Dropping the "H" Bomb
I recently read a story about one follower of Christ calling another follower of Christ a heretic because they disagreed over certain aspects of teaching. I’m sure that many of us have heard similar stories, and perhaps some of us have even been called “heretics”.
The “H” bomb is dropped to separate the speaker from the “heretic” or “heresy”. It is used as stronger language than “disagree” or “different”. It is used to question the person’s devotion to and possibly position with God. To the person dropping the “H” bomb, the “heretic” may be sincere, but certainly sincerely wrong when compared with the bombardier.
Looking through various definitions of the word “heretic”, you’ll find that a “heretic” (in English) is a person who holds a position that is different from standard or accepted church beliefs. Thus, in English, “heresy” can only be defined from the perspective of a certain set of beliefs. So, someone can be a “heretic” from the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church, but that same person may not be a “heretic” from the point of view of the Anglican Church.
Similarly, looking through various definitions of the word “heresy”, you’ll find that a “heresy” (again, in English) is any teaching, belief, or opinion that is different from standard or accepted church beliefs. Once again, “heresy” is a valid term on from the perspective of a certain set of beliefs.
From these modern definitions, every Baptist is a heretic to every Presbyterian. Every Anglican teaches heresy from the perspective of every Charismatic. From the point of view of Methodists, everyone in the Vineyard church is a heretic. These terms have lost any meaning, but they continue to be used with force and vehemence.
Perhaps, instead of looking at the modern definitions of “heresy” and “heretic” it would be helpful to consider the source of these words, and to consider how Scripture uses these words. Also, instead of comparing someone’s opinions and beliefs to the standard beliefs of a given church, perhaps it would be better to compare that person’s opinions and beliefs to Scripture.
Of course, even before we think about the source of the words “heresy” and “heretic”, we are immediately faced with the reality that different people interpret Scripture in different ways. Does this mean that our terms “heretic” and “heresy” are completely useless? No. It means that we must humbly admit that brothers and sisters in Christ disagree concerning the meaning of Scripture. We must also humbly admit that disagreement, in and of itself, does not constitute heresy. I may disagree with someone, and neither one of us may be heretics. However, according to the modern definitions of the words “heresy” and “heretic”, if two people disagree, one of them must be a heretic.
The terms “heresy” and “heretic” are scriptural words. The noun form αἵρεσις (hairesis) is used five times in the New Testament, and is usually translated “sect”, “division”, “opinion”, or “schism”. The Pharisees and Sadducees are called “sects” (“heresies”) of Judaism (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 26:5). Christians are called a “sect” (“heresy”) of Judaism (Acts 24:5; 24:14; 28:22). Finally, there are said to be “divisions” or “dissensions” (“heresies”) among groups of Christians (1 Cor 11:19; Gal 5:20; 2 Pet 2:1). It is this last category that should interest us.
Scripture warns us about “heresies” among believers. But, in context, what are these passages telling us? In 1 Corinthians 11:19, Paul mentions “factions”. These are probably similar to the divisions mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1-4. The danger is not found in disagreements between believers, but in separation. The groups were separating from one another and treating one another differently based on their affiliations.
In Galatians 5:20, “heresies” or “divisions” or “factions” are mentioned again along with “disputes”, “dissensions”, and “envy”. All of these are listed as “works of the flesh” (Gal 5:19-21), practiced by those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God”. This is contrasted against the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22-23) which will be evident in the lives of God’s children. Since the fruit of the Spirit includes characteristics such as patience, gentleness, and self-control, we can assume that these are demonstrated in the context of disagreements, not in the absence of them. Again, this says nothing about disagreement being “heresy”.
In 2 Peter 2:1, Peter warns that false prophets and false teachers will bring “destructive heresies” with them. These false prophets and false teachers will not be known for disagreeing with other believers, but instead they will be known for “denying the Lord” (2 Pet 2:1), “sensuality” (2 Pet 2:2), “covetousness” (2 Pet 2:3). Thus, these false prophets and false teachers are not ones who simply disagree with other Christians, but those who deny that Christ is Lord, and live a life that demonstrates that they are not children of God.
Perhaps, from this connection of “heresy” with false prophets and false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1, we should also recognize why these people are called “false prophets” and “false teachers”. Perhaps one of the most important passages to help us understand what it means to be a “false teacher” is 1 Timothy 1:3-11. Here, those who teach “other doctrines” are those who teach contrary to the gospel (1 Tim 1:11). In many other passages, the authors of Scripture encourage their readers to teach and live in accordance to the gospel of Jesus Christ – that is, the good news that God has provided a way for all people to accepted as his children.
So, according to Scripture, who are the true “heretics”? Heretics are those who deny the gospel of Jesus Christ. Heretics are also those who live in a manner contrary to the gospel – that is, according to the flesh, not according to the Spirit. Similarly, heretics are those who cause and encourage divisions and dissensions among the followers of Jesus Christ.
When Person A calls Person B a “heretic” for a teaching that Person A disagrees with, but which is not contrary to the gospel, and when Person A refuses to fellowship with Person B because of that teaching, then, according to Scripture, Person A is actually the “heretic”. Person A is the one causing division among the followers of Christ and is thus promoting true heresy.
So, let’s be careful, thoughtful, and prayerful before we drop the “H” Bomb. It could be that we are the true “heretics”, not necessarily because our opinion is “wrong”, but because our words and actions are divisive – and this is the type of heresy that Scripture warns us about.
What questions?
A few days ago, my friend Ed suggested that I create an FAQ page to explain some of my “ideas and heresies”. (Thanks, Ed! I think…) Actually, I think it is a good idea. What I want to do is create a page that points people to some of my posts that explain my views on certain topics dealing with the church. I’ll put a link to this page on my sidebar. But, what questions should I include? Here are some that I’ve thought of:
What is the church?
What is disicpleship?
What should believers do when the church gathers together?
What is worship?
What is edification?
What are elders?
Why is unity about believers so important?
For what reasons should believers separate from one another?
What about spiritual gifts?
What is fellowship and community?
What does it mean to love other people?
What are baptism and the Lord’s Supper?
What do I think about church programs?
Can you think of other questions that I should ask/answer in an FAQ?
Separating over loaves…
David Rogers at “Love Each Stone” has written a thought-provoking post called “The Illustration of the Hypothetical ‘Common Loaf Denomination’“. David briefly explains the standard baptistic understanding of baptism. Baptists, as one example, often separate from other believers who understand baptism differntly. David then explains that someone could use the same reason and logic to come to a conclusion that using one loaf of bread is the only proper method of partaking of the Lord’s Supper. He then asks (hypothetically) if we should form a separate denomination for those who choose to be biblical and use one loaf. This leads to his powerful conclusion:
What is the solution to this dilemma? Should those of us who are convinced of the biblical truth concerning “common loaf” celebration of the Lord’s Supper separate from those who still insist on celebrating the Lord’s Supper with individual wafers or their equivalent? Should we form our own denomination that ensures that the missionaries we send out will only teach the churches they plant to practice “common loaf” communion? Or, should we take it to the extreme of refusing to even cooperate on the mission field with those in other groups who are mistaken in their interpretation of this “clear biblical truth”?
I hope, by now, the absurdity of what I am suggesting is obvious. Even though I am totally convinced of the accuracy of my biblical interpretation regarding “common loaf communion,” it would be “nit-picking” for me to separate with other authentic disciples of the Lord Jesus, who are sincerely doing their best to submit to his commands in their own life, over something as secondary as this. Much more important than our differences on this point is our essential unity as joint members of the Body of Christ, who have been given a joint task to fulfill, and should work hand in hand, as brothers and sisters in Christ, to obey together the commands of Christ, to the degree each one of us is able to understand them.
For the most part, we pick and choose which “doctrines” to use as litmus tests in order to fellowship with or separate from other believers. But, do we get this idea from Scripture? Does Scripture tell us to separate from other brothers and sisters who do not practice baptism the same way we do? Does Scripture tell us to separate from other brother and sisters who understand gifts of the Spirit differently than we do?
So, according to Scripture, when are we allowed to separate from other brothers and sisters? Does it bother you that Scripture speaks negatively about division?
(By the way, it looks like Ben Witherington has published (is publishing?) a little book about the Lord’s Supper that may be interesting.)
Spiderman 3…
Last night, my wife and I went to see Spiderman 3. I had read all the hype and the critics’ reviews. I had heard that Spiderman 3 made the Spiderman trilogy the best superhero trilogy ever (which is not saying much – remember Superman 3?). I had also read that without the special effects Spiderman 3 would still be an excellent movie.
So, what did I think? I think everything that I had heard and read was correct. The movie is wonderful! But, the reason that I liked the movie had little to do with what I had read.
I liked Spiderman 3 because the most powerful line in the movie was, “I forgive you”.
Matthew 18 and Discipline…
Yesterday, in response to my blog post “Local church again…“, a couple of people brought up the question of church discipline as it relates to structure and leadership. As I was thinking through this issue, and as I was reading through several passages about discipline, I found something new – at least, new to me. Now, I am not supposing that this is new to everyone, but since it is new to me, I thought I would post it here in case it was helpful to anyone else.
Here is the Scripture passage:
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17 ESV)
So, here is the interesting part… there are several commands given in this passage, and they are all given to the same person… that is, the person who is sinned against! (Now, before you ask about this, yes, I know that Jesus also says you should go to your brother if he has something against you.) Let’s step through this…
Brother A sins against brother B. Who is responsible for going to whom? Brother B is responsible for seeking reconciliation – that is, the one who is sinned against. In fact, brother B is commanded to go to brother A alone. (The commands that Jesus gives are 2nd person singular imperatives – “go and tell” – thus, they are given to the individual – brother B.)
If brother A does not repent, then who is responsible for taking two or three others? Again, brother B is responsible, and again Jesus commands brother B to carry out this step. (The command that Jesus gives is a 2nd person singular imperative – “take”.)
If brother A still does not repent, then who is responsible for telling the church? Once again, the command is given only to brother B, so the same brother who was sinned against is responsible for telling the church. (The command that Jesus gives is a 2nd person singular imperative – “tell”.)
Finally, if brother A does not repent when brother B tells the church, then who is responsible for treating him “as a Gentile and a tax collector”? Once again, it is brother B. Interestingly, Jesus does not say anything at all about how the two or three witnesses or the church should treat the unrepentant brother. Instead, the brother who is sinned against (that is, brother B) is once again given responsibility for how to treat brother A. (Jesus’ command is given to “you” as a 2nd person singular pronoun – “let him be to you”.) This is perhaps the most interesting point to me.
What does all of this tell me? It tells me that relationships with my brothers and sisters are MY responsibility. They are not the responsibility of other believers. If my brother or sister sins against me, it is MY responsibility (and no one else’s responsibility) to reconcile with my brother or sister. I would even extrapolate this to say that if my brother or sister feels that I have sinned against him or her, then it is MY responsibility (assuming the brother or sister does not approach me first) to reconcile with my brother or sister.
It would seem, if we take Jesus’ words at face value, that church discipline depends upon each believer – that is, discipline is all of our responsibility. Furthermore, neither structure, nor organization, nor leadership are necessary for effective church discipline, at least, not according to this passage. Perhaps, church discipline is not effective because I have not been upholding my responsibilities.
There is something fundamental about fellowship…
Fellowship… There is something about fellowship that makes it fundamental to the church. When Jesus was asked to name the greatest commandment, he answered:
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40 ESV)
There are at least two amazing things about this passage. First, Jesus did not stop with the commandment to “Love the Lord your God”. It would seem that commandment would be enough. Instead, he said there is a second command that is like it. Similarly, Jesus said that the Law and the Prophets depend on both of these commandments. Again, the Law and Prophets do not just depend on “Love the Lord your God”. The Law and the Prophets also depend on the commandment “Love your neighbor as yourself”.
There seems to be a fundamental connection between our relationship with God and our relationship with other people. John said something similar in his first letter:
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:7-8 ESV)
This seems very simple. If we love God, we will love others. If we do not love others, that demonstrates that we do not love God. The two are fundamentally connected.
In the prologue to his first letter, John also discussed our relationship with God in terms of our relationship with one another:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life – the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us – that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship (κοινωνία) with us; and indeed our fellowship (κοινωνία) is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3 ESV)
When we have fellowship (κοινωνία – koinonia) with one another, we are demonstrating our fellowship with God. Verse 3 could even be translated as follows: “… that you too may have fellowship with us, and that fellowship of ours is truly with the Father and with his son Jesus Christ.”
We cannot separate our love for God from our love for other people. We cannot separate our fellowship with God from our fellowship with other believers. Fellowship is fundamental in the life of a believer and in the inter-connected lives of a group of believers.
But, just as we cannot create love for God and others, we cannot create fellowship either. Instead, the Spirit creates a bond between His adopted children that humans cannot create on their own. The fellowship (“sharing”) that we have in common is the presence of the Holy Spirit. And, this fellowship exists between all believers. Certainly relationships can be deep or shallow, intimate or surface-level, but fellowship between believers is created by the Spirit, not by our interaction with one another. Relationships that are based on this Spirit-created fellowship should be nurtured, strengthened, encouraged, and sought through continued interaction. But, those relationships must be built fundamentally on Spirit-created fellowship.
What does it mean for fellowship to be fundamental to believers and the church? Here are two examples:
Discipleship depends on fellowship…
When we recognize that discipleship is more than simply teaching facts to someone, then the fundamental role of fellowship becomes clear. Discipleship requires sharing life together. Without fellowship, discipleship is reduced to the transfer of information, which is not true discipleship at all.
Discipline depends on fellowship…
When a brother or sister is living in unrepentant sin, we are taught to disassociate with that brother or sister. In modern times this has been reduced to preventing attendance at certain activities. However, if there is true fellowship involved, then discipline requires the rupture of vibrant relationships: like divorce in a family, back when divorce was not an accepted option.
Fellowship… There is something about fellowship that makes it fundamental to the church. I want to learn more about fellowship. Perhaps others could share what they’ve learned about Spirit-enabled, Spirit-created, Spirit-driven fellowship…
Is unity important?
A few days ago, I posted a blog called “Unity in Christ…” For hundreds of years – perhaps over a thousand years – the church was (more or less) united through hierarchy and doctrine. During the reformation, something incredible happened. Though believers sought to return to Scripture, they also began dividing. Today, the institutional church looks like a jigsaw puzzle with very few matching pieces. Why?
According to Scripture, there are various reasons that believers should separate from one another. (When I say “separate”, I mean refusing to fellowship, teach, and gather together.) However, in each of those instances, one group of believers is separate from an individual believer. This separation only happens after attempts to reconcile have failed. Also, there are only a few reasons given for dividing. More importantly, though, it seems that in Scripture, when a group of believers separates from someone, they begin to treat that person as if he or she is an unbeliever. We never see an example of believers separating from one another, while continuing to treat each other as believers.
What are some reasons for separating from someone who calls himself or herself a believer? I’ve found these reasons:
- Unrepentant Sin (Matt 18:15-20; 1 Cor 5:1-5)
- Disorderliness (2 Thess 3:6)
- Refusal to Work (2 Thess 3:7-10)
- False Teaching (contrary to the Gospel) (2 Thess 3:14-15; 1 Tim 1:20; 2 John 10-11)
In the last case, this always seems to be false teaching related to the gospel. In other words, believers should separate from someone who is teaching salvation through someone or something other than Jesus Christ. This kind of “false teaching” does not mean that someone teaches a different brand of eschatology from someone else. Teaching ideas contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ was considered “false teaching” – not teaching differently.
Scripture gives us one more reason for separating from another person who calls himself or herself a believer: divisiveness. Consider these passages of Scripture:
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. (Romans 16:17-18 ESV)
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 3:10-11 ESV)
In both of these passages, believers are urged to separate from someone who is attempting to divide the church. And, thinking about the other passages on discipline (i.e. Matt 18:15-20), this means that believers are to treat a divisive person as an unbeliever. This only works if there is true community/fellowship between believers. Only then will discipline affect the person being divisive. If the church has little community or fellowship, then the divisive person will not care if he or she is being disciplined. He will not care if other people are separating themselves from him, because he will not be missing anything.
When I put these thoughts together, something occurs to me. Unity is necessary if discipline is going to be a deterrent from divisiveness (or any other unrepentant sin). Think about that for a moment. In order for discipline to be effective, there must be unity. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that we rarely see discipline today: discipline doesn’t work because there is no unity to begin with. Of course, this is just one reason that the church should live in unity. There are many, many more reasons.
May we begin to live in unity with brothers and sisters in Christ, even if we disagree with them.
The Church Covenant…
As a child of God, I am in covenant with God – the New Covenant. This is a covenant that he made with me, that he secures, and that he regulates. He sets the responsibilities and duties for this covenant. He also determines the blessings of this covenant. In ethical terms, this is a “political covenant” as opposed to a “social covenant”.
Our church also has a covenant. Each person who desires to “join” our church covenants with one another.
Now, church covenants can be a very good thing. Church covenants can remind us of the responsibilities and duties that we have toward one another: responsibilities and duties that given to all believers by God. In fact, Scripture speaks frequently of these requirements. Most of them include the phrase “one another”: love one another, accept one another, forgive one another, encourage one another, admonish one another, etc.
However, church covenants can have a detrimental effect on believers. Many times church covenants are used to separate the church into exclusive groups.
For example, I was recently asked if I felt that I was responsible for meeting the needs of a believer who was not part of “our church”. (Note, this was not asked by someone who was a part of our church.) I answered, “If God reveals a need to me, and provides the means to meet that need, then I am responsible for meeting that need, whether or not that person is a member of our church.” The other person disagreed with me. Why? Because I was not “covenanted” with the other believer. According to this person, I was only responsible for those with whom I was “covenanted”.
Also, the idea of “covenant” is sometimes suggested as a limit to church discipline. A person is only responsible for “disciplining” a believer if he or she belongs to the same church, i.e. they are covenanted together.
In these two examples, the “church covenant” is used as a means of separating the church into mutually exclusive groups.
However, I cannot find an example in Scripture of one believer being “covenanted” with another believer. Every Christian is in covenant with God, and because of the New Covenant, we have responsibilities, some of which describe how we should relate to other believers. In Scripture, these responsibilities are not limited to certain believers. Yes, I understand that I cannot carry out these responsibilities toward people that I have never met. I am not arguing for that. Instead, I am arguing that we are responsible for how we relate to all believers that God brings across our path, not just those believers with whom we share membership.
I enjoy reading the church covenant with our church. It reminds me of the responsibilities that God has placed on me… but not just toward certain believers… toward all believers.
In the world, but not of the world…
Lately, I have been meditating on the following passage:
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler-not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Cor. 5:9-13)
This passage has been very convicting to me. As I have written previously, I usually live within a Christian subculture. As I look around, I see many Christians living within a Christian bubble. This is not the way that we are meant to live. We are meant to interact with the world: to be in the world though we are not of the world.
The interesting thing about the passage above is that we are taught to spend time with unbelievers-even with those who are sexually immoral, greedy, swindlers, and idolators. God expects us to spend time with them. However, we are told not even to eat with someone who calls himself a brother and lives in this manner.
This is not natural for me. I do not want to be around the sexually immoral, greedy, swindlers, and idolators. So, tonight I asked some of my brothers and sisters to hold me accountable to act just as Paul instructs us to act. In other words, I asked them to confront me if I am not spending more time eating with people who are not part of the kingdom of God. That seems strange even thinking it.
But, I know that it is God’s will. How do I know that it is God’s will? Well, besides the fact that Paul said so in 1 Cor. 5:9-13, I have a better way of knowing that it is God’s will for me to hang around lost people. I know it is his will, because that’s what he did.
Deliver such a one to Satan…
In light of my previous post concerning unity in the church (that is, the whole church, not simply the local church), I have been searching for Scripture where the church is instructed to separate from an individual (Note: I use “separate” to mean “church discipline – breaking fellowship as described in Matt 18:15-20”). Here are some of the reasons for separation that I have found:
- Unrepentant Sin (Matt 18:15-20; 1 Cor 5:1-5)
- Divisiveness (Rom 16:17-18; Titus 3:10-11)
- Disorderliness (2 Thess 3:6)
- Refusal to Work (2 Thess 3:7-10)
- False Teaching (contrary to the Gospel) (2 Thess 3:14-15; 1 Tim 1:20; 2 John 10-11)
Please understand that I am talking about separating from a person who calls himself a brother (a believer). In these cases, I believe that Scripture teaches that the church is to treat the individual as if he were a “heathen” – that is, not a part of the church.
Two questions: 1) Can you find other scriptural reasons for believers to separate from their brothers or sisters? 2) Are there any scriptural reasons for believers to disassociate from other believers without considering them under church discipline?