I've got a whole queue of post drafts lined up, but opportunity came knocking to take me for a stroll. Well, okay, it kicked down the door and demanded that I come along. Hiking this path with opportunity has kept me too busy to finish any of the other posts yet.
Specifically, this is the opportunity to practice what I preached about dealing with friendly fire. Shortly after I posted that, the call came in from a friend in a local preacher's fellowship I've been attending. The word is doing the rounds among the leadership that I preach something heretical, and he wanted to talk to me about it.
Ironically, the folk who seem to have a problem with what I preach pretty much jumped straight to some of the tactics typically used in returning fire. Handouts misrepresenting what I believe and refuting that misrepresentation are going about, what I actually said is being freely ignored (despite the actual sermon they're worried about being openly available to anyone who wants it), and people are going to others to get them on their side for the battle instead of coming to me personally with their concerns.
Now I've got to make sure I respond in the Spirit, not in the flesh. There is such a temptation to lash out in anger at the wrongs that have been done me, to stomp off and refuse to fellowship with men who would hurt me so casually, to bash those who tolerate and participate in these actions rather than rebuking them, to broadcast the names and crimes of people who claim to serve God but disobey Him, and to start playing the political game by contacting the ones who are most likely to agree with me and take my side and lining them up to support me.
There is also the temptation to come as close as I can to knuckling under without actually compromising my convictions, to bury the hurt and ignore the sin for the sake of peace, because I don't want any trouble, I don't want any conflict, and I don't like being criticized. Some of the people involved in this are men I know, love, respect, and am grateful toward. However, what some of these people have done is plainly wrong.
So I've been spending big blocks of time in thought and prayer for days, trying to make sure I don't act in anger, hurt, or fear, but rather speak the truth in love with wisdom. I simply want to do what God wants. I want to obey His Word. I want to be the wise man who can receive rebuke where it is warranted and thank the one who delivered it. I don't want to fall into the trap of turning to blast away at those who should be on my side. I also don't want to turn a blind eye to sin among the leaders of God's people.
I have met with one man, the only one who has thus far come to me personally about the whole of the situation (kudos to him, by the way, for that at least.) I've told him I'll meet with another, the one who began to spread the situation throughout the fellowship, after I pull some things together. After that, I can only hope and pray that the Lord will give clear guidance and that I'll have the courage, patience, strength, and humility to do what He wants.
Whatever course I take, the road is going to be rough. That's always true when you walk out the door with opportunity. The practicing can be so much harder than the preaching.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I pray that everything will be resolved in Christian love for each other and the Word.
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity, does this thing happen a lot in Fundamentalist circles, accusations of heresy? I am genuinely curious, and trying not to to stereotype.
I appreciate your prayers. I admit to secret hopes that when I posted this, it would draw some prayer.
ReplyDeleteAs to Fundamentalists and accusations of heresy... I don't have any hard statistical data on how often accusations get made (especially ones like this that most people never hear about). To be fair, I don't know that anyone has actually used the h-word specifically about me yet, although if someone did preach what's being floated around about me, I think the term might be appropriate. But I would say that Fundamentalists probably see more accusations of doctrinal deviance than most groups.
A big part of that is the very nature of Fundamentalism. The movement was originally defined by a willingness to call out and separate from doctrine that deviated from a certain crucial baseline. As time went on, Fundamentalists and mainstream Evangelicals (and New Evangelicals) began to drift apart, and this was once again the decisive difference.
The New Evangelical tends to take a live and let live approach, willing to work with anyone, so long as it appears that there is mutual benefit to the relationship. (This is a generalization - there's a whole spectrum of approaches out there, of course.)
The Fundamentalist is committed to obeying the Scriptures that tell us to evaluate and judge people's doctrine and separate from those who refuse to preach sound doctrine. So by the very nature of the movement, we're more likely to see people concerned about what others preach and willing to say something about it, especially among those we're working with.
I've got no problem with that, incidentally - I am a Fundamentalist, and the Scriptures do tell us to reject a heretic after the second admonition, to judge all things, and to mark the person in disobedience to Scripture and avoid them.
What I object to is when the disagreements are handled unbiblically, or when they extend to matters of difficult interpretation, tradition, etc., rather than fundamental doctrine. Too often now, the accusations spring, not from deviance from a fundamental of the faith, but from deviance from a position traditionally held by a group of men.
I do see accusations of false doctrine happening more often than I think they should, but I think this is the first time I (or a pastor I've worked under) has really been singled out like this. So maybe it's not all that common in absolute terms - I've been in the ministry for more than 10 years now.
Even if it's done wrongly too often, I'll still stand by the necessity of evaluating the doctrine and practice of those we work with and taking a stand for purity. I just want it done Biblically.
I imagine one of the problems would be that even what is considered "crucial doctrine" is open to interpretation. For me, the fundamentals of Christianity are things like what are contained in the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, etc. There are other things that I would leave a church over but not consider fundamental to the Christian faith-- ie, I think you are very wrong, but I don't think you've denied the fundamentals of our faith. There are still other things I would disagree about but not leave a church over. However, another person might consider every point of doctrine as fundamental (and me a heretic for disagreeing)-- and that even depends on how you define doctrine, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteAnd then of course there's disagreements over things that are traditions, not doctrine, as you said. And accusations of heresy for people who support a different interpretation of Scripture, while acknowledging its authority. And even disagreements about who is allowed to interpret Scripture.
My thought is that, since we are all human, we all have interpretations of Scripture that are in some way flawed. Everyone has some point(s) on which their doctrine is not sound. It is unavoidable and a consequence of being sinners. So, as awful as this sounds, either we have to establish a "tolerance level" and decide what is crucial enough to separate over, or we will end up with 2 billion churches of one. And I say this as a member of an evangelical church that is going through upheavals and a possible split over doctrinal issues.
I'm not trying to, and I don't think I am, disagreeing with you here. I'm just spouting my own thoughts on the subject. What are the New Evangelicals, by the way? Is that the same concept called the emergent church? I had no idea that people liked to put themselves into all these groups!
I'll take 'em in reverse. *grins* Groups are handy for labeling. They let us know what a person generally believes with a quick statement, rather than perusing a 10-page doctrinal statement. The labels simply save time. We've got to recognize that people rarely fit into neat boxes - but that doesn't diminish the general usefulness of the terms.
ReplyDeleteThe broad umbrella is evangelical - those who believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ: that salvation is by grace through faith in Him because of His identity and finished work in dying for our sins and rising from the dead. When the movement first formed a century ago, you could probably use Fundamental and Evangelical pretty synonymously.
Today, though, you have some subsets. Most evangelicals probably don't think about this much at all - they go their way without much thought for what other churches/people believe or how they should relate to that.
But among those who have a decided strategy, there are Fundamentalists, who continue to separate from those who don't believe in core doctrine (more on that in a moment). Done Biblically, they would approach and rebuke, seeking restoration, then only separate as a last resort when the person (or group) can't be brought back to sound doctrine.
Then there are the New Evangelicals (at this point, so common that the "New" is usually dropped from the description). Their approach is dialogue and infiltration. The term was coined by Harold Ockenga in a famous address he made in the late 1940s (IIRC). It's personified by Billy Graham. The concept is that they will join with and work with anyone, no matter what they believe, so long as it appears to benefit the cause of Christ. Of course, there are differing degrees and methods of applying this philosophy.
I think the New Evangelical philosophy is patently unbiblical. We must first seek to correct, then denounce and separate from those who are heretics. The problem then becomes exactly the one you pointed out - what is the common ground we must stand on in order to stand together?
That question drew the early Fundamentalists (and Evangelicals) together. Different lists were proposed. But what it usually boiled down to is the essential doctrines pertaining to salvation. And that makes sense. It's in keeping with I John 4.
Those doctrines usually include things like the inspiration of Scripture (without which there is no gospel), the deity and humanity of Christ (thus, the virgin birth), His subsitutionary atonement, His literal resurrection, and salvation through faith in Him alone. (The last is more one I tack on for the sake of clarity than one you'll see on the old lists.)
People who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ have the Holy Spirit in common, whatever else they may not have in common. They are fundamentally spreading the same message. If they don't agree on salvation, I don't think it much matters what they do agree on - they're doing more eternal harm than good if they lead people away from Christ.
You make a good point about degrees of separation, and I think you stated it well - just because it's not a fundamental doesn't mean it's not important, and how closely we can work with someone may depend on how closely we agree with them.
Where I think Fundamentalism is getting off track today is in expanding separation to include things far beyond the doctrines of salvation, or even beyond the next tier of basic Christian doctrine. They're separating over things that just aren't directly sustainable from Scripture. They're separating over tradition and preference. They're separating over the implications of doctrine instead of doctrine itself (that's what's happening in my case - I don't think anyone can prove my doctrine itself is unbiblical, but many don't like some of the possible implications.) And when Fundamentalists go to separate, even in important areas, I'm not sure it's always being handled properly.
Reading this blog is always an education! Thanks for the informative response. I agree about the fundamentalness of the doctrines you listed. I also think, though, that if that's what you're considering core doctrine, then Fundamentalist and Evangelical are still mostly synonymous. I've been in evangelical churches for all of my life, and while there have been things I've considered unBiblical, they were (mostly) over differing interpretations, not denial of one of the core tenets. I'll concede the bit about usefulness of groups, but I wish more people used them as shorthand rather than boxes.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I hope the situation in your ministry turns out well!
Doctrinally speaking, you're right about historic Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism being synonymous -- all Fundamentalists are Evangelicals, because Evangelicalism is defined by belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and Fundamentalists typically include among their fundamentals the doctrines essential to the gospel.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is in approach to differences. What do we do with groups that call themselves Christian, but don't agree with us on those fundamentals? Billy Graham personified the New Evangelical (which is now largely the mainstream Evangelical) approach. He would have agreed with all the fundamental doctrines I cited. However, he would, for instance, allow Roman Catholics to participate in his crusades, despite the fact that they functionally deny salvation by grace through faith alone. The rationale was that this gave him the opportunity to share the gospel with a larger group of people, and thus it was acceptable.
A Fundamentalist would agree with those doctrines of salvation, but they would refuse to participate with anyone who didn't (thus following the Biblical commands for separation). They would try to witness to the Catholic, rather than inviting him to speak or sharing a platform with him.
Thanks for the well-wishes. At this point, it looks like the fellowship and I will be going our separate ways. I'm still thinking and praying about how to handle it all. By the way, I enjoy our interaction here. Thanks for commenting!