You can't censor my/God's message!

CGI Pastors Bill Watson, Adrian Davis, and their allies have been sorely vexed by Tyler's attempts to rein in their messaging. In fact, they have not been very subtle in suggesting that church leadership is trying to censor their sermons and articles. For those who are unaware of what's been happening in the Church of God International for the last several months, we should note that the leadership of that organization has attempted to forbid any further commentary by its ministry on the subject of public health mandates relative to Covid-19 (and has withdrawn three offending sermons from its platforms as a consequence of this action). Of course, completely absent from these cries of censorship is any acknowledgement that their own extreme and controversial statements provoked this action by church leadership!

Moreover, the charge of censorship appears rather hollow and self-serving when compared to the record provided by the New Testament of what transpired within the early church on the subject of messaging. After all, the Apostle Paul pronounced a double curse on anyone who would preach a gospel that diverged from the message which he was preaching (see Galatians 1:6-9). In the very same epistle, we learn that Paul had to defend his ministry among the Gentiles (see Galatians 2:1-10), and that he had to confront Peter for the hypocritical mixed-messaging which his personal example presented for the consumption of the saints (see Galatians 2:11-21). Likewise, it is recorded in the book of Acts that Priscilla and Aquila felt compelled to take Apollos aside and correct his messaging (see Acts 18:24-26). Are we to label these efforts of the leadership of the early church to control its messaging as censorship? In other words, should ministers be allowed to preach whatever they feel compelled to present to the saints within their care?

Finally, there are also ethical issues to consider relative to the subject of the messaging of individual ministers. If one is using the credentials and platform of some church/group/organization, doesn't one have some obligation to adhere to their teachings and standards? If one purports to represent some church/group/organization, doesn't he/she have some responsibility to reflect their values and messaging? If a church/group/organization is paying someone a salary, doesn't that person have an obligation to do what they are paying him/her to do? If someone strongly disagrees with the mission or doctrines of some church/group/organization, shouldn't that person at the very least be obligated to make leadership aware of their dissent? And, if a person experiencing such dissonance can't resolve that difference or submit with a clear conscience, aren't they obligated to make a clean break with that church/group/organization? In fact, if the church/group/organization doesn't represent your views, why would you even choose to be associated with them in the first place?

These folks like to say that they must obey God over men. Implicit in this assertion is the notion that they represent God's message, while those who oppose them do NOT! In other words, for them this justifies defiance of whatever authority stands in their way. Of course, this completely ignores the fact that this principle of obeying God over men was clearly intended to apply to conflicts between secular authority and spiritual authority (In other words, not within the ekklesia). Within the Church, Paul wrote to the saints at Rome that they shouldn't argue with or condemn each other, and that they shouldn't be doing anything to cause each other to stumble (see Romans 14). In other words, if you feel compelled to challenge church leadership because you feel obligated to obey God, it's probably time to be looking for another church! And we all know what God has to say about those who sow discord among brethren (see Proverbs 6 and Romans 16:17).

Hence, if the leadership of your church decides that discoursing on masking and vaccine mandates is divisive and counterproductive, then you are obligated as an ethical person to either salute or leave! If your church leadership states that it is the mission and doctrine of the church to preach about Christ and his teachings, that does NOT mean that you have permission to deliver a warning message to Israel or discourse on how current events relate to ancient prophecies! So, instead of screaming about censorship, maybe these folks should engage in a little Bible study, self-reflection, and humility - and quietly resolve to do the right thing! What do you think?