Fear of man: the acceptable sin

The fear of man is perhaps not the worst sin that a man can commit, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it is one of the most sinister. Not only is it commonplace among Christians, most churches have a culture that encourages this sin. I will endeavor to explain why this sin is so pervasive and to expose the subtle ways that it can ensnare.

First, some basic definitions. I'll be using “fear of man” and “respect of persons” interchangeably. These two terms describe the same attitude which holds the opinions/approval of men in higher esteem than they should be held. This concern for man's approval can be motivated by fear of reprisal, but more frequently it's caused by the desire to fit in. The Bible speaks in broad, but clear terms about the fear of man. It is a snare to righteous living (Prov. 29:26), it is sin (James 2:9), and it causes the perversion of justice (Lev. 19:15).

Fear of man promotes the corruption of churches

I want to point out that much of Christian culture actually encourages fear of man. One obvious example of this is the fear of “going against the pastor”. I've seen many churchgoers who are afraid of saying anything contrary to their pastor. They claim the Bible as the ultimate authority, but their fear of one man's opinion makes them hesitate to follow Scripture, their conscience, and the Lord. When you see people who are afraid to discuss doctrine without including a pastor or other authority figure, this is certainly true of them. Similarly, there is a great fear of openly questioning the pastor's judgment or saying anything critical, even if it's constructive. In reality, I dare say every church could benefit from a healthy discussion, even debate, on doctrine. In the parable of the soils, is there only one soil that represents a saved person, or three? Is Calvinism Biblical? What about theistic evolution? In any church, it's unlikely that any two people see everything exactly the same. Imagine how robust our knowledge of Scripture would be if every church member openly and compassionately discussed any disagreement in doctrine! (Hey, you might even convince someone!) But in what church is this standard practice? The church culture promotes silent passive obedience. Anyone who voices a dissenting opinion is branded a troublemaker, no matter how loving their tone. The average churchgoer thinks, “I don't want to be a troublemaker, I'll just show up, smile at everyone, and grit my teeth when the pastor says something I disagree with.” Thus, fear of man dominates the church landscape.

This may sound like a small thing, but it tends to compound other errors. I've recently seen a church fall to such a degree that they're now preaching heresy to the surrounding community. I know for a fact there are men at this church who know better. However, they don't speak up against this problem because they are afraid of rocking the boat, disagreeing with the pastor, and losing their social status. I have to wonder how often this story is repeated around the globe. How many churches have become unbiblical, heretical, silly, or irrelevant even though they had members who were strong in the faith? How many churches have fallen away because men who knew better were too cowardly to stand up for Biblical doctrine? I imagine those cowards will have much to answer for.

Fear of man hinders the spread of the Gospel

While I'm on the subject of cowardice, this leads me discuss evangelism, another aspect of Christian life in which fear of man is accepted by the church culture. It's normal and acceptable for a churchgoer to share the gospel little, if ever. When evangelism is discussed, so much of what is said is just excuses for those who don't share the gospel, often out of cowardice. There is this perception that the average Christian is too weak/timid to share the gospel with the lost, so they need a lot of training, encouragement, and hand-holding. I'm increasingly convinced this is nonsense. The average churchgoer has little/no interest in evangelistic training, and most of those that do get training never put it into practice. They're more than content to show up to church, put money in the offering, and walk away justified that they're doing their part for missions. I don't buy any of the other excuses. “I don't know how.” Well, if you've been a Christian for more than a few months, you've had plenty of time to figure that out. But then again, if you figured it out, you'd lose that excuse, wouldn't you?

There is a great need for someone to stand up and say: “Your fear of man is a sin. Your lack of love for the lost is a sin. You don't need me to hold your hand, you need to repent.” The cold churchgoer doesn't need to be built up, he needs to be broken and humble before the Lord! Yes, there is a place for discipleship/teaching/training, of course. However, if we want churchgoers to get on board with the Lord's mission, it has to start with repentance. If we want zealous men and women with hearts on fire for the Lord and the lost, that doesn't come through training. That comes when we repent of our sin, draw close to the Lord, and say, “I'll start fearing you more than fearing men. I'll do whatever you'd have me to do.” Then and only then will our training/discipleship have any meaningful effect.

How about you, friend? Are you afraid that the world and quite possibly your church might think of you as a zealot? Have you found it enticing that you can earn a sort of respectability with the lost as long as you're quiet about sin, hell, and Jesus? Maybe there's something unbiblical going on in your church, but you've been quiet until now. Well, I dare say that the fear of man is a sin that has rooted itself deeply into your life. Repent. The Lord will forgive your sin and coldness. Draw close to Him, read Scripture, and obey it. Continue in this and you will find yourself developing the heart and mind of Christ, which includes a love for the lost, and a fear of God alone (Matt 10:28-39).

Offering criticism, being offended, and the idol of emotionalism

It's no secret that Americans love to get offended. I suspect that anyone over 20 with a regular job would surely acknowledge this. Unfortunately, like much of American culture, it has also infected Christians and churches. We have accepted the lie that feelings and emotions are more important than truth. Here, I will endeavor to show from Scripture when rebuke should be offered, how it should be received, and how to respond when offended.

Offering rebuke/criticism

Though often referred to as criticism, I prefer to use the Biblical term 'rebuke'. The words are more or less interchangeable though. Rebuke is defined as “an expression of sharp disapproval or criticism”, so I think it's fair to say that rebuke is an even stronger word than criticism. The Bible also uses other words with similar meaning: reprove, reproof, and upbraid. I mention these different words because I can only offer a short treatment of the topic here. I suggest that anyone concerned with having a Biblical view of criticism/rebuke should do a search on these words (blueletterbible.com is my favorite tool) and observe how they are used throughout Scripture. I'll offer a few sample passages to make my points.

• Rebuke is loving, and we are commanded to rebuke those in error (Lev. 19:17, Prov. 27:5, Luke 17:3). 
• Scripture is intended to be used for reproof (2 Tim. 3:16). 
• Reproof is intended to grant wisdom to the hearer (Prov. 29:15)

It is easy to see that rebuke is unequivocally seen as a positive thing in the Scriptures. At this point, it is fair to ask how harsh our language can/should be when rebuking someone. There are many examples, but I'll choose Matt. 11:20-24. Here, Jesus is described as upbraiding (synonymous with rebuke) these cities. You should look up the whole passage, but I'll point out some key phrases: “You shalt be brought down to hell”, and “Woe unto you”. Woe means, “grief, sorrow, misery, calamity, a curse”. Pretty hard language I'd say. Yet, this was from Jesus who always did things perfectly. So, It's fair to conclude that even sharp language can be appropriate in a rebuke. Obviously, we don't always have to be this hard, but it's at least “fair game”. In practice, the severity of the rebuke should be appropriate for the severity of the offense/error.

Ok, so Jesus uses harsh language to rebuke unbelievers and the religious lost. Are disciples (fellow Christians) any different? Let's look at some more examples. In Mark 8:33, Jesus rebukes Peter, calling him 'Satan'. In Gal. 2:11-15, Paul confronts Peter and publicly points out his hypocrisy. In Titus 1:12-13, Paul agrees with the assessment that the Cretians were “liars, evil beasts, slow bellies” and instructs Titus to sharply rebuke them because of this tendency. Again, we are to speak the truth in love and try to match the sharpness of the rebuke to the severity of the offense, but it's clear that harsh language is also “fair game” when rebuking other Christians.

Often, those who offer rebuke are told they have a 'critical spirit'. Is such a judgment appropriate? Almost certainly not. As we showed earlier, the Bible always holds rebuke in a positive light. There are only a few caveats: don't rebuke hypocritically, and make sure your judgments are righteous. As long as you follow these simple instructions, you have no need to worry when someone accuses you of a critical spirit. This term is only thrown around by those who refuse to hear rebuke.

There's one other guideline the Bible gives for rebuke: don't rebuke a scorner or a fool (Prov. 9:8). Interestingly, the response that people have to a given rebuke is also given as a sign of wisdom or foolishness. The wise hear and consider rebuke, but fools refuse (Prov. 10:17, 12:1, 13:1, 15:5, 15:32).

What about offending people?

Certainly there are times at which we must speak the truth no matter how it is received. At the same time, we don't want to give offense unnecessarily. How do we make this judgment call? Let's again look at some examples from our Master. In Matthew 15:1-15 we see Jesus rebuking the Pharisees. At the end of the discussion, his disciples approach him and say (if I may have a little liberty to paraphrase) “Hey, don't you know you offended the Pharisees?” Jesus' response is basically,“I don't care”. Actually, he even continues on with the sharp rebuke, calling them “blind leaders of the blind”. In the context here, he's talking to them about their false traditions, hypocrisy, and failure to honor God's commands. Another instance of Jesus offending people can be seen in John 6. This time, Jesus offends many of his disciples because of his hard teaching. Yet another example can be found in Mark 6. Here, Jesus offends many of his family and friends because he preaches the gospel to them. Apparently, they wanted Jesus to be nicer to them because they were friends.

From these passages, we can conclude that when it comes to offering a Scriptural rebuke, teaching Scripture, and preaching the gospel, you should not worry about who gets offended. Basically, any time truth is at stake, there is no Biblical precedent for holding back to avoid offending others. People who get offended do so at their own peril. Again, one who gets offended and refuses to hear reproof is only demonstrating their foolishness (Prov. 10:17, 12:1, 13:1, 15:5, 15:32).

Yet, there are also situations in which it is not right to offend others. Romans 14 lays out a good example of this. Regarding diet, feasts, and holidays, we are not to offend or judge one another. Why? It's because these things are insignificant, having no eternal value (Rom. 14:17). As we have seen above, in instances where someone does violate righteousness or truth, it is not only allowed, but commanded that we rebuke others. To refuse to rebuke where it's needed is to disobey God and to exalt feelings and emotions over truth.

How about speaking the truth in love? (Eph. 4:15) This is certainly an important command to follow. If you offer a sharp rebuke, are you violating this command? Absolutely not. As we saw in the first section, Jesus delivered sharp rebukes to lost people and to Christians. Yet, no one doubts that Jesus was also loving in delivering these rebukes. So, we conclude that this passage is more about motivations than what is said. If you deliver a sharp rebuke because you see your brothers in error and you wish for them to be blameless before the Lord, then rest assured that you are speaking the truth in love just as Jesus did.

What should I do if I am offended?

The process for dealing with offenses is found in Matt. 18, but before getting into the practice, I want to offer a few other suggestions that should be done before taking any action. First, calm down, listen, and establish the facts of the case (James 1:19-20). Far too many people get offended and respond in anger. This does nothing productive and only makes you look silly. As James says, “the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." Next, analyze the facts and make a judgment call. Be as objective as you can (Eph. 5:15).

If you determine that it is appropriate for you to be offended, then begin to take action as outlined in Matt. 18. First, talk out your differences with each other and try to resolve them (v.15). Do not simply demand an apology. Throughout this process, you must consider that you may be wrong to take offense. In the later steps of the process (v. 16, 17), the extra witnesses and the church are there to establish every word and fact. In other words, they are judging between the two, who is right and who is wrong! This stands in direct contrast to common practice, in which the one who causes offense is assumed to be the troublemaker. Often, this is not the case, but people take offense when someone points out their disobedience. “I'm offended” replaces the correct response: questioning, self-examination, and Bible study.

Since this idea may be shocking to some, let me give a personal example. A few years back, I partnered with another man from church to do some door-to-door evangelism. I hadn't been out with this man before, so I was a little bit on edge. While we were out, he said some things that pushed on a doctrinal 'sore spot' caused by recent events, and it made me question if his doctrine was significantly different than mine. Naturally, this bothered me, so I asked him to sit down and discuss this with me. As I told him my frustration and asked him questions, it became clear that the disagreement was caused partly by some imprecise language and partly by me being on edge. I offered him some suggestions on how to phrase his thoughts more precisely and apologized for getting agitated with him prematurely. Some might think this would create awkwardness and tension between he and I, but what happened was quite the opposite. Our honesty and directness with each other created a lot of mutual respect, which cemented a friendship that was only tenuous beforehand.

This brings me to my final point. If you're offended, you should absolutely examine if you're right or not, but if the offense just won't go away, and especially if it turns into bitterness or resentment, you must talk about it. I've seen far too many friendships ruined because someone took offense and bottled it up. The other person wasn't even aware that a problem existed until it was too late. Not only does this cause problems in practice, it is also sin. As the old saying goes, honesty is the best policy.

In conclusion, though there is a stong tendency toward emotionalism (the exaltation of feelings/emotions) over truth, Christians must be diligent to guard against this disease. The preventative treatment is a healthy dose of Bible reading, and the vaccine is a directed Biblical study of rebukes, reproofs, and wisdom. This article has touched slightly on several different aspects of the problem, but it is up to the reader to study diligently, to be “approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed” (2 Tim. 2:15)