When discussing the influence and ministry of pastors with other Christians the critique I often hear of Church leaders is that they are too quick to cause division and give critique. It is not the place of pastors, they claim (either directly or through inference), to denounce others or speak against them. Pastors should be bringing together, rather than tearing apart.
Most recently the issue came up when Rob Bell's new book had its first press release and video advertisement. The video is classic pretentious Bell. I've never been a fan of Bell's as I'm sure he'll never be a fan of mine. The video raises the question of how one gets to Heaven, even saying that the Gospel message that Christ dying for our sins to appease the righteous demand of God for a punishment for sin means that Jesus is saving us from God, and how poorly that reflects on the Father. There is talk of an art show and Gandhi in there, he does his classic hand gestures and long breathy pauses, someone mixes paints, and a camera pans through a room nonsensically.
After the video and press release came out a few evangelical leaders spoke out against it. Some wrote blogs and essays about the danger of what Rob Bell was saying. John Piper sent out a message on his twitter account saying goodbye to Rob Bell (dismissing him from the evangelical world one would assume). Others wrote blog posts and essays in defense of Rob Bell, or at least against those who spoke against him, saying their criticism is premature and we should wait until the book comes out to judge where Rob Bell stands.
The criticism surrounding the criticism is what I find most interesting and is not unique to this one instance. I often hear people criticizing evangelical leaders for being too critical, too quick to speak against those who are theologically against them.
The question these people raise, perhaps without really knowing it is: what is the responsibility of the pastor? Is he the guardian of the gate or is he the the ambassador to the nations? Is he responsible to protect the Church (and his local church) from false teachings, heresies, and all distractions from the Biblical faith or is he supposed to cast the widest net of appeal so as to attract as many people as possible and hurt as few as possible?
The argument would seem to be that our pastors are supposed to be ambassadors. They should make the faith as appealing as possible so as to bring in as many people into the doors of the church as possible and discourage as few people as possible from wanting to leave. When a pastor speaks against another evangelical leader or group or individual he creates divisions. Divisions separate which is the opposite intention of what the church and pastor are supposed to be doing. Churches make fewer and fewer theological distinctions, talk less and less about controversial issues, and never say negative things about anyone because we don't want to offend anyone.
This reflects our postmodern age and proclivities. We need people in the seats, not at home thinking all Christians are narrow minded and judgemental. But there are those (I amongst them) who would argue the opposite. Pastors are not meant to cast the widest net of appeal. They are not ambassadors. They are the guardians of the gate. They are in charge of keeping watch over their flock (believers who are members of their congregation). They are not here to make Christianity look cool (because its not cool!). They are hear to guide and instruct people in righteousness and Biblical living. The pastor's job is to provide right teaching and declare false teaching as such. If a person is teaching against the Scriptures, leading people away from Godliness, profaning the name of God, it is the pastor's primary job to tell his congregation and teach them why its wrong. If a man is claiming to be an evangelical while teaching things that go against Scripture the pastor should be the first to denounce that man's teachings and teach the truth. The pastor's job is to protect his flock from heresy and guide towards truth, whatever the consequences. So if Rob Bell even hints at the idea of universalism (that all people go to heaven-or at least all "good" people-regardless of their faith in Christ) then pastors should be putting their people on notice to at least be on guard about that, if not outrightly saying he's wrong. If they don't they are neglecting their responsibilities and are a disservice to the Church rather than a help.
Some people claim this kind of thinking makes the Church look bad, and maybe at times it does (especially done with an arrogant heart). But I am convinced that if we didn't do it than we look even worse. We become hypocrites who have no foundation at all. If we claim to believe in the truth as revealed in Scripture and build our lives upon that and then someone shows up and says something that contradicts Scripture and we accept it we look wishy-washy and spineless. If we say "Christ says that 'no one comes to the Father except through me'" but then turn around and say "and you can also come to Him by living a good life, feeling guilty sometimes about sinning, giving some money to the poor, etc." We are foundationless. We have no appeal at all.
One of the things we forget, I think, is how theology has been formed. Theology was not formed in a vacuum or by council (despite what the revered historian*Dan Brown says). The development of theology (at least up into the 1800s) came from a defensive stance. Theology was formed from division-division from heresy. Orthodoxy was always assumed until someone came and taught a heresy that forced the Church to put orthodox teaching on the subject into writing. Hence the Church having many documents titled "Against [some heretic]". Theology has always been reactive. The Reformation was a reaction to the Roman Catholic Church's many theological errors. Luther wrote many documents against those he viewed as wrong and teaching against Scripture.
Is this always pretty? No! Do we want division for divisions sake? Not at all. Sometimes these divisions are done in pride, sometimes in anger. I'm not saying they are always great. I am saying that we should know our heritage and understand that when men are teaching against Scripture it has been the Church's role to stand up and speak against it. If we do not we validate it with silence.
The issue at stake is the souls of men and women. There is nothing more important than that. If people don't want to come to church because we are correctly handling Scripture I can live with that. If they are attracted to our churches because we look like the world and never make a stand against anything and never bring about eternal change in anyones' lives I can't live with that. We are working to bring people to understand the amazing love that Christ has for us, that saves us from the dominating effect of sin in our lives. The consequence of failing in this end, the cost of allowing people to be misled while we stand silent is beyond dire.
The pastoral office is always to be held with humility and gentleness. Confrontation is not to be sought out or desired. People who build us haystack towers so that they can knock them back to the ground and set them on fire are quite dangerous. Creating controversy from nothing is neither Biblical nor wise. It is in fact contrary to Christian character. But that does not mean we shy away from confrontation, either. We proclaim and defend the truth. The cost is too high not to. Heresies must be called out and corrected, never tolerated.
Pastors are meant to guard the gate, protecting the sheep from the wolves outside. If there is a wolf trying to break through he is fought off, if we find a wolf within the gates he is to be quickly removed. To do anything less would be to abandon one's duties for the favor of man.
*he says snarkily.
No comments:
Post a Comment