What do You Mean, Am I 100% for any Christian Leader?
By Dr. Jerry Kaifetz
When King Agrippa acceded to the throne in A.D. 37 he quite freely represented the head of the emperor on coins he had struck locally. This was always an offense to the Jews, for their law forbade the likeness of any man or animal. In common fashion, knowing where his base of power lay, King Agrippa also had this inscription made on the coins he issued: “King Agrippa the Great, Lover of Caesar.” Today, our currency carries a notably different inscription: “In God We Trust.”
King Agrippa sought to do in A.D. 37 what many Fundamental, Independent Baptists are trying to do today. They are using personal loyalty to a man as the cornerstone of social, political, and religious justification. No doubt the basis of the political process in the first century Mediterranean world was founded on the exacting of 100% support for Caesar. We can well imagine such a question as “Are you 100% for Caesar?” as the required bass for political justification in that world.
Anyone who has made a study of the Word of God and undertaken this task with any degree of seriousness will easily be able to see that God has a certain basis upon which we are to establish or disestablish fellowship with others. Certainly foremost as a qualification would be salvation. God does not want His people to have close fellowship with non-Christian people. There are also certain types of Christians whom God does not want His people to select for close socializing. (II Thes. 3:6) Indeed it is quite possible to live what could be termed a good Christian life and yet to offend God by our associations.
Jehoshaphat was king over Judah, reigning twenty-five years in Jerusalem. God tells us that he walked in the way of Asa his father, “doing that which was right in the eyes of the Lord.” (Being upright, teaching God’s, standards & principles, etc….) In the very next verse however, God adds that despite the religious conformity, “… the high places were not taken away.” This ultimately led to an unholy alliance: “And after this did Jehoshaphat king of Judah join himself with Ahaziah king of Israel, who did very wickedly.” (II Chronicles 20:32, 33, 35)
There is one alliance that is preeminent in establishing the individual person in the eyes of God, and thus in the eyes of Christians. This is one’s alliance or relationship with Christ. Idolatry takes place when a man decides that another criterion will top the list of qualifications for religious justification or personal fellowship amongst believers. The emperor worship of Roman times is an easy example of this to identify. It is, quite simply, man giving another man the place that rightly belongs to God. This consists not merely in attributing characteristics of deity to a man such as a Roman emperor, but it also encompasses the ensuing implications upon which that society will find itself structured. People will have to justify themselves and ensure their political lives by being perceived as unwavering in their loyalty to a man. The clear implication of this kind of behavior is that one man alone is responsible for the well being and advancement of members of that culture. This is a usurpation of a role that belongs only to God; in other words, IDOLATRY!
When someone asks me the infamous question: “Are you loyal to . . . . . ?” there are a few questions that I must ask of that person in order to do justice to the question.
#1. What do you mean by that? Do you mean, Am I willing to give him unconditional support? In other words, am I willing to endorse him and support him regardless of any fact that may come to light regarding his life? It would seem to me that if I answer that I am indeed willing to do this, that I have precluded the use of any standard that may by its very definition include a qualification for support and fellowship. Is there any book that we have ever read that has such qualifications as these? If so, then are you asking me if I would give and leader unconditional support regardless of injunctions from any source on the basis of any facts on his life that have or may come to light? If that is the case, you may as well rephrase the question in the interest of honesty and candor to read something like this: “Are you 100% for . . . . . regardless of what he has done, and regardless of how God has told Christians they must deal with sin?”
#2. Do you mean by your question that I should be unwilling to entertain the possibility that a Church leader has or could commit some transgression worthy of my withdrawing fellowship from him? If this is the case, then a concept has drifted from the distant horizon of your religious perspective. It was blown by an ill wind directly from the landscape of Catholicism until it obscured the light that once shone upon us all to give us a clear view of the doctrine of the total depravity of man. (Rom. 7:18, Is. 64:6, Lk. 17:10.) Only the Catholics believe that any one man is beyond the reach of error. This place they have reserved for their Pope. Are you asking me if I am willing to give such a place to a man? There is no middle ground here. Either you answer “yes” to that question, or you must admit that it is possible that a mortal man could have done those things which many have accused Christian pastors of doing. If he could have done these things, then consider the implications of disfellowshipping someone because he or she has entertained that possibility. The only person you have the 100% faith in is Jesus Christ. Attributing traits that belong to Him to any man is the vilest form of idolatry imaginable.
#3. Are you asking me if I have effectively shielded myself from hearing any bad reports about someone? You know, “rumors, hearsay,” and other things “reported commonly among you,” such as the Apostle Paul listened to about the Corinthian people. It certainly is a shame that some of you were not there to straighten out poor Paul. One would have to conclude that even God erred in that situation, because He saw fit to include Paul’s response to these “bad reports” in the Bible, even making an entire book about it, namely I Corinthians. (Paul’s secondary concern was the over-emphasis on following human leaders.) Imagine God using a man to write two thirds of the New Testament who had “died spiritually!”
Now please allow me to ask you some questions. Are you willing to be a part of excluding me from attending a New Testament Church founded on the principles of Christ because I am willing to believe that someone may have sinned to whom you have attributed practical immunity to error? Are you willing to call good Christians apostate who regularly win souls, attend church, preach Christ, raise Christian families and have a shining Christian testimony simply on the basis of their relationship to one man? Will you welcome into your church a famous pastor’s son who has given now public evidence of repentance after having appeared with his nude wife in pornographic magazines and advertised for public sex while you ostracize solid Christian men?
When you take a trip somewhere and you hear a bad weather report, do you rush to the radio to turn it off? Sorry, not me . . . I plan an alternate route or delay my trip. At the very least, I check my tires, windshield wipers, and bring my umbrella. I know that rain is a certain thing. We have had it since the days of Noah and will always have it here on earth. Sin is the same thing, only it predates rain by about 1700 years. There is no place on earth immune from the effects of the weather, and there is no man who doesn’t sin (present tense). If you ask me if I am 100% willing to believe that a place exists that is immune from effects of weather, I must answer “no.” Unbelieving scientists have been unwilling for years to examine the evidence that conclusively proves that there was once a great deluge upon the face of the entire earth. God calls them fools. Anyone who blindly refuses to examine evidence, for whatever reason, deserves the same title.
Dr. Jerry Kaifetz
