When the Pantheon of Christian Greats Blows It

Standard

C.S. Lewis, from another viewI mostly read dead authors, at least when I’m considering Christian theology. Call me crazy, but I find more truth in those writers than what I read in modern ones. My personal library reads like a big list of dead guys: Lloyd-Jones, Schaeffer, Tozer, Lewis, Bounds, Ravenhill, Edwards, Nee, Murray, Torrey, and Bonhoeffer.

We all have our pantheon of Christian greats, the people who inspire us and many times provide us our ideas as to what is true and right within the Christian life. I listed some of mine above. I’m sure you have your own.

But sometimes our Hall of Christian Fame gets us in trouble. From the reaction in some corners of the Godblogosphere, Tim Challies tossed a heap of burning coals on his own head last week when he quoted a list of great Christians who believed the Roman Catholic Church to be the antichrist.

No matter where you stand on that topic, the question lingers: Can great Christians be mistaken?

When I was at Wheaton College, I took a New Testament overview class from Dr. Robert Yarbrough, currently professor of New Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary. (I’ll say without flinching that Dr. Yarbrough may be the most intelligent Christian I’ve ever met, especially when it comes to the Bible. That class was my favorite at Wheaton.) When he discussed Revelation, he outlined at least a dozen end times scenarios, when they were popular, and most of all, some great Christians who supported those scenarios.

What struck me during that teaching was not the scenarios themselves, but the revelation (excuse the pun) that some exceedingly wise and far more biblically diligent folks than I arrived at the wrong eschatology. And for those who avoided predictions as to when the end would come, the law of non-contradiction alone will prove most of those theologians wrong when the End indeed arrives.

Given that all of us have fallen short of the glory of God and see through a glass darkly, ALL great Christians are wrong somewhere in either their faith or practice. I’m willing to say that the apostles were certainly as close as it gets to perfection, yet Peter’s brush with the Judaizers showed that even apostles could have feet of clay.

This is not a question of Biblical infallibility. I believe the Bible to be the perfect and infallible word of God.  But this IS about the foibles of human agents of God.

Pick a topic and you’ll find great Christians on opposing sides. At Monergism.com, witness the solid people at opposite poles on the credobaptist and paedobaptist position. Someone’s wrong, right? Who wins the tag team between John MacArthur and John Piper (credobaptists) and John Calvin and Martin Luther (paedobaptists)? If you want to go with the bulk of historicity here, then the latter win.

But what if the Reformers are wrong? And if they’re wrong on that one position, what other errors may lie in waiting for the undiscerning?

It bothers me sometimes that we treat great Christians as if they could never, ever, in a billion years have a mistaken position on an important piece of doctrine. The Godblogosphere is bristling with defenders of this great Christian or that, and God help anyone who questions that great Christian for even one second! People are so dogmatically in one corner massaging the shoulders of their Spurgeon, Tozer, Aquinas, or Merton and whispering into their man’s ear, “Throw the uppercut this round!” that they’re blind to their hero’s own glass jaw.

It’s not just dogma, either. It’s fairly common knowledge that some Christian greats who were married didn’t have rosy marriages by the standard we uphold today. No one liked Wesley’s wife, and evidently, neither did he. (Gives a whole new perspective to the amount of time John spent away from home.) Plenty of great Christians smoked and drank alcohol (which I think will get you pilloried in the SBC, if the latest conference is any indication), while other great Christians opposed such behavior. Who’s right? Who’s wrong?

The Bible says this about our hero fascination:

But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
—1 Corinthians 3:1-11 ESV

Just a couple weeks ago, a commenter at another blog said she’d gotten a lot out of reading Watchman Nee. The very next comment was from someone warning her about Nee. I immediately responded that the Bible teaches us to be discerning about ALL things, not just what troubles us. Truthfully, the greatest errors arise when we cast our discernment aside because “Hey, I’m reading my favorite Christian great who I’ve enshrined on my altar of godliness.” What we build upon the foundation of Jesus Christ matters, and from time to time even the Augustines, Spurgeons, Tozers, Calvins, Luthers, Lewises, and Schaeffers of this world molded a few questionable bricks.

As the great theologian Sergeant Phil Esterhaus of Hill Street Blues fame proclaimed:

“Hey, let’s be careful out there.”

Hunted Down

Standard

Well, on the heels of “Who Watches the Watchers?” I finally wound up on the wrong side of a hunt. I’d considered the possibility of some blowback from that post and was surprised when there was none. It just took a few days, I guess.

Jim’s a good guy and I like his blog because he contends for the Gospel, so I’m not going to post a defense here. There’s too much personal attacking, defending, and retaliating in the Godblogosphere already.

You can read the post and decide for yourselves.

Who Watches the Watchers?

Standard

Watching the Heretic HuntersCerulean Sanctum lost a few links from the sidebar Kingdom Links. Some blogs went comatose, their bloggers on extended sabbatical or having said “Adios!” to blogging altogether. WordPress will render “invisible” those links you wish to keep but not display. Rather than hit the delete key, I did a Claude Rains with Mysterium Tremendum, Shizuka Blog, John Wesley’s Journal, and The Gad(d)about with the expectation that they might some day return.

But a couple live blogs I deleted outright. The common factor in those links and blogs that I will no longer read is that they were mostly heretic-hunting blogs.

Old timers here know that I’ve discussed the Godblogosphere’s explosion of heretic hunters and taken a middle-of-the-road approach: We need to root out heresy, but we also need to do it soberly and with care.

But I’ve seen enough. The following are the reasons why I will no longer support those sites:

1. They’re not confronting soberly and with care.
2. They’re using dubious logic and questionable facts to assail their targets.
3. They disingenuously look the other way when their favorite sources violate their standards.
4. They often ignore the whole counsel of Scripture.
5. They operate in the same manner as the targets they criticize.
6. They overlook their own issues.
7. They utterly refuse correction when they’re clearly wrong.

I was originally going to name names, but that flies in the face of how I typically address issues at Cerulean Sanctum. I’m sure every Godblogger has been irresponsible in a couple of those above points before (including here), but not on the consistent level of the heretic hunters. Many of you will already know the sites I’m hinting at. If you’ve read them, you know those sites refuse correction anyway, so naming them will not make a difference in how they promulgate their particular brand of “righteous” ire.

I’m also stemming the criticism sure to come my way that by posting this, I’m just as guilty as the heretic hunters are. Honestly, that may be true. The difference, I hope, is that I’m willing to admit it upfront and to say that I may be wrong. I also hope this post is written without a trace of snarkiness or pleasure in the writing. It’s sad to me that this post even has to exist.

Nonetheless…

Here’s a breakdown of how these sites fail in the seven points listed above:
Not confronting soberly and with care

Over time, the tone on some of these blogs and sites has turned particularly gleeful in routing perceived enemies. But just as God takes no delight in the downfall of the wicked, rather hoping that they would repent, no Christian blogger should do a “Ha! Ha!” a la The Simpsons‘ Nelson Muntz when they see a perceived enemy stumble. Nor should we joke about error or make fun of our enemies. And while it is fine for the Apostle Paul to “wish they’d go emasculate themselves,” none of us is Paul, or even a pale copy of him.

The other problem here is the absolute unwillingness to personally contact supposed heretics to doublecheck facts or to get a clearer understanding. The Lord doesn’t want His Church whispering in alleys about this fallen brother or that. The Church is not bettered by innuendo—and much of what passes for “truth” on some of these heretic hunting sites borders on innuendo. Or at least questionable facts. Just once I’d love to see something along the lines of “I spoke with Richard Foster about this perceived problem and we came to an understanding.” But sadly, holding my breath to see that sort of responsible confrontation will surely lead to little more than a change in my overall skin color and an eventual fall from my office chair.

I’ve attempted to confront some of the writers of the heretic hunting sites on numerous occasions, but they’re almost impossible to locate. No e-mail addresses, no comments allowed on their blogs or sites, no way of getting through to them (more about that further down.) In those cases where the bloggers are available, confrontation is stemmed by having comments deleted or being disallowed from a site. I firmly acknowledge a blogger’s right to manage his or her own site, but still. An unwillingness to connect directly speaks volumes about the folks behind the blogs—and none of it in keeping with true Christlikeness. None of us should be afraid to reason together with fellow believers.

Using dubious logic and questionable facts to assail their targets

Rampant, rampant, rampant. As much as many of these sites claim to be intellectual or to uphold wisdom, their command of logic and reality is often lacking.

I’ve read some of the books the hunters claim are from the devil’s own hand and I swear I read a different book than they did. I’m well-acquainted with Richard Foster’s Celebration of Discipline and questioned some of the practices in the Meditation section long before the heretic hunters made Foster a whipping boy. But when an all-out assault on spiritual disciplines occurred earlier this year on some of the heretic-hunting sites, I had to question if the hunters had even bothered to read any of Foster beyond the few quotes they all seemed to be shunting around from one of their sites to another.

So out-of-context were some of those statements that it was clear that the hunter never bothered to read the entire book, or read it in such a way that the chip never left the shoulder and the “Ah hah! There’s more heresy!” was never far from the lips. But that kind of apporach does severe injustice to genuine Christian scholarship and knowledge. In truth, it’s little more than presupposition and eisegesis. Nor does it call for real discernment. Blanket condemnation based on presuppositions is not godly grappling with truths and lies.

One of the most egregious examples of the kind of nonsensical logic and reasoning employed by some of the hunters came when a Christian drumming conference that advertised “drumming in the Spirit” was equated with African shamanism for no other reason than that drums were used. The heretic hunter in this case used twisted logic to say that because A uses B for dark purposes, any use of B is therefore dark. Now, I’m not Joe Carter of The Evangelical Outpost , so I lack the facility with fallacies that Joe possesses, but I’m smart enough to know one when I see one. If the argument used by the heretic hunter is valid, then almost every practice that takes place in our Sunday services is out because some other non-Christian religion uses a similar practice. Goodbye to communion, prayer, the laying on of hands, worship, and nearly everything else.

That sort of guilt by association is the primary means by which many of these sites denigrate individuals, too. Christian A endorsed the book by Speaker B who on a single occasion spoke at a church lead by Pastor C who knew Worship Leader D who once led worship in the church of Reverend E who in passing said something nice about supposed Heretic F. Therefore, Christian A is a false prophet and teacher because the chain leads to Heretic F. And how do we know Heretic F is a heretic? Well, in the heretic hunter’s blog posts from last week, he/she used that same six degrees of separation method with a different set of conspirators to prove that case.

And on it goes, a sort of Last Man Standing game of theological musical chairs. Sadly, the favored sources for proving this person or that is heretical can have the same sort of tactic applied to them. Everyone is tied to the tainted. This is a no-win effort that only makes the entire Church look bad. Just as bad, it gets perilously close to fearmongering and conspiracy theories. From the content I’ve seen on some of these blogs, The Da Vinci Code hasn’t cornered the market on either of those two.

Disingenuously looking the other way when their favorite sources violate their standards

Oh my, is this one huge. Even bigger than Joel Osteen’s church. I’m talkin’ ginormous huge.

I start with one of my favorite sources, A.W. Tozer. Tozer is the patron saint of many heretic-hunting sites. They quote him religiously and use his writings to slay every manner of dragon. Good for them! Tozer, who also happens to be the patron saint of Cerulean Sanctum, had a prophetic voice unlike any to come out of modern Evangelicalism in the last sixty years. The heretic-hunting sites call on Tozer’s keen understanding of the perilous decline of Evangelicalism to prove their points whenever a modern Evangelical heretic needs a solid keister kicking.

But let’s go back to look at some of the issues many of the heretic hunters are confronting: the surge in Christian mysticism, a reliance on feelings and ecstatic union with God in worship, getting back to what the desert fathers and monastics had to say about the Faith, recovering ancient church practices, and more. All barrels are blazing, firing volley after volley into the backsides of any Christian leader who happens to support those ideas and practices. And what is the weapon used to devastate these new apostates? The writings of Tozer.

The bitter truth here is that Tozer was an apologist for many of those supposed heresies, but the heretic hunters selectively quote his writings in such a way as to twist Tozer against the very things he stood for! In my opinion, that’s downright deceptive on the part of those sites that are doing this.

One of the books widely quoted is a series of sermons Tozer delivered that have been printed up as Whatever Happened to Worship? A Call to True Worship. As a huge fan of Tozer, it’s one of the few collections of his I had not read.

But after reading this book this last week, the one thing apparent to me is that the heretic sites are completely misrepresenting the book in an effort to have Tozer say many things in support of their position that he’s simply not saying. We should all have a problem with that kind of disingenuous use of the words of notable Christians.

Here are a few samples from Whatever Happened to Worship?:

Tozer on the Christian way to confront liberals and others who oppose orthodox Christianity

We who are the fundamentalists and the “orthodox” Christians have gained the reputation of being “tigers”—great fighters for the truth. Our hands are heavy with callouses from the brass knuckles we have worn as we beat on the liberals. Because of the meaning of our Christian faith for a lost world, we are obligated to stand up for the truth and to contend for the faith when necessary.

But there is a better way, even in our dealing with those who are liberals in faith and theology. We can do a whole lot more for them by being Christlike than we can by figuratively beating them over the head with our knuckles

The liberals tell us they cannot believe the Bible. They tell us they cannot believe that Jesus Christ was the unique Son of God. At least most of them are honest about it. Moreover, I am certain we are not going to make them bow the knee by cursing them. If we are led by the Spirit of God and if we show forth the love of God this world needs, we become the “winsome saints.”

The strange and wonderful thing about it is that truly winsome and loving saints do not even know about their attractiveness. The great saints of past eras did not know they were great saints. If someone had told them, they would not have believed it, but those around them knew that Jesus was living His life in them.

The definition of winsome: “Charming, often in a childlike or naive way.”

All I ask is this: Are these heretic hunters winsome by any stretch of the word?

Tozer on feelings and mystery being a part of true worship of God

We find much of spiritual astonishment and wonder in the book of Acts. You will always find these elements present when the Holy Spirit directs believing men and women.

On the other hand, you will not find astonished wonder among men and women when the Holy Spirit is not present. Engineers can do many great things in their fields, but no mere human force or direction can work the mysteries of God among men. If there is no wonder, no experience of mystery, our efforts to worship will be futile. There will be no worship without the Spirit.

If God can be understood and comprehended by any of our human means, then I cannot worship Him. One thing is sure. I will never bend my knees and say “Holy, holy, holy” to that which I have been able to decipher and figure out in my own mind! That which I can explain will never bring me to the place of awe. It can never fill me with astonishment or wonder or admiration.

The philosophers called the ancient mystery of the personhood of God the “mysterium conundrum.” We who are God’s children by faith call Him “our Father which art in heaven.” In sections of the church where there is life and blessing and wonder in worship, there is also the sense of divine mystery.

And…

I don’t know, my friend, how that makes you feel—but I feel that I must give God the full response of my heart. I am happy to be counted as a worshiper.

Well, that word “feel” has crept in here and I know that you may have an instant reaction against it. In fact, I have had people tell me very dogmatically that they will never allow “feeling” to have any part in their spiritual life and experience. I reply, “Too bad for you!” I say that because I have voiced a very real definition of what I believe true worship to be: worship is to feel in the heart!

In the Christian faith, we should be able to use the word “feel” boldly and without apology. What worse thing could be said of us as the Christian church if it could be said that we are a feelingless people?

And yet so many of the sites that quote Tozer liberally will deny that feelings and mystery play any part in the Faith.

Tozer on the value of Christian mystics

I hope you have read some of the devotionals left us by that dear old English saint, Lady Julian, who lived more than 600 years ago. She wrote that one day she had been thinking about how high and lofty Jesus was, and yet how He Himself meets the humblest part of our human desire. She received such blessing within her being that she could not control herself. She let go with a shout and praised God out loud in Latin. Translated into English, it would have come out “Well, glory to God!”

Now, if that bothers you, friend, it may be because you do not know the kind of spiritual blessings and delight the Holy Spirit is waiting to provide among God’s worshiping saints.

Friends of Tozer repeatedly joked about his “girlfriend.” That would be the “Lady Julian” he mentions above—Julian of Norwich, a Catholic mystic.

And there’s more…

I mean no ill toward other Calvinists when I point out that all of the heretic hunters I’ve run across on the Web are strict disciples of John Calvin, some even going so far as to say that if you’re not a five-pointer, you’re not a Christian. It’s a shame there aren’t more good Arminian blogs and bloggers out there, but if they were to degenerate into that same rhetoric, perhaps it’s a good thing they stay off the Web.

Tozer again on the reality of what we Christians label ourselves

We are told that when John Wesley was dying, he tried to sing, but his voice was nearly gone. He was almost ninety. He had traveled hundreds of thousands of miles on horseback, preaching three or four times daily in founding a great church. He was plainly Arminian in his theology, but as his Christian family and friends gathered around his bed, he was trying to sing the words of an old Calvinist hymn:

I will praise my Maker while I’ve breath, And when my soul is lost in death, Praise shall employ my nobler powers.

That is why I cannot get all heated up about contending for one theological side or another on that issue. If Isaac Watts, a Calvinist, could write such praise to God and John Wesley, an Arminian, could sing it with yearning and they both can meet and hug one another in glory, why should I allow anyone to force me to confess, “I don’t know which I am!” Why should anyone bother me with an issue like that?

I was created to worship and praise God. I was redeemed that I should worship Him and enjoy Him forever.

That is the primary issue, my brother or sister. That is why we earnestly invite men and women to become converted, taking Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord.

If the heretic hunters are quoting portions of Tozer that support their ideas, but rejecting just as many that dispute them vehemently (even on the very heretical topics they’re attempting to refute), how can anyone reading them trust them to accurately portray the ideas of any great Christian they quote?

Often ignoring the whole counsel of Scripture

In the same way that selective quoting of great Christians occurs, so too is the Bible often reduced to the same well-worn passages, while others are ignored altogether if they don’t immediately prove the heretic hunter’s point or make it hard to explain. But as much as many of those sites say it’s wrong for a heretic to base an entire doctrine off a single Scripture (or two), the heretic hunters employ that same tactic. Again, the hunter becomes the hunted if consistency is applied.

Heretics that go back to experience, tradition, and history are soundly booed because they’re looking outside the Scriptures for answers. Yet heretic hunters who denigrate charismatics like to pick a single widely-disputed verse out 1 Corinthians 13 and then call on experience, tradition, and history to supposedly prove that all the charismata have ceased. I’m not trying to pick doctrinal fights here, only to point out their astonishing inconsistency in sticking to their own rules.

I just can’t take people seriously who say that it’s okay for them to play outside “The Rules,” but no one else can. And that leads into the next problem…

Operating in the same manner as the targets they criticize

I think I’ve made that point clear in the commentary already.

Overlooking their own issues

Yes, we know from the heretic hunters that Brian McLaren, Rick Warren, Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, Ravi Zacharias, and {fill in the blank with any popular Christian leader} are leading the Church astray. Okay, horse beaten. While I do not have the space to cover all the reasons for their beliefs in those regards, I can at least understand concerns. Every Christian leader needs some correction now and then. Consider the thumping Paul gave Peter for The Rock’s concessions to the Judaizers.

Cerulean Sanctum is a site that aims for Church purity as much as any other out there, so I’m not happy when any Christian, no matter how famous, gets something wrong.

But whatever happened to the idea that we’re sinners saved by grace and see through a glass darkly this side of Eternity?

And is doctrinal impurity in others any more harmful than being personally unloving, prideful, spiteful, and unwilling to be disciplined as needed? Yet so many of the heretic hunters, by the very words they write on their blogs and sites, show an abundance of those unwelcome traits.

Sometimes a speck has to be removed from an eye. But as the Lord commanded, we must remove our own log first.

That brings us to my last comment.

Utterly refusing correction when they’re clearly wrong

There is no surer sign of spiritual pride than a refusal to be rebuked when rebuke is warranted.

I will say this to start: most of the supposed heretics and heretic hunters out there are better Christians than I am. My own spiritual sloth is ever before me. But one thing I do know, I’m willing to be corrected when I need it. I may argue with someone about that correction, but that point is still taken as it thaws on my leather-like hide and gradually sinks in. I’m certainly not the brute beast I was long ago.

But when I’ve confronted some of the heretic hunters on points of error, I’ve either had my faith questioned, my comments censored, or been given the complete brush-off. I will acknowledge that one site pulled a post after I noted the blogger’s horrendous slam on Third World Christians, but lately my other correcting comments have been deleted. The message sent to me and others like me is clear.

Those are reasons why I can no longer include links to well-known heretic hunting blogs in my sidebar links or read them myself. Yes, they can have good things to say, but there are other sources out there who more perfectly model the way we Christians should deal with the wayward. As Tozer said, we should always let our winsomeness speak for the Lord first .

There’s something to be said for the velvet-wrapped hammer.