The Error of Teaching that Character Trumps Knowledge

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[Linda]

Several times over our 10 years in a GC church, we heard a message that went something like this.

Most churches in America choose a pastor by forming a pulpit committee, interviewing candidates who have sent in resumes, listening to messages by these potential pastors, and making a decision based on that process. The problem with this is that no one knows much about the character of the person. How they treat their wife, kids, friends, etc. Whether or not they are prone to anger or lack self control. They may have knowledge, but tons of pastors lack character. After all, lots of pastors with seminary degrees have affairs. Therefore, we GC people choose pastors based on character rather than knowledge.

It resonated with me. After all, I personally knew several pastors who had affairs with church secretaries. Certainly, a church doesn't want a pastor who is lacking self control or persisting in sin. So, I bought into this theory.

Unfortunately, the idea of choosing leaders based on character above knowledge, is not Biblical. It violates 1 Timothy 4:16. Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

This is not an "either-or" situation. It is not "either" character or "knowledge". It must be both character AND knowledge.

Leaders who are nice guys, but lacking in knowledge are dangerous leaders. They are especially dangerous when they assume that because of their position they are God's representatives on Earth and members are to "give the controls of their lives" to the leaders.

Furthermore, in buying into the theory, I assumed that any major sin on the part of a leader would disqualify that man from leadership. I was recently remembering what Mark Darling told me (4 years ago this week) when we had our final meeting with two pastors to sort things out. I mentioned that the pastors appeared to be a "band of brothers" who had each other's backs. I told him that the pastors were loyal to each other above the congregation and that this loyalty might mean that a pastor could have had an affair that was covered up by the leadership. Mr. Darling, a pastor who serves on the board of GC, replied, "I'm sure it's happened."

I have mentioned this before, but say it again to point out that for all the "character"  over "knowledge" talk that goes on in this group, there appears to be some pretty major deception going on with the congregation.

In the church that is always described in the leadership talks, at least the pastor's sin is made public and he is given the boot for his sinful behavior. It is not covered up by the elders.

If any pastor is reading this and has had an affair, or covered up an affair, you should confess and step down immediately. You are not a person of character.

[bothered]

The GCM church I was a part of up until 2005 had similar issues regarding what I might call leadership development or pastor development or general polity structures.

From the mouths & sermons of multiple leaders within the church I experienced and from other GCM churches, I heard negative comments about seminary education. The general atmosphere was that leaders were developed locally and through a specific kind of system. For example, most GCM pastors were life-group or fellowship group leaders. I could be wrong, but I think leading a life-group is a stepping stone to pastorship in most GCM churches. Which I am not saying is inherently bad or something, but it can be kind of limiting in terms of truly understanding who that person is. Most of the GCM pastors/leaders I encountered over the years, in my church, at conferences etc., are not seminary-trained.

I also think the Character or Knowledge either-or-scenario that some GCM staffers have thrown out there is, in some ways, a false dichotomy. Some character growth requires a certain kind of knowledge and some knowledge requires a certain kind of character growth. The two usually go hand-in-hand on some level. So, like you said, someone who is to pastor a church or be in some kind of position of leaders must have both character and knowledge.

I also find it interesting that GCM is kind of proud of the fact that they are less concerned with seminary-style education and just look for men of certain character. GCM, and churches in general, need to be careful to not oversell themselves or  to deceive themselves that they are good at choosing men of character and that they somehow do leadership development better. I have met a lot of very immature pastors/staffers in my years at GCM, for example. These pastors didn't have the character to be a pastor or the knowledge. (Part of that relates to the way leaders are developed in your average GCM setting, which I am sure has been touched on in this forum somewhere.)

I also understand what you were saying about how in the Mark Darling church setting it seemed like the pastors had each other's back no matter what. I too have discussed issues of accountability among GCM leadership in other posts, especially accountably to their congregation.