In many churches, pastors are merely preachers—nothing more, nothing less. But what happens when their role extends beyond the usual Sunday sermon? When their guidance starts to feel more like a command, leaving little room for disagreement, the dynamic shifts. In some churches, questioning or disagreeing with your pastor is not just frowned upon—it’s equated with outright rebellion against God (1 Samuel 15:22-23). This troubling belief is especially prevalent in certain authoritarian groups like The Potter’s House, where the doctrine of headship or rebellion is used to exert control over members. But is disagreeing with your pastor truly a rebellion against God, or is this a dangerous misuse of Scripture?
Misusing Scripture to Control: 1 Samuel 15:22-23
The doctrine of headship or rebellion within The Potter’s House hinges on a specific interpretation of 1 Samuel 15:22-23, which says:
“And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.” (KJV)
This passage, where the Prophet Samuel rebukes King Saul for disobeying God’s command, is often used in The Potter’s House to justify the idea that disobeying one’s pastor is equivalent to rebelling against God Himself. According to this doctrine, just as Saul’s rebellion against Samuel was seen as rebellion against God, so too is any disagreement or disobedience toward a pastor viewed as rebellion against God.
Twisting the Role of Leadership: The Doctrine Explained
The doctrine of headship or rebellion in The Potter’s House teaches that pastors and leaders hold an authority comparable to that of biblical figures like Samuel or Moses. However, it’s important to remember that in the time of the Old Testament, false prophets were subject to severe consequences, including being stoned to death (Deuteronomy 18:20). This meant that anyone who claimed to speak the word of God had to be absolutely certain they were truly hearing from God, as the stakes were literally life and death. In contrast, the doctrine in The Potter’s House elevates pastors to a similar level of authority without the same level of accountability, leading to a dangerous imbalance of power.
This belief that pastors hold an authority comparable to Old Testament prophets implies that their words and directives should be treated as if they were directly from God. I once heard someone recall hearing Wayman Mitchell himself proclaim during a service that if you are called to preach, “you must learn to take your pastor’s word as the Word of God.” This statement encapsulates the essence of the headship doctrine: absolute obedience to church leadership.
Conversely, the rebellion doctrine teaches that any form of disagreement or disobedience to this “headship” is not just wrong but akin to the sin of witchcraft. This belief is hammered into members, making them feel as though questioning their pastor is equivalent to questioning God. The doctrine is further reinforced with other biblical stories, like Moses and Korah or David and Absalom, where the pastor is always cast as the God-appointed leader, and any dissenter is labeled a rebel.
The Harmful Effects of Headship or Rebellion Doctrine
The destructive impact of the headship or rebellion doctrine on members of The Potter’s House is profound. This doctrine compels people to surrender their autonomy, allowing their pastors to make life-altering decisions for them. Whether it’s giving up an educational opportunity, forgoing military service, or even entering into a marriage without genuine love, these decisions are often made under the belief that disobeying the pastor is disobeying God.
Moreover, the doctrine can lead to severe emotional and relational damage. Members may be encouraged to cut ties with family members who are deemed “of Satan,” isolating them from their natural support systems. This isolation only deepens their dependency on the church, making it even harder to break free from the controlling environment.
The Need for Reevaluation and Renunciation
For those who have left The Potter’s House or are still within its ranks and questioning its teachings, the doctrine of headship or rebellion is one of the most critical to reconsider. This doctrine, more than many others, has been used to control and manipulate, often with devastating consequences. Former leaders of The Potter’s House should be encouraged to publicly renounce this doctrine and promote a healthier, more biblical understanding of leadership—one that values accountability, mutual respect, and the freedom of individual believers to follow God as they understand Him.
In reality, the Bible does not support the idea that pastors or church leaders have the same authority as Old Testament prophets. Disagreeing with a pastor is not equivalent to rebelling against God, nor does it mean you are guilty of witchcraft. The true biblical model of leadership is one of servant leadership, where leaders guide and support their congregants rather than control them. If there’s one destructive doctrine that former fellowship leaders should be willing to publicly renounce, it is the doctrine of headship or rebellion. After all, aren’t they themselves considered rebels for leaving or questioning the fellowship’s practices?
Joel E. Crosby is the author of Escaping the Potter’s House: An Anthology of Memoirs by Former Members. As a survivor of spiritual abuse, Joel draws from his experiences in The Potter’s House to expose the issues within authoritarian religious groups. His book offers compelling stories that provide insight and hope to others on similar journeys.