First of all, I apologize for the ridiculously long title. I couldn't find a way to shorten it.
Second,
this is the second article in a series of articles on the
different kinds of disagreements and divisions that might occur in the local church and how a different response ought to be implemented depending on the nature of the disagreement. Click here to access the first article which details our approach to those who spread error in a way that is divisive.
As we're going to see in this second article, while all unbiblical teachings (what I call "error") ought to be addressed, the manner in which we address the proponent of error depends on their character and attitude. When someone knowingly stirs up controversy by teaching a doctrine privately or publically, the Scriptures call them "divisive." Divisive men, like the Judaizing teachers in Acts 15, ought to be openly rebuked and, if need be, rejected (as we learned in our first article).
However, not everyone who incorrectly interprets a verse or misrepresents a Bible doctrine is divisive. Not everyone who utters a biblical inaccuracy deserves a harsh response from their brethren. Not everyone who expresses a non-traditional viewpoint should be publically addressed, marked and rejected.
The best example of this, of course, is that of Apollos in Acts 18:24-26...
Aquila and Priscilla were two faithful Christians who knew that they had to confront Apollos about his error, but how did they do it? Did they call him out in the synagogue? No. Did they speak negatively of Apollos in private correspondence to churches, or to Paul? No. Did they label him a false teacher or a heretic? No. Instead, they took him aside and corrected his misunderstanding of baptism. And Apollos, being the sincere, honest man that he was responded with a good attitude, accepted the truth, and moved forward with the same zeal and passion that he had exhibited before.
How can we apply this lesson to situations that might arise in churches today?
We need to distinguish between those false teachers who are divisive and those who, like Apollos, are innocent and/or ignorant. Those who boldly proclaim error knowing the trouble it will cause in the church ought to be handled openly, roughly, and swiftly. However, those who are innocent and/or ignorant need to be handled with more care and consideration.
Think of the man who was recently converted and is giving his first invitation talk or leading his first prayer. He does not have the knowledge and experience that you might have, and as a result, he may misquote a verse, or misrepresent a whole passage or doctrine. Maybe he's simply taking a verse out of context, or maybe he's repeating something that he heard years ago in the denominational world that hasn't yet been corrected since his conversion. Certainly, we ought to bear with the weak (Rom. 15:1) and recognize that it's going to take time for new Christians to grow (Heb. 5:12-14).
It could be something as small as calling the forbidden fruit of the Garden of Eden an "apple," or the great fish of Jonah's story a "whale." Maybe he uses the term "miracle" too loosely. Perhaps he makes the point that there were three wise men who visited Jesus, even though the Bible doesn't specify a number. I remember grimacing when one gentleman, a former Episcopal, placed special emphasis on the Lord's Supper on "Easter Sunday," as if we were celebrating Easter.
But one thing I know, based on the story of Apollos in Acts 18, is that this softer approach is not limited to babes in Christ or to minor details of the Bible. Apollos was a very knowledgeable man, and the position he was misrepresenting was/is one of the biggest issues in the Bible - it had to do with salvation. So maybe it isn't a new Christian who says the wrong thing; maybe it's your full-time evangelist who misinterprets a Bible verse. And maybe it's an issue that is much more serious.
The point is this: if you perceive that the one teaching the error is a good, honest man who is just sincerely wrong, don't treat him like you would treat the divisive man. Instead of calling him out or embarrassing him in front of the church, wait until services are over and take him aside. Or if it is determined that the error should be corrected before the church is dismissed, do so tactfully and gently. If there are elders, it would be wise to let the elders handle the situation as they deem fit. Praise him for his efforts, for the good things he said, and then clarify the error. And most of all, encourage the individual to not to be discouraged. Like Apollos, the individual should be encouraged to move forward, to grow, and to remain active in studying, teaching and evangelizing (Acts 18:27-28).
Finally, the fact is, there may be some things - maybe many things - that ought to be overlooked. In other words, not every misquoted verse warrants a public correction. We need to exercise good judgment and only say something when we feel it is necessary.
As we're going to see in this second article, while all unbiblical teachings (what I call "error") ought to be addressed, the manner in which we address the proponent of error depends on their character and attitude. When someone knowingly stirs up controversy by teaching a doctrine privately or publically, the Scriptures call them "divisive." Divisive men, like the Judaizing teachers in Acts 15, ought to be openly rebuked and, if need be, rejected (as we learned in our first article).
However, not everyone who incorrectly interprets a verse or misrepresents a Bible doctrine is divisive. Not everyone who utters a biblical inaccuracy deserves a harsh response from their brethren. Not everyone who expresses a non-traditional viewpoint should be publically addressed, marked and rejected.
The best example of this, of course, is that of Apollos in Acts 18:24-26...
"Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately."One thing that is clear in this text is that although Apollos was wrong, he was sincere, and he was doing the best he could do with the information he had at the time. It's not that he knew the truth about baptism but was intentionally teaching the baptism of John. It's not that he had been confronted about this before, and yet had stubbornly persisted in his error. So not only was he not intentionally teaching error, he wasn't intentionally misleading people or dividing brethren. He was wrong, but he was innocent.
Aquila and Priscilla were two faithful Christians who knew that they had to confront Apollos about his error, but how did they do it? Did they call him out in the synagogue? No. Did they speak negatively of Apollos in private correspondence to churches, or to Paul? No. Did they label him a false teacher or a heretic? No. Instead, they took him aside and corrected his misunderstanding of baptism. And Apollos, being the sincere, honest man that he was responded with a good attitude, accepted the truth, and moved forward with the same zeal and passion that he had exhibited before.
How can we apply this lesson to situations that might arise in churches today?
We need to distinguish between those false teachers who are divisive and those who, like Apollos, are innocent and/or ignorant. Those who boldly proclaim error knowing the trouble it will cause in the church ought to be handled openly, roughly, and swiftly. However, those who are innocent and/or ignorant need to be handled with more care and consideration.
Think of the man who was recently converted and is giving his first invitation talk or leading his first prayer. He does not have the knowledge and experience that you might have, and as a result, he may misquote a verse, or misrepresent a whole passage or doctrine. Maybe he's simply taking a verse out of context, or maybe he's repeating something that he heard years ago in the denominational world that hasn't yet been corrected since his conversion. Certainly, we ought to bear with the weak (Rom. 15:1) and recognize that it's going to take time for new Christians to grow (Heb. 5:12-14).
It could be something as small as calling the forbidden fruit of the Garden of Eden an "apple," or the great fish of Jonah's story a "whale." Maybe he uses the term "miracle" too loosely. Perhaps he makes the point that there were three wise men who visited Jesus, even though the Bible doesn't specify a number. I remember grimacing when one gentleman, a former Episcopal, placed special emphasis on the Lord's Supper on "Easter Sunday," as if we were celebrating Easter.
But one thing I know, based on the story of Apollos in Acts 18, is that this softer approach is not limited to babes in Christ or to minor details of the Bible. Apollos was a very knowledgeable man, and the position he was misrepresenting was/is one of the biggest issues in the Bible - it had to do with salvation. So maybe it isn't a new Christian who says the wrong thing; maybe it's your full-time evangelist who misinterprets a Bible verse. And maybe it's an issue that is much more serious.
The point is this: if you perceive that the one teaching the error is a good, honest man who is just sincerely wrong, don't treat him like you would treat the divisive man. Instead of calling him out or embarrassing him in front of the church, wait until services are over and take him aside. Or if it is determined that the error should be corrected before the church is dismissed, do so tactfully and gently. If there are elders, it would be wise to let the elders handle the situation as they deem fit. Praise him for his efforts, for the good things he said, and then clarify the error. And most of all, encourage the individual to not to be discouraged. Like Apollos, the individual should be encouraged to move forward, to grow, and to remain active in studying, teaching and evangelizing (Acts 18:27-28).
Finally, the fact is, there may be some things - maybe many things - that ought to be overlooked. In other words, not every misquoted verse warrants a public correction. We need to exercise good judgment and only say something when we feel it is necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment