watermelons to come up. What you reap is a consequence of what you sow; it is not retaliation or harassment. We cannot erase the consequences of sin any more than we can un-ring a bell or un-pop a balloon. The consequences are with us even after we get saved. We can see an illustration in my brother Gary, who had a big tattoo on his arm. He got saved, and the tattoo remained. The solution to all of this is sow to the Spirit, and then we will reap of the Spirit.

Ministers and spouses living apart

Regarding couples living apart for an extended period, we realize that “extended” is subjective. Is the extended period a week or a month? A year? A decade? We recently published a testimony in The Apostolic Faith magazine where a couple was apart for a decade, though they did not intend for that to happen. “Apart” is also subjective. Is this across town? A different city? A different continent?

When I was asked for headquarters’ view of this topic, my immediate response was, “What is the Bible’s view?” In Genesis 2:18-24 we find the purpose of marriage. Verse 18 says, “It is not good that the man should be alone,” emphasizing “alone.” Verse 20 says he lacked a “help meet,” or a suitable companion. Marriage is for companionship. It is not for the propagation of the human race; that could be done without marriage and is, sadly. Verse 24 says to “leave” and “cleave.” It means the man is to leave his mother and father, not to leave the bride he just married. It is hard to cleave to a spouse if you live apart, and you are hardly “one flesh.”

To begin with, whom should one marry? It should be someone you love spending time with. We would not advise a couple to marry if they annoy each other or don’t like to be with each other. Why get married if you intend to live apart?

The Biblical view puts the two together. We read in 1 Peter 3:7, “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them . . . as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered” (emphasis added). If you live apart, your prayers might be hindered.

With regard to bringing up children, you cannot bring your children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord if you are not present. How can an absentee father assume the role of the spiritual leader in the home? Ephesians 6:1 says, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord.” It does not say, “Obey your present mother and your absent father in the Lord.”

We realize there are some exceptions to this. For example, during World War II, some of our own people married before they went into the service, perhaps marrying sooner than they would have during peacetime, and so they lived apart for a while. Circumstances could also emerge after marrying where the couple determines that they should live apart on a short-term basis. I think the exceptions must be on a short-term basis—which I realize is subjective—and have a reasonable end in sight. Have a plan for being together again. The Biblical view has married couples living together, and we thank God for that.

COVID Mandates

There is a reason why I never made a public statement on COVID policies in our churches. We let people observe and discern what to do because it is not practical to set a global, one-size-fits-all policy for our churches. It just cannot be done. Even an American policy, or a West Coast policy would not work. The jurisdictions from one branch church to another all have different mandates. So, any pastor who inquired of me received my whole-hearted support for the approach he or she decided to take. I do not live where you live, so I cannot say exactly what you should do at your location.  

COVID and its government mandates started about two years ago. It is worth noting that it was the ungodly who determined that church attendance was “non-essential,” while other nefarious activities were viewed as “essential” or “therapeutic.” I am really going to try not to be political here; that is a minefield. However, this needs to be addressed because the issue of government restrictions is not over. While I will support every pastor and district superintendent around the world to employ the measures that they feel are appropriate for their areas, I would like to provoke some thought. The greatest concern is what will happen when our message is restricted. In a sense, it already is. We preach Romans chapter 1, and that is considered “hate speech.” If Jesus tarries, we need to have eyes wide open to this, and may the Lord help us.

In Romans 13, we see that the state derives its authority from God, even though they do not know it. Verse 1 says, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: and the powers that be are ordained of God.” This was written during the time of the Roman Empire. So even when those in authority are not themselves Christians, we are called to be in subjection, unless that authority interferes with a Bible instruction. In that case, we must serve God. An example of this from the Old Testament is Daniel and the three Hebrew children. We could say they were guilty of civil disobedience; they disobeyed the law. In the New Testament, we read in Acts where men and women chose to obey God rather than man, which continues to happen until now.

We have many in our Portland church who are from Eastern European countries and grew up under Communism, and they are alarmed by what is happening in Oregon. In fact, some of them have moved to Idaho, Florida, Texas, and lately to North Carolina, looking for a friendlier political environment. Personally, I do not think moving is the solution; I want my next move to be to Heaven! This situation is going to follow no matter where we go. Of course, I realize that to speak of our concerns here in the United States is almost embarrassing considering what is going on in Ukraine right now. They are just trying to survive, and may God help them.

This is the key: our authority is not from the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Our authority is higher—it is the Word of God. Let’s just stick to the Bible; that is what guides us. Frankly, I lost track of the government mandates anyway; they changed so many times that I stopped following what they were. We want to follow the Word of God. We are charged to be concerned with the spiritual well-being of souls, and a byproduct of that is to enhance physical and mental well-being too, even if we cannot prevent viruses.

Portland’s approach is not necessarily one that many branch churches can emulate. We worship in a big building with high-ceilings, and a state-of-the-art AC/HVAC system with new air filters, which not every church has. I am not trying to provide guidance for your location, but I am telling you what we have done here. Our approach has been cautious, not borrowing from tomorrow. If the authorities were to show up and say, “We’re going to start fining you a thousand dollars per person per day every time you come together . . .,” well, we would have to regroup. Thus far, we have proceeded methodically. We would decide what to do for one Sunday, and then would see how that went. We have been cautious. We have reminded those who have cold or flu symptoms to remain home. We have suggested that the most vulnerable watch online, though the most vulnerable have come out; that is their decision to make. Until recently, we employed measures to ensure extra spacing in the sanctuary, but honestly, people would be apart during the meetings and then go to the narthex and stand shoulder-to-shoulder, hugging and carrying on. They were comfortable doing that, so after a while we said nothing about it. We have left face coverings to the discretion of the attendees, but we asked those who preach or who sing in solos or small groups not to wear face coverings. I will speak more about that shortly.

Our approach evolved over time. We conferred all along the way with a number of medical professionals in our congregation, and they have been totally on board with our approach. However, they did not want to appear in the webcasts because if they were seen, they would be fired from their medical jobs.  

We were asked if we provide a religious exemption for those who do not want to be vaccinated, and the answer was no. We do not provide that because it is not against our religion to be vaccinated. It is up to each individual to determine whether or not to be vaccinated. We are not going to shame people who are or are not vaccinated, and we are not going to shame people who do or do not wear face coverings. We are not going to copy what we see and hear in the world.

What does the Bible say about this? First, consider whether to assemble. Acts 1:4 says, “. . . being assembled together,” and verse 14 says, “These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication.” Acts 2:1, “They were all with one accord in one place . . .” Acts 2:42, “. . . continuing daily with one accord in the temple, breaking of bread from house to house.” In Portland, we have quietly ignored mandates that prohibited and limited attendance because the hallmark of the Early Church was to assemble. That is the Bible way. That is the Apostolic way. We were more cautious in the beginning as we were learning, and we extended grace to those in the government who were providing guidance because they were learning as well. Again, our approach evolved as time passed.

Next, consider singing. When the State says we must not sing, pastors want to take Hebrews 2:12 into account: “In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.” That is a quote from Psalm 22:22, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.” Colossians 3:16 says, “. . . teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” What God prescribes carries more weight than what the State mandates.

Face coverings is probably the most delicate part of this. Pastors must take into account not only the requirements of their local jurisdictions but also the mood of the congregants, and I completely understand that. However, if you think you have made everyone happy by the methods you have employed, you have not. Nor have we! Thankfully, in Portland grace has been extended by the congregation, perhaps because we have tried to extend grace too. We cannot please all, but we can be gracious to all. This is not to say that everyone here has liked the approach we have taken, but I can say that many more approved of it than disapproved.

Ultimately, we are to communicate the message of the Gospel. When we are all masked, the dynamics of a church service are completely different than when at least some are unmasked. For some weeks at the beginning of the pandemic, we had no sanctuary audience, and that also totally changed the dynamics of the meetings. Part of communication is body language and facial expressions, even when only one person is doing the speaking or singing. The back-and-forth communication of facial expressions makes communication more effective; it is happening right now with those of you in this room with me. Paul instructed Timothy, “Preach the word” (2 Timothy 4:2). Proclaim it; communicate it in the most effective manner possible, taking all circumstances into account. That has been the reasoning for the approach we have taken here in Portland.

Regarding altar services, we were tentative at first. We did not say much about it publicly, but as time passed, we tried to let the Lord lead, and now we do not restrain any aspect of the services. At the same time, we respect those who feel it is better to take a different approach.

Regarding the Lord’s Supper and Foot Washing, we have not done that yet, but I believe Brother Dave Lambert has been trying to figure out when we can. Remember that it does not pay to discredit churches that do the Lord’s Supper every week. Some have said that we do it quarterly so it doesn’t become commonplace like those who do it weekly, but it can become commonplace to do it quarterly. The Bible says, “as oft as ye do it . . . ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:26). This is whether you do it daily, weekly, or annually. We have chosen quarterly, but that is not to indict others. And now, it has been two years since we have done it, but “as oft as we do it,” we do show the Lord’s death until He comes.

We may be a little more cautious about foot washing, and perhaps a little more cautious yet for water baptisms. I do not know where that will go.

Every approach to COVID measures will have both adverse and favorable consequences, whether from the congregants, the State, or the media. We must accept those consequences, whichever way they go. No matter the consequences, our goal is to minister to the spiritual health of our people.

Is the Pastor Always Right?

Ministers and pastors need not share the same perspectives, whether it is about church matters or the best toppings to put on a pizza. We are different people. “Unity” is not “unanimity.” To be in unity does not mean we need to be unanimous, any more than the orchestra members all need to play the same instrument. However, those orchestra members do need to follow the conductor.

There are two elements here: first, congregants have a duty to pastors; second, pastors have a duty to their congregants.

Hebrews 13:17 speaks about the duty of the congregants: “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.” I like that verse 18 says, “Pray for us.” The writer tempered his command with humility by acknowledging that he needed their prayers, and it is easier for congregants to follow a leader who demonstrates that type of humility. So to the congregant, the instruction is to obey and pray.

I will do my best to stand by the pastor short of his or her moral failure. Regularly, I receive letters from people around the world who are unhappy with their leaders. Once I realize the letter is a complaint against a minister or pastor, I will not read it. Instead, I send a reply asking, “Have you covered this with your pastor?” Or if the complaint is about a pastor, “Have you covered this with your leader?” Because I will not operate behind a pastor’s back, and I will not do that individual’s work for him or her. The complaint may be correct; I don’t know. The pastor does not do everything right every time, nor do I. My pastors from the past were imperfect too, and I am thankful they were because it gives me confidence that it is okay to be imperfect. We do the best we can! Yet, in almost every case, we could probably step back and provide our own analysis on ways we could have handled something more perfectly. That can be said of anyone, anywhere, anytime, and we recognize that.

At the same time, as the superintendent general, I am also duty-bound to the congregation. There have been occasions where there was not moral failure, but I felt divided between an obligation to the congregation and to the pastor. I would like to please everyone, but it simply is not always possible. Ultimately, I am obligated to nobody in terms of preferential treatment, yet I am obligated to everybody in terms of fairness in the sight of God.

As congregants have a duty to the pastor, which is to obey, the pastors have a duty to the ministers, workers, and volunteers in the church. We read in 1 Peter 5:2, “Feed the flock of God,” which stands in contrast to being lords over God’s heritage. Model to them what you want from them. If you are harsh, demanding, or inflexible, you are modeling that example for them and that is probably what you will receive in return. We are working with volunteers; they do not have to be here. Even you do not have to be here; nobody has to be here. We hope that our expectations and interactions will ease anxieties rather than elevate them. If only perfect people can be used in the work, we will have to eliminate ourselves. Unrealistic, unnecessary, or unreasonable rigorous expectations will lead to discouragement of workers and disappointed pastors.

I can be critiqued for this, but I have taken the approach of being more concerned with the survival of the workers than that they always be in their place, every time, in every situation. I want everyone to survive. If I am rigorous and demanding, I will not get what I wanted and will leave the workers more anxious than when they began. Demanding cooperation and compliance is less effective than inspiring it. Rather than shaming those we feel have fallen short, we must challenge ourselves to inspire them. If the meetings are good, people will show up. So rather than blame others for a disappointing turn out, I blame myself and think of how to improve. It does not help to become upset and question, “Where is everybody?” That will only discourage those who did come.

The post-World War II generation, called the “greatest generation,” was used to commanders, obedience, loyalty, and rigor. The church reflects society in some ways, and that approach was used throughout society. It was the approach in my home growing up, where we were not even in a Christian home. I remember my dad going ballistic when my oldest sister began using hair spray. Hair spray must have been new then, and he did not like it. Some people blame the church for that harsh approach, but it was in all of society at the time. If we try that nowadays, it will not work. I am not saying you should have no expectations but be careful. Being forceful does not work. It does not work to say, “I’m your pastor, so you have to obey me,” because they do not have to obey you. If we have to demand respect, we have already lost it, and will hardly regain it. Rather, we want to inspire good behavior, and let it come from within rather than being imposed from without.

I have heard that one of our highly regarded Gospel veterans once declared, “Save the work if you can’t save the worker.” I do not mean to criticize this person, because I understand the motivation behind what he said. But the first time that was repeated to me, what went through my mind was, “If you don’t save the worker, you won’t have a work!” We must try to save our workers. At the same time, some people will self-destruct, and in those cases, it may not be possible to save the worker.  

It is also not effective to use my name as leverage to get your way. Your argument must stand on its own merit. Where cultural differences exist, it is also not an appropriate argument to say, “This is the way we do it in our culture.” The way we do it is according to Bible culture is what we really want. Cultural differences cause division; Bible culture results in unity.

I view each of you as the Lord’s anointed, and we have great respect for God’s anointing. Yet, we cannot stand behind the wall that “we are the Lord’s anointed” as a defense of every decision we make. Nor can subordinates come crashing through that wall. Think of the account of David when he was fleeing Jerusalem and Shimei cursed him as he went out. David’s people wanted him to exact vengeance on Shimei, but David’s reply was essentially, “If God told him to curse me, let him curse me.” I would not advise one to act as Shimei did, but sometimes, we might have it coming.

Most complaints about pastors are procedural or relate to personality rather than morality. We all need to remember the instruction in 1 Peter 2:18, “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.” I am very reluctant to refer to slavery from the pulpit nowadays, but we can consider this in terms of employees and employers. It is great if your superior is someone you love, but that is no test of your character. The test of character is when you are subject to someone whose personality you find disagreeable. The solution for this is given in Colossians 3:23, “And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men.” Serve God, do what you do as unto God, and He will bless you.

What should you do when you are falsely accused of mishandling a situation? Individuals can have a genuinely mistaken impression if they do not know the details of a situation. A lack of transparency on our part can lead to wrong assumptions and incorrect conclusions by onlookers. The solution is to be more transparent; however, if doing so would betray another person’s confidence, then confidentiality must win. If asked to explain myself to someone, I will hold my peace rather than betray another’s confidence. I will not explain anything. We cannot be influenced if onlookers play the role of pundits, offering their unsolicited analysis ignorantly.

It is not beneficial to offer explanations to those who meddle. A favorite verse of mine is Proverbs 26:20. The first part says, “Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out.” That speaks to my responsibility. The second part of the verse is also true, “Where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth,” but I have no control over a talebearer, the sower of discord. I do have control over whether or not I will feed wood to the fire by offering an explanation, which likely will not settle the matter anyway. Instead, I am not going to add the wood. God vindicates truth. Even when an accusation is wildly inaccurate and totally false, let it be; do not add wood. I would rather have my character demonized and be indicted falsely than to add wood to a fire that will just burn that much longer. Confidentiality trumps transparency every time.

That said, we can learn more from our critics than from our loyalists. Rather than only trying to defend ourselves, we can take the opportunity to learn! We may not change anyone else’s perspective, but there is always something for us to learn.

Paul’s Charge is our Charge

With both Timothy and Titus, Paul declared to them in his writings why he left them where they were. Paul wrote to Titus about a new work, and we read in Titus 1:5, “Set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders”—that was what Paul left him there to do. Then to Timothy, Paul wrote regarding a more established church. In 1 Timothy 3:14 we read, “That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God.” Meaning, how he was to conduct the services. Paul put a premium on high character because that will lead to godly conduct, and these are the same principles that guide us today as well.

‍