Does the cross promote pacifism?

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 12: Loving Our Enemies

Those of you who’ve been following me for a while know that I’m in a book club that’s reading Greg Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation (our last meeting is tonight, boo-hoo.) Well, Boyd, who appears to be from an Anabaptist tradition, seems to be a pacifist (I’m reading the last chapter, about violence, right now).

If you’re at all familiar with my family, you know that I have two brothers in the Marines (currently, they’re “poolies”.) John leaves for training in October. Tim’ll leave in January.

And a few of you know that, over the past year, I’ve developed friendships with several people who ascribe to a basically pacifist or nonviolent position on the basis of their faith–in Christ.

It’s been an interesting process, sorting out my own thoughts in relation to pacifism and the cross and how the two relate–or if they relate.

I definitely don’t have it all figured out. I don’t have any problem with personally being non-violent (I don’t have any desire to join the military, etc.)–but I’m not sure if I’m ready to suggest that others should also subscribe to non-violence, or that I should promote non-violence as national policy, etc.

Of course, those are merely side issues compared to the big question that I’m wrestling with, that is: How does the cross inform a Christian’s involvement or non-involvement, support or opposition, approval or disapproval of war and other acts including violence? Or, to put it more simply: Does the cross promote pacifism?

Many of those within my book club (who tend towards non-violence) have said that they do believe in some concept of justified violence–that states have some authority to “wield the sword” (a la Romans 13) which results in violent acts of justice. The question, then, is whether Christians can and/or should be participants in this just violence. This has been my primary struggle.

John Stott addresses Christian involvement in state administration of justice (including via violent means) in The Cross of Christ:

“It is important to note that Paul uses the same vocabulary at the end of Romans 12 [‘do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath’] and at the beginning of Romans 13 [‘he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath’]. The words ‘wrath’ (orge) and ‘revenge/punishment’ (ekdikesis and ekdikos) occur in both passages. Forbidden to God’s people in general, they are assigned to God’s ‘servants’ in particular, namely officials of the state. Many Christians find great difficulty in what they perceive here to be an ethical ‘dualism’. I should like to try to clarify this issue.

First, Paul is not distinguishing between two entities, church and state, as in Luther’s well-known doctrine of the two kingdoms…

Secondly, Paul is not distinguishing between two spheres of Christian activity, private and public, so that (to put it crudely) we must love our enemies in private but may hate them in public….

Thirdly, what Paul is doing is to distinguish between two roles, personal and official. Christians are always Christians (in church and state, in public and private), under the same moral authority of Christ, but are given different roles (at home, at work, and in the community) which make different actions appropriate. For example, a Christian in the role of a policeman may use force to arrest a criminal, which in the role of a private citizen he may not; he may as a judge condemn a prisoner…and he may as an executioner (assuming that capital punishment may in some circumstances be justified) kill… This is not to say that arresting, judging, and executing are in themselves wrong (which would establish different moralities for public and private life), but that they are right responses to criminal behavior, which however God has entrusted to particular officials of the state.”

~John Stott The Cross of Christ

This makes a lot of sense to me–but still leaves the question open in my mind: But should a Christian seek out “official” roles in which they must perform actions that are not permissible to them in their “personal” roles as private citizens and members of the body of Christ?

The Week in WordsSince bulk of this post is an extended quote from Chapter 12 of John Stott’s The Cross of Christ, I’m linking it up in lieu of my regular Week in Words post. Collect more quotes from throughout the week with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.

(See more of my notes on The Cross of Christ.)

***I’d also like to clarify that we should attempt to keep our comments Christ-honoring. I know that this is a topic that can get people riled up (I do, after all, belong to a military-ish family, and you know those pacifists :-P) But let’s try to be respectful.****


Recap (August 8-14)

On bekahcubed

Book Reviews:

  • The Best Apron Book Ever by Julie Johnson

    Rating: ***
    Category: Sewing Instruction
    Synopsis: Thirteen adult-sized apron patterns ranging from vintage smocks to half length tea aprons.
    Recommendation: Browse to make sure this is going to be useful before purchasing.

    Read the rest of my review.

Recipes:

On the web

Books for the TBR list:

  • Fragile by Lisa Unger (reviewed by Dawn at 5M4B)
    A mystery that’s character-driven? And is reminiscent of certain television crime dramas? And is in my library? I’ll put it on my list!
  • Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary by John Collins (mentioned by Kevin DeYoung)
    I’ve read quite a bit on the scientific arguments for one or another interpretation of the Genesis narrative, but haven’t read much from a strictly theological and exegetical point of view. I have a great deal of respect for Kevin DeYoung, and since he recommended it, I’m trusting that this work will exhibit thoughtful and faithful scholarship.
  • A Matter of Character by Robin Lee Hatcher (reviewed by Barbara H.)
    I’m getting close to closing the couple of Christian fiction authors I’ve been working on for the past several months (Janette Oke and Nancy Moser) and am ready to stick my feelers out for new authors. This review makes me think Robin Lee Hatcher might be a good one to stick on my list.

News to take note of:

  • Walmart is Raising Prices
    This wasn’t really a surprise for me–they stopped selling $1 a yard fabric and upped everything to at least $1.50-2.00 per yard almost a year ago. But it’s a useful reminder to not just assume that one store has the cheapest prices–it’s worthwhile to compare prices from store to store.
    HT: Instapundit
  • Is technology is getting in the way of parent-child conversation?
    Parents think so. I agree.
    My advice? Prioritize family mealtimes and make them a media-free event. Family mealtimes can help your family be healthier–physically, socially, mentally, and (dare I say?) spiritually. Choose to make intentional time to tune out all the other voices clamoring for your child’s attention. Choose to make time to talk with your child.

Projects to try:

Thought-provoking posts:

  • On Setting Low Goals:

    We should never despise small beginnings or slow journeys. Everything great begins with one tiny, unglorious start.

    Make it your goal to get up 5 minutes early and read 1 verse. Do only that for one WHOLE month.

    “But Kat! That’s too easy.”

    Cool, then do it.

    This is not one of my strong points–I tend to set really big goals and not break them down into small manageable chunks. But in the few things that I’ve practiced this “technique”, I’ve seen great success (working on something for just fifteen minutes a day, etc.)

Videos worth seeing:

  • Making fun of both Twitter and Hollywood. Priceless.

    HT: Vitamin Z

Related to previous posts:

  • Dustin Neely cautions the Reformed to not fall into the trap of Justification by Theology:

    “In ancient times, Satan deceived God’s people to prize their knowledge of the Scriptures more than the One behind them. Today, he lures God’s people to fall more in love with their theological system than their Savior—a particular danger for our tribe.”

    I thought this was a good reminder, especially in association with last week’s Critical Calvinist post.

  • Justin Buzzard reflects on the effects of the cross

    “Jesus took the heat so that you could walk in shade.”

    I’ve been exploring the effects of the cross over the past month or so while I’ve been reading John Stott’s The Cross of Christ. See my thoughts in Salvation: A Courtroom View, A Marketplace View, and A Temple View.


Requiem-Agnus Dei

It’s the song meme that’s making the rounds in my little group of Facebook friends. You place your MP3 player on shuffle and write down the titles of each of the first twenty songs that come up.

1. What do your friends think of you?
Like Humans Do (David Byrne)

I’m achin,
I’m shakin’,
I’m breakin’
like humans do

2. If someone says, “Is this okay?” You say?
The Lord of the Rings V-Hobbit (Arvika Stadsmusikkår-Instrumental Score)

3. How would you describe yourself?
Beethoven’s Symphony No 9. (Seattle Symphony)

4. What do you like in a guy/girl?
Highway Blues (Marc Seales-Jazz)

5. How do you feel today?
A Delicate Balance (Dan La Maestra-Jazz)

6. What is your life’s purpose?
As Night Falls (David Bach-Jazz)

7. What is your motto?
Larry Brown (Larry Brown-Jazz)

8. What do you think about very often?
Blues for Charlie (Royce Campbell-Jazz)

9. What do you think of your best friend?
Blue Stomp (Gary Smulyan-Jazz)

10. What do you think of the person you like?
Come Rain, Come Shine (Maija)

I’m gonna love you like nobody’s loved you,
Come rain or come shine.
High as a mountain and deep as a river,
Come rain or come shine.

Well I guess when you met me
That it was just one of those things,
But don’t you ever bet me,
‘Cause I’m gonna be true if you let me.

~Lyrics by Johnny Mercer

11. What is your life story?
La Vie en Rose (Danielle Westphal)

When he takes me in his arms
And speaks softly to me,
I see life in rosy hues. (La Vie en Rose)
He tells me words of love,
Words of every day,
And in them I become something.
He has entered my heart,
A part of happiness
Whereof I understand the reason.
It’s he for me and I for him, throughout life,
He has told me, he has sworn to me, for life.
And from the things that I sense,
Now I can feel within me
My heart that beats.

~Translation by Thomas Keyes

12. What do you want to be when you grow up?
Do Nothin’ Till You Hear From Me (Bill Harris)

13. What do you think of when you see the person you like/love? Escapade (Stephanie Akasian)

“It was just a summer escapade
A sudden enchanting shore
that happened once or twice before
It wasn’t meant to last
I’m not a child who has to pretend
Let it fade into the glow of waning light”

~Words by William Benton (I think)

14. What will you dance to at your wedding?
Preta Porter de Tafeta (Leonard Lucini-Blues)
Yeah, probably not.

15. What will they play at your funeral?
Fragile (The Dave Anderson Trio-Jazz)
Ditto the above.

16. What is your hobby/interest?
Frenzy (James Bazen-Jazz)
The title says it all.

17. What is your biggest fear?
Gabalot (Michael J. Harris)
Remarkably weird song. I have no idea why I have this, but it’s…strange.

18. What is your biggest secret?
Gonna Build a Mountain (Ericka Ovette)

Gonna build me a daydream.
From a little hope.
Gonna push that daydream.
Up the mountain slope.
Gonna build a daydream.
Gonna see it through.
Gonna build a mountain and a daydream.
Gonna make them both come true.

~Lyrics by (Does anyone know?–this was performed by Sammy Davis Jr. in the olden days :-)

19. What do you think of your friends?
Adoro te devote (Gregorian Sense)

Adoro te devote, latens Deitas,
Quæ sub his figuris vere latitas;
Tibi se cor meum totum subjicit,
Quia te contemplans totum deficit.

Translated:
Prostrate I adore Thee, Deity unseen,
Who Thy glory hidest ‘neath these shadows mean;
Lo, to Thee surrendered, my whole heart is bowed,
Tranced as it beholds Thee, shrined within the cloud.

~Lyrics by Thomas Aquinas

20.What will you post this as?
Requiem-Agnus Dei (Gregorian Sense)

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona eis requiem,
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona eis requiem,
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona eis requiem sempiternam.

Translation:
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,
grant them rest,
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,
grant them rest,
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,
grant them eternal rest.

I think there might be some disadvantages to my remarkably eclectic tastes in music–and my reluctance to actually purchase music while still insisting on not listening to pirated music. Most of these songs are probably completely unfamiliar to the rest of the world, since I got them here and there as one band or another was giving away a free MP3. This particular set is rather heavy on Jazz (and is composed entirely of free music–no purchased titles.)

Nevertheless, a few of them were remarkably apt.


Self in light of the cross

I’m three chapters from the end of The Cross of Christ–and I’m going to get it finished! Not that the book isn’t engaging. In fact, I’ve already finished reading the book–and have my notes all on paper. It’s just getting them on the computer that’s the problem. That and trying to figure out when to post them without loading you down with too many “thinking” posts. But I want to get them done by next Wednesday–so here goes!

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 11: Self-Understanding and Self-Giving

The ways worldly people look at themselves can easily be divided into two broad categories: self-love or self-loathing.

The cross leaves room for neither.

Rather, the cross calls believers to a life of self-affirmation and self-denial.

It’s strange, isn’t it, to put those two together?

The world’s attitudes, self-love and self-hatred, are mutually exclusive–but they are both rooted in pride. The cross’s attitudes, self-affirmation and self-denial–despite their apparent contradiction–are complementary. Both of these are rooted in humility.

The cross’s self-affirmation is different than the world’s self-love. While the world encourages unconditional acceptance of self (both the good and the bad) as “self-esteem”, the cross affirms both the fallenness of self and its worth to God. The cross says that I have value, not because I am particularly special, but because God has valued me.

“As William Temple expressed it, ‘My worth is what I am worth to God; and that is a marvelous great deal, for Christ died for me.'”
~Quoted in John Stott’s The Cross of Christ

The cross’s self-denial is also different from the world’s self-hatred. While the world loathes itself and engages in self-destructive behaviors, the cross calls us to recognize and identify with Christ–and to “reckon [ourselves] dead to sin” (Romans 6:11).

The world’s view of self leads to self-centeredness. Either one idolizes self, placing self as lord and following its every whim, or one villifies self, making self the enemy and focusing energy on self-destruction.

The cross’s view of self, on the other hand, leads to others-centeredness. One’s self is affirmed–but not in such a way as to inspire self-worship. One’s self is denied–but not with self as its object. Rather, the affirmation of self leads to worship–and the denial of self to service.

It is in the cross that we lose our lives in order to gain them (Luke 17:33).

I love how C.S. Lewis describes the effect of right relationship with God on “self”:

“The more we get what we now call ‘ourselves’ out of the way and let Him take us over, the more truly ourselves we become….It is no good trying to ‘be myself’ without Him. The more I resist Him and try to live on my own, the more I become dominated by my own heredity and upbringing and surroundings and natural desires…It is when I turn to Christ, when I give myself up to His personality, that I first begin to have a real personality of my own….Give up yourself, and you will find your real self. Lose your life and you will save it. Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead. Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look to Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in.
~C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

(See more of my notes on The Cross of Christ.)


Flashback: School Days

Flashback Friday buttonPrompt: Did your family have any back-to-school traditions when you were growing up? Were you generally eager or reluctant to start school? Was buying school supplies a big deal or did you order them through the school? Were there any school supplies you particularly loved?…

Some homeschooling families greet the coming school year with great fanfare, purchasing new materials and taking “first day” photos. Others do school year-round and never have a real “first day” of school.

And some, like my family, have a first day of school, but don’t make much of a fuss about it.

In fact, we made so little fuss that I can’t remember a single thing about any of my baker’s dozen first days of school (until college–but that’s a whole ‘nother story!)

That’s not to say that I don’t remember any of the circumstances surrounding “back-to-school.”

I remember going to the packed out back-to-school sales and perusing the completely unreasonable lists all those others schools had for their students. We didn’t get backpacks and lunchbags and fancy binders and pencil cases and the like. We got milk crates to store our school books in (since we’d usually destroyed our old crates, having carted them around the house and indeed the state during the previous school year)–but that was about the only thing that was distinct for each student. Otherwise, we stocked up huge piles of notebooks, notebook paper (in wide and college rules), handwriting tablets, yellow wooden pencils, and erasers.

In the olden days, Lincoln’s tax was $0.065 per dollar–and it rounded down from the half. So if you bought something that cost exactly one dollar, you’d be charged $1.06. But if you bought two things that cost exactly one dollar, you’d be charged $2.13. One year, there was something that cost exactly one dollar, and each of us kids went through the checkout with our one item. The checkout lady tried in vain to convince us to combine our purchase (instead of passing the leftover cash to the next kid in line.) We tried in vain to explain to her that we could save three whole cents by doing it our way. (We definitely knew how to pinch our pennies!)

And I remember Mom reminiscing about her own school days. Every so often, we kids would complain about how we’d been deprived of this supply or that–how we had to share our school supplies or whatever. And when we complained, Mom might tell her story:

When she was a little girl, the fourth of twelve children, she got just what was on the list and nothing else. The list decreed that each child had to have a set of eight crayons (red, violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, black, and brown.) And so Mom had a set of eight crayons. All the other children came to school with their sets of twenty-four. There was nothing she could do about it–her family was poor, they had what was required.

We, of course, never lacked for crayons. There was always an enormous bucket of partially used crayons around the house that we could use at any time. And if we needed nice, unbroken crayons, we could always borrow from Mom’s set–for every year, Mom bought herself a shiny new box of crayons, the biggest box that could be bought.

This was as close as I could get to a “back to school picture” in our entire family collection (and I would know–I’m the keeper of the family photographs).

Kids back to school photo

From left to right: Timothy (age 3) with his preschool workbook, John (age 4) with his art book, Grace (age 1) with someone else’s workbook, Daniel (age 6) with a Boxcar children mystery from the library, and Me (age 10) with some large tome also from the library (I’m guessing it’s either a history or a work of fiction–that’s a pretty big book!)

Visit Linda for more Flashback Friday posts.


Thankful Thursday: On My Side

Today I’m thankful…

…that at least one of my professors is totally on my side regarding my thesis.

…that I have wonderful family and friends who take my side (even when I’m doing my best to self-destruct).

…that I have a great high priest who lives to make intercession for me.

This song was in the playlist that woke me up this morning. What a beautiful reminder of the God who, when I was His enemy, paid a terrible price to make me His friend.

Before the throne of God above
I have a strong and perfect plea.
A great high Priest whose Name is Love
Who ever lives and pleads for me.
My name is graven on His hands,
My name is written on His heart.
I know that while in Heaven He stands
No tongue can bid me thence depart.

When Satan tempts me to despair
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upward I look and see Him there
Who made an end of all my sin.
Because the sinless Savior died
My sinful soul is counted free.
For God the just is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.

Behold Him there the risen Lamb,
My perfect spotless righteousness,
The great unchangeable I AM,
The King of glory and of grace,
One in Himself I cannot die.
My soul is purchased by His blood,
My life is hid with Christ on high,
With Christ my Savior and my God!

Thank You, Lord, for taking my part, for paying the price I couldn’t pay, for justifying this unworthy wretch! I am so in awe of the greatness of the God who would do such a thing for me.

Thankful Thursday banner


Bad news masquerading as good

After making a flippant but completely uninformed remark about Joel Osteen (with whom I had no familiarity except a short video clip), I was convicted that I ought not criticize things/people I know nothing about. After all, one of the charges against the false prophets in Second Peter is that they “speak evil of the things they do not understand”.

I rescinded my flippant remark and said I would look into Osteen more before making an evaluation. Thus, I traveled to my local library and picked up one of Osteen’s books–Become a Better You.

What I found shocked me and troubled me deeply. In some ways, Osteen is just another prosperity preacher of the Word of Faith tradition. He confuses the promises of the gospel with the idea of self-fulfillment and turns God into a vending-machine in the sky. The so-called prosperity gospel is a disturbing corruption of the true gospel–but I’ve known many who ascribe to a version of the prosperity gospel who still maintain at least a degree of faithfulness to the true gospel: that Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for sins, on our behalf, thus reconciling us to God.

I see no evidence that Osteen has maintained any modicum of the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Instead, Osteen has replaced the gospel with an “I’m good, you’re good, we’re all good” self-esteem talk. He tells his readers that “God has already put in the talent, the creativity, the discipline, the wisdom, and the determination. It’s all in you.” “We have to believe that we have what it takes.” Over and over, he states that “God has placed the seeds of greatness inside of you”. He emphasizes the goodness of creation–but completely ignores the fall.

I almost thought he was going to address the fall when he refers to Adam and Eve hiding after eating the forbidden fruit. “Great,” I thought, “Now he’s going to tell them that the created goodness has been warped and twisted by sin, but that Jesus died to redeem us from that twistedness, to reverse sin.” Alas, it was not to be. Instead, Osteen uses God’s response to Adam and Eve (“Who told you that you were naked?”) as “proof” that they weren’t actually naked, that they were believing a lie from the enemy. Except that wasn’t a lie. They were naked. They had something to be ashamed of. They had something to hide. It wasn’t a lie. It was the truth.

Now, this might sound like a huge downer. Osteen’s got good news, I’m bearing bad. But am I?

You see, Osteen’s message of self-esteem and “you’re all good” is a cheap substitute for the truly good news. The good news is that while we were completely worthless, God endued us with worth by sending His Son to die for us. While we were incapable of helping ourselves, Jesus Christ made us new. The good news is that while we were yet dead in our sins, Christ died for us.

Osteen’s message skips the fall–and thus sees no need for the cross. In the first seventy pages of Become a Better You, Osteen mentions the cross exactly never–unless one considers this gem on page 35: “God gave His very best for you, His only Son.”

In ignoring the fall and the cross, Osteen leaves out the essence of Christianity. As Charles Spurgeon points out (HT: Justin Taylor):

“Yes, it is Christ, Christ, Christ whom we have to preach; and if we leave Him out, we leave out the very soul of the gospel.”

You do not really preach the gospel if you leave Christ out; if He be omitted, it is not the gospel. You may invite men to listen to your message, but you are only inviting them to gaze upon an empty table unless Christ is the very center and substance of all that you set before them.”

Want to become a better you? Osteen can’t help–he can only try to convince you that you’re actually not that bad. Only in Jesus Christ can bad become good and sinners saints. Denying sin will not make it go away, it will only lead us into delusion. Only by recognizing our sin and by faith receiving Christ’s work on the cross can we be made righteous.

The gospel that Osteen shares is not good news at all–it is bad news masquerading as good.


The Voice of the Accuser

“What did you do this summer?” she asks.

I struggle to come up with a decent answer–an appropriate answer. I want to say, “Apart from trying to write a thesis blind, you mean?”

“Uh, I’ve been canning, and blogging–”

“You’ve been canning?” Her incredulosity makes me want to shrink out of the room. It sounds so frivolous, so ridiculous.

After I’ve left, my mind whirls over the dozens of things I could have said to justify my summer. I helped my brother and sister-in-law with their wedding. I drove my mom to see my grandparents. I completed two quilts, a couple of pillow shams, a dresser scarf, and over a dozen potholders. I crocheted a scarf and a half dozen dishcloths. I embroidered a set of day-of-the-week tea towels. I cleaned my house and prepared meals. I babysat and helped a friend weed. I applied for jobs and went to interviews. I read and reviewed books. I blogged. I canned. I rode bicycles with a friend. And, of course, I tried to write a thesis blind.

Even as I contemplate what I’ve done this summer, I know it would have been pointless to mention it. I think back to her raised eyebrows when I read over my lunch break. “What are you reading?–Ugh, why are you reading that?” I remember the countless questions–“How many hours are you taking?”–and the snorts when I say it’s important that I spend time with church and family. The implicit message, etched into me with every interaction?

You don’t do enough. You don’t work hard enough. The stuff you spend your time on is worthless. You are worthless.

My heart believes her message even as my head rebels.

I do work hard. I don’t waste my time on frivolous things. Relationships are important. I’m not worthless.

She is the voice I’ve heard since before I ever met her, the voice that held me in bondage for years. It labels me insufficient, unlovely, incomplete, a failure. The voice that once, inside my head, told me “You’ll never amount to anything. You have all these goals but what have you ever done?”–that voice is now an external voice, attached to a face, to a woman, my accuser. “Just give up,” it says. “You don’t have anything worthwhile to contribute. You’re a waste of time, of energy. Take the easy way out.”

I firmly tell her NO–I’m not taking the easy way out. I’m not going to quit. I’m not a failure. My ideas have merit, my work is worthwhile. I’m not going to argue with her evaluation of me–I know by now that it does no good. But I’m not going to bow to her evaluation of me either. I’m not going to bow to the accuser who says I’m still in my chains.

I’m going to take my heart–that heart that’s smarting from wounds inflicted years ago, that heart whose wounds have been reopened by her word’s claw–I’m going to take my heart to the Great Physician who bore my wounds already. He bore my insufficiency, my unloveliness, my incompleteness. The stripes on His back are my heart’s healing. He took my worthlessness, granting me worth. He bore my wrongness, giving me righteousness. He experienced my failure, and declared success.

I’m taking my heart to Jesus–for by His wounds, I am healed.


Heretic Hunting

I try to diligently evaluate what I hear or read in light of God’s word. I desire to speak the truth in love, bringing correction when needed. Often, I am very bold when writing (as on this blog), and very timid when directly addressing someone (either in person or via online means).

But there’s one thing that I’ve been very, VERY wary of. I’ve been very uncomfortable with using the term “heretic” or accusing someone of being a “false teacher.” Either of these terms bring to mind witch hunts, burning at the stake, and other such things–in which someone is condemned to torture or death as a result of their beliefs. I don’t like it. I don’t like those terms, or their connotations, at all.

Which is why when I was recently going through a Bible study on II Peter, I got rather uncomfortable. In chapter 2, Peter is all over false prophets and false teachers, likening them to brute beasts made to be hunted and killed, calling them acne on the face of the body of Christ and wells without water. It’s not a pretty picture. Peter speaks of the false teachers’ sins (covetousness, exploitation, deception, denying Christ, despising authority, walking in the flesh, presumption, willfullness, speaking evil of dignitaries, etc.) and of their impending punishment (swift destruction, the wages of unrighteousness, blackness of darkness forever).

I might be afraid of the term “false teacher”, but Peter certainly wasn’t. John recognized that false prophets have gone out into the world, and warned the church to test the spirits to see whether they were from God (I John 4:1-3). In 2 Corinthians 11:13, Paul condemns the false apostles who try to commend themselves to the Corinthian church. In Galatians 2:4, Paul speaks of the Judaizers as being “false brethren” who “came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.”

False prophets, false teachers, false apostles exist. They seek to bring people into bondage to a gospel that is not the gospel at all (Galatians 1:6-9). They seek to deceive, if possible, even the elect (Mark 13:22). However, the Judge of the world is not slow–He has a judgment reserved for these false teachers, a horrible punishment.

Okay, so…false teachers exist. It says so in Scripture. False teachers aren’t just a myth made up by the superstitious, witch-hunting, unenlightened masses. They’re real. They’re dangerous.

And what on earth are Christians supposed to do about them?

Scripture gives us some direction as to how we are to deal with false teachers (thankfully, Scripture does not suggest that we burn them at the stake or otherwise torture them).

First, we are to recognize them. Romans 16:17 says to “note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned”. I John 4:1 tells us to test the spirits, and then gives us a litmus test by which we may know deceptive spirits from the Spirit of God:

“By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God.”
~I John 4:2-3

Thus, the primary means by which we can recognize a false teacher is a denial of the incarnation of Christ. Other mentions of false teachers and false “gospels” throughout the New Testament give additional characteristics of false teachers: they deny the centrality of the cross and insist upon good works (Galatians 1-2), they deny the Lord who bought them (2 Peter 2:1), they walk according to the flesh and despise authority (2 Peter 2:10), they promise liberty but actually enslave to lust (2 Peter 2:18-20).

The second thing believers are to do with false teachers is to avoid them. I Timothy 6:3-5 says that “If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness….from such withdraw yourself.” Romans 16:17 urges the believers to “avoid them.” II John 10-11 tells believers not to greet or receive into their house the one who teaches a doctrine contrary to the doctrine of Christ, lest they become participants in the false teacher’s sin.

Finally, we are to combat false teaching by speaking truth. This charge is particularly true for leaders within the church. Paul charges Titus in Titus 2:1 that he “speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine.” An elder is supposed to hold fast the faithful word he has been taught, so “that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.” (Titus 1:9). Timothy was to “charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith.” (I Timothy 1:3-4) All believers are called to “hold fast” to sound doctrine (Phil. 2:16, I Thess 5:21, II Thess 2:15, II Tim 1:13-14).

Interestingly, we are never called to pass judgment on false teachers or heretics. Instead, we know from Scripture that they are already under the judgment of God–but that God delays in sending His judgment because He is merciful and desirous that none should perish (2 Peter 3:5-9.) Our role is not to pass judgment on them, but to “beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2 Peter 2:17-18)


Heresy Hunter: A Case Study, Part 2

Yesterday, I set up a case study for the “heresy hunter” to think through. The “heresy hunter” has read The Shack and evaluated the view of God’s love found within (universalism). He has rejected this view of God’s love on the basis of Scripture. Now, a Christian friend of his is raving about how his view of God’s love has been changed dramatically by The Shack. I discussed the role of Scripture for correction, but since Scripture is clear about not judging, I closed with a question:

“How am I to correct without judging?”

I think humility is the key. I Timothy 2:24, above, says “in humility correcting those who are in opposition.” First, we must be aware of the limits of our own knowledge and understanding of the truth, as discussed in the first”heresy hunter” post. Second, we must be aware that we are not without sin or error. We are not without sin; we have no right to be casting stones.

This leads us to the second part of correction without judgment–that is, we should speak with love in order to edify. We are not called to judge or to cast stones to tear another down–we are called to correct in order to edify and build up. We must carefully consider both our motivation and our means in order to ascertain that what we are doing accomplishes edification.

Romans 14 speaks a great deal about this, encouraging more mature believers to accept the less mature ones and not to quibble about things that are unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

“Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things….Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way…Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.”
~Romans 14:1, 13, 19

We should consider first the importance of the idea or teaching. Is this something that is central to the faith or is it a periphery issue? (I would say that the idea of universalism is a central issue and therefore should be addressed.) Then we should ask how we can address this in a way that does not put a stumbling block in our brother’s way. Finally, we should seek to address the issue in a way that leads to peace and edification.

There are probably a lot of different ways this can be done. Maybe it means just bringing up your own concern in the same conversation. “The Shack was an engaging book and a lot of people seem to like it a lot. I’m concerned, though, at how it conveys the idea that everyone can be saved–without talking about how Christ is the only way to salvation.” Maybe it means encouraging further study. “You mentioned a couple of days ago that you were impressed with how The Shack talks about God’s love. I was wondering if you’d like to do a Bible study with me to explore what God’s love looks like.” Maybe it means direct confrontation. “You said you liked how The Shack portrayed God’s love, but I’m concerned that it portrays a false view of God’s love. I’m afraid that the ‘nice guy’ idea of God’s love found in The Shack might blind you to the truth of God’s love as portrayed on the cross. Could we talk about this a bit more?”

I’m certainly not perfect in this respect. Sometimes I err on the side of not bringing truth (even when falsehood is very clearly leading a brother or sister into bondage). Other times I err on the side of being an unloving bringer of truth (abrasively speaking truth in a way that tears down rather than building up.) But my heart’s desire is that somehow I could learn to walk this line: truth in love, truth in love.