What do you do when individual soul liberty conflicts with corporate church unity?
Soul liberty is the individual freedom to be personally persuaded regarding matters not definitive in the written Word of God (Rom. 14:5). All must adhere to what is clear in the Word of God. Soul liberty has to do with what is debatable by good people, within the boundaries of the Word. These are not matters of sin. These are matters of difference within what is legitimate. The Holy Spirit is the divine persuader, and He knows what is best for individuals, within the boundaries of the Book He wrote. The Spirit provides personalized care for each individual since He knows their background and stage of growth. So “let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5).
But if everyone brings their personal applications to church, will there not be chaos and conflict? There will—unless there is understanding of jurisdiction.
Soul liberty involves the jurisdiction of individuals. The very label soul liberty limits the extent of the jurisdiction to individual souls. The word church means assembly, which implies more than one individual. Church is a broader jurisdiction. So who should decide matters of difference in the corporate setting of church? More specially, who should decide the who, what, and how regarding the platform? The answer lies in discerning who will answer to God for the decision, whether he makes it or not. The pastor holds this responsibility regarding the communication of truth—the platform. Obviously, a wise pastor will seek counsel from his leadership team, but ultimately, the one who will answer to God for what happens on the platform must make decisions that affect the platform. This is the responsibility of leadership.
This pastoral responsibility is a matter of jurisdiction. Therefore, individual soul liberty must defer to corporate church unity. Just as pastors and church leadership should defer to individuals and, for that matter, families, regarding the jurisdiction of individual lives and homes (and this is a matter that has too often been violated), the same is true the other way around.
Some individuals may be more strict on a given issue, others may be less strict. But both directions should defer when it comes to the corporate setting. This is not compromise for the individual, for they won’t answer to God for the matter. Whoever is responsible for the decision will answer to God for the decision. So those who defer are free to defer without violating their personal choice. For example, for someone who is persuaded to not have a Christmas tree in his home, it would not be compromise for him to go to a church that has a Christmas tree in the auditorium, because he does not answer to God for that decision.
It is legitimate for appeals to be made. But once the decision is made, then it is right to defer. A wife can appeal to her husband about a given matter. But in the end a decision must be made. Who should make it? The one who will answer to God for it, whether he makes it or not. In this case, that would be the husband. But suppose he is wrong? And yes, that certainly happens. If he is wrong, he will answer to God for it. God will deal with him as needed. The wife is free because she deferred to her husband’s jurisdiction. The same idea is true regarding church.
Those responsible for a given jurisdiction must not abdicate their responsibility by bowing to pressure from those who are not responsible to make the final decision. And those not responsible for the final decision may make an appeal, but in the end must defer if the decision differs from their choice.
It must be remembered that we are not talking about substantive content issues of moral rightness or wrongness. We are talking about non-substantive issues. I realize some mistake levels of weight. Packaging is not the same as content. Some may argue against the origin of a particular of packaging. Perhaps it did not originate with one’s group or comfort zone of churches. But this can quickly become arrogant condescension, as if nothing good could arise from other believers.
I remember attending a large conference in the early 2000’s. An older preacher decried what he believed to be the evil of using screens in the church auditorium for music. The next preacher, who was middle-aged said, “I’m not so concerned about pastors using screens in church. I’m concerned about what their watching on their screen in their office.” This anecdote highlights the difference between content and packaging.
Paul urged, “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). Unity of doctrine will not occur until we get to heaven (cf. Eph. 4:13). I don’t always agree with myself! Unity of practice also will not occur until heaven. But unity of the Spirit is to occur now, this side of heaven. If you focus on your particulars, then you will likely not have unity of the Spirit. But if you focus on the Spirit, He will guide individuals in their jurisdiction of soul liberty, and pastors in their jurisdiction of pastoring the body.
John Van Gelderen
Post Author
I believe, if we understand Phil 1:15-18 correctly, that we can “put up with” a lot of things we shouldn’t do because the Spirit will not give us peace. We must maintain our stand for the truth as we know it, but we must also allow for God to do the teaching as we use His Word in LOVE to reveal where we have been led (taught by the Spirit). Not unity around false doctrine but differences of education by the Spirit that lies within the true believer.
Yes. Thanks for your input.
You mention that these are issues that are not sin. The problem is, what one pastor does not consider sin can be to an individual. Take education of your children. Many pastors, myself included, believe it is a sin to send their children to public school because of the explicit content exposure, as well as peer pressure. And many pastors consider Christian schools a problem because of peer pressure. I’m reminded of a Christian School where the teens were sending nude pics to each other. So if a pastor and church leadership recommend their Christian school, but an individual has… Read more »
Let me push back just a little bit. There are no verses in Scripture commanding us “thou shalt homeschool thine children.” If your desire is to homeschool and the pastor recommends his church’s Christian school, what sin are you alleging that he would be promoting?
Preferences are not on the same level of authority as Bible command.
Help me understand how the pastor suggesting his Christian school as an option is sin.
Problem some pastors overextend their authority to the place that their leadership must be implicitly trusted… NOT Good. Well meaning and intentioned pastor believe they are ‘guarding’ the flock. It is hard to follow the shepherd when you believe he has overreached. The honor is to not think evil but to see his love. Paul said follow my example… we are not always going to imitate actions that we have convictions against, however we can try to express our love for the man of God and his leadership while following the path the pastor has demonstrated in Holy Spirit driven… Read more »
Pastoral overreach is a sin. Often the pastor and Christian School leaders form an unbiblical clique and unbiblical peer pressure for home schoolers to send their children to a Christian School. Some pastors have preached against home schooling. And practically demand all home educators put their children in a Christian School. Once again, just because YOU specifically don’t consider it a sin and theorize it is a preference doesn’t make it so. If an individual sees the catastrophic damage of a Christian School, they would be in fact sinning if they didn’t home educate. It’s not the Church’s place, or… Read more »
I agree, Brother. Well written!
Thanks Mike
As Christians, there are many things we overlook in each other, as we clearly are all a work in progress. What is difficult is when things on the platform are done “to” us. For example, emotional engineering via constant dramatic music whether there is talking, praying etc. These are great interrupters to the Spirit having the ability to speak to us individually as we worship and listen to preaching. Many “mega churches” use these tactics in a more obvious way to control the mood to create a desired response. This is a whole psychological topic that can’t fit in a… Read more »
Thank you for your thoughts. Sometimes things that are different are out of our comfort zone. As such they can seem distracting. But if they are valid, then over time it’s no longer a distraction. Regarding background music, Elisha asked for a minstrel so that his spirit could be calmed to hear the Holy Spirit. While some churches can manipulate, it is possible to apply what I call “minstrel music.”
Regarding hostility, whenever things don’t make sense there is more to the story. Sometimes there may be provocations. Each scenario has its own dynamics.
Unfortunately Biblical convictions of good and evil have been redefined by pastors and church leadership into preferences thus cancelling and de platforming any Christian with a different conviction than the pastor.