I don't remember if I've already posted this or not. It's an email that I sent to some pastor, at some church, somewhere, some time long ago. He challenged me to prove Biblically that blogging is an acceptable way to deal with the false teachings of the Christian Church…and this is as far as I got (I also end with a couple of quotes from commenters on this blog…one is from Anna, I don't remember who the other is from…please forgive me) ok, here we go:
For this to be worth the effort I am going to need a couple of things from you first.
- I need you to be open to the ideas that are expressed here. If you are reading this just waiting to tell me how wrong I am there is no point. Please be open to the idea that your opinion may change once you have read my comments. Of course, in the end you may find that I am an idiot, and in that case I expect you to tell me exactly how wrong I am.
- I need you to accept the premise that I am not writing this blog out of bitterness, hate, or revenge. This is very important. If this website is a result of bitterness then we can all stop right there…it is wrong. So, based on the idea that I am not just another bitter blogger lets continue.
The challenge I have been presented with is to prove Biblically that blogging is an acceptable way to deal with the false teachings of the Christian Church. This is no easy task seeing as how during the period in which the Bible was being written, computers did not exist. Lets also keep in mind that up until recently (the last couple of years really) blogs barely existed, so what we are dealing with is a fairly new idea. Even as I write this I am unaware if I will be able to successfully defend the Blogosphere. I'll give it a try.
Before I get to blogging, I would like to take some time discussing the proper way to confront someone…obviously we must start with Matthew 18:15-17
15"(M)If your brother sins[b], go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16"But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that (N)BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
17"If he refuses to listen to them, (O)tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, (P)let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Now this is a great scripture…one of the few that Christians typically all agree on and teach that we must follow completely. Let's break down each step (cross reference scriptures in parentheses)
Step 1: Go privately to your brother and confront him. (Luke 17:3)
Step 2: Take 2 or 3 witnesses with you and confront again (Deut 19:15)
Step 3: Tell the whole church (1 Cor 6)
Step 4: Do not associate with this brother anymore. (2 Thes. 3:6)
Should anyone fail to miss one of these steps then they have not handled the situation properly. This scripture alone however fails to address a couple of very key issues:
- 1. If you fail to follow these steps does this excuse the sin of your brother and what is the proper solution to get back on track? Can you still confront your brother and take the proper steps or have you lost your opportunity.
- 2. What if the person who has sinned is a leader or even the head (senior) pastor of the church?
Let's look at issue 1:
I do not believe that just because someone mishandles a situation and skips right to step three that this dismisses the sin; that does not make sense. Should you fail to follow this procedure I believe it is the responsibility of the person to go privately, repent for your mistake and then confront your brother properly. I find no Biblical evidence to suggest otherwise.
Issue 2:
What should be done if the person who has sinned is the head pastor of the church? Step one still fits you should go to your pastor in private to confront him (if you can't get a meeting send a letter). Step 2 still applies, although if you can't get a meeting it seems a little silly to have 3 signatures on a letter, but still it's better than nothing. Step 3 suddenly takes on a whole new perspective and Step 4 is rather difficult as well. How do you "take a matter to the church" when "the matter" is an issue that your pastor has already chosen to ignore you on?
From what I understand "Take it to the church" means to follow the 1 Cor 6 method of allowing someone with in the church to judge the matter, appointing "even men of little account in the church". For this to work your pastor would have to be willing to submit himself to that authority…if that works great, however…if he refuses what is the next step?
Should we then really take it to the church? Should we stop each and every person as they exit after service and explain to them what your pastor has done? How about calling each and every household and telling all? Maybe sending out a mass email to the whole congregation?
At this point I suggest skipping straight to step 4 and not associating with him anymore. This of course requires you to leave the church, but so be it. He's a sinner anyway.
Now, as I look closely at this verse and begin to break it down I begin to see one other problem…it is seemingly talking about an individual sinning against another individual. It appears to be talking about how to deal with single instances of offence. I do not believe that this scripture is speaking to how to handle when an entire church leadership goes astray with false doctrine, therefore we must move our search along:
What does the Bible say in regard to the teachings of False Doctrine:
Acts 20:28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all (A)the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd (B)the church of God which (C)He purchased with His own blood.
2 Timothy 4:2-4 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
4and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
Romans 16:17-18 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naïve people.
Clearly the Bible teaches that there will be false teachers and prophets but what do these scriptures say to do about them? Acts 20 tells us we are told to "be on guard", that the "Holy Spirit has made you overseers", and that we are "to shepherd the church of God". 2 Timothy 4 says to "be ready…reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction". And Romans 16 says to "watch out" for them.
These 3 scriptures do not tell us the proper way to deal with teachers of False Doctrine but it does give us some guidelines, If your blog is "on guard" and "shepherding the church" through "rebuking, reproving and exhorting" then I would say you are doing just fine.
I would like to end phase 1 with these quotes:
to paint everyone with the same broad brush "Oh, you just need to forgive" is incomplete at best. I can only forgive to the extent that I have been personally offended or injured. If I hold in my heart anger, revenge, a desire for judgment and sentencing – then I need to forgive. Anger, revenge and judgment are not mine to hold or to mete out. These belong to God alone, and personal forgiveness relinquishes my right to them. I am willing to do that, and with God's grace I do/will do.
and Quote 2:
HOWEVER, if a Christian is in sin or error – and that sin or error leads to deception or destruction in the lives of others, my observation of that requires a response. If anger, revenge and judgment are my response, then I need to repent as above. But my forgiveness of the person does nothing to absolve them of their sin or error, does nothing to warn them of the response of the Lord, and does nothing to protect or warn those who are being deceived / destroyed.
That is why the prophets, John the Baptist and Jesus were perfectly correct to proclaim, "Woe to you ______________ (fill in the blank: shepherds, priests, Pharisees, etc.) This was not a matter of personal injury or broken relationship. They were warning of the response of God with the hope that repentence would stay His hand.
FURTHERMORE, if a Christian sins or is in error in a public way, ie, from the pulpit, then it removes the situation of personal injury or private correction. That is why the apostles felt free to publicly name names and warn their readers to reject those people and their doctrines.
It does not matter if the doctrinal error is wide-spread. If Pastor X is preaching Nicolaitan heresy, then it is perfectly right for Pastor X to be singled out for his error, even if half of Christendom preaches the same thing. And for you to tell an individual that they just need to forgive Pastor X is outrageously ridiculous. What good with that do? How will that help Pastor X or the people he is preaching to?
So, forgiveness is just and right and good. But it is not the complete response to the situation.
Which is to simply say "False teaching requires our intervention because the alternative is to allow sin into the church".
What say you?
Pope– I think your response is pretty much biblically airtight as to defending your right to blog.
I do have a couple of observations for you, however:
1. Since you are defending the right to use the steps prescribed in Matthew 18 on confronting “erring” leaders by means of a blog — this one, I assume
— it seems clear that you are wanting these leaders/LCs to see the “error” of their ways, and somehow return to leading their respective ICs by biblical principles.
2. So, since you are wanting to use this blog as a means for the leaders in question to be confronted and “change,” I believe your efforts/position become(s) inevitably influenced by posts on this site with which you may not agree, posts which may not be following the precepts of Matthew 18 — or other scriptural mandates for that matter — but posts which you nevertheless allow to be posted.
3. Therefore, in the eyes of those you are confronting vis-a-vis Matthew 18, it seems to me you have then become — fairly, or not — “guilty by association” to a certain degree (since this is, partially at least, your blog), and in the final analysis, your attempts at Matthew 18 will have little or no affect.
4. You should therefore, IMO, make every effort to disassociate yourself from these types of posts which are not being made in the spirit of reconciliation.
Unless, of course, you are blogging for the sole purpose of making fun of and/or attacking the leaders/LCs in question, and have no desire to “win your brother.”
In which case, carry on.
-joe
I guess you’ve kinda covered this, but CBC uses the Bible pretty much when it’s to their advantage. However, when things in the Bible don’t line up with their conveniences they sorta philosophize it away as something that was written only for the first century church. For example if this blog was City Bible we would say that while we do believe Matt 18 was said by Jesus, one has to take into account his intended audience. They might say that He was specifically speaking to the disciples or only to the first century church, and while we can carry on the spirit of reconciliation, we are not under the burden of a literal interpretation. Theologians call this higher textual criticism. On the street we call it blowing smoke out your keister. Anyway, they do this so much it’s hard to tell when something useful comes out of their mouths. That being the case I don’t think we should work too hard to put ourselves under such a literal interpretation either.
An example of this would be the tithe issue. Mal 3 and the couple of times Jesus mentions tithing are interpreted as literal for 2008. As are the Bible’s prohibitions on homosexual acts. Things that are considered only for first century Christians only are women preaching and teaching, and women wearing Jewelry. I understand that Ezekiel 16 says women can wear jewelry and Deborah was a judge but I’m not trying to debate specific issues as much as point out a falicy of logic within the IC esp. CBC. Need more examples? What about wine. Jesus was considered a glutton and drunk, however, CBC has decided that all alcohol is to be prohibited. They sometimes say Jesus drank a non-fermented version of wine, but if that were true Paul would not have admonished Timothy to appoint elders not given to “much wine”. Why not much? Because much wine gets you drunk. Much non fermented wine would just make you pee too much and I don’t think Paul was overly concerned with that. The IC, however takes a literal interpretation of divorce being wrong these days, unless of course, your blog name is Onestar and the person in question is Paula White. I could go on and on. The ultimate question is who is the left to decide what get’s taken literal and what is considered only applicable to the original audience. There seems to be as many opinions has hermenuetics books out there. I’d be interested to hear more from some of my blogging brothers and sisters.
I have been interested in the possible fall out from the recent revelations about ‘Archbishop” Earl Paulk of Georgia. Here is a charismatic mega church led by a man who had relations with his brother’s wife! It is interesting that this is the EXACT same sin that John the Baptist called King Herod out on. It led to John’s being sent to prison and then having his head cut off.
John’s message was one of repentance. The message sent by this modern leader is just the opposite! Does this have any prophetic message for the church today? Perhaps, “come out of the unclean thing”?
When leaders operate in secrecy, and decisions are based on what two or three ‘leaders’ think, where are we headed? Have any of our nation’s large mega churches heard sermons about this? Or is it “business as usual”, and “don’t judge”….what are the odds this will be swept under the rug?
I’ll not hold my breath to see if they mention it during Generation Unleashed coming up!
I have been considering this issue for awhile, and I finally decided that for me, I am the one who decides what to take literally. I read the Bible and I decide for myself what it means. Which is why I’m not often persuaded by other people’s interpretation of the Bible.
Speaking of Gen Unleashed, WhatHesaid, I just got the itinerary. There’s going to be some screaming, a band, more screaming, then lots of strobe lights. You wont’ want to miss it.
[Comment ID #30665 Will Be Quoted Here]Thanks for the summation of GU. In other words, it’ll be just like the last 15 events.
I needed a laugh this morning, and you have supplied my every need!
Great job!