Heretics…
If you’re thinking of throwing around a term like this just remember the implications that it has both on how people view the person you’re calling a heretic and the way people view the person who is brash enough to do so.
There are countless people I do not agree with, whose interpretation of scripture doesn’t line up with mine, whose doctrine is a tad bit shady in my opinion but the last thing I want to do is take whatever platform I have to lead a crusade against such people. I believe that as Christians we are called to preach the Gospel to a lost and dying world not kill those who claim (and probably are) to be our bothers and sisters because of Jesus.
All you have to do is google search some popular Christian leader and you’ll find entire websites devoted to why that person is going to hell and anyone who follows that person is going to hell and that any Christian who isn’t exactly like the person doing the writting is going to hell. Meanwhile there are a whole lot of people walking around outside the very building that person sits in writting who are actually going to end up in hell because instead of getting on with the ministry of reconciliation they are too busy with the ministry of accusation.
I guess we’ve all just forgotten what Jesus said about people knowing we’re his disciples by the way we love one another. Or maybe I’ve just misinterpreted that.
I’m sure I’ll end up on someone’s podcast or website sooner or later as a false teacher or heretic because I’m trying to take Jesus at his word on that one. Oh well.
thank you. thank you. thank you.
that needed to be said
I agree. thank you
I understand your sentiment, but is not scripture useful for “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness?”
Should we then not offer any criticism? I could see there being a biblical case for Ps. Mark not addressing Rob Bell because he’s never met him, but the outline of church disciple we have from Jesus clearly shows the need for a public rebuke when private ones have not worked.
Clayton, I agree that scripture is useful for all of those things and we should expect our brothers to use scripture for those things. I have NO problem with that at all.
I have a problem with people throwing around labels and name calling. I am all for healthy discussion, rebuke, conversations, blog posts and the like that are centered on scripture but to associate the name with a label is what I get concerned about.
This post was not just about Mark and Rob Bell, it runs much deeper than that and that’s why I didn’t associate names with the post.
We must be careful with the words we use to explain why we disagree with someone. The best words we can use are found in scripture and we’d be better off sticking with that and letting people draw their conclusions off of that. We must trust scripture to do the work that we think our “labels” should do. If someone’s a heretic it would be better to teach people why than to say “so and so = heretic” It answers the questions and critics before they show up.
Andrew,
I understand and agree with you that there should be a caution when bringing out the big words, but would you say that they should never be brought out?
In that I mean that this was not a causal conversation or setting that Ps. Mark made his comments. He provided an overwhelming amount of evidence from scripture, from the authors’ writings, and the books they referenced in their works. I believe in the message Jonathan referenced that Ps. Mark did exact what you mention in your comment, teaching why certain things are heresy and not just throwing out labels. Honestly, it was one of the best theological lessons I’ve heard from him. Just curious if you felt he didn’t provide enough evidence to back up his accusations during that message.
Andy, I’ll agree with you on this point: it’s a big deal to call someone a heretic, and even staunch separatists ought to be careful how and when they use that term. It is not a term to be used lightly, and it is not a term to be given without a clear-cut case that the person in question is, in fact, apostate or heretical in their beliefs and/or teachings.
But I also don’t believe that we should never use the word. When we’ve got clear evidence from multiple publicly challenged, unretracted statements ranging from interviews to published books and which clearly deviate from Scripture, I think we can certainly make the case for using the h word and following through with the positional responses it implies.
Should we go around on a witch hunt trying to find them? Of course not, but we also shouldn’t ignore false doctrine brought into our midst, even for a seemingly good cause.
Just to be clear…
1. This post is more than just a reaction to what is currently happening with Mark Driscoll and his opinions of Rob Bell.
2. I didn’t say we should never use a certain word. I said that we must be careful. That it causes great damage and division to use such strong language and we best be sure that it is from the Spirit.
3. This is exactly what I will not be doing with my time. My initial point was that we should spend less time crafting our arguments and more time in relationship with each other and reaching others. If you’re not down with that I’m fine. If you think that this is the kind of thing that you’ve been called to that’s fine too.
The other main point I had was this is a bummer.
It just makes me sad. I’m allowed to be sad about it. More lines have been drawn, more sides have been taken, and of course… it advances nothing.
As an aside I’m out of this conversation following this post. I can’t handle it… it makes me sick to my stomach and it’s no good for me.
Thanks.
andy.
If Rob Bell is heretic, I am most certainly going to hell.
Andrew,
1)- right on
2)- right on
3)- right on
other point “it advances nothing”- That’s the only place I think we disagree. If this specific discussion, and the larger one as well, is truly one that seeks to define and defend the very nature of Jesus, God, and salvation, and is not petty, ego-driven mudslinging, then I would see this discussion as absolutely vital to the advancement of the gospel.
I do not seek to be one who has to stand on the front lines of this battle, as I’m not qualified to do so, but I do think it is an important battle to engage in, and one that scripture implores us to be vigilant of.
I think we’d both agree this discussion has hit its limit. Thank you for the great discussion.
I know you won’t be replying to this and I’m not trying to drag you back into it. However it is clear that while this topic isn’t just about the Mark vs Rob ordeal it may as well stem from it. I hope you did get a chance to listen to the actual audio of Mark speak and in all fairness I think he is raising good issues.
From the audio it doesn’t sound like Mark is bringing those people to the forefront to splinter the body but rather to expose and reform. Rob Bell is a very influential pastor and if he indeed is teaching something that negates the character of Jesus or scripture there is a problem. Does that mean hang him? No, I think what Mark did was in the right, he didn’t outright attack him but exposed what troubles him about his theology. How can we reach more people for Christ if we aren’t all teaching the same thing? Obviously there is flexibility to interpretation and message but the core values should always be consistent with scripture no? I don’t know if you heard the audio or not but if you didn’t I’m sure you will feel better if you listened to it and saw where he was coming from.
Interesting conversation.
Let’s talk theology, but let’s be charitable about it. Let there be debate between various emerging church leaders, but let’s be nice to one another. Our enemy is not a fellow brother in Christ, but the world, the flesh, and the devil.
A refusal to quarrel over non-essential issues reflects Paul’s instructions in the pastoral epistles. When we read the pastoral epistles, it is clear that we should refrain from being divisive.
We are warned not to “wander away into vain discussion” (I Timothy 1:6). We are told that leaders are to be “not quarrelsome” (I Timothy 3:3). We are warned that some in the church can be puffed up because they have “an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth” (I Timothy 6:4-5).
Paul charges us “before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers” (II Timothy 2:14). We are told to “have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels” (II Timothy 2:23).
We are told to “avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:9-11).
Let’s fight for the truth. But let’s make sure that what we are fighting for are the essentials of our faith.
What are the essentials? We may disagree about these are. And I think that is certainly a worthy discussion. But what I have in mind when I refer to essentials are things like the trustworthiness of the scriptures, the tri-unity of God, the deity of Jesus, the personality of the Holy Spirit, the depravity of mankind, and the necessity of repentance and faith in Jesus for salvation, and the return of Jesus and the establishment of His kingdom forever.
Some of us may be standing one day before God giving an account of a quarrelsome, controversial, self-righteous attitude that “majors on the minors,” “makes mountains out of molehills,” and criticizes other brothers and sisters in Christ.
Let’s guard the truth but not throw stones at a brother for whom Jesus died.
well said Rick