What this page is asking
The author of this site set down a thesis to be tested: “Scripture never exempts a minister from the standard it sets for every Christian’s speech. It raises the standard for him. Anointing is not a licence to demean others, and ‘touch not my anointed’ was never a shield against being held to account for what one says.”
What happened, in general terms
The speaker
A man described by his followers as anointed, who has served in ministry for more than fifty years. He is in a feud with another man. Speaking about that man, he used cheap and vulgar language about the man’s mother. This was not the first time: his trademark is to criticise others in a demeaning way.The woman
The mother of the man he is feuding with. She was not a party to the dispute. She was not present to answer. The words outraged her modesty. Nothing on this page reconstructs or hints at what was said.The language itself is not quoted, paraphrased or hinted at anywhere on this page, and no one is named. Nothing turns on the exact words. The question is whether any words of that kind, from any minister, about anyone’s mother, can be excused by appeal to his anointing.
What his defenders say
- 1
He is anointed, and his anointing should be shown deference.
Office and honour · Parts I and III - 2
“Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm” (Psalm 105:15; 1 Chronicles 16:22).
The proof text · Part III - 3
Fifty years of ministry and fruit speak for themselves.
Gifts and fruit · Part VI - 4
The prophets, and even Jesus, used harsh words against their opponents.
Harsh words in Scripture · Parts I and II - 5
It is not our place to judge a man of God. God will deal with him.
Correction and discipline · Part IX
The author put the question in a form that can be checked: Does Scripture or the historic Church teach that a minister’s anointing entitles him to deference when he uses demeaning or vulgar language? What does “touch not my anointed” actually mean in context? How does Scripture judge a man’s speech, and does it apply a lower or a higher standard to those who teach? How has the Church historically dealt with clergy who revile others?
He asked that all five of the defenders’ points be presented first, fairly and at full strength, before any is tested, and that earlier dossiers be linked rather than repeated. Part I states the defenders’ case. Part II tests their strongest evidence, the harsh words of the prophets and of Christ.
Three positions, labelled so they can be told apart
The page compares three answers to the question. They are given letters so that the page can refer to them briefly.
Position H · held by this page
The Higher StandardA minister’s speech is judged by the same rules as every Christian’s, and more strictly. His anointing is real and his office is to be honoured, but neither exempts his words from correction. When he reviles someone, he is to be corrected by the means Scripture gives, and the Church may still receive the Word and the sacraments through him.Position P · under test
The PassA minister’s anointing entitles him to deference. Criticising his words is touching the Lord’s anointed. His years of fruit outweigh a hard word, prophets and apostles spoke harshly too, and correcting him belongs to God alone.Position V · rejected
The VoidA minister who reviles someone shows he was never anointed at all. Everything God did through him is void, his ministry and sacraments were worthless, and he is beyond restoration.Position P is tested here, not mocked; Part I states its case at full strength. Position V is rejected as firmly, because the historic Church rejected it too: against the Donatists, it held that the Word and sacraments do not depend on the minister’s personal holiness (Part IX). A man can be truly called, truly used by God, and truly in the wrong.
What all three agree on
So the disagreement is not about whether ministers deserve honour, or whether God uses imperfect people. It is about one thing: whether a minister’s anointing places his speech beyond the standard Scripture sets for everyone, and beyond correction by the Church.
The thesis under test
That “touch not mine anointed” forbids kings to harm the patriarchs, and says nothing about questioning a man’s words (Psalm 105:12–15). That the anointed were openly corrected in Scripture, by David, by Nathan and by Paul (1 Samuel 24; 2 Samuel 12; Galatians 2). That every believer is anointed (1 John 2:20). That Scripture’s rules for speech bind every Christian and contain no exception for ministers (Ephesians 4:29; James 3:9–10). That the standard for teachers is higher, not lower (James 3:1; 1 Timothy 3:2–3). That gifts are not fruit, so years of ministry do not settle whether a man’s words are right (Matthew 7:21–23). That Scripture’s harsh words were aimed at false teaching and idolatry, to call people back, and never at an opponent’s family. And that the historic Church disciplined clergy who reviled, while denying that their misconduct voided the sacraments.
The scope of this page, stated narrowly
This page tests whether a minister’s anointing excuses demeaning or vulgar speech. It does not name, describe further or identify the minister, the man he is feuding with, or his mother, and asks that no names be supplied or guessed. It does not quote or reconstruct the language. It does not take a side in the feud itself, which may involve real wrongs on either side. It does not say whether anyone is saved, or whether the minister’s ministry has been fruitful, and it draws no legal conclusions about any person. Where an earlier dossier has covered a text in detail, this page summarises and links to it. Objections are answered inside each Part, under the heading “The objection,” and the defenders’ case has a Part of its own.
What the page concludes, stated up front
- The defenders’ case rests on real texts. The prophets used shocking images, Jesus called the Pharisees a “generation of vipers,” Paul wished the agitators in Galatia would cut themselves off, and Luther wrote coarser things than any of them. Part I.
- Tested, those cases point the other way. Each was aimed at idolatry or false teaching, to call people back; none at an uninvolved person’s mother; and no speaker exempted himself. Luther’s worst words have been publicly repudiated by Lutheran church bodies. Part II.
- “Touch not mine anointed” is a warning to kings not to harm Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The anointed David and Saul were both corrected to their faces, and in the New Testament every believer is anointed. Part III.
- Scripture’s rules for speech bind every Christian, and not one contains an exception for the anointed. A “railer” is named among those the church must discipline. Part IV.
- Teachers are held to a higher standard. James, Paul and the case of Moses all point the same way. Part V.
- Gifts are not fruit. God spoke through Balaam, Saul and Caiaphas. Fifty years show that a man has been used; love, gentleness and self-control are the fruit. Part VI.
- Demeaning a man’s mother is the opposite of what Scripture requires: purity toward older women, honour for parents, and the kindest construction of a neighbour. Part VII.
- Christ, an archangel, a king and an apostle refused to revile when they had far more cause. Part VIII.
- Scripture and the early Church give a process for correcting elders, and the Church used it, while rejecting the Donatist idea that a sinful minister voids the sacraments. Part IX.
- A free pass teaches the congregation something, and the reader can test his own church. Parts X–XIII.
The prompt behind this page
Everything below was produced by giving the following brief to a frontier language model with web search, which assembled and checked the sources. It is published so you can run it yourself, change it, sharpen it, or reverse it and see what comes back. Three experiments are worth more than reading this page. First, reverse it: ask for the strongest biblical case that a minister’s anointing entitles him to deference even when his words are harsh, and see which texts it rests on and whether it reads them in context. Second, change the target: replace “the mother of another man” with the minister’s own critic, and see whether anything in the answer changes. Third, change the speaker: ask the same question about a church member who spoke the same way about the minister’s mother, and see whether the standard moves.
Write a detailed, source-first, interactive article, in British
English, for a general reader who is willing to work. Quote Scripture
from the Authorised Version. Date and attribute every other
quotation: give the work, the edition or translation, and the
section. Verify every quotation against a reliable published source;
where a quotation cannot be verified, cut it, or say that it is
given at second hand. Do not invent quotes. Do not take verses out
of context.
WORKING TITLE. A Free Pass for the Anointed? Vulgar Words From a
Holy Mouth. Propose alternatives and confirm with me.
THESIS TO TEST. Scripture never exempts a minister from the
standard it sets for every Christian's speech. It raises the
standard for him. Anointing is not a licence to demean others, and
"touch not my anointed" was never a shield against being held to
account for what one says.
SOURCE OF THE MATERIAL. A man described as "anointed," who has
served in ministry for more than 50 years, used cheap and vulgar
language about the mother of another man with whom he is feuding.
The words outraged her modesty. She was not a party to the
dispute. This is not the first time he has used language like
this. His trademark is to criticize others in a demeaning manner.
He is not attributed here, and no names should be supplied or
guessed. Do not quote or reconstruct the vulgar language itself.
Describe it only in general terms.
WHAT HIS DEFENDERS SAY.
1. He is anointed, and his anointing should be shown deference.
2. "Touch not my anointed, and do my prophets no harm" (Psalm
105:15; 1 Chronicles 16:22).
3. Fifty years of ministry and fruit speak for themselves.
4. The prophets and even Jesus used harsh words against their
opponents.
5. It is not our place to judge a man of God. God will deal
with him.
CORE CLAIM. Jesus said, "By this all people will know that you are
my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35), and
"You will recognize them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16). If every
Christian is to be known by his fruit and by his love, how does the
anointed man get a free pass? Scripture's qualifications for an
overseer say almost nothing about gifts and a great deal about
character: "above reproach ... not violent but gentle, not
quarrelsome" (1 Timothy 3:2-3). The question is not whether God can
use a flawed man. He can. The question is whether a man's anointing
places his speech beyond correction.
QUESTION TO TEST. Does Scripture or the historic Church teach that
a minister's anointing entitles him to deference when he uses
demeaning or vulgar language? What does "touch not my anointed"
actually mean in context? How does Scripture judge a man's speech,
and does it apply a lower or a higher standard to those who teach?
How has the Church historically dealt with clergy who revile
others?
POINTS TO TEST.
1. The defenders' case first, all five points, fairly. The
prophets used vivid and even crude imagery (Ezekiel 16, 23;
Isaiah 64:6). Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal (1 Kings
18:27). Jesus called the Pharisees "hypocrites," "blind
guides," and a "brood of vipers" (Matthew 23). Paul wished the
agitators would "emasculate themselves" (Galatians 5:12) and
counted his gains as "rubbish" (Philippians 3:8; the Greek
word is coarse; verify). Be honest that Luther was notorious
for coarse and abusive polemic. Then test each case: Who was
the target? What was the purpose? Was the language aimed at
someone's family? Did the speaker exempt himself from
correction? Note that Luther's worst writings have been
publicly repudiated by Lutheran church bodies (verify).
2. "Touch not my anointed" in context: Psalm 105:12-15;
1 Chronicles 16:19-22; the patriarchs and foreign kings;
"touch" as physical harm; David and Saul (1 Samuel 24; 26),
who refused to kill Saul yet confronted him openly; every
believer anointed (1 John 2:20, 27; 2 Corinthians 1:21-22).
3. Every Christian's speech: Ephesians 4:29; 5:4; Colossians 3:8;
James 3:9-10; Matthew 12:34-37; 5:22. Any exception for the
anointed?
4. A higher standard for teachers: James 3:1-2; 1:26; 1 Timothy
3:2-3; Titus 1:7; 1 Timothy 4:12; Moses (Numbers 20:10-12;
Psalm 106:32-33).
5. Gifts are not fruit: Balaam (Numbers 22-24; 2 Peter 2:15-16);
Saul (1 Samuel 19:23-24); Matthew 7:21-23; 1 Corinthians
13:1-3; Galatians 5:19-23. Is 50 years evidence of fruit, or
only of time?
6. The mother who was not part of the quarrel: 1 Timothy 5:1-2;
the Fourth and Eighth Commandments (Lutheran numbering);
Luther's Small Catechism on the Eighth (verify the wording);
"outraging the modesty of a woman" in Indian law (IPC 509,
now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s. 79; verify). No legal
conclusions about any individual.
7. How Christ and his apostles answered opponents: 1 Peter 2:23;
3:9; Jude 9; 2 Peter 2:10-11; Colossians 4:6; 2 Timothy
2:24-25.
8. "It is not our place to judge": 1 Timothy 5:19-20; Galatians
2:11-14; the Apostolic Canons (verify which canons address
clergy who insult or strike others) and early councils;
Chrysostom, On the Priesthood (verify); Gregory the Great,
Pastoral Rule (verify); Donatism distinguished (Augustine;
Augsburg Confession VIII).
9. What a free pass teaches the congregation: Romans 2:24; the
young; the outsider; the person insulted and his mother.
10. A test readers can run on any minister, including their own,
ending with Matthew 7:16.
EARLIER ARTICLES. Link rather than repeat: Are You With Me, or
Against God?; Who Is Your Covering?; The Board That Only Says Amen;
Nobody Else Is Worthy; The Pulpit Is Not a Weapon; Platitude or
Command?; Kill the Spider?; Perhaps He Is Asleep; Lord, Lord, Did We
Not?; Proud of Our Humility!; When the Messenger Becomes the Message;
Can You Fool Your Children? Companion course: The Ten Commandments;
The Church and the ordained ministry; The shepherding and
discipleship movement.
OBJECTIONS. Present the defenders' case first, at full strength, in
its own Part. Answer other objections inside the argument where each
arises. Where the evidence corrects or qualifies the brief, say so
in a marked box.
POSITIONS. Three labelled positions: H, the Higher Standard (held);
P, the Pass (under test); V, the Void, for which a minister who
reviles was never anointed and all his ministry is worthless
(rejected).
NAMING. No names of the minister, the man he was feuding with, or
his mother. Do not quote, reconstruct or hint at the language. Every
modern example composed and labelled as composed. Deceased writers
quoted from dated, published works. Keep the page clean enough to
share with anyone.
INTERACTIVES. A priors quiz. The defenders' five arguments, weighed
by the reader before they are tested. The harsh-words cases run
through four tests. Psalm 105:12-15 phrase by phrase. Who is called
anointed. The speech texts searched for an exception. Texts sorted
by which way they move the bar for teachers. Gifts sorted from
fruit. Rebuke or reviling. How Scripture's figures answered those
who reviled them. Donatism, discipline or free pass. One incident,
five church responses, and what onlookers learn. A checklist for
any minister. An objection drill the reader answers first. Claims
sorted by whether the argument proves them.
OUTPUT: a single self-contained interactive HTML page, professional
and readable, light theme by default with a dark switch, stating the
question at the top, publishing this prompt in full, repeating the
key points in prominent boxes for readers who skim, explaining every
technical term in a box where it is used, and giving the reader
something to do in every major section. Also produce a plain-English
quick version with three short exercises, and a Simple English
version with no exercises.
The page you are reading is the output of that brief after the sources were checked. The brief quoted Scripture from a modern version; the page gives it from the Authorised Version, as it does everywhere on this site. Twelve things qualified the brief, and each is marked where it arises.
1. The Authorised Version’s wording differs. 1 Timothy 3:2–3 reads “A bishop then must be blameless … no striker … but patient, not a brawler.” Ephesians 4:29 reads “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth.” Ephesians 5:4 reads “Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient.” Colossians 3:8 has “filthy communication.” James 3:1 reads “be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.” Galatians 5:12 reads “I would they were even cut off which trouble you.” 2 Timothy 2:24–25 has “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves.” John 13:35 reads “if ye have love one to another,” and Matthew 7:16 “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” The meaning is the same in each case. Throughout.
2. “Touch” means to harm, and the Genesis stories show how. The Hebrew verb naga‘ means to touch or strike. Psalm 105 is retelling Genesis, where God plagued Pharaoh for taking Sarai (Genesis 12:17), warned Abimelech in a dream that Abraham “is a prophet” (20:7), and where Abimelech decreed, “He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death” (26:11). The “prophets” of Psalm 105:15 are the patriarchs. Part III.
3. Philippians 3:8, checked. The Greek word skybala means refuse, and in some writers dung or excrement; the Authorised Version has “dung.” Scholars disagree over how coarse it sounded. What is not in doubt is its target: Paul applies it to his own former advantages, not to any person. Part II.
4. Galatians 5:12, checked. The verb apokoptō means to cut off. The Authorised Version has “I would they were even cut off,” but most modern translators and commentators take it as a sarcastic reference to castration, aimed at men insisting that Gentile believers be circumcised. Part II.
5. Ezekiel 16 mentions a mother. The brief’s defenders might have pressed this, so the page does. “Thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite” (16:3), and “As is the mother, so is her daughter” (16:44). The “mother” is Jerusalem’s Canaanite origin, the city personified, not a woman; and the speaker is God. Part II.
6. Luther’s repudiated writings are specifically the anti-Jewish ones. The Lutheran World Federation’s 1983 statement with the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations said “we cannot accept or condone the violent verbal attacks that the Reformer made against the Jews.” The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod resolved in 1983 to “deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther’s negative statements about the Jewish people.” The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America declared in 1994, “we reject this violent invective.” No Lutheran body has issued a general statement on his coarse polemic against the papacy or other opponents, but none holds it up as a model. Part II.
7. Psalm 106:33 and Numbers 20:12 give two sides of Moses’ fault. Numbers says God’s charge was “because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel.” The Psalm adds that “they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips.” Both belong in the account. Part V.
8. The Small Catechism wording quoted in the brief is a modern translation. The 1921 Bente translation reads “put the best construction on everything”; the brief’s “explain everything in the kindest way” is from the 1986 Concordia Publishing House translation. Both are quoted. Part VII.
9. IPC 509 and BNS 79, checked. Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, “Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman,” is replaced by section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in force from 1 July 2024, with the same title. The offence turns on intention, which is a question for a court. The page draws no conclusion about anyone. Part VII.
10. The Apostolic Canons are not apostolic, and their numbering varies. They are a collection of eighty-five canons appended to the Apostolic Constitutions, compiled in Syria in the later fourth century. The canon deposing clergy who strike the faithful is 27 in the Greek numbering (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 14) and 28 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, whose editors think it may come from a synod at Constantinople in 394. The canon on clergy who mock the lame, deaf or blind is 57 in both. Part IX.
11. Chrysostom and Gregory, checked. Chrysostom’s point is in On the Priesthood VI.11: sins “receive sorer punishment by far when they occur in the case of the Priest than in the case of the laity,” because the mischief “destroys the souls of the weaker brethren.” Gregory’s is in the Pastoral Rule II.4, headed “That the ruler should be discreet in keeping silence, profitable in speech.” Part IX.
12. The Augsburg Confession’s article against the Donatists cites Matthew 23. Article VIII allows the sacraments administered by evil men “according to the saying of Christ: The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.” The chapter the defenders use to justify harsh words is the chapter the Reformers used to separate the validity of a man’s ministry from the rightness of his conduct. Parts II and IX.
What do you currently think?
Ten questions. Each has a determinate answer, and you can check every one yourself in the texts listed in Part XV. Answer them before reading and lock them in. They come back in Part XIV with the sources beside them.
What follows
The case for the anointed
The author asked for the defenders’ case to be put first, fairly, and at full strength. Here it is, in their five arguments, as their most serious advocates would make them. None is a straw man. Each appeals to a real text or a real instinct, and anyone who has watched a godly old minister torn apart by critics will feel the force of them.
God sets men apart for his work. “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls” (Hebrews 13:17). “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour” (1 Timothy 5:17). A congregation that picks over its minister’s words like a critic is not honouring the office God gave him. Even the apostle said, “Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people” (Acts 23:5).
God himself says it twice (Psalm 105:15; 1 Chronicles 16:22). David, who had every reason to strike Saul, would not lift his hand against “the LORD’s anointed” (1 Samuel 24:6; 26:9). When Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses, God struck Miriam with leprosy (Numbers 12). Those who criticise a man of God are on dangerous ground.
“By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). Half a century of preaching, churches planted, people converted and lives changed is fruit. A man is not to be judged by one sentence spoken in the heat of a long dispute, but by the whole of a life given to God.
God’s spokesmen were not polite. Ezekiel described Jerusalem’s idolatry with sexual imagery that is still shocking to read (Ezekiel 16 and 23), and even said of the city, “thy mother an Hittite … As is the mother, so is her daughter” (16:3, 44). Isaiah called Israel’s righteousness “filthy rags” (64:6), a phrase usually taken to mean soiled cloths of the most intimate kind. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal to their faces: “Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth” (1 Kings 18:27). Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “whited sepulchres,” “serpents” and a “generation of vipers” (Matthew 23). Paul wished the agitators in Galatia would cut themselves off, a word most scholars take as a jibe about castration (Galatians 5:12), called the high priest a “whited wall” (Acts 23:3), and counted his former gains as skybala, “dung” (Philippians 3:8). And Martin Luther, the most honoured teacher of the Reformation, wrote polemic so coarse that it is rarely printed in full: against the papacy, against his opponents, and, worst of all, against the Jews. If they could speak like that, why can a minister not use strong words?
“Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1). “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth” (Romans 14:4). “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” (Romans 12:19). If he has sinned, God will deal with him. Members who criticise him are taking into their hands a judgement that belongs to God.
Try it: weigh the case before it is tested
How convinced are you by each argument, as stated? Your answers come back in Part XIV beside what the page found when it tested them.
0 of 5 weighed
The defenders’ case rests on real texts. Scripture does honour the ministerial office, does warn against harming the anointed, and does contain hard words from prophets, from Christ and from apostles. The question is what those texts were for, and whom they were aimed at.
Harsh words, tested
The fourth argument is the defenders’ strongest, because it is not an appeal to office but to example. The texts in Part I are real, and they are harsh. Scripture does not speak in the voice of a polite committee. So the honest question is not “Did God’s servants ever use strong words?” They did. It is whether their strong words resemble what was said about this woman.
The author proposed four tests. They can be put to any hard saying, in Scripture or out of it.
Try it: run each case through the four tests
Nine cases: seven from Scripture, Luther’s polemic, and the case this page examines, described only in general terms. Choose a case to see how it fares. The table below fills in as you go.
Choose a case above.
| Case | Target | Purpose | Family | Self-exempt? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open a case to add it here. | ||||
0 of 9 cases tested
In Scripture the hard words fall on idolatry and false teaching, on the speaker’s own people (often including himself), and on those leading others astray. Their aim is to call people back to God. Not one is aimed at an opponent’s mother, and not one speaker claims that his words are beyond correction. Paul, rebuked for a sharp word to the high priest, withdrew it at once (Acts 23:5).
Elijah on Carmel
Elijah’s mockery deserves a word, because it is the nearest thing in Scripture to ridicule of an opponent. Dossier 60, Perhaps He Is Asleep, reads 1 Kings 18 in full and is not repeated here. Three points matter for this page. The target was a false god, and the four hundred and fifty prophets who led Israel to it; the mockery is aimed at the claim that Baal hears. The purpose is stated in Elijah’s prayer: “that this people may know that thou art the LORD God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again” (18:37). And Elijah submitted his own altar to the same test, soaking it with water before he prayed (18:33–35). He did not exempt himself.
The case of Luther
The author asked that Luther be dealt with honestly, because defenders sometimes point to him: if the great Reformer could write like that, why cannot a modern minister? Luther’s polemic was famously coarse. Against Hanswurst (1541) and Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil (1545) are full of language no one would read aloud in church, and his writings against the Jews from 1543 combine abuse with proposals for cruelty. The page does not soften this.
But consider what the Lutheran churches have done with it.
- July 1983The Lutheran World FederationIn a joint statement with the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations, marking Luther’s five-hundredth birthday: “we cannot accept or condone the violent verbal attacks that the Reformer made against the Jews.” The Federation’s assembly at Budapest received the statement the following year and commended it to its member churches.
- 1983The Lutheran Church–Missouri SynodBy resolution of its convention: “we deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther’s negative statements about the Jewish people.”
- 18 April 1994The Evangelical Lutheran Church in AmericaIn its Declaration to the Jewish Community: “we reject this violent invective, and yet more do we express our deep and abiding sorrow.”
The churches that bear Luther’s name, and honour him more than any other teacher, did not say “he was anointed; touch him not.” They examined his words, named the worst of them, and publicly repudiated them. If the Reformer himself was not exempt from correction, no one after him is.
The chapter the defenders cite
Matthew 23 is the defenders’ best text, so look at how it begins. Jesus is speaking “to the multitude, and to his disciples” (23:1), warning them about teachers: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat … do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (23:2–3). His charge is against their teaching and its fruit: binding heavy burdens, devouring widows’ houses, neglecting “judgment, mercy, and faith” (23:4, 14, 23). And in the same chapter he binds every teacher, his own disciples included: “be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren” (23:8). The chapter ends not in mockery but in lament: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem … how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (23:37).
“Jesus called people names. If he could, so can his ministers.”
The answer. Jesus is the one speaker in Scripture who could not be corrected, because he was without sin: “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” (1 Peter 2:22). He is also the Judge (John 5:22). Peter draws the lesson for ministers from the very next verse: “Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again” (2:23). The New Testament never tells a minister to imitate Christ’s judgements on the Pharisees. It tells him repeatedly to imitate Christ’s silence under abuse. And even Christ’s hardest words were spoken to the teachers’ faces, about their teaching, and never about their mothers.
“Ezekiel 16 talks about a mother. God himself said, ‘As is the mother, so is her daughter.’”
The answer. Read the chapter. The “daughter” is Jerusalem, and the “mother” is the Canaanite land from which God took her: “Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite” (16:3). Both are personified peoples, not women. The speaker is God, in a covenant lawsuit against a whole nation’s idolatry. And the chapter ends in promise: “I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant … that thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done” (16:60, 63). Nothing in it licenses a man to speak about a real woman, who is not on trial, to win a quarrel.
- 60 · Perhaps He Is Asleep Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Carmel, and what each method of worship teaches about God.
- 68 · Kill the Spider? The imprecatory psalms, Elijah, Korah and Elymas read in context: in every hard text God acts, and no target is a fellow believer.
- 10 · The Branch Calls the Tree Dead What Luther actually taught, and how a tradition receives its founder without worshipping him.
Scripture’s harsh words were aimed at idolatry and false teaching, spoken to call people back to God, never aimed at an opponent’s family, and never used to exempt the speaker. Luther’s worst words were repudiated by the churches that bear his name. The examples the defenders cite argue for correction, not for a pass.
“Touch not mine anointed,” in context
Two earlier dossiers read this verse in detail: Dossier 06, on the texts used to silence dissent, and Dossier 15, on the teaching that a minister’s “covering” protects those under him. In brief, they found that the verse is a warning issued to kings on behalf of a defenceless family, and that in the six texts where the phrase appears, the protection runs from God to the weak, never from criticism to a leader. This Part reads the verse once more, quickly, and adds what bears on speech.
Try it: read Psalm 105:12–15 phrase by phrase
Select each underlined phrase to see what it refers to. The Psalm is retelling Genesis, so the notes point back to the stories it summarises.
0 of 6 phrases read.
On the Psalm’s own terms, who is told not to “touch” the anointed, and what does “touch” mean?
In Psalm 105 the anointed are a family of “very few, and strangers,” and those warned are kings. A verse that protected the defenceless from the powerful is being used to protect a powerful man from a defenceless woman.
David, Saul, and the word “touch”
David’s refusal to harm Saul is the defenders’ favourite illustration. It is worth reading what he refused, and what he did instead. In the cave at En-gedi, David’s men urged him to kill Saul. He said, “The LORD forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the LORD’s anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him” (1 Samuel 24:6). To “stretch forth the hand” is to kill. Then David went out after Saul, called to him, bowed, and spoke to him in front of his army:
“Wherefore hearest thou men’s words, saying, Behold, David seeketh thy hurt? … Moreover, my father, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe, and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest my soul to take it. The LORD judge between me and thee, and the LORD avenge me of thee: but mine hand shall not be upon thee.”
1 Samuel 24:9–12, Authorised Version.
He did it again in chapter 26, calling from a hilltop: “Wherefore doth my lord thus pursue after his servant? for what have I done? or what evil is in mine hand?” (26:18). David would not kill the Lord’s anointed. He did not hesitate to tell him, publicly, that he was in the wrong.
Try it: were the anointed corrected?
Six people Scripture calls anointed, or who held an anointed office. Select each to see whether anyone told them they were wrong. Watch the tally.
Every believer is anointed
In the Old Testament, oil was poured on a few: priests, kings, once a prophet. In the New Testament, the anointing is the Holy Spirit, and the apostles say every believer has received it.
“But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. … But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you.”
1 John 2:20, 27, written to the whole church, whom John calls “little children” (2:18).
“Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.”
2 Corinthians 1:21–22. Note “us with you”: Paul and the Corinthians alike.
If the man who was insulted is a baptised Christian, he too has “an unction from the Holy One.” If his mother is a baptised Christian, so has she. On the defenders’ own reading of “touch not mine anointed,” whose anointing was touched?
“God struck Miriam with leprosy for speaking against Moses (Numbers 12). Criticising God’s servant is dangerous.”
The answer. Look at what Miriam and Aaron said: “Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?” (12:2). They were claiming his office, not correcting his speech. The chapter’s point is that God spoke to Moses “mouth to mouth” (12:8), a claim no minister today makes for himself. And the same chapter describes Moses as “very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth” (12:3). The text that protects Moses describes him as the meekest of men. It is hard to turn it into protection for a man known for demeaning others.
“Paul himself said, ‘Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people’ (Acts 23:5).”
The answer. He said it while apologising for his own sharp words. Ordered to be struck on the mouth, Paul had called the high priest a “whited wall.” When told whom he had addressed, he withdrew it: “I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people” (23:3–5). The verse is evidence that an apostle held himself answerable for an angry word. It is the opposite of a free pass.
- 06 · Are You With Me, or Against God? Korah, Ananias and Sapphira, Absalom and “touch not the Lord’s anointed”: six texts used to silence dissent, read whole, and Diotrephes, the one leader condemned for expelling critics.
- 15 · Who Is Your Covering? Who the anointed is in each of six texts, which way accountability runs, and how the early Church removed bad clergy.
“Touch not mine anointed” forbids kings to harm the patriarchs. David would not kill Saul but told him to his face that he was wrong; Nathan told David, “Thou art the man.” In the New Testament every believer is anointed. The verse was never a shield for a man’s words.
Every Christian’s speech
Before asking whether a minister is held to a higher standard, it is worth asking what the ordinary standard is. The New Testament says a great deal about speech, and it says it to whole churches: to the saints at Ephesus and Colossae, to the believers in Crete, to “my brethren” in James. If the defenders are right, somewhere among these texts there should be a clause that excuses those with an anointing.
Try it: look for the exception
Eight texts on speech. Select each to read it, see whom it was written to, and check it for an exception. Watch the tally.
The railer in the church
One text goes further than the others, because it tells the church what to do. Paul lists the railer among those with whom a congregation must not keep company:
“But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.”
1 Corinthians 5:11; and the railer appears again among those who “shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (6:10).
Paul puts the habitual railer in the same list as the idolater and the drunkard, and tells the church to act. He does not say “unless he is a minister.” The author notes that demeaning others is this man’s trademark, not a single lapse; the brief describes a pattern, and Paul’s word describes a pattern.
Notice where Jesus sets his own standard for words. In Matthew 12 he calls his opponents a “generation of vipers,” and in the next breath binds every speaker, himself excepted by his sinlessness alone: “every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (12:36–37). The verse the defenders cite for harsh words is followed by the verse that judges all words.
“These verses are about ordinary members. A minister has to say hard things that members do not.”
The answer. He does, and Scripture provides for it: he is to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:2). Notice the last three words. A rebuke is a word about a wrong, aimed at correcting it, spoken with longsuffering. Ephesians 4:29 allows it, because a true rebuke is “good to the use of edifying.” What no text allows is corrupt, filthy or railing speech, and the authority to rebuke does not turn one into the other. Part VII sets rebuke and reviling side by side.
- 62 · Platitude or Command? “Love your neighbour” and “love your enemies” mocked from the pulpit as platitudes, and tested against the Gospels, the Fathers and the Reformers.
- 37 · The Pulpit Is Not a Weapon What a pastor may say about particular people from the pulpit, and the Eighth Commandment’s “best construction.”
Scripture’s rules for speech are written to whole churches and bind every believer. Not one contains an exception for the anointed, and Paul names the habitual railer as someone the church must discipline. Ask yourself: which of these verses has a clause for men of God?
A higher standard for teachers, not a lower one
If the standard for every Christian has no exception, the next question is whether the standard for teachers moves, and which way. James answers in the verse that opens his chapter on the tongue: teachers receive “the greater condemnation,” a stricter judgement. He includes himself (“we”), and he ties the stricter judgement directly to speech: the man who does not offend “in word” is the perfect man.
Of the fifteen or so qualifications Paul lists for an overseer in 1 Timothy 3, only one, “apt to teach,” is plainly a gift or skill. The rest describe a man’s temper, habits, home and reputation. Several concern how he treats people when provoked.
Try it: which way does each text move the bar?
Eight texts. Does each set a higher bar for those who teach and lead, the same bar for everyone, or a lower bar for teachers?
0 of 8 sorted
The man who lost the promised land for a sentence
No one in the Old Testament was more honoured than Moses. God spoke with him “face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend” (Exodus 33:11). He had led Israel for forty years. And at Meribah, provoked by a people who had complained against him for a generation, he struck the rock and spoke:
“And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock? … And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.”
Numbers 20:10, 12, Authorised Version.
“They angered him also at the waters of strife, so that it went ill with Moses for their sakes: Because they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips.”
Psalm 106:32–33, Authorised Version.
Numbers gives God’s charge as unbelief: Moses did not sanctify God before the people. The Psalm adds the detail that matters here. Moses was provoked, he had real grievances, and he “spake unadvisedly with his lips.” Forty years of faithful service did not cancel the sentence. Moses saw the land from Mount Nebo and died outside it (Deuteronomy 34:4–5).
God did not give Moses a free pass for a rash word spoken under provocation, after forty years of service, by the meekest man on earth. On what grounds does anyone else receive one?
“But God forgave Moses, and he appeared with Christ on the mountain (Matthew 17:3). The point is grace, not punishment.”
The answer. Agreed: Moses was forgiven, and stands with Christ in glory. That is exactly the distinction this page draws. God’s forgiveness of Moses did not mean his words were left unjudged, and God’s use of a minister does not mean his words are beyond correction. Forgiveness follows the naming of the sin; it does not replace it.
- 59 · Nobody Else Is Worthy The minister of Scripture as servant, Paul’s boasting of weakness, and the old Church’s checks on its preachers.
- 11 · How Many Did You Drive Away? What a teacher answers for in the people his words drive off.
Teachers receive the greater condemnation. A bishop must be blameless, no striker, not a brawler, not soon angry, an example in word. Moses lost the promised land for speaking unadvisedly with his lips. Every text that moves the bar for teachers moves it up.
Gifts are not fruit
The third argument says that fifty years of fruit speak for themselves. It takes Christ’s own test, “by their fruits ye shall know them,” and applies it to a career. The difficulty is that Scripture distinguishes sharply between what God does through a man and what that man is. The first is gift. The second is fruit. And Scripture is full of men through whom God worked, who were not what they should have been.
“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
Matthew 7:22–23. The paragraph begins, “Beware of false prophets” (7:15), and the test it gives is fruit (7:16–20).
Dossier 28 reads that passage in detail, and argues that it is aimed at confident, performance-based religion, especially in public ministry, rather than at struggling believers. It is not repeated here. The point for this page is narrower: the people in Matthew 7:22 offer their résumé of mighty works, and Christ does not dispute it. He does not say “you did not prophesy.” He says the works were not the fruit.
What the fruit is
Paul lists it, and sets it beside its opposite:
The works of the flesh, in part
- “Hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings”
- Galatians 5:20–21
The fruit of the Spirit
- “Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance”
- Galatians 5:22–23
Converts, churches and years are not on either list. They are things God does, and he may do them through anyone he chooses. Love, gentleness, meekness and self-control are what the Spirit grows in the man himself, and the tongue is where they show first.
Try it: gift, fruit, or neither?
Ten things that might be said about a minister. Sort each: is it a gift or work God does through him, the fruit of the Spirit in him, or something that says nothing either way?
0 of 10 sorted
Long service is a gift to a church and deserves gratitude. But time is not fruit. Solomon reigned forty years, and “when Solomon was old … his wives turned away his heart” (1 Kings 11:4). Hebrews rebukes believers who, “for the time,” ought to have been teachers and were not (5:12). The question is not how long a man has served, but what his words are like now.
“You are judging fifty years by one incident.”
The answer. The brief says it was not one incident: demeaning others is described as this man’s trademark. But suppose it were one. The page is not judging fifty years, which it cannot see and does not dispute. It is asking whether fifty years exempt this speech from correction. Moses had forty, and they did not. A long record is a reason to expect repentance, not a reason to excuse its absence.
- 28 · Lord, Lord, Did We Not? Matthew 7:21–23 as a warning against confident, performance-based religion, especially in public ministry.
- 35 · Proud of Our Humility! When ministry statements advertise fruitfulness and chosenness while disclaiming all glory.
- 45 · When the Messenger Becomes the Message A gifted evangelist whose followers came to treat the man as beyond question, traced step by step.
God spoke through Balaam, Saul and Caiaphas, and sent Judas to heal. Gifts and years show that God has used a man. Love, gentleness, meekness and self-control are the fruit, and they show first in the tongue.
The woman who was not part of the quarrel
Everything so far would apply if the minister had spoken harshly about the man he was feuding with. But he did not stop there. He spoke about the man’s mother. She was not present. She was not involved. She could not answer. That changes the question, because almost every protection Scripture gives a person under criticism assumes that he is the one being criticised, and that he can reply.
The Fourth and Eighth Commandments
The Fourth Commandment, “Honour thy father and thy mother” (Exodus 20:12), is repeated by Paul as “the first commandment with promise” (Ephesians 6:2). Its first application is to one’s own parents. But the catechisms have always read it more widely, as a commandment to honour the parental office and the old (“Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man,” Leviticus 19:32). To demean a man by degrading his mother attacks the very honour the Commandment protects, and it does so in a way that wounds the son through his mother.
The Eighth Commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16), is explained in Luther’s Small Catechism in a sentence every Lutheran child once learned by heart:
“We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.”
Martin Luther, Small Catechism (1529), the Eighth Commandment; tr. F. Bente and W. H. T. Dau, Concordia Triglotta (1921). The 1986 Concordia Publishing House translation renders the end “defend him, speak well of him, and explain everything in the kindest way.”
The catechism asks every Christian to defend his neighbour’s reputation, speak well of him, and explain everything in the kindest way. A minister who demeans a woman who is absent, uninvolved and unable to answer is doing the precise opposite, to the person least able to defend herself.
Try it: rebuke, or reviling?
Eight statements, all composed for illustration and quoted from no one. None contains vulgar language; the page does not need it to make the point. Is each a rebuke, aimed at a wrong in order to correct it, or reviling, aimed at a person in order to demean?
0 of 8 sorted
What civil law says
The page draws no legal conclusion about anyone, and makes no suggestion about what anyone should do. It observes only that the civil law, which makes no claim to holiness, treats words of this kind as a serious wrong against the woman. It would be strange if the Church, which claims to hold its ministers to Christ’s standard, treated them as a matter of style.
“The son started the feud. If he had not attacked the man of God, his mother would never have been mentioned.”
The answer. Perhaps the son did wrong; the page takes no side in the feud. But that is an argument for answering the son, not for degrading his mother. “Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing” (1 Peter 3:9) assumes the other party has done evil. And even when the other party is guilty, Scripture forbids visiting it on his family: “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” (Ezekiel 18:20). A provocation explains a sin. It does not change what it is.
- 37 · The Pulpit Is Not a Weapon The Second and Eighth Commandments applied to what a preacher says about particular people, and Luther’s “best construction” in full.
- Companion course · The Ten Commandments On creedalfaith.org: each Commandment with Luther’s explanation, including the Fourth and the Eighth.
The woman was absent, uninvolved and unable to answer. Scripture tells a minister to treat older women as mothers, with all purity; the Commandments protect parents and the neighbour’s good name; the catechism asks for the kindest construction. Even the civil law treats such words as a serious wrong.
When they were reviled
The defenders appeal to the hard words of Scripture. Scripture itself points somewhere else when it tells ministers how to speak to those who oppose them. Peter, writing to suffering Christians, does not hold up Christ’s words to the Pharisees as their model. He holds up Christ’s silence on the cross.
“Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.”
1 Peter 3:9, Authorised Version.
“Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.”
Colossians 4:6, Authorised Version.
“And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves.”
2 Timothy 2:24–25, Authorised Version.
Try it: how did they answer?
Six scenes from Scripture in which someone was reviled, cursed or provoked, most with far more cause than any modern quarrel. Choose what you think each one said or did.
“Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee” (Jude 9). If an archangel would not revile the devil, on what ground may a minister revile another man’s mother?
Peter makes the same comparison, and turns it against those who “are not afraid to speak evil of dignities”: “Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord” (2 Peter 2:10–11). The defenders often cite these verses to protect leaders from criticism. Read whole, they describe a restraint in speech that the greatest of God’s servants observed toward the worst of opponents.
“David did not forget Shimei. On his deathbed he told Solomon to deal with him (1 Kings 2:8–9). So the restraint was only for a time.”
The answer. That is fair, and the page states it. The passage shows that a wrong was not forgotten, and that it was handed to lawful authority to judge. It does not show David answering a curse with a curse. On the road, with an armed man offering to kill his reviler, the anointed king said, “let him alone, and let him curse” (2 Samuel 16:11). That is the opposite of the case on this page, where the man who claims the anointing is the one doing the reviling.
- 62 · Platitude or Command? “Love your enemies” is a command, not a platitude: the Gospels, the early Church and the Reformers on how a Christian treats an opponent.
- 68 · Kill the Spider? James and John wanted fire on a village that refused Jesus. “He turned, and rebuked them.”
Christ reviled not again. Michael would not bring a railing accusation against the devil. David let Shimei curse. Paul withdrew a sharp word. Stephen prayed for those who stoned him. This is the pattern Scripture sets for ministers when they are opposed.
“It is not our place to judge a man of God”
The fifth argument says that correction belongs to God alone. Scripture agrees that the final judgement is God’s. But it also gives the Church a process for exactly this situation, and it is written about elders. Paul tells Timothy not to entertain gossip against an elder: an accusation needs two or three witnesses. Then, where the sin is real and continues, it is to be rebuked “before all,” so that others learn from it. Words spoken from a platform or before a congregation are not a matter of rumour. They have many witnesses.
An apostle corrected an apostle
“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. … But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all …”
Galatians 2:11, 14, Authorised Version.
Peter had walked with Christ, preached at Pentecost and been given the keys. When his conduct contradicted the gospel, Paul opposed him “to the face” and “before them all.” Peter accepted it, and later called Paul “our beloved brother” (2 Peter 3:15).
John did the same with a church leader whose fault was his speech. Diotrephes, “who loveth to have the preeminence,” was “prating against us with malicious words,” and John wrote that if he came, “I will remember his deeds which he doeth” (3 John 9–10). Dossier 06 discusses him at length. And Paul, as Part IV showed, puts the habitual “railer” among those the church must not keep company with (1 Corinthians 5:11).
“Jesus said, ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged’ (Matthew 7:1).”
The answer. Read on four verses: “first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” (7:5). Jesus forbids hypocritical judgement, not correction. Ten verses later, in the same sermon, he commands his hearers to judge prophets by their fruit (7:15–16). Elsewhere: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24); and Paul, of the church’s own members, “do not ye judge them that are within?” (1 Corinthians 5:12). The page judges words that were spoken. It does not judge a soul.
“‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.’ Leave him to God.”
The answer. Romans 12:19 forbids private revenge: “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves.” It does not forbid the Church to do what God commands it to do, and the same Paul commands rebuke “before all” (1 Timothy 5:20). Leaving a man to God and correcting him are not alternatives. God’s ordinary way of dealing with an erring elder is through the Church he gave the elder to.
How the early Church dealt with clergy who struck or reviled
The author asked how the historic Church handled clergy who abused people. The record is consistent: it disciplined them, and it held them to a stricter standard than the laity. Five witnesses, across eleven centuries:
- Later 4th centuryThe Apostolic Canons: clergy who strike are deposedA collection of eighty-five canons, compiled in Syria and later received in the East as foundational. Canon 27 (28 in some editions): “If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon shall strike any of the faithful who have sinned …” he is to be deposed, for the Lord did not teach this, but “when He was reviled, He reviled not again” (1 Peter 2:23).
- Later 4th centuryClergy who mock are excommunicatedCanon 57: “If any of the clergy mock the lame, or the deaf, or the blind …” he is to be excommunicated, and a layman likewise. Canons 55 and 56 punish clergy who abuse a bishop, presbyter or deacon. Reviling was forbidden in every direction.
- c. 390John Chrysostom, On the PriesthoodThe priest’s sins “receive sorer punishment by far when they occur in the case of the Priest than in the case of the laity,” because “the mischief does not merely involve himself, but it destroys the souls of the weaker brethren” (VI.11; tr. W. R. W. Stephens, NPNF, first series, vol. 9, 1889).
- c. 406Augustine, against the DonatistsThe sacraments are Christ’s, not the minister’s: “Peter may baptize, but this is He that baptizes; Paul may baptize, yet this is He that baptizes; Judas may baptize, still this is He that baptizes” (Tractates on John 6.7; NPNF, first series, vol. 7). Augustine said this to protect the people’s confidence in the sacraments, not to protect bad ministers from correction.
- c. 590Gregory the Great, Pastoral RuleA whole chapter on the pastor’s tongue, headed: “That the ruler should be discreet in keeping silence, profitable in speech.” Rulers “ought also to guard with anxious thought not only against saying in any way what is wrong” (II.4; tr. J. Barmby, NPNF, second series, vol. 12, 1895). For a thousand years, this was the West’s handbook for bishops.
- 25 June 1530The Augsburg Confession, Article VIII“Both the Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ, notwithstanding they be administered by evil men. They condemn the Donatists, and such like” (Concordia Triglotta, tr. Bente, 1921). The Article grounds this in Matthew 23:2: “The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.”
The historic Church held two things together. Against the Donatists (Position V), a minister’s sin does not void the Word and sacraments God gave through him. Against any free pass (Position P), his office does not protect him from correction. It never taught that anointing placed a man’s speech beyond discipline.
Try it: discipline, Donatism, or a free pass?
Eight things a church member might say about a minister who has reviled someone. Sort each: is it the discipline the Church taught, the Donatist error it rejected, or a free pass it never taught?
0 of 8 sorted
- 15 · Who Is Your Covering? “Does the gift depend on the man?” and “What the church did when the shepherd was the problem”: the Donatist settlement and the machinery for deposing clergy, in full.
- 43 · The Board That Only Says Amen Deacons and boards hold real duties to correct, cannot rubber-stamp, and must fear God rather than man.
- 59 · Nobody Else Is Worthy The old Church’s checks on its preachers, and what the modern platform rewards.
- Companion course · The Church and the ordained ministry On creedalfaith.org: what the office is, and how the historic churches have overseen it.
- Companion course · The shepherding and discipleship movement On creedalfaith.org: where the modern idea of unquestionable spiritual covering came from.
Scripture gives a process for correcting elders, and an apostle used it on an apostle. The early Church deposed clergy who struck the faithful and excommunicated those who mocked the weak, while denying that a sinful minister voids the sacraments. It never taught that anointing put a man beyond correction.
What a free pass teaches
Whatever a church does after words like these, it teaches something. Silence teaches, excuses teach, and correction teaches. The people who learn the lesson are rarely the minister. They are the young, who are learning what a man of God sounds like; the outsider, who is deciding whether the Church means what it says about love; and the woman, and her son, who are learning whether anyone thought she was wronged.
Try it: one incident, five responses
A minister has spoken about an opponent’s mother in demeaning terms, from the platform. Choose how his church responds, and see what three people are likely to conclude. Everything here is composed for illustration.
The words have been heard by the congregation, and by others. The woman’s son has asked whether anyone will say anything.
Composed · a church’s response to its minister’s words about a woman not present
When a minister’s demeaning words are excused because of his anointing, the congregation learns that holiness is for ordinary Christians and power is for the anointed. The young learn that this is how a man of God talks. The outsider concludes that the Church does not mean what it says about love. Paul’s word for that outcome is that God’s name is “blasphemed among the Gentiles through you.”
And the woman? She was not part of the quarrel, and she has been made part of it. If the church says nothing, it tells her, without a word, that her dignity counts for less than his title. The Eighth Commandment asks the Christian to “defend him, speak well of him.” Silence does neither.
- 32 · Can You Fool Your Children? Children see the other hundred and sixty-six hours. What they learn from what adults excuse.
- 35 · Proud of Our Humility! How a ministry’s language about itself shapes what its hearers think holiness looks like.
- 45 · When the Messenger Becomes the Message What happens when a congregation comes to treat one man as beyond question.
A free pass is not neutral. It teaches the young what a man of God sounds like, tells the outsider the Church does not mean what it says about love, and tells the woman her wrong does not matter. Correction teaches the opposite.
A test you can run yourself
The author asked for questions any reader can apply to any minister, including his own. They are not about doctrine. They are about speech, and about whether a church holds its minister to the standard it holds everyone else to. Nothing is recorded.
Then turn the test round, as Christ told his hearers to (Matthew 7:3–5). How do you speak about people you are in conflict with, and about their families? The standard on this page is not only for ministers. It is only higher for them.
Christ gave the final test himself, and it applies to every teacher, the anointed included: “Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). The page leaves the reader to apply it.
Does he address the argument, or demean the person and the family? Does his speech match Ephesians 4:29 and James 3? Is he held to 1 Timothy 3, or excused from it? Can anyone correct him, as Paul corrected Peter? Do his defenders appeal to Scripture, or to his anointing? You can answer these yourself.
The threads, gathered
The author asked that earlier dossiers be linked rather than repeated. Here they are in one place, grouped by the thread they follow. Each card says which Part of this page it supports.
- The Ten Commandments The Fourth and Eighth Commandments with Luther’s explanations. Part VII.
- The Church and the ordained ministry What the office is, and how it is overseen. Parts III and IX.
- The shepherding and discipleship movement The modern origins of unquestionable “covering.” Parts III and X.
Answer it before you read the answer
Here is the strongest objection to this page, as a thoughtful defender might put it. Write your own answer first, in a few sentences. Then compare it with the page’s.
The objection. “He has served for fifty years and brought many people to Christ. If the church rebukes him in public, the world will mock, his followers will be hurt, and the work will suffer. Love covers a multitude of sins. Better to pray for him quietly and leave him to God.”
The page’s answer, in six points
- There is real wisdom here. “Charity shall cover the multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8), and Christ’s own process begins privately, “between thee and him alone” (Matthew 18:15). Not every fault calls for a public process. Part IX.
- But these words were public, and about a third party. A private word fits a private fault. Paul wrote “them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (1 Timothy 5:20) precisely about elders, and precisely to protect the work. Part IX.
- The world has already heard. Silence does not hide the words; it endorses them. It is the excusing, not the correcting, that causes God’s name to be “blasphemed among the Gentiles” (Romans 2:24). Part X.
- The woman has not been answered. Love covers sins committed against oneself. It does not cover a wrong done to someone else by leaving her undefended. The Eighth Commandment asks us to defend our neighbour. Part VII.
- Praying and correcting are not alternatives. Paul did both. “God will deal with him” is true, and God’s ordinary means of dealing with an elder is the Church (1 Corinthians 5:12). Part IX.
- Correction is mercy to him. “He which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” (James 5:20). Moses was corrected, and forgiven, and stood with Christ on the mountain. A free pass denies him the same mercy. Part V.
What the argument proves
The argument of this page is narrow, and it is easy to claim too much for it. It does not settle the feud, or say who was right in it. It does not say the minister is not a Christian, or that God has not used him. It names no one and reads no one’s heart.
What it tests is whether a minister’s anointing excuses demeaning speech, and whether the Church may correct him. On those two matters the evidence runs one way.
What it does not show
- That the minister is not a Christian, or was never called.
- That his fifty years of ministry were worthless, or the sacraments he gave void.
- That all harsh language is always wrong.
- Who was right in the feud.
- That his defenders are acting in bad faith.
What it does show
- That “touch not mine anointed” forbids harming the patriarchs, not questioning a man’s words.
- That Scripture’s rules for speech bind ministers, and bind them more strictly.
- That Scripture’s harsh words were aimed at falsehood and idolatry, never at an opponent’s family.
- That Scripture and the early Church provide for correcting elders, and used it.
Try it: does the argument prove this?
Eight claims. Does the argument of this page establish each one, or not?
0 of 8 sorted
Your verdict
Two questions. Nothing is recorded.
The page does not judge the minister’s soul, his calling, or his fifty years. It shows that his anointing does not exempt his words from the standard Scripture sets for everyone, and that the Church may, and should, correct him.
Your answers, revisited
Here are the ten questions you answered before reading, with what the sources say, followed by how convinced you were by each of the defenders’ arguments in Part I and what the page found when it tested it. If you skipped the quiz, go back to the questions, lock in your answers, and return.
Answer the questions at the top of the page and lock them in; your results appear here.
Weigh the five arguments in Part I; your answers appear here beside the page’s findings.
Check it yourself
Fifteen items. Nearly everything here is free and online. If you read only three, read the first three. If you do only one thing, do the last.
- 1. Psalm 105:8–15, with Genesis 12:10–20, 20:1–18 and 26:6–11. Read these first. Fifteen minutes. Who are the anointed, who is warned, and what does “touch” mean in the stories the Psalm retells?
- 2. 1 Samuel 24 and 26; 2 Samuel 12:1–14. Read these first. What David refused to do to Saul, what he said to him instead, and what Nathan said to David.
- 3. James 3:1–12; Ephesians 4:25–5:4; 1 Peter 2:21–3:9. Read these first. Ten minutes. Look for an exception for teachers. Note which way James moves the bar.
- 4. 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and 5:1–2, 17–22; Titus 1:5–9. The overseer’s qualifications, the treatment of older women, and the process for an accusation against an elder.
- 5. Numbers 20:1–13; Psalm 106:32–33; Deuteronomy 34:1–5. Moses at Meribah, and what it cost.
- 6. How Scripture’s figures answered abuse: Luke 23:33–46; Jude 8–10; 2 Peter 2:10–11; 2 Samuel 16:5–14; Acts 7:54–60; Acts 23:1–5; 1 Corinthians 4:9–13.
- 7. Gifts and fruit: Matthew 7:15–23; 1 Corinthians 13; Galatians 5:16–26; Numbers 22–24 with 2 Peter 2:15–16; John 11:47–53.
- 8. Correction in the New Testament: Matthew 18:15–17; Galatians 2:11–21; 1 Corinthians 5:9–13; 3 John 9–11.
- 9. The harsh texts, read whole: Ezekiel 16 (note verses 3, 44 and 60–63); Isaiah 64; 1 Kings 18:20–40; Matthew 23; Galatians 5:1–12; Philippians 3:1–11.
- 10. The Apostolic Canons 27 (28), 55–57, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 14, or Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7. Free at New Advent and CCEL.
- 11. John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, Book VI, and Gregory the Great, Pastoral Rule, Part II, chapter 4. Both free at New Advent.
- 12. Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John 6, and the Augsburg Confession, Article VIII. The Book of Concord is free online.
- 13. Luther’s Small Catechism, the Fourth and Eighth Commandments. Then the Lutheran World Federation–IJCIC statement (1983), the LCMS resolution (1983) and the ELCA Declaration to the Jewish Community (1994), to see a church correct its own founder.
- 14. Earlier dossiers: Part XII gathers every one this page draws on. If you read only three, read 15 (the anointed and the covering), 37 (the pulpit and the Eighth Commandment) and 28 (gifts and fruit).
- 15. One sentence. Do this one. Think of the last thing you heard a minister say about someone he disagrees with. Write it down. Then write Ephesians 4:29 beside it, and read them together. Nobody else needs to know.
No living individual is named, described beyond general terms, or identifiable on this page. The incident was described to the author and is summarised only in general terms; the language used is not quoted or reconstructed. Every other modern remark, response and scene is composed for illustration and quoted from no one. The reference to Indian law observes how civil law classes such words and draws no conclusion about any person. This page tests whether anointing excuses demeaning speech; it does not judge any person’s faith, sincerity, salvation or standing before God, and does not take a side in any dispute.
Want this in twenty minutes instead?
There is a plain-English version of this dossier with the same findings and three short exercises. It has no position labels and few citations in the body.
Read the quick version → Simple English →