What does this mean? Usually, the popular understanding of this phrase is meant by church leaders and their supporters to caution anyone who dares to critique or criticize the preacher or church leader. Many preachers, evangelists and Bible teachers today teach that if anyone criticizes them, or finds fault with them in any way, or goes against their wishes, then that miserable sinner has "touched the Lord's anointed." They say, "If you criticize "servant(s) of God" who are "the Lord's anointed," you will face the wrath of Almighty God." It is meant as a threat to, "Shut up. Don't complain. Submit. Or else...." It is virtually saying that the Christian leader or clergy is "above the rest" and is untouchable by commoners, sinners and the laity, and implies that they are unaccountable and have a free pass.
Where is such a teaching derived from in the Bible? It is from David when he had two opportunities to kill King Saul who was pursuing him. The first time, he said to his men who wanted him to kill Saul, "The Lord forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the Lord's anointed, or lay my hand on him; for he is the anointed of the Lord" (1 Sam 24:6). Then David said to Saul, "Some urged me to kill you, but I spared you; I said, 'I will not lay my hand on my lord, because he is the Lord's anointed'" (1 Sam 24:11). David not raising his hand to touch (kill) God's anointed is also used when David had the second opportunity to kill Saul in 1 Sam 26:9,11,23.
So does David sparing Saul twice because Saul is the Lord's anointed teach that we Christians should not/never express any negative views about pastors and church leaders, and that if we do God will be very angry with us and that something nasty may happen to us?
Briefly, "Do not touch the Lord's anointed" is about harm, especially physical harm, and not legitimate criticism. Thus, to rebuke a preacher who has committed errors of false teaching or practice cannot be the sin of touching the Lord's anointed, because it does not involve the use or threat of physical violence. Such rebuke is appropriate and even commanded in certain instances (Gal 2:11; 1 Tim 5:19-20; Tit 1:13). Public teachers, pastors, church leaders and elders must be blameless (Tit 1:6) and above reproach (1 Tim 3:2). That is their foremost qualification. If they are not, they disqualify themselves. Those who are aware of their devious dealings or dangerous doctrines or authoritarian abuses must sound the public alarm. They must warn the unwary lest they fall prey to them. Public sins must be rebuked publicly.
That said, when one discloses or critiques church leaders, it should be done with a spirit of humility, love and prayer. This is not a justification for slander and/or character assassination.
Reading this made me think of the Power Distance Index (PDI) of countries. Certain countries like the US have a low PDI so criticism of authority is accepted. In other countries the PDI is high and people are arrested for speaking out against the government. But I think a lack of healthy constructive criticism is detrimental. It causes resistance to change/innovation. It stifles the life of the organization.
ReplyDelete