You can’t touch this
Posted on January 9th, 2008 by Reformed Pope into the Things Dougie wouldn't do category
Touch Not God's Anointed. I can hardly count how many times someone has come on to our blog and made that statement. Unfortunately they never follow it up with much substance. A quick scripture or two is quoted and then the conversation is over. Just once I would like someone to stand in and give that sentence a little substance…but it never happens. MFI and other Prosperity type churches beat this line into their congregation's minds over and over and over until they can all quote it in their sleep, but really…what does it mean? Touch Not God's Anointed? Well of course not, and here is why: "Do not touch my anointed ones; But don't we need more explanation than that? I mean really, shouldn't they have to: A: Define - "Touch Not" and B: Give a list of what qualifies someone as "Anointed" Unfortunately they can't do it. And the reasons they can't do it is this: In order to define "God's anointed" they either have to include "All Christians" or "All Leaders" and once they do this they open themselves up for obvious ridicule. "All Christians" would include those of us on this blog…who clearly have been "touched"… "All Leaders" would inevitably lead to someone saying "Touch not Hitler"…which is terrible I know, but it is what would happen. Just for arguments sake, let's say that "God's Anointed" can be defined as "All Christian Leaders" and let's say a "Christian leader" is defined as anyone in a position of authority over at least 300 people (or someone who can bring in $500,000 annually for your church). So now we've got God's Anointed as being pastors of Medium Sized churches and up… Here's the problem. There is a story floating around Portland that a certain head pastor of a rather large (maybe not quite mega) Christian church has been molesting children… If we follow the statement "Touch Not" (as it is commonly used) then we would have to tell those poor young boys and their parents to "KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT". Do you see where I am going here? So then we move the line back to say "Touch Not, except for in cases of Molestation" but then once you start moving the line whose to say where it stops? What about a Pastor who has a Meth Addiction and perhaps is "Gayish"…should we move the line again? And what if you know your Pastor is outright stealing money from the church offering bucket…another line move? And if they happen to distort the word of God…can we move the line a little further? No? Ok, I just thought I would try. I would honestly appreciate it if ANYONE could help me better understand the phrase "Touch Not God's Anointed". Until then, the next time someone tries to manipulate you with that statement, be sure to say: "Define Touched… Define Anointed".
do my prophets no harm."
RSS feed for posts
January 9th, 2008 at 11:50 am
i agree with you partially…
one all people who are “anointed” will face criticism and murmuring…
thats part of the price to pay to be in the limelight…
but i do think we ought to respect the men of God…
i wish i could elaborate more but im at work so…
i’ll try later
January 9th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Thanks, RP for bringing this up. Onestar suggested I look up the verse, and I did and have been meditating upon it. This is what I understand so far:
The passage is in reference to Abraham / Isaac / Jacob and their children. David is praising God for preserving them through their time in Egypt and in the Exodus.
In the passage, “anointed” refers to the entire nation of Israel. And the phrase “Touch not My anointed” is spoken to the heathen kings of Canaan and Egypt.
OK… So how does that apply to us? I’m not sure. I know that just as all of Israel was considered God’s anointed, all of His people today are also considered God’s anointed (ref. I John 2 and II Cor. 1) — set aside for His special purposes.
Even if we want to specialize into noting that kings and priests were anointed, the New Testament tells us that we are all kings and priests to our God.
I’m thinking that this whole passage does not apply to internal church relationships. And to use it as such seems to be a self-serving application on the part of leaders who love control.
This is not to encourage rebellion or disrespect for authority, for those things are addressed elsewhere in Scripture.
grace
January 9th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
As Anna noted, in the OT there were only 4 classes of people who were ‘annointed’ with the Holy Spirit. Kings, priests, prophets and judges.
The reason the church “leadership” of today likes to quote the OT verses so much is because that is the ONLY place you will find verses about building projects and raising $$$ for same.
If we are Christians, we should be believing and obeying Christ. Every believer in Christ receives the Holy Spirit, and has a measure of annointing. The NT teaches that elders who are caught in sin should be publicly rebuked. It ought to happen a LOT more than it does!
January 9th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
RP said: Define Touched… Define Anointed.
RP, “touch” = murder
“the anointed” = the king
One of the most familiar contexts from which these words “Touch not the Lord’s anointed” ensue is in I Samuel 24. Here David’s men encourage him to kill king Saul because the latter was attempting to kill him (vs 1-2). David does cut off a piece of Saul’s clothing when he is given the opportunity. He does this to show Saul how easy it would have been to murder him and that he had no intention of carrying out such an action (vs 4, 10-13). Even his behavior of cutting off a small piece of Saul’s robe, however, bothered David’s conscience (v 5) and so he told his men:
“The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my master, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the LORD”
(v 6) cf. 2 Samuel 18:12.
In the OT, the king was considered the anointed one (Psalm 2:2). This psalm was sung at the ascension and coronation of Israel’s kings. David did not want to kill Saul because Saul was still king even though he would have been acting out of self-defense. In my view, it was because David did not want to ascend to the throne of Israel in the eyes of the people through murder or a seeming overthrow. He wanted to allow the Lord himself to promote him to the highest position in the land.
So, If someone you know is planning on murdering their pastor, call the police! But, if not, stop taking this verse out of context.
Of course, the NT does not call pastors “kings” anyway. According to the NT, pastors are supposed to be servants who take the lowest place and wash other peoples feet (Matthew 23:11). They are also to be shepherds who, following the example of Jesus, are willing to lay their lives down for the sheep rather that making the sheep lay down their lives for them (John 10:11).
P.S. Do kings or servants hire body guards to protect themselves? If a pastor feels that he needs to hire a body guard to protect himself, then he knows that he is creating a lot of enemies through his ministry and probably has a lot of money, power and prestige that he wants no one to touch! Whose money, by the way, are pastors using to hire their body guards?
January 9th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
There is an interesting article on another blog about this exact thing. Here is a quote from http://signofjonah.wordpress.com/2007/08/18/the-loaded-language-of-the-prophetic-movement/#comment-40919
and later:
grace
January 10th, 2008 at 6:18 am
I’ve heard this was Jim Jones favorite line. That was before the kook aid incident, however. Moral: be careful of CBC punch.
January 10th, 2008 at 6:22 am
http://tinyurl.com/27y799
That obnoxiously long link is to a book that tells a bit how Jim Jones used the "touch not the lord's annointed" scripture to deceive and murder his entire congregation.
Editors Note: I shortened it for you.
January 10th, 2008 at 6:42 am
It’s funny you should say that. Because the minute I read the comment saying “Touch Not God’s Annointed”, I started thinking “Cult Watch! Cult Watch!”.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:04 am
I’m sorry. I think I messed up the link. It should have gone to the “sign of jonah” blog. Should I try again?
January 10th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Okay. So let’s accept the Biblical verse about not touching God’s annointed….. I for one am all about living by the Bible.
What makes someone in these days one of God’s annointed?
How will I know if one is God’s annointed?
If someone is annointed by God and say the SP of a church/organization/business that I do not belong to or ascribe to, is my not agreeing with their tenets/doctrines/beliefs/statements and making public my thoughts “touching” the annointed?
This is like saying Joe Pew Warmer at City Bible is a prophet. A prophet to whom? I don’t attend there. He is not a prophet at the church I might choose to attend… does this make him a prophet in MY world?
Mormons have prophets and annointed ones, yet they are not acknowledged by large demonations in the Portland area… are THESE churches touching annointed ones??
January 10th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Pope/Everyone: (Sorry so long, but I think it will help)
After consideration and meditation of this topic, this is what I came up with. To be honest I think you may be partially seeking some clarity (this time) concerning this.
We all know that in the age of the internet you can find something to agree with you on just about every topic/position known to man. I mean everything from why you should renounce Christ and turn to Islam to Urine Therapy (I wouldn’t recommend either of them).
I however believe that before you even address the question at hand, another must be meditated on. Where is your heart concerning the Church?
Do you see it as a dictatorship with King Rulership? Or is it seen as a body of members with leaders, and one ultimate head as Christ?
I will assume that the latter of the two is how we all see the Church before I move on. Now since we all see the Church as a body with many parts, we all have our part in it. If we are in Christ that means that we are all new creatures and have been sealed with His Holy Spirit from the day of conversion (Ephesians 1:13). Since God has now set us all apart to do a work, then that means that we are now considered his anointed people, just as the Children of Israel.
I understand what you are saying concerning people that are breaking the law and have even gone to lengths of killing behind and on behalf of the scripture(s). Or did they? I respond with a resounding NO! The bible is very specific concerning men giving in to the lust that dwells within their hearts. God of course did not intend for people to murder in His name.
The bible is also very specific when it speaks of the actions and fruit that will follow those who follow his will, not just leaders, all of us. If you are not in a church where the Fruit of the Spirit reside then you should pray and see why you are even there. God may use you to be the start of a movement, or release you to where you can be used to do great things in His ministry.
We can’t however end it there. The entire scripture says,” Touch not my anointed and do my prophets no harm.” This now takes the focus off of the anointed to the prophets, although these individuals can be one in the same. The true questions now are who are the prophets? And what is considered harm towards them?
The bible speaks on many areas concerning prophets and I can go on all day with this, but I will give a general description concerning these people, and will come back to it later in the thread if I have to. Generally, prophets were Gods spokespeople in the bible, and most were not Kings. I’m talking from the likes of Abraham to the Apostle Paul, a lot of prophets here. These people today would be your Pastors/Evangelist.
Now to move on to the harm portion. There is a big difference between questioning someone or something, and having harm towards it or them. The technical definition of harm is, “physical or mental damage”. This is when the scripture is truly violated, and she bears appear out of thin air.
As I said to Anna, it is your human right to evaluate anything you chose. However, you don’t have the right to harm. When that becomes your intent then the only evaluation that is truly necessary, is that of yourself.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Interesting OneStar. I think you are one of the few detractors to come here that haven’t claimed “we” (as has been said there are a bunch of different people with different opinions on here) don’t have the right to “Judge” (evaluate?). I could be wrong, so feel free to correct me. That’s kind of a breath of fresh air. This is key because you have judged several people’s intentions around here without any understanding beforehand.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Never been my intention to Judge. I only comment on what I see in the threads I read. You speak correctly by saying you have the right to evaluate because you do. But as I asked Anna, what you do with findings of your evaluation is key. Is it to cause discord and harm? (This is defined in the previous post) Or will you provide constructive criticism to those concerned? (Rhetorical Questions)
January 11th, 2008 at 5:10 am
Pretty funny, Bro. Dave.
But you miss the point, IMO.
If we merely focus on the literal act of murder, we overlook the principle of what David is saying here.
His heart smote him, not for killing or wanting to kill Saul, but rather for merely cutting off the corner of the garment of “the Lord’s anointed.”
Clearly, it comes down to attitude, wouldn’t you agree?
Note what the Lord (through Paul) says about the attitudes of those of us who question/approach leadership must have:
He tells us that those of us who take it upon ourselves to approach those caught in sin are to:
1. be spiritual
2. have a desire to see them restored
3. have gentleness
4. exercise self-reflection
5. realize we may fall into the same sin
6. have a desire to help them bear the burden of their sin
7. have an attitude of humility.
All of which I believe we see in the life of David.
In being reminded of some of the hate-filled posts I’ve read on this site in past months, which have been directed at certain pastors/leaders, I wonder how many of the above attitudes were in evidence?
Check out the “Ousted Pastor Returns to Grays Harbor” thread for a biting example of this — and many more similar posts, even up to today.
Who cares if these people are truly “the Lord’s anointed” in terms of being true leadership, or not? Should a disciple of Jesus be saying these things about anyone? Especially, a fellow brother (or sister, as the case may be) in Jesus?
The mocking of people (brothers/sisters).
Calling them all kinds of names.
Luridly recounting their sins, over and over.
Feverishly hoping — even praying — for God’s vengeance on them.
All the while forgetful of the sin in our own lives. And also being forgetful — or perhaps willingly ignorant — of this command from the lips of Jesus:
The Word is clear that we must hold leadership accountable. But it is equally clear we must have the right attitude in doing so.
I have a question for those with an honest heart…
Can anyone here deny that if more of us had the same attitude that David had — and which the Lord commands (not suggests) us to have — in approaching what we perceive to be errors or false doctrine in leadership, that we wouldn’t see more of these same leaders be a bit more amenable to hear, repent, and change their ways?
Instead of them feeling the need to throw up self-defense barriers, hide behind Scriptures, and engage in outright denial before their “attackers?”
-joebib
January 11th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Joe…are we agreeing on this (something) for once????
Although our answers differ, and I was attempting to answer Popes question. I think the concepts or the heart of the matter is the same.
I don’t know…. Feel free to comment.
January 11th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Craig can. Go check out Doctinetalk.com and you’ll find that Craig has handled the City Church with the “right heart” and yet he still receives the same response. You are fooling yourself if you think their response is based on how we deal with things.
I don’t know how you are ever going to tell someone they are teaching a false doctrine without having them throw up self-defense barriers. The problem is that they will never address the issues that we raise…and regardless of whether we approach the situation right or not it shouldn’t invalidate our opinion.
I get so tired of their constant deflection.
January 12th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Yes, many leaders will throw up those barriers regardless of the approach used. But some will not, as Jesus described:
I am aware of Craig’s biblical attempts in regard to The CC — I read about the various exchanges on his blog — for which he is to be commended.
But that doesn’t mean that everyone, or for that matter even most, have done it that way, or with humility, self-reflection, etc.
One person — or two, or even five — doing it biblically does not nullify the point I made, inasmuch as I would say probably 90% of the criticisms leveled against leadership is unbiblical, mocking and spiteful.
It’s clear that many of us have sabotaged our efforts in trying to point out error/excesses to leadership. When leadership/staff from the sundry LCs pop in here to check out what’s being said — and I think that fact is being counted upon by many posters
— I wonder if they don’t see a majority of unbiblical attitudes and words posted on this site, which only serve to reinforce the idea that there is no truth/balance to be found here.
Yeah, I know, this is a parody site, but wouldn’t any believer in Jesus want to ultimately see the SPs/leaders of the ICs in question embrace more biblical views on tithing/giving, Pastor kingship, etc?
For example, I’m reminded of a recent post in which was provided a quote — in an imaginary conversation with a pastor, and in jest — where the pastor is called a “son of a b*tch.” For those familiar with the movie from which it was taken, it can appear humorous at first glance.
But in my view, it’s things like this that can continue to build walls between us and those (I assume) leaders we are seeking to see changed.
Are you saying comments like the reference to CBC as “City Boobie Church” is going to make them look in their own hearts to see if what they are doing is biblical?
Or the comment:
Or,
Or,
Or,
Or,
Fairly dripping with love and humility.
Yep, I’m sure Jesus had just this sort of thing in mind when he told us how to deal with a sinning brother.
And if I was an SP practicing unbiblical leadership policies, this sort of stuff would immediately make me repent and turn from my ways.
-joebib
January 12th, 2008 at 9:00 am
I see your point much more clearly now, and you may be right, although I tend to think if everyone handled things with an “American Christian” Biblical view point then no one would ever know that there is a problem with the American Church.
Does this excuse our attitudes? No.
Joebib, just to be honest with you, I have never had any intention of changing the mind or heart of a single Senior Pastor through my writing on this blog. Based on my experience at CBC, I felt that the leadership there would NEVER listen or even acknowledge anything I said (regardless of whether I said things in a PC way or not)…in fact I’m quite certain of it.
Does that excuse my attitudes? No.
This blog is being written for those who were hurt by the church, those who became disenfranchised with “God’s People” because of their un-Biblical actions and teachings…and it has been a place of healing for many. The church is broken and up until Justin and I started blogging, no one (in our little circle) was willing to say so. Now the word is out, Beware of False Teachers. Beware of the Prosperity Doctrine. Beware of CBC.
City Bible Church presented themselves as the one true church that no one could question…NOT ANY MORE. Many current members have started questioning the actions of the pastors there and MAYBE THEY CAN CHANGE THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF CBC LEADERS.
Does this excuse our attitudes. No.
Over the past 3 years I have worked at changing my attitude to be more constructive rather than just attacking to attack. While reading your comments Joe, I am reminded of a post I wrote not that long ago where I attacked Ed Shefter for no good reason. I was just outright making fun of him because I could and there wasn’t really anything constructive in it. I have deleted that post now (Ed, I apologize for taking cheap shots at you regarding your sermons when there was nothing un-Biblical about them. Please forgive me.)
However, the 2 comments you listed above that I made don’t really bother me. Here is where I am at:
I am going to be judged for my actions here on earth. I can not and will not try to say that this blog is pure and innocent. Often times I say things that are wrong…I would like to fix that. Often times I say things that others think our wrong, but don’t bother me…I’m not going to change that. There are plenty of times where I read comments by others that I think are inappropriate, but I do NOT feel responsible for their actions. Each of us has to decide for ourselves what is acceptable. Everyone else, however, is welcome to point out (as you have just done) things that they find offensive. It may or may not create change, but you are always welcome to do it.
This blog is a process. I know it has helped me grow immensely…and I hope it has helped others as well. Thanks for all your comments, Joe, although we don’t agree on everything (or much of anything) its nice that you are willing to stand in and discuss issues with us…without getting your feelings hurt.
January 12th, 2008 at 10:41 am
The church has created a structure where it is nearly imposible to publicy criticize church leadership. This is how cults are created and how people are taken advantage of.
I’m not trying to change the leadership. I’m trying to create a place where people who have been abused can come and honestly share their criticism of leadership, without having to meet some pre-created conditions set up by those very same leaders who abused them.
So, in my mind, we need more City Boobie Church jokes. Not less.
January 12th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Speaking of cultist leadership brings to mind a very disturbing video I recently watched. It portrays most extreme behavior of cult leadership and how they destort the scriptures to control the people whom they are charged with oversight, with very deadly results, “all in the name of God”. The story is based on true life events back in 1857. There was such a great cover-up that historians still are not sure who was responsible for that awful deed.
The title is “September Dawn” , at Blockbuster. Check it out!
January 13th, 2008 at 5:19 am
Sorry Pope, but I’m not buying this.
Your attempts at doing just that have been well-documented — emailing/meeting/dialoguing with ME, HR, et al, even FD.
Remember that thing about “CBC 3, Johnpaul 0″?
If your memory’s lagging, and if you wish, I could cut and paste the proof thereof
I also would respectfully disagree with this, the reasons for which I posted under your Matthew 18:15-17 thread.
Having said that, thank you for responding in the tone you did.
FWIW, I think we do agree more often than you may imagine.
And thank you too, cat, for being honest.
-joebib