|
From the appreciation due to good leaders (1 Timothy 5:17), Paul turns to the correction of those who are bad (vv. 19-21). Sadly, the latter class does exist. Not all Christian leaders are "blameless" in the sense that elders need to be (1 Timothy 3:2). Consequently, there is cause for both commending leaders and for correcting them. Paul here provides Timothy with three important instructions for treating erring elders.
The first is about receiving charges or complaints against them (v. 19). Paul insists that Timothy mustn't even receive, let alone believe, any charge brought against an elder by a solitary accuser. "Do not entertain an accusation against an elder," he writes, "unless it is brought by two or three witnesses." The Old Testament rule of multiple witnesses (Deut. 19:15) still applies in principle in the New.
This is essential for the protection of pastoral leaders. John Calvin once wrote, "None are more exposed to slanders and insults than godly pastors." Their faithfulness stings the less scrupulous into action against them. Tongues become swords and gossip runs rife. That's why it is so important to be careful about believing what we hear about leaders. "A smear campaign," John Stott writes, "can completely ruin a leader's ministry... Every charge must be endorsed by responsible people before it is even listened to" (p. 138 emphasis added). "Adherence to this biblical principle," he continues, "would have silenced many a malicious talebearer and saved many pastors from unjust criticism and unnecessary suffering" (p. 138).
Secondly, Paul tells Timothy what is to be done with leaders whose guilt is established. "Those who sin," he says, "are to be rebuked publicly, so that others may take warning" (v. 20). On the surface it appears that public correction is mandatory for sinning leaders. John Stott and others argue, however, that this is only a last resort when the leaders concerned have failed to respond to private admonition. "Such a public rebuke," he says, "though an effective deterrent, must be the last resort however. It is a safe rule that private sins should be dealt with privately, and only public sins publicly. It is neither right nor necessary to make what is private public, until all other possibilities have been exhausted" (p. 139). Be that the case or not, it is clear that "Timothy must neither listen to frivolous accusations nor refuse to take serious situations seriously. In the area of discipline, he must be scrupulously fair, 'cautious in accusing and bold in rebuking', as the situation demands" (p. 139).
Thirdly there is not to be the slightest hint of favouritism when it comes to correcting leaders. Timothy is charged "to keep these instructions [regarding the discipline of elders] without partiality, and to do nothing out of favouritism" (v. 21). Partiality is an instinct to fallen sinners. All of us are prone to look with less severity on the sins of some than others. "Church history," writes Stott, "has been stained by gross favouritism, as church dignitaries have granted special favours to their relatives (nepotism), to members of their own caste, class or tribe, to people they happen to like, irrespective of their gifts or godliness, or to those for whom for some reason or other (even bribery) they are indebted" (p. 139).
Let's learn from this. Leaders are not above fault. While we must be careful about receiving charges against them, we must be courageous in dealing with their wrongs.