Contentious Contending
By Jan Markell
July 18, 2017
"Let no corrupt word proceed out of your
mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to
the hearers." Ephesians 4:29 NKJV
I have
watched as fellow Christians have torn into one another, slandered Christian
brothers and sisters, tried to harm successful ministries, and behaved in such
a manner that would result in the unbelieving world fleeing from them.
Added to
this is a new contention online, particularly on social media. Disagreements
over even minor issues often result in name-calling and denigrating one
another. Whether the venue is YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter, the
contentiousness is out of control.
I have
watched mean-spiritedness coming from Christian "leaders" that might
make the secular world blush. It is "friendly fire" that
isn't so friendly. And if I publicly chastised them and named their
names, they would reply with even more vindictive blogs, radio programs,
articles, commentaries, and YouTubes. They can dish out the
chastisements but they cannot take an ounce of correction.
Yes,
there is raging apostasy. The most frequent email to me is, "Can you
recommend a church in you-fill-in-the-blank city?" Many churches have
caved to the most unsound doctrine. True heresy needs to be called out with the
naming names and citing the aberrant theology.
But some
in today's discernment crowd hide in the bushes, waiting for a Christian leader
to make a single misstep. They are then pounced on, labelled a
hopeless heretic, and marginalised by others in that community. And if you
associate with people they disagree with, feature them, quote them, or publicly
show approval of them, you have lost all common sense, discernment, judgement,
and more. You are an equal heretic in the guilt by association game.
My radio
co-host, Eric Barger, wrote an excellent article titled "When Discernment
Turns Ugly." I'd like to quote a few lines.
Eric
writes, "Both Jan and I have become increasingly uncomfortable, even
disturbed, with the tone and lack of civility being portrayed by some within
the apologetics and discernment community of speakers, writers, and
commentators. We've watched, listened, and have tried to intervene as assorted
discernment ministries have fired shots at others inside
Christianity over issues that fall miserably short of what has always
been considered heresy.
"A
troubling precedent has been spawned by some, lending validation to the idea
that it's perfectly acceptable to publicly rake anyone over the coals
for nearly any theological reason."
Eric
continues, "Jan and I are not alone in our dismay with what is happening.
Other leaders have voiced the same concern to us in recent days and mind you,
the issue is not concerning any 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."
Eric
writes, "The type of 'discernment' that I'm referring to here doesn't
involve someone's denial of the essential doctrines of the faith. Instead, what
these squabbles really amount to are nothing more than disagreements on
secondary doctrines, styles of worship, and peripheral practices."
I am
puzzled as to why this ministry has been the brunt of constant attack for
years. I previously reported that Hank Hanegraaff, the Bible Answer Man,
called Olive Tree Ministries a "blight on our times" and "reprehensible."
This and more was stated on his national radio program. He could have called me
and said, "Jan, here's where we disagree. Let's talk about it."
Instead Hank spent at least three minutes shredding my theology and
character. At the root of the issue is his Preterism cannot tolerate
Dispensationalism.
Recently
another ministry leader who has spent five years denigrating this ministry
wrote and said his attitude had softened. He was glad for the areas where we
agree. He acknowledged he had not acted Christ-like. He apologised for the
damage done and stated that for the issues upon which we agree such as end-time
events, he should not have been an adversary. We are flawed human beings
who will never see eye-to-eye on everything. I accepted his apology.
I think
Olive Tree Ministries is doctrinally sound. I have sometimes featured guests on
air or at conferences with whom I have some minor
theological disagreements. I have felt that what they have to say is
important enough that I will not let secondary issues stand in the way. I also
know that these guests would never push their own agenda.
But I
have begun to wonder if the contentious contenders expect a background check of
everyone with whom one associates? And if so, has the standard been set so high
that no imperfect human being can qualify?
Do these
folks think that they have no flaws, no theological weaknesses, and have
attained a level of such perfection that they have become, in essence, a
sheriff for the church? They must stamp their seal of approval on everyone?
Recently
one online ministry attacked another and so denigrated the other with insults
that it was embarrassing. The one who was verbally insulting the other via
YouTube suggested the other lacked a proper education even though this
particular pastor is loved by thousands. He is cutting-edge with an electronic
audience consisting of tens of thousands.
He was
then insulted as someone who needed more theological education in Greek and
Hebrew. After an hour of insults, any sound believer would be heartsick and an
unbeliever would flee from our camp observing that his unbelieving friends
would be far more gracious to him should he make a mistake or have a
disagreement.
Eric
writes, "I think it's needful for each Christian to be able to express
positions or hold beliefs on the so-called secondary issues, but is
biblical apologetics about denigrating others and, in effect,
besmirching entire ministries based on disagreements about side issues? For
some, this is what it's become, and worse. The field of discernment
has, at least in part, become a hotbed of separatism that seems to far exceed
biblical standards."
Eric
continues, "From what is sometimes only one pen or keyboard, judgment is
meted out against the suspected offender as newsletters are printed, blogs are
published, seminars are given, and whole ministries and reputations are
possibly done irreversible harm.
"All
this takes place no matter how flimsy the evidence presented may be, and
often 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."
I think
that God is saddened that elements in the apologetics' world behave no better
than the Pharisees of Jesus day.
As flawed
human beings, we make missteps and we certainly make mistakes. As each day
dawns, I ask God for sound judgement for the many major decisions I will face
that day. I don't want to mislead anyone or introduce them to unsound doctrine.
I likely am not batting 1,000. In that teachers and leaders have a higher
accountability, I would ask you to pray for all of us.
It's one
thing to contend for the faith which we must do (Jude 3). It's another thing to
denigrate character, engage in name calling, and make untrue accusations. A
false teacher needs to be called out. Wolves are devouring millions of sheep.
It's only
the contentious contending we are observing that is troubling.
II Timothy 2:24-25:
And the Lord's
servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to
teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with
gentleness.....
No comments:
Post a Comment