The Theological Pillow Fight from the Nosebleed Section
More often than not it truly feels that in the Strange Fire camp, as well as the reformed camp in general, healthy Christianity is about being able to verbalize sound doctrine well, so much so that Christians are willing to sin against each other if they disagree. That usually happens these days in the form of bloggers who gossip and slander, as well as multiple violations of the ninth commandment.
For me, during that season of my life in that camp, there was this undercurrent of grace that was flowing abundantly when dealing with people whose beliefs nicely fit in the cubby-holed, neatly-organized system of truth I held to. But when encountering or relating to people with truth that was messier than mine, the environment seemed to coach me to reprove, rebuke, reject, then repudiate them. That’s because in that world friendships seemed to be based around doctrine instead of the two greatest commandments. The last time a religious group operated that way, they killed Jesus. And today it looks and feels very much as if many Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, God-fearing charismatics are being doctrinally and spiritually killed by other well-meaning religious people.
Here’s the thing I’d express strongly to my friends in the Strange Fire camp: people are a part of the truth. People are an inseparable, integral part of sound doctrine. Jesus said the second greatest commandment is to love one another. Jesus died for people, not doctrine. And the fact that He died for people is sound doctrine. But when doctrine is elevated above people, then it’s easy to sin against each other because we can say it’s all about the glory of the truth. Those who cry blasphemy are often the ones who are the most unloving and ungracious. Yet how does this square with the treatment believers are to give each other, the attitudes they are to have toward one another. “Love one another fervently from the heart” (1 Peter 1:22). “Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves” (Romans 12:9-10). That’s just a start.
As Michael so aptly put it in chapter 2, “Embracing the Authentic Fire,” “it is one thing to address serious errors and abuses … It is another thing to fail to recognize and, worse still, mock the contemporary work of the Spirit, to vilify godly leaders, and to damn to hell countless millions of brothers and sisters in Jesus” (p. 33). But John’s version of fundamentalism almost seems to require him to trend in this direction because of what feels like an exaltation of truth over people.
What About Matthew 18?
One particular area in which this fact is most noticeable is in John’s seeming refusal to contact, befriend, and meet those he disagrees with. Notice I used the word “seeming.” That’s because it seems like John doesn’t want to reach out to these people. It seems like he just wants to take them at face value in the things they’ve written and launch from there, assuming he completely understands what they mean. Conversely, Michael stated several times in Authentic Fire that he has made, and continues to make efforts to reach out to John in order to talk it out. But to date, John has not replied. That’s weird to me.[14] This response simply perpetuates this separationism inherent in fundamentalism.
Michael asked the question, “should we always name names?” (p. 32). For John, the answer is yes. I asked him once about that when I worked on staff at Grace Community Church. It is just a plain matter of fact for John that if a person puts their beliefs in print then it’s public and therefore fair game to critique and rebuke where necessary. However, I’m not sure John is handling the truth of Matthew 18 with integrity when he sees a book in print (or any public communication by another leader, pastor or author, for that matter) as a loophole to having to follow Jesus’ teaching on this matter. It’s a sort of shoot-first-and-don’t-ask-questions-ever mentality that, I believe, does dishonor to Jesus’ teaching and the people He died for. And this practice has led countless seminary students to carry forth that same attitude in the churches they pastor, spreading the pain and suffering even further.
Michael has attempted to do what John has not done, and that is apply the principles of Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17 to interpersonal conflict. While in seminary, listening to John preach awesome expositions of Scripture on Sunday mornings and nights, I recall the bewilderment in my young head as to why John was speaking publicly against a well-known leader and author whom I thought had offered so much to the body of Christ. I sat there, hearing his name repudiated, wondering if John had followed Matthew 18 in an attempt to make contact, confront, and reconcile things.
On another occasion I heard John speak against a dear friend of mine, John Armstrong. When I was visiting with Armstrong in his hotel room one night, after he had preached at a church I was pastoring in Michigan, I asked him about MacArthur’s comments and whether or not MacArthur had called Armstrong. Armstrong said that he had not received a phone call nor had he had any correspondence with MacArthur. Sadly, Armstrong said that it was not the first time he had been criticized publicly by MacArthur from the pulpit without having previous conversation with Armstrong. As a result, Armstrong’s ministry has suffered greatly under this fundamentalistic separationism, having ultimately lost well over half of his followers and supporters. I wonder how many times this has happened with others?
I think if we are wanting to follow the spirit of the law instead of the letter, we should apply Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 18 to the authors of books we feel we disagree with. That means attempting to contact them, befriend them, and relate to them as brothers and sisters in Christ. The aim is to seek first to understand, and only then to be understood. Again, it’s just as much about people as it is truth. This is a better way. It’s more gospel-led. It’s more in keeping with the letter of the second greatest commandment to love one another as we want to be loved. I don’t want someone to write bogus stuff about me or try to bring public correction or rebuke in writing or at a conference if they’ve never even attempted to contact me and ask me questions or get to know me. That just plain doesn’t make sense. I would be thinking, “I can be found on Facebook, Twitter, Linked-In, and my blog profile. Why was I not contacted first, if only to at least comment?”
Category: Spirit, Summer 2014
Followers
Fans
