Feb 28, 2011
Loyalty to God and One Another: On Heresy
Have you ever noticed that Christians sometimes disagree? You have? Oh, man, what a shocker, right?
A recent kerfuffle amongst Christians, the chosen vs. the choosers you could say if you wanted to be imprecise, has me thinking about our priorities, the impact of our disagreements, and some ways we can take positive steps forward. In fact, for all of the hand-wringing and such, I’m a bit hopeful.
Why?
Defining the Situation
We need to get a brief handle on a few guidelines here for disagreements. There are disagreements among Christians over beliefs of different traditions and there are times when Christians disagree because one side is a heretic.
Our greatest mistake seems to be making a disagreement over beliefs within the faith into a heresy smack-down, with one side playing the part of the inquisition, turning Lewis’ great house of Christianity into a studio apartment—an apartment that John Calvin has crammed with his stuff in this particular case. I’ve also seen studio apartments for Catholics, Baptists, Arminians, etc. We all do this from time to time.
We have a pastor and blogger who disagree in this case. Is this a disagreement over universalism or different conceptions of hell and salvation that send us out of the Reformed library and into a drawing room of another denomination? We probably don’t know enough to say anything for sure at this point.
However, here are a few thoughts on how to handle our disagreements with one another regardless of whether this pastor is a universalist.
Our Loyalty
Christians are loyal to a person and our beliefs (or doctrines) help us understand that person. The emphasis is essential here. We are loyal to a relational deity who wants us to love and obey him.
If we get the love and obey part, we’ll figure out that God wants us to relate to one another with the same charity, seeking out the best for others. We hold to our beliefs because they are important, but we don’t defend our beliefs as a matter of first importance.
The response of the blogger to the pastor here smells of prioritizing beliefs over the person. Was an accusatory blog post the best way to restore the pastor if he really was in error? I don’t know the blogger’s motives, but if he really thought a fellow brother was in error, the Bible tells us how to proceed. His actions match those of someone far more concerned with defending a doctrine than restoring an individual—that is, if that pastor needs to be restored from something.
Hint: A combative blog post that generates lots of traffic and comments wouldn’t leave me feeling, “Wow, that guy really wants me to be restored from my heresy! How nice of him. Look at all of the traffic his criticism of my beliefs generated. I guess I should agree with him.” Just saying.
The Significance
If we are loyal to our beliefs ahead of our relationship with God, we may view other Christian perspectives as threats. If we encounter a view that borders on heresy, we risk making things worse because we’re seeking to protect doctrines instead of people.
We aren’t here to defend the Gospel.
We’re here to let God change how we live and speak through the Gospel.
The Gospel is here to lead us to God and we need to live it with clarity and truth. However, if someone steps away from a faithful, biblical proclamation of the Gospel, we should be rushing to help the person, not to attack his/her beliefs.
The Goal: Restoration, not Isolation
When we disagree and fear that a fellow Christian may be teaching false doctrines, I think there are two possible ways forward. On the one hand, we should certainly engage the beliefs of that person and discuss them fairly with all of the information. I have no qualms with someone fairly critiquing my take on Jesus if I have made an error.
However, I would also hope that no one would attack me personally right off the bat, isolating me from the body of Christ. You see, we can isolate others, creating chasms where we say, “Our side has the truth, your side has the error. Come over to our side if you want to be a true Christian.”
A public attack like this only pushes us further away from one another. If someone really is in error, then attacking the person may only tempt him/her to dig in and fight back.
Isolation does not lead to restoration.
There may be times that we’ll have to isolate someone, but that is only a last resort, not an opening salvo. We begin with an appeal out of love for the other person, and only cut that person off if there is no other resort.
Defending a doctrine ahead of a person saves us from all of the trouble that love requires.
Does the Response Make Things Worse?
I’m actually more concerned about how we respond to this kerfuffle, than I am that we had a kerfuffle in the first place. I have a lot of reformed friends, and I know a lot of folks who are probably suspicious of this pastor.
Hey, his videos drive me nuts. I don’t agree with all that he teaches—that is, if I can get a handle on anything in his videos. I’m usually sitting there thinking to myself, “Common observation, touching story, emotional projection, probing question, suggestive answer. Common observation, touching story, emotional projection, probing question, probing question, suggestive answer.”
There clearly are more effective ways to be a heretic in my opinion, but I digress…
If this pastor really is a universalist, then I’d certainly think a minor kerfuffle is warranted—as in, someone should reach out to him personally out of love. However, I don’t want us to create divisions where they are unnecessary.
The first shots have been fired, but we don’t need to fire back. We also don’t need to wring our hands too much. There are lots of Christians who are rolling their eyes right now. The trick is to avoid attacking back. We’ll only make things worse.
The body of Christ can drown in its own self-righteousness just as well as it can in its squabbles. We can be combative in how we point out the combativeness of others.
What I Can’t Say
I almost tweeted something like this today: Fictional story: Christians charitable when disagreeing over what only God knows.
I couldn’t do it.
I knew it wasn’t true, and that made my day.
I know quite a few Christians who are very humble and kind, even when we disagree.
I have hundreds of Christian friends who are open-minded, who would hear someone out before reacting, and who would charitably work toward restoration of someone in error. Many of these friends dig Reformed theology.
Charitable Christians are not fictional. We are legion. We just don’t attract the same attention because we aren’t lightning rods for negativity and controversy that drive human interest stories on blogs and news sites.
Rather than lament that a pastor asked some vague questions and a blogger made some harsh critiques before reading the whole story, let’s celebrate the fact that such an approach is not acceptable to many believers. There are folks who disagree with the pastor and/or the blogger, and these folks are praying for God’s best for them—praying that we are all restored to unity in Spirit and in truth.
First “kerfuffle” is a great word. Second, you’ve said a lot here, and I agree with all of it. Good work today.
Good job, Ed…did you read Jason Boyett? http://blog.beliefnet.com/omeoflittlefaith/2011/02/thoughts-rob-bell.html
Just read it. I liked it, though I wrestled with the same thing in his post that I wrestled with in my own. I didn’t want to write a blog post criticizing someone in a public manner for criticizing someone else in a public manner. You know? I tried to deal more with the general dynamics of disagreements instead of calling anyone out. I think that sections of that post sort of defeat the post’s own purpose. You know? For the most part though, it is generally right on.
I want to thank you for such a thoughtful post. I appreciate it. I saw a response you left over on another blog and this expansion of your thoughts really opened my eyes to new ways of looking at things.
I do not know if I agree 100% (I do think pastors/teachers/leaders) have a responsibility to urge people not to be misled if what someone is saying is actually wrong. (This is not in relation specifically to Rob Bell; just a general statement). Perhaps just within their own congregation would be fair as the wonderful world of blogging can really cause things to, obviously, become out of hand.
I think we’re on the same page. Yes, we need to help folks in error in a loving way. I’m just saying that we need to make sure we’re actually seeking the best for that person and not painting things as a last stand of some sort for a doctrine. For me it’s a matter of emphasis. The people come first, even if I’m committed to Christian orthodoxy (as in right beliefs) and practice.
Yeah, totally misplaced a bunch of (), ha! Sorry for my quick and muddled thoughts.
This is a great and well though out blog post, in general.
However, when talking about the actual Rob Bell/person whose name I can’t remember blogger, things are a bit different. I don’t necessarily agree with the blogger, but he was reacting to the video and the book blurb–both of which I also find questionable. To me, it seems that he’s saying, this isn’t good. If Rob Bell is actually saying these things in his new book, then we’d better watch out. I think that things got out of control after that (especially in the blog comment section.)
I’m more concerned with John Piper’s response to Rob Bell. If you’re going to say things to your followers on Twitter, then it is certainly up for discussion. However, I do agree that in Piper’s case, he should have gone to Rob Bell personally. (I’m sure these mega-pastors have each other’s contact information.)
Your final thoughts on the matter are wonderful. I love how you emphasize how Christians DO get along and encourage others to do the same.
Honestly, I don’t really have a problem with a public “calling out” since the video itself is a public item.
However.
I still have a major problem with using the language the Piper used. Farewell indicates a full cutting of ties. How that encourages any kind of restoration (not that I personally believe that Bell needs to be “restored” to anything, but anyway) is just beyond me. I think that was my biggest frustration with the whole situation (and with Piper specifically, even though he wasn’t the author of the post).
More than anything, I hope that all of these posts about the situation will help us to have a more civil, kind discussion about the issues. I admit that it’s more hot-button that I imagined, and I hope that now that some of the less-beautiful manner of dealing with it, we can move into a healthier discussion not of the people, but of the issue itself.
I think the cleaned up/edited version of the post is much closer to something constructive. However, the original post comparing Rob Bell to Satan made me wonder… I still hope that if I posted something public that was in error, my friends and critics would write to me and ask me to reconsider first rather than lambasting me in public. That being said, there is certainly a place for public debate, provided it’s not a heresy-hunt/kerfuffle.
ed, you really nailed some important things here. They’re so great, I’m just going to quote them again:
“We hold to our beliefs because they are important, but we don’t defend our beliefs as a matter of first importance.”
“We aren’t here to defend the Gospel.
We’re here to let God change how we live and speak through the Gospel.”
“Defending a doctrine ahead of a person saves us from all of the trouble that love requires.”
“Charitable Christians are not fictional. We are legion. We just don’t attract the same attention because we aren’t lightning rods for negativity and controversy that drive human interest stories on blogs and news sites.”
Thank you for gathering up those words and putting them down for us.
I loved your perspective, Ed. I think my post today follows along the same lines in keeping relationship as the focus. I had this written a few days ago and the whole Rob Bell deal happened right before I finished. Interesting timing. If you’re interested, here’s a link to my post:
http://www.tonyjalicea.com/2011/03/the-doctrine-of-agreement/
Thanks for sharing your post Tony!
So much good in here, Ed (as usual). The defense of doctrine over the heart for people is just another example of missing the point. Thanks for this!