Note from Jan: I am sending out a recent article written by Olive Tree Ministries' associate Eric Barger this week. He heads his own ministry as well, "Take a Stand!" Yes, we continue to do just that but are bothered by the tone within "discernment ministries" that has grown to a shrill crescendo in the last decade. Today "discerning" can lead to blatant character assassination, distortions, and even lies. Barger lays out a case for why this is shameful and unbiblical. We acknowledge that there is little discernment today and that many churches and ministries seem to have lost sound judgment. But the methods used to "correct" these outfits are tragic. Eric's article has been shortened. Find the complete article here.
When Discernment Turns Ugly
by Eric Barger
August 8, 2012
www.olivetreeviews.org
www.ericbarger.com
There is no doubt that we live in the age of ever-increasing apostasy. The authentic Church, or "remnant," spoken of in the Book of Revelation appears to be shrinking, at least in our western culture. And growing numbers of those who remain steadfast and faithful to the Word of God are becoming acutely aware of false teaching and false teachers dotting the Christian landscape.
As many now display a "form of godliness" but "deny the power thereof," it is becoming evident that these surely are the "perilous times" the Apostle Paul warned Timothy of in II Timothy 3:1. As we watch the end-times unfold, I praise God for every real believer who employs discernment and is doing their best to watch for and warn about that which is counterfeit. But as one examines doctrine, practice, and those who teach throughout Christendom, one question is constantly voiced: Where does a discerning Christian draw the line in determining what is false teaching and who is a false teacher? This is perhaps one of the most difficult and divisive parts of apologetics.
Where is the Dividing Line?
Recently I was part of a panel discussion on national radio that spent an hour discussing this topic. On our June 16, 2012 "Understanding the Times" radio program, I, along with Jan Markell, Jill Martin Rische (daughter of the late Dr. Walter Martin), and Executive Producer Larry Kutzler, discussed the point at which it is appropriate to sever fellowship with another Christian.
The program was borne out of numerous discussions I have had over the past year with Jan. Both of us have become increasingly uncomfortable with the growing lack of civility within the apologetics and discernment community. We have tried to intervene as a troubling precedent has been spawned that validates publicly raking anyone over the coals for nearly any theological reason.
Other leaders have voiced the same concerns to us in recent days -- and the issue is not about foundational doctrines such as the rejection of the virgin birth or the bodily resurrection of Christ. Nor is it related to the pseudo-Christian yet cultic Emergent heresy or the seducing web with which spiritual liberalism ensnares so many. What is at issue is nothing more than disagreements on secondary doctrines, styles of worship, and peripheral practices.
Secondary Separation?
"Secondary separation" can be defined as the breaking of fellowship with another Christian over issues not primary -- but secondary -- to one's salvation. It is often indicated by the public renunciation of the other party and exerts pressure on others to disassociate with the party deemed "heretical."
The Bible certainly speaks of ostracizing individuals for a variety of reasons. To break fellowship with someone who is living in sin and refuses to repent or who has denied the Gospel is indeed the proper course to take. I have no problem with biblically-based separation. But the secondary separation being promoted by some in the discernment world today appears to be nothing more than an unseemly type of religious bigotry having precious little to do with offenses against the essential doctrines of biblical Christianity.
My observation is that from what is sometimes only one pen or keyboard, judgment is meted out against a fellow believer as newsletters are printed, blogs are published, seminars are given. The reputation of whole ministries is done irreversible harm. All this takes place no matter how insubstantial the evidence presented may be, and over non-essential theologies! This should disgust the Christian community and I fear for the next generation of apologists (and those they'll likely influence) who are being schooled by this example.
Before anyone misinterprets my statement about "non-essential theologies" to say that I think some doctrines don't matter, let me set the record straight. There are doctrines with which that every person who correctly calls himself a Christian must align. These are clearly and simply outlined in the two great creeds of the Church: The Apostles Creed and the larger Nicene Creed. However, there are many issues that are not "heaven and hell" or essential doctrines that are not mentioned in the Creeds.
Are these other doctrines important? Yes. Should we study and develop our own positions on these secondary issues? Without question. Should we passionately defend our positions and also occasionally disagree with others inside the Body of Christ concerning non-essentials? Of course, as long as it is done in a right spirit and presented for the ultimate unification of believers.
Should a disagreement about any individual secondary doctrine lead to the termination of calling someone else a brother or sister in Christ, possibly followed by a public expose' against them? Absolutely not. And if someone is doing this and calling it "discernment," I suggest it be flatly rejected! Until the Church rejects the venomous battering of Christians by other Christians merely pushing their pet theologies, we will continue to exist in various "us and them" camps where some are simply intent on impugning others for the sake of making points with their followers and proving themselves "right."
With that said, let me add this important caveat. While the Apostles Creed embodies the non-negotiable beliefs of the faith, it should be noted that an over emphasis on, or an abandonment of, any number of the non-essential beliefs and practices can lead to corrupted -- even cultic -- theology. I'm not intimating that non-essential beliefs and practices should be ignored by discerners. But as I've stated here and elsewhere, how we conduct ourselves in disagreement with other Christians must be governed by a genuine spirit of love. The point in citing the Apostles Creed here is that it provides a good starting point when examining one's beliefs and in determining if teachers, churches, or even entire denominations or fellowships are orthodox or aberrant.
But in an effort to expose actual false teachers, some discernment brethren have constructed criteria for association that extends far beyond the essential doctrines of the faith. As evil rises, the same take-no-prisoners approach that our society exhibits appears to have been adopted by some once-respected discernment and apologetics' teachers.
Let me say that I don't believe it's of God for me to live out the conviction of others. Nor do I believe another Christian should dictate with whom I associate, those by whom I may be interviewed, or those with whom I share a platform.
False Teachers?
Considering the criteria some use today to ascertain who is a "false teacher" or "false prophet," I strongly suggest that when we hear such statements we stop and carefully evaluate whether, in fact, there is any biblical basis for the use of these terms.
Scripture indicates that the early Church leaders experienced sharp disagreements but were able to work through their differences without maligning each other. Galatians 2 reveals that Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch because Peter had acted hypocritically and his actions had caused even Barnabas to stumble. Interestingly, this episode involved separatism and Peter's fear of reprisal if he didn't conform.
Note that Paul's rebuke of Peter was done in a private setting, not in public. Notice too that, even though it involved issues critical to salvation, Paul didn't go out and publicly ridicule and harangue Peter and those with him.
In Acts 15 there arose "dissension" and "much disputing" (v. 3 and 7) over circumcision as a prerequisite for salvation. The council at Jerusalem resulted, and the means of salvation by faith alone for all who believed was affirmed.
Later in the very same chapter, Paul and Barnabas, who had stood in solidarity against imposing elements of the Law upon new converts, were at complete odds over whether to include John Mark in their next missionary journey. Their division on this was so serious that they completely parted from one another. They did not destroy each other's reputation by airing each other's perceived faults, criticizing the other's poor choice in companions, or undermining the other's ministry.
I'm not saying we can't point out issues with which we disagree, but I am saying that we always need to be mindful to do it in a way that is honoring to Jesus Christ. Teach your viewpoints with vigor, but refrain from character assassination. If someone disavows or adds to doctrines outlined in the Apostles Creed, address that error directly using Scripture. If the subject in question is outside of those parameters, remember that the person with whom you disagree is a brother or sister in Christ and should be treated with respect, compassion, and love.
Please pray that those who have a voice in these matters will return to majoring on the majors and minoring on the minors.
In response to a recent email query I received, I wrote, "As for me, I'm going to conduct our ministry with a hard line on heresy concerning the central/essential doctrines. I'm going to expose cultic beliefs and I'm going to name names when wolves masquerade inside the Church. But before I set out to 'expose' another, the general rule of thumb will be to ask myself the following question: Is the perceived error in question an addition to or a subtraction from the essential, non-negotiable doctrinal themes found in the Apostles Creed? If not, I'm going to proceed with great care before I make public an issue that concerns solely secondary separation. Additionally, if there is any exception to that rule, I am going to go out of my way to make contact and dialogue with the party involved before any such public expose' is undertaken."
I'm not advocating a less virulent approach when it comes to real error and apostasy. But let's not confuse what error is and who the enemy is. I'm still going to do as my ministry name suggests - "Take A Stand!" I just don't want us to become known as "Take A Shot!" or "Take A Stab!"
Please note that we update headlines each morning to help you stay tuned in. Find them here.
Get acquainted with "Understanding the Times" radio, now heard on 551 radio markets. We originate Saturdays, 9 a.m. CST in Minneapolis/St. Paul and are heard on the CSN Radio Network, the American Family Radio Talk Network, Sirius Satellite Network, the Hope FM Network in the northeast, Salem Communications, and individual radio stations. We are heard around the world electronically. You can "listen live" here and here.
You can download onto a listening device such as an iPod here. You can just listen online here or here.
The RSS feed is available only at OnePlace.com or iTunes.
Awaiting His return,
Jan Markell
Olive Tree Ministries, Inc.
Box 1452
Maple Grove, MN 55311
763-559-4444 or 763-210-8291
Blessings,
**I want to thank Jan Markell for her permission to post the Understanding the Times Newsletter here.
No comments:
Post a Comment