What If Paul Walks Into Your Church Today?

What If Paul Walks into Your Church Today?

Khen Lim

Image source: Ronnie Floyd

In 1998, President Bill Clinton’s three-year scandal with then-22-year-old Monica Lewinsky came to light, leading to his impeachment by the House of Representatives in the same year. The irony of the impeachment was that the two charges levelled against Clinton was for perjury and obstruction of justice. It wasn’t for immoral behaviour unbecoming of a person who held the highest office in the land. It seemed that having illicit or extramarital sex while serving in the White House is fine so long as you tell the truth and do not hinder the course of justice.

Had the same thing happen to a pastor or someone who holds high office in church, the result would have been dramatically different and certainly disastrous. The heavy hand of church justice would descent on the person and it’s highly likely he’d be sent packing without a word of goodbye to his congregation. It seems that while the government could look the other way in terms of morality and ethical issues, the church holds a loftier standard.

“Who cares who he had sex with; so long as he can lead the country well. It’s not as if he sold secrets to Russia!” some were prone to say back then. The issue was that Clinton’s lasciviousness did not endanger the country the way selling secrets to Russia would have and so it was forgivable. We know how ‘forgivable’ this was when the Democrat party dodged the same issues with the Clintons building up to last year’s presidential election.

On the other hand, in church, people would say, “Look, he’s the pastor. If he can do such a thing in his past, how can we ever trust him again? He’s supposed to lead us in purity and example but what kind of example has he become? How can we let our children listen to him when we now know what he’s done!?” 

If Bill Clinton were a pastor in a church, he would have been completely incarcerated while the congregation suffers a complete meltdown. We can all talk about grace, compassion and encouragement but table talk might not make it in reality. Talk is cheap, as they say, because when a church faces down a similar issue, all bets are off.

Anyone who is in pastoral service or a leader in ministry would have been burned alive by virtually everyone in church. Suddenly, no one would want to be seen talking to him. Everyone would ignore him like a proverbial plague. Other than his own family, he’d find no friends at his time of need – and despair – because most would have disowned him or called off their friendships.

Everyone would likely tell you that church leaders must be strong, which means they cannot exhibit any weaknesses. It’s acceptable if the leader has health issues that are largely beyond their control. High blood pressure, cholesterol issues or even heart conditions are all stuff that we have come to accept as part and parcel of life. We understand and empathise. We even have good words of advice to impart. And all of this is done in peaceful accord.

But if a leader shows cracks of character and behaviour, that’s quite another thing. A church leader whose level of stress is too much for him to cope with or a seemingly degrading personality flaw or a materialistic weakness or, worse, a sexual struggle – any of these would have been different. Any of this would have brought out the moral brigade who expect leaders not to struggle with or admit to such flaws or even commit sin in any way. 

We are all led to believe that leaders are to show praiseworthy conduct for them to be exemplars week in and week out. They are supposed to be the light that shines on us to inspire us to follow them in deed and purpose. As leaders, their day-to-day conduct offers us hope – and proof – that life in Christ really does work out to be true. After all, we’re the hopeless sinners in search of hope and what could be better than to find them in the leaders who lead our churches? Right?

Given this puffed-up attitude, what would happen if one day the Apostle Paul turns up in your church? Would we be in awe, bow down and warmly welcome him or would we dismiss him with accusations against his character? He might be the apostle of the New Testament but we know that in his letters, he raises two startling issues about his own weaknesses that could cause uproar in our church today.

The Thorn

Image source: allthingspositivelypositive.wordpress.com

In Paul’s second letter to the church in Corinth, he writes:

“…to keep me from becoming proud, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger from Satan to torment me and keep me from becoming proud.” (2 Cor 12:7b, NLT)

What’s this ‘thorn in my flesh’ about? A simple definition tells us it’s some trouble in a person’s life, but what form does this trouble take? Paul talks about it as a balance to his penchant for visions and prophesies. This thorn, he says, is something God gave him in order to render him humble just as he says in verse 10, “For when I am weak, then I am strong.” 

While none of us really knew what this thorn actually was, there are annoying claims that it was a physical issue because anything else would have jeopardised his sainthood. If that were really the case, many of us believe Paul would have mentioned it and after all, physical issues weren’t his fault. From what he wrote and the tone he used, it isn’t likely to be physical anyway. 

Moreover, he chose not to disclose it, which leads most of us to believe that this was a thorn that became a struggle for him, a thorn that defined a sin that he said God refused to remove.

If we were to hasten a guess, maybe we’d say it was pride. Maybe it was lust. Perhaps it had something to do with having a short fuse, where he was tantamount to anger and vitriol. Maybe even inebriation and if so, we wouldn’t know from all his letters because he kept it so close to his heart. 

Maybe he had struggles with money or that he was a closet control freak who loved to micromanage people. Or was Paul having difficulties coping with sexual urges? We have no idea if he was even married or not but a good guess was that he wasn’t. So, maybe he had sexual longings that he couldn’t satiate. Did he succumb to any of these? Again, we don’t know. Nobody does and if anyone suggests he knows, it’s nothing but a far-fetched lie.

If Paul had such shortcomings, how would he fare if he were to walk into your church today? What would the church leaders think if Paul were to preach to the congregation? And what would they say if he disclosed the ‘thorn in his flesh’ and told them he was struggling to overcome it? Would they end the interview and show him the door or would they empathise and encourage him in his walk with Christ?

The chances are that they would think Paul was spiritually immature. Very likely, he wouldn’t be accepted into the pastoral ministry. He’d be lucky if they ever consider him for some kind of leadership in church. In other words, there wouldn’t be a place for even such an esteemed Apostle of Christ.

The Heart

Image source: mothers-who-know.blogspot.com

If you think the ‘thorn in his flesh’ was a tough one to deal with, consider what Paul said towards the end of Chapter 7 of his letter to the Romans:

“I don’t really understand myself for I want to do what is right but I don’t do it. Instead, I do what I hate.” (Rom 7:15, NLT)

What about this one…

“And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right but I can’t. I want to do what is good but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong but I do it anyway.” (Rom 7:18-19, NLT)

And this one…

“I have discovered this principle of life – that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. I love God’s law with all my heart. But there is another power within me that is at war with my mind. This power makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me.” (Rom 7:21-23, NLT)

Paul is saying that while he understands he has a good heart, he also admits to not being able to live it through. He does not understand the things he does. He doesn’t end up doing the things he wants to do but instead he ends up doing the things he dislikes. Aware of what is good and bad, he doesn’t do what he knows he should but end up with that he despises. Although he embraces God’s law and cherishes it, he considers himself a “slave to the sin” that inhabits within him.

Now, imagine that he says all of this during his interview at your church. Picture the blank and speechless expression on the faces of your church board members, those who interview the Apostle Paul. It is doubtful that they would ask him to sign up immediately. It is even more doubtful that they would even shake his hand and welcome him. 

For all intents and purposes, most of us would think of Paul as a person who wavers or vacillates in the most undecided manner. One minute, he says this but the next, he swings to the other end. Paul is perhaps what the Apostle James describes best:

“Their loyalty is divided between God and the world, and they are unstable in everything they do.” (James 1:8, NLT)

Most of us cannot imagine having a leader that tosses back and forth. Rather we prefer those who have not only come past their struggles with sin but show more discipline and consistency with their spiritual maturity. Paul’s disposition as Romans 7 underscores couldn’t possibly look good in today’s church and his chances at employment would best be described as dim.

Authenticity

Image source: The Only Door

If the Apostle Paul finds himself at odds with what we’re looking for in church, then where are we really in the scheme of things? Are we really being realistic? Are we merely being impractical or should we consider ourselves ‘holier than thou’? If the person who is responsible for most of the letters in the New Testament cannot even qualify for our church, then perhaps we shouldn’t too. As a matter of fact, maybe, no one qualifies. And if that’s the case, something is seriously wrong with the way we think things through.

I think the most honest thing we can say about ourselves is to stop expecting our church leaders to be so holy and perfect because after all, we aren’t ourselves. So why seek out perfection when we basically know that’s not possible? Why not learn from Paul’s letters and instead, call for authenticity instead of making sinless demands of others? Why is it so difficult to consider authenticity as being a far more important virtue since sinlessness is as improbable as they come? 

Why can’t we build our church culture around the need to be genuine and candid with who we are rather than to create an atmosphere where people struggle in silence because they need to pretend to look good? Why punish people by instilling such fear when we could encourage them to open up so that they may begin the healing process instead?

At some point in the history of the modern church, we were sold the lie that church leaders must be unlike us. To inspire us, they must be as pure and perfect an exemplar. They must be past struggling with their sins. 

We bought into the narrative that they must be so experienced in life that they make great role models and advisors when we need them the most. Otherwise, they cannot be qualified to lead. We have been led to believe that the Gospel is great for the big sinners among us and so, that makes it ideal for people like failures, recluses, drug addicts, adulterers, prostitutes, gamblers, hoodlums and anyone with major issues to deal with.

Yet we are deceived into thinking that it doesn’t quite apply to church leaders per se. They are to teach it but they don’t have much more to learn from it. In other words, the Gospel is for those whose sins that are so imposing that they’re larger than life but on the other hand, not quite for those with sins that are undocumented and well cloaked inside. The idea we’re made to understand is that we are forgiven of our sins until someone who leads the church sins.

Many years ago when I was attached to an AG (AOG) church, I took it upon myself the enormous task of raising up a choir. This was a working-class church where choirs aren’t just unimportant but essentially unheard of. Besides, being an Indian vernacular church, singing four-part harmonies in English was not a done thing and up till then, no one was experienced enough to want to try something like that. With my music background, I felt it was worth a challenge. 

Over a space of a month, we succeeded in developing a 30-strong chorister group comprising church members with virtually no singing or music experience. By the time Christmas came along, the group was ready to sing without any accompaniment, in public. 

The experiment was so successful that we were not only complimented for our effort but we were given great encouragement to formalise a fuller-bodied music ministry. It was also a novel feat, given that I was the only non-Indian ethnic in church and now, I was given the task to lead the youth in developing a full-fledged choir to represent the church.

It didn’t take long for the wheels to fall off the wagon only because a member of the church happened to see me in a coffee shop having a smoke while talking to a friend. And so when the next choir meeting came, most of the members failed to turn up. I was then told that there was a boycott led by the member who witnessed me smoking in public. 

Those who were present for the meeting were aware of what had taken place and pleaded with me to ignore it and just carry on but that was ultimately futile. The counter movement had gathered pace and he had influenced most of the choir members to abandon my leadership on the basis that he saw me smoking. 

Eventually I quit the church and never looked back. I think there were those in church who shared my shock that someone could wield so much influence against a person whose smoking habit was viewed as a sin great enough for me to be persecuted. Although I have not smoked for many years since, it still strikes me as an awful thing to do to undermine a person’s leadership in church.

In my recent church, our pastor had never ceased to encourage people to open up and talk about their struggles whatever they may be. They may share openly or talk behind closed doors. Whatever the issue, the important thing was to be authentic enough to be able to embrace their own weaknesses, talk about them without the threat of persecution or condemnation and to lead out of their weaknesses. 

Even the pastor himself on occasion had spoken about his own struggles over the years as he developed his ministry. He was never embarrassed to front up and allow his congregation to see his humanity, as flawed as it may be.

All of this, of course, is the complete opposite of what we’ve been ‘encouraged’ to look for in a church leader. In contrast to what our pastor had encouraged in us, the church broad ‘corporate policy’ is usually to hire only those who exhibit a life of proper balance, spiritual strength and courage, orderliness, discipline and free of any notable struggles. 

And in recent times, the list could even extend to whether or not one agrees or not agree with Trump’s recent travel ban and how it affects the illegal immigrants. With all of that, the Apostle Paul wouldn’t stand a chance of becoming a leader in any of today’s churches.

Openness

Image source: Life of Scoop

Of course, I’m not suggested at all that we set out to hire the worst possible sinners to fill out leadership positions in the church; something that Paul also questioned the validity of sinning more profusely so that more grace could be poured out. 

Having said that, what would happen if this topic were to be raised in church? What would people have to say about leaders who sin? What would people have the church do when a leader sins? What exactly would the new church policy be in dealing with any staff member whose sin or moral inequity is exposed?

Similarly then, what if the church were to update its employees’ manual by adding the line, “No employee in administration or any ministry position including pastoral leaders will be automatically terminated in the event of having committed a sin or experienced a moral failure.” While such a statement exemplifies outstanding grace, wouldn’t it be downright dangerous? Couldn’t something like this be grossly misused and abused? Wouldn’t it be naïve?

With such a statement, everyone in church might feel a sense of freedom – and possibly, relief – that there is now an opportunity to open up with their deep-seated struggles and not fear retribution. If ever, there is now a great chance for the light of Christ to fill out the darkest parts that well within our hearts. 

It might even trigger off a new culture within the church where everyone experience a lifting of burden simply because they are now able to openly confess their struggles, knowing that they will be forgiven without fear of alienation or condemnation from anyone. There would be no need for pretences because each and every person in church can now fully experience the hope, restoration and healing that could only come from Christ once they talk freely about their darkest struggles.  

That all seems fine but a statement such as this might actually be like a two-edged sword. Some might consider it as an imprimatur to freely sin, knowing that backlashes would be a thing of the past. Without risking termination, some might now consider openly wayward behaviour and action, from turning up stoned out of their minds to sleeping with anyone but their spouses, and then everything under the sky in between. By excluding any conceivable limiting catchphrase, the statement can be an open licence to literally revolt!

Yet for whatever it’s worth, Paul’s letters to the churches in Rome and Galatia indicate that just as it is the threat of laws that invoke the desire in us to sin even more so, it is grace of God that ushers in freedom and instil in us the desire to want to do good. 

In the first half of Chapter 3 of his letter to the Galatians, Paul reminded us that a Gospel that is shackled by legalistic rules meant we weren’t as free as we are told. From verses 3:1 to 14, Paul states that a belief in Christ is the centrality of the Gospel and not compliances to laws, edicts and rituals. The part that fully reinforces the Apostle’s view is this:  

“…those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under His curse, for the Scriptures say, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God’s Book of the Law.’ So it is clear that no one can be made right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, ‘It is through faith that a righteous person has life.’ This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, ‘It is through obeying the law that a person has life.’ But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When He was hung on the cross, He took upon Himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’ Through Christ Jesus, God has blessed the Gentiles with the same blessing He promised to Abraham, so that we who are believers might receive the promised Holy Spirit through faith.” (Gal 3:10-14, NLT)

According to Paul, any Gospel that tells us that there are laws and rituals to fulfil is not one of Jesus Christ. Instead, it is heresy:

“I say again what we have said before: If anyone preaches any other Good News than the one you welcomed, let that person be cursed.” (Gal 1:9, NLT)

If there were laws and rituals instead, then Christ would have died on the cross for nothing. Instead, Scripture is resounding in reminding us that it was Jesus and nobody else who, alone, paid the price of redemption. In fact, this is the cornerstone that specifically defines our faith. In other words, salvation cannot be earned simply by reading up and observing whatever rituals and corrective behaviour.

Similarly, nothing in the church’s employees’ handbook would have done the same. Clearly then, unless we fully understand the extent of what faith, grace and salvation mean, there is no point in Paul walking into any of our churches today.