Written by Daniel P. Miller |
Wednesday, April 10, 2024
We may lack the power to control every aspect of every emotional reaction that other people’s words or actions ignite in us. But we are responsible for rightly responding to those reactions and repenting whenever they prove sinful.

Preparing for Hurt in the Church
We live in a fallen world. As glorious and wonderful as life in the church is, God’s people have not yet been fully delivered from the effects of sin. So we need to learn to set our expectations for life in the church aright. Here are four truths you need to start believing right now to prepare yourself for the disappointment and hurt you’ll inevitably experience in your church.
First, every relationship you have in the church is ultimately about the reputation of Jesus Christ. When I am driven by a Spirit-empowered zeal to exalt Christ as Lord and Savior, I will labor to display his reconciling love in the difficult relationships he ordains for me. Such zeal for Christ’s glory must rule my feelings. It must overrule fleshly desires that pull me in other directions. My pain is not all about me. It’s ultimately all about Jesus’s honor as displayed in the church he died to redeem.
In this addition to the Church Questions series, Daniel Miller helps Christians understand their moral responsibility when responding to common frustrations in the church.
When hurt feelings become more important than Christ’s honor in the church, sin is certain to shipwreck our relationships. As Christians, we shouldn’t be ruled by our hurt feelings. Instead, we need to cultivate thoughts, words, attitudes, and desires that exalt Jesus. If we allow our feelings, especially hurt feelings, to reign supreme, we will cause damage to his church.
Valuing Christ’s glory above our feelings or personal comforts is hard. Our self-oriented culture trains us to put ourselves first, especially when we’re in pain. Of course, we shouldn’t muzzle our feelings. We must learn to acknowledge and deal with them forthrightly, as we’ll consider in a moment. Still, throughout that process, don’t ever lose sight of the larger agenda: glorifying Christ and seeing his kingdom exalted. The glory of Jesus displayed in his church must remain our primary ambition amid any pain we endure—even pain in the church.
Second, personal offenses are inevitable in a fallen world. Living in a Genesis 3 world doesn’t mean we should dismiss or fatalistically resign ourselves to any offense others may inflict. But it does mean that we—unlike the typical politician, media operative, psychologist, celebrity, or national citizen—believe in human depravity. We should therefore anticipate the ways depravity will make our lives difficult.
People will sinfully offend you. Your feelings will get ruffled if not pierced through by the words, decisions, and deeds of others. When this happens, don’t be shocked. Nothing strange is happening. Don’t buy the lie that your hurt is somehow unique. It’s not (1 Cor. 10:13).
Read More
Related Posts:

The church’s independence is inferred from the nature of its early operations, its instructions from Christ and the apostles, and from its unique nature as God’s chosen people on Earth. At no point did Christ or his disciples ever say anything to the effect of ‘and when you select elders to rule your churches, remember to consult with the local rabbis and pagan priests as to whom to select, and be sure to allow the local Roman magistrate to select at least one.’ That the church would select its officers from its own midst (Acts 1:21-26; 6:1-6) and according to its own divinely-given criteria (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:6-9) is taken for granted.

In a previous article I asserted that the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)’s internal affairs are none of the business of political entities, whether parties or the formers of opinion. A correspondent wrote to the effect that my defense of the church’s independence was so strong as to suggest that she may go about acting as if she is above all criticism. He sets against my assertion of the church’s independence a commitment to transparency, fearing lest the church hold its privacy so highly that she effectively isolate herself from the public view entirely, and in so doing foster a climate in which she might be tempted to cover her inevitable faults.
Such a leap from what I actually said in arguing that the church’s internal matters be kept internal to its perceived implications is a bit much of a transmogrification to my mind, but fearing lest others should similarly misunderstand, I present the following clarifications of the church’s independence.

The church’s independence is not absolute (Mk. 12:17). Her property insurance company can require her to maintain working smoke detectors. The government can require her to obey legitimate laws (e.g., respecting building codes), provided said laws are evenly applied and not a pretext for discrimination. Her ministers and members are not immune from criminal or civil liability. That last point seems strange, but priestly (or clerical) immunity has historically been a grievous evil and a nuisance to civil harmony. The church is subordinate to the state in those matters like civil justice and order in which God has ordained the state to be an earthly authority (Rom. 13:1-7).
The church’s independence is negative, not positive. That independence means freedom from undue command or interference by others, not power over them. This sets it against the errors of both Erastianism (the belief that the government of both church and state belongs to the civil ruler [magistrate]) and the historic belief of the papists that the state is properly subordinate to the church.[1]
The church’s independence is a part of ‘sphere sovereignty.’ The church has no right to command the state or to take its proper sphere of responsibilities to itself. It may not appoint its officers to the offices of the state or exercise the functions of the government such as raising taxes, making war, granting patents, coining money, etc. But neither may the state appoint the church’s leaders, establish or alter her constitution, conduct her affairs, or otherwise intrude upon her sphere of authority and responsibility. And neither government nor church should deign to undertake the responsibilities of the family, except where it freely consents to either to act in loco parentis (e.g., in education).[2]
The church’s independence includes privacy and confidentiality, but does not mean it is a secret club or a cult free from all outside observation. There are occasions where others may forcibly inquire into our affairs (e.g., fire warden inspections), and there are cases where we should voluntarily share them: if First Pres. Anytown’s pastor is charged with a sex crime, the church would do well to publicly acknowledge the offense and state what it is doing to redress the wrong and prevent future occurrences. Actually much of our activity (worship services, works of mercy, outreach) is or ought to be public, except where persecution mandates secrecy. As my correspondent rightly noted, we are to let our light shine before men (Matt. 5:16). But as all human life requires a measure of privacy, so also does that of the church. Its internal government and affairs are often not hidden from public view, but there are occasions where they are; and even when they are not, it does not follow that outsiders may freely comment on them as if they are their own business. This reservation of privacy is by no means unique to the church: most companies are far more confidential in their business operations than we.
The church’s independence means she governs herself and has a right to be free from unwarranted interference by others. The church selects her own officers, runs her own agencies and programs, raises her own revenue, and handles her own administrative and judicial affairs. If Calvary Presbytery ordains Mr. Prolix to the office of teaching elder and the state house passes a resolution demanding the rescission of his ordination, the church’s independence is thereby infringed; but it would be similarly infringed if a private entity (as a company, chamber of commerce, or think tank) made similar protest of Mr. Prolix’s ordination.
The church’s independence is imperfectly realized. Many are ignorant of the doctrine or malign or modify it. Many deny it in part or whole, or adhere to it selectively. This doctrine, though important and immensely helpful, is not accounted a matter of orthodoxy. Faithful believers (as those in established churches) who do not adhere to it are not to be deemed heretics. In this world truth appears in fits as its rays break through sin’s dark clouds.
The church’s independence is inferred from the nature of its early operations, its instructions from Christ and the apostles, and from its unique nature as God’s chosen people on Earth. At no point did Christ or his disciples ever say anything to the effect of ‘and when you select elders to rule your churches, remember to consult with the local rabbis and pagan priests as to whom to select, and be sure to allow the local Roman magistrate to select at least one.’ That the church would select its officers from its own midst (Acts 1:21-26; 6:1-6) and according to its own divinely-given criteria (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:6-9) is taken for granted. And when outsiders presumed to command the church contrary to God’s will they were openly resisted as having no right to do so (Acts 4:13-20; 5:27-29). So also does Christ’s statement to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mk. 12:17) presuppose different spheres of God-given authority and responsibility, of which one is represented in the church, which is God’s institution for ruling and teaching his people (Eph. 4:11-16). When some of the Corinthians brought disputes before the civil magistrates (1 Cor. 6), Paul rebuked them on the ground that the church will judge the world and angels at the Last Day, and he ends his argument by saying (v. 3) that if they are to be fit to make such momentous judgments, “how much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!” The obvious corollary would be that the world/unbelievers judging the Corinthians would be an inversion of the proper order, even now when the Corinthians’ final conformity to Christ’s image (and accompanying fitness to judge in righteousness) is not yet complete. And if unbelievers are not to even judge disputes between individual believers, how much less should they have any say in the government of the entire church itself. It is therefore to be accounted independent viz. such outside entities, and as responsible for its own government, answering only to God.

Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks/Simpsonville (Greenville Co.), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation. 

[1] See the end of p. 448 and the beginning of 449 of William Cunningham’s Historical Theology at Monergism here.
[2] How many spheres of responsibility and authority there are is a question I do not answer here. One might argue society is a fourth sphere alongside family, church, and state.

Related Posts:

The call to biblical leadership is the call to serve our families. Accepting our positional authority and using it to firmly discipline our children is crucial for effective influence upon our children. Parenthetically, we don’t need to fear that wielding such authority will harm our relationship with our kids. Scripture assures us, We have had earthly fathers who disciplined us AND WE RESPECTED THEM. Firm discipline, in the long, run wins our kids’ respect. They will not respect a dad who just wants to be their play buddy. On the other hand, to maximize our influence there is no substitute for winning their hearts by caring for them well.

Some years ago, I found myself praying about whether I should pursue a DMin degree and write my dissertation on men’s ministry. But a rather sobering thought struck me. If my kids are in my home roughly twenty years and I live to be seventy, they are only going to be with me 2/7ths of my life. The price of pursuing the degree now will be paid by my 5 kids, who will get less time with me. I decided to put it off until 4 of my 5 kids were in college.
The years of greatest influence in our kid’s lives go by in a flash; so, dads whose kids are still at home, need to know how to maximize their influence, before their kids are launched into a world full of destructive worldviews. But it is not only Dad’s with kids at home who care about their influence. Even if our kids are already launched or have gifted us with grandkids, we also want to know how to maximize whatever influence we can have with both our adult kids and grandchildren. This episode examines God’s two-part design of the influence we wield as spiritual leaders of our home, positional influence and relational influence. In both cases, we must overcome false worldviews that undermine the way God wants us to lead our homes.
This is the third episode in our January series, Leading Our Homes Well in a Culture That Doesn’t Want Us to Lead. Last week we answered the first leadership question, “Where am I taking my family?” noting the biblical answer, to spiritual maturity as Christ’s disciples. Like Paul, home leaders say, One thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus… Brothers, join in imitating me. (Phil 3:13ff). Today’s episode examines the second leadership question, which has to do with my relationship with my followers. “How do I use my leadership influence to motivate them to come with me?” The biblical answer to this question, once again, requires us to overcome strong cultural headwinds, i.e. worldviews promoted in the culture, which undermine a man’s leadership calling. We identify four.
A. False Worldview #1: Men Are Unnecessary
This view is rooted in feminism, egalitarianism, and the LGBTQ+ movement. A lesbian couple can parent as well as a heterosexual married couple. Men bring nothing unique to the process of raising children. Egalitarian-leaning, church-going men know their wives have more intuitive insight about kids than they do. When the kids ask permission to do something, their response is, “Go ask your mom.” Such men don’t wear the pants in their family.
Biblical View #1: Fatherhood Is Irreplaceable

Creation, itself, tells us that the nuclear family is not just a social construct. The biological fact that conception takes place in the context of husband and wife making love speaks volumes about the best environment for nurturing that child to healthy adulthood. In God’s obvious creation design, for a child to thrive, he needs a family built on mom and dad’s love for each other.
The family code sections of Ephesians and Colossians are significant. They address wives, then husbands, then children—commanding them to obey their parents. So, we might expect the next group Paul addresses to be parents; but it is not. How about mothers? No. It is striking that when Paul addresses the training of the children, he doesn’t mention mothers but gives commands to fathers. This pattern of responsibility began with Abraham, the Father of the Christian Faith. God said of Abraham, I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him (Gen 18:19). Perhaps fathers are specifically addressed because we inherited Adam’s passivity. He should have protected Eve from Satan and reinforced the truth of what God said.
Substantial research confirms that fathers and mothers discipline their children differently. Focus on the Family writes, “Dad takes an objective approach and provides his children with much needed instruction in the area of moral absolutes and the consequences of right and wrong actions. Mom, on the other hand, emphasizes compassion, empathy, relationship, and the importance of appreciating the uniqueness of each individual” (Online article, Mom and Dad Approach Discipline Differently). Both Mom and Dad are needed.

B. False Worldview #2 Teaches a Parent-Centered Approach to Children’s Discipline
In our narcissistic culture, it should not surprise us that some approaches to discipline are more about the parent’s feelings than the child’s behavior. It is reactive discipline. Here is an example. A dad on the playground says to his son, “Stop playing on the monkey bars.” But his son knows that this command means nothing. His father will not act until he has told the boy four or five times to stay off the monkey bars. So, the son continues to ignore his father’s command. The father, who is busy talking, yells at him again, but the son knows that his dad is not steamed up enough to act. Finally, the father reaches his limit and explodes,“You’ve got me really angry with you now. Get into that car.”
Instead of clarifying his instruction once, and then giving painful consequences for disobedience, this parenting approach is based upon the exasperation of the parent. Kids live up to whatever is demanded of them. The dad didn’t want to be bothered with the responsibility of being a good parent, but instead to continue his conversation. Furthermore, when my parenting is based upon how patient I feel, or how irritated or angry I am, punishment becomes random, and inconsistent, which provoke hot anger in a child. One moment, he gets away with murder, the next moment he barely steps across the line and is slammed with punishment. The dad trained his son not to obey until he started to get angry. He also made the issue HIS anger instead of the son’s disobedience. Good parenting isn’t rooted in how a parent FEELS but how a child BEHAVES. In fact, good parenting makes sure that the child understands that painful consequences for his misbehavior are NOT personal and do not interfere with the parent’s love for him.
Biblical View #2: Disciplining Children Is Part of a Training Plan for the Child. Paul Writes, Fathers, Do Not Provoke Your Children to Anger, but Bring Them Up in the Discipline and Instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4)

Here are four wrong approaches to discipline that provoke anger: 1) Inconsistent discipline, as we’ve seen. Consistent discipline trains a child to know what the boundaries are because the parents have thought them through ahead of time. It is not a seat-of-the-pants, reactive discipline. 2) Discipline that attacks a child’s character using the words, you always or you never instead of correcting behavior provokes anger. 3) Disciplining a child in public will wound his spirit. 4) Discipline that is more frequent than praise wounds our child, also provoking anger. Studies show that parents use critical words ten times more than they use words to praise their children. Mostly correction with little or no affirmation CRUSHES kids’ spirits and can lead to a rebellion.
In context, as Ephesians 6:4 continues, Paul implies that the alternative to provoking anger in our children is to exercise discipline in connection with the rest of the training plan for the child. Paul describes the plan: 1) bring them up: Dads are NOT to watch their children grow up but to actively raise them with intentionality 2) in the discipline: This Greek word is PAIDEA, from which we get pediatric. It means using consequences to train children. A father’s punishing authority is never to be used selfishly, or reflexively, but as part of a TRAINING plan. Paul continues, 3) and instruction (of the Lord): Instruction, means literally “to put into the mind.” This requires a plan for what biblical truths, godly qualities, and characteristics of Jesus we plan to impart to our kids.

Read More
Related Posts: