The question came up recently, “If the Bible says to obey church leaders, is it ever okay to go against your pastor?” This was mentioned both in a recent article and in a recent sermon where we looked at Hebrews 13:

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17)

The Bible makes several plain statements like this about submission: obey governing authorities (Rom. 13:1), obey parents (Eph. 6:1), obey husbands (Eph. 5:22). However, none of these statements should be taken in the absolute. The Bible provides examples of exceptions to each of these (Acts 4:18-19; 1 Samuel 20; 1 Samuel 25). So how do I know if I am in a situation to act against my church leaders?

What are the duties of a pastor?

John Calvin, commenting on the Hebrews passage, wrote:

But it ought at the same time to be noticed that the Apostle speaks only of those who faithfully performed their office; for they who have nothing but the title, nay, who use the title of pastors for the purpose of destroying the Church, deserve but little reverence and still less confidence. And this also is what the Apostle plainly sets forth when he says that they watched for their souls, — a duty which is not performed but by those who are faithful rulers, and are really what they are called. 

Calvin’s emphasis here is on a pastor faithfully performing his duties. If a pastor faithfully teaches the Scriptures, prays for the congregation, and offers loving care to those who are hurting, then our instinct should be to offer him our obedience. But if he is  neglecting these duties, the priesthood of all believers is responsible to hold him to account or to look elsewhere for shepherds who are faithful.

Congregants should be careful not to let personality differences justify a lack of honor for ministers. Our culture puts far too much emphasis on personal charisma, and if Christians are tired of celebrity Christianity, then they should give more honor to everyday pastors who may not have electric personalities, but who faithfully and lovingly serve their local congregations.

Yet, it is not always easy to distinguish personality differences from character flaws. For example, being harsh could be seen as “just a pastor’s personality” while, in fact, he is not exemplifying the fruit of the Spirit. On the other hand, a pastor’s “gentleness” could actually be cowardice or people-pleasing, causing him to not protect the sheep.

So how can you tell the difference? Look for good fruit. 

The fruit of faithfulness 

Jesus himself says that his disciples should be discerning about church leaders. He puts emphasis on their character, or their “fruit.” These words come from the Sermon on the Mount:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15-20)

It must be noted that the “fruit” here should not be interpreted as “a successful ministry.” Immediately after Jesus gives this warning, he concludes the sermon thus: 

On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’ (Matt. 7:22-23).

By all external accounts, these peoples’ ministries were successful. But Jesus says he never knew them. Why? They did not do the will of his Father (Matt 7:21) but were instead workers of lawlessness. For all of us, and especially for pastors, the fruit that pleases God is not the work we do, but our obedience to him, and our character. The fruit we should look for in a pastor is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23), not a crowd of people following him. A lack of Christ-like character is the evidence that Jesus does not know a minister, and when that happens, Jesus says, “Beware!”

All pastors and church leaders are flawed sinners. We give honor to these flawed men — first, because God commands it, and second, because we believe in the office of pastor. If we become too cynical about the office itself, that cynicism will erode the institution of the church, and we will all suffer for that. But the Bible does not call us to blindly obey anyone with the title “pastor;” we are to discern the sweet fruit of the gospel in a pastor’s life so that ultimately, we are not honoring the pastor himself in our obedience, but Christ who is in him.

When to disobey a pastor 

So then, when should you disobey a pastor?

One guide on this question is Abraham Kuyper, the great Dutch theologian and pastor of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, who at one time left the established church of the Netherlands because of its unfaithfulness to sound doctrine. In his volume On the Church, he has a collection of articles titled “Tract on the Reformation of the Church,” which details his process in leaving the Dutch church. There were two sections that struck me as particularly relevant to this question. 

First, Kuyper says that when a Christian defies a pastor, it should only be as an exercise of the office of the priesthood of all believers. In such a case, the Christian must not act in a self-serving way but rather in service to God. In a Reformed church, every believer must possess spiritual judgment and put that judgment to work. The believer does this not to be a know-it-all or a busybody but out of spiritual obedience, and therefore never does it on the basis of his or her own opinion, but exclusively according to the spiritual understanding of God’s Word.

Kuyper goes on to give these instructions to believers who have disagreements with the leadership of their church:

If discord arises between these enlightened consciences of believers and the decision or action of the overseers, then the office of those believers who form a judgment in this matter must communicate this judgment first privately, with respect for the office of the overseer, then file a complaint, and finally, if necessary, give a public testimony. From this very solemn duty flows another official obligation, in case all attempts to hold the church’s government to the truth remain fruitless — namely, to separate themselves from such overseers, since they are showing themselves as no longer belonging to the church, and to join the true church, or else to manifest that church anew.

In our church, the session of elders is accountable to the regional presbytery (in our case, all churches and pastors in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska). If a member believes that our leaders have erred in unbelief or unfaithfulness, or fallen short in laziness or arrogance, the member must first tell those leaders directly. The duty of the church member is toward the health of the church. If the matter is not resolved that way, then the member has recourse to complain to the presbytery, who would then investigate the matter and has the power to hold the local session accountable.

This may be a good test for a congregant in determining whether something warrants disobedience: “Would my concern merit a complaint to the presbytery?” If not, then I would say that God’s word calls church members to submit to their elders, and we should be encouraged that such submission is pleasing to God. Such an approach would also help a congregant distinguish between personal opinion and sin or faithlessness. Disobedience to pastors should only proceed in the latter case.

A second section in Kuyper’s tract that speaks to this is in the section titled, “Reformation Through a Break With the Existing Church.” I was struck by how slow Kuyper thought a Christian should be in leaving either his or her local church or a denomination. He acknowledges that a church can become a “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 3:9), in which case a member should leave. But again, I don’t think this is the way many church members in the modern American church tend to think:

And this terrible truth gives the children of God the obligation, when the churches have fallen deeply, to investigate prayerfully, incisively, and most accurately, whether the church in which they are living is still the true church of Christ, or perhaps has changed into the form of the synagogue of Satan. This task is extremely painful, because so much is at stake. If that true church still does exist, a Christian must not separate from it. But also, if it has become a synagogue of Satan, then he must no longer remain joined to it. Then he must leave.

Acting against the authority of the church is a grave matter. Kuyper’s group that left the Dutch Reformed Church referred to themselves as the Doleantie, which meant “grieving ones.” Individuals should not act for themselves, but for the reformation of the church, seeking to serve God as they act in the office of the priesthood of all believers.

With all that said, in our day Christians likely need far more encouragement toward obedience than disobedience. The individualism of our culture makes submission seem so alien and unnatural. We likely need more exhortations and encouragement in the other direction. And we need to pray that the Lord would bless the church with faithful ministers whose lives are sweetly adorned with the lovely fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Nonetheless, no human authority is absolute, “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Rom. 13:1). It is true in the state, it is true in the home, and it is true in the church.