The Ministry of Criticism?
Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk, hits it right on the head with his article Talk Hard. When evangelicals dare to be critical, we are “hateful” and “divisive” and “mean-spirited” (tip: anytime anyone uses “mean-spirited” in a sentence, consider it short for “I’m unable to string together a cohesive thought line, so I’ll just toss out a pejorative”. Do the same every time you hear the “word” “homophobia”.). Granted, we need to do so humbly, recognizing our own weakness and lack of understanding, “considering ourselves, lest we also be tempted”, admitting that the sin of spiritual pride lurks at every turn. But this is a necessary ministry; the alternative is the tacit approval, even encouragement, of at best, mediocrity, and at worst, rank heresy. God bless, Michael; I’m on the team with you. Soli Deo Gloria…
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
8 Responses to “The Ministry of Criticism?”
I think I mentioned in another Comment in this blog that the pastor’s responsibility is to protect the church from false teachers who would mislead the believers with false doctrine (Acts 20:28).
It may not be politically correct. We may fail to exhibit the proper grace. People may be offended.
But if we don’t deal with Osteen, we’ll have to answer to the Head of the Chruch for our failure.
Who would you rather face?
Bud Brown ~ Feb 3, 2005 at 2:04 pm
So true, Bud, so true. We have feet of clay, and humility is essential. But discernment is so lacking in the church today, and we must recover it–no wonder our evangelical faith is so anemic…
Byron ~ Feb 3, 2005 at 2:38 pm
When evangelicals dare to be critical, we are “hateful†and “divisive†and “mean-spirited†(tip: anytime anyone uses “mean-spirited†in a sentence, consider it short for “I’m unable to string together a cohesive thought line, so I’ll just toss out a pejorative”.
While I find it unfair to label all evangelicals “hateful” or “mean-spirited,” these labels do, in fact, fit with many of my brothers who have done the name of Christ no favors in the way they have “spoken out” against sins in society–with no compassion, with no humility, and with a haughty self-righteousness that does not fit sinners saved by grace. The people in our culture are fed up with evangelicals because of the way we have been critical–no longer listening, just barking at them and thumping our Bibles.
The other night, we saw an amazing thing on CNN (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/01/lkl.01.html). Larry King had some of Time’s “Most Influential Evangelicals” on, and the contrast in gentleness and humility and lovingkindness between Tim LaHaye and Brian McLaren was remarkable.
Sure, our faith must guide our public discourse and what we will and won’t support in public policy. But the (sometimes) “hateful” and “mean-spirited” rhetoric of the Christian Right has got to go.
Bob Robinson ~ Feb 3, 2005 at 7:21 pm
Of course you’re right, Bob; there are many times when that is a good characterization. My problem, of course, is that that is the charge–just for raising the issue. It becomes “you’re mean-spirited for questioning Joel Osteen”. No, I may be ugly in the way I do it, or I may not–and I hope that my spirit is always the latter–but merely raising concerns, and calling a spade a spade in all humility, does not make one “mean-spirited”. But–does the Christian Right have a monopoly on the ugliness?
Byron ~ Feb 3, 2005 at 9:54 pm
Nobody has the monopoly on ugliness. This last election proved that.
And you are right about trying to remain true to Jesus and the revelation provided to us in the Bible (and I agree with you about misgivings about Osteen).
But I’ve seen well-intentioned Christians criticize without “gentleness and respect” and aweful lot. I saw it most recently in Steve Camp’s criticism of Brian McLaren.
It serves us better to dialogue and listen rather than attack in many cases. We have a prominent church here in Canton that is lead by protoges of Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland. I am openly critical, but I’ve also been in dialogue with people who are in leadership there and who have attended there. I am very careful not to come across as being “mean-spirited;” I try to show humility in that “I don’t know everything,” and “my theology itself is always changing, always reforming,” and “I haven’t arrived yet” and “I don’t have a monopoly on truth.”
“…but as I see it, this here (XYZ) is the gospel, not the word-of-faith and name-it-and-claim-it stuff the leadership at this large church is preaching. Let’s look at what the Bible says…show me what you think proves your point, and I will legitimately listen and try to understand. And at the same time, I’ll show you what I think proves my point, and I ask you to listen as well. Let’s allow God to work through this dialogue.”
Bob Robinson ~ Feb 3, 2005 at 10:31 pm
Do give Steve credit–in the same breath–for backing off when challenged as to his spirit in the matter…
I’m with you to a point, Bob; respect is always in order. I’ll respect a Mormon or a JW, of course, and try to reason with them from Scripture. At the same time, Joel Osteen isn’t the guy around the corner; he’s a guy with a huge platform and Family Christian Store’s “Book of the Year” (so I’m told), and he probably isn’t going to make time for me to bend his ear. I pray for him; I do not question his salvation; I speak with respect instead of flaming. But I can read what he says and evaluate it and say, “this is not the gospel of Jesus Christ”. There is no dialogue necessary to make that claim, for it is “plain as the nose on your face”. A spade must be called a spade. And this spade ain’t a Jesus spade…actually, that may be one of the dumbest ways of putting something I’ve ever written…
Byron ~ Feb 3, 2005 at 10:42 pm
Even though you left the door WIDE open, I will exercise the better part of self-control and NOT be “mean-spirited†(ie. “…that may be one of the dumbest…â€). Byron, I’m gonna have to agree with Bob to some degree on this one. You and I have discussed this before. I understand the importance of protecting “the flockâ€, as it were, from wolves in cheap clothing.
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world†– 1 John 4:1-3.
By this definition it seems pretty clear that Mr. Osteen falls into the category of “false prophet” and should be called out as such. But believers must take great care in the way they go about it. “The people in our culture ARE fed up with evangelicals because of the way we have been critical…†The apostle Paul points out that “…we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but SPEAKING THE TRUTH IN LOVE, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ…†– Ephesians 4:14-15. I just think we could use a little more truth spoken in love and a little less harsh rhetoric and angry tones from the evangelicals that dare to be critical. “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good†– Romans 12:21.
Don ~ Feb 4, 2005 at 12:57 pm
You’ve written nothing I disagree with, Don. Nothing. So far, I think that that has been the tone I’ve seen vis a vis Osteen. I’m just saying that any criticism at all is immediately lumped into the “hate” category, and it’s just not true. But you’re correct as usual, King Friday.
Byron ~ Feb 4, 2005 at 3:45 pm