From time to time I’ve been on the receiving end of criticism about ‘playing the man and not the ball’—that is, for raising questions about the character of a speaker, rather than majoring on the content of their teaching. So people have wanted to say, for example, that it is impolite, rude and even ungodly behaviour to label a Brian Houston or a Rowan Williams as a false teacher in danger of hell, and to suggest, furthermore, that they are making their followers twice as fit for hell as they are themselves. (Oops, did it again! Let’s move right along; nothing more to see in this paragraph …)
It is, possibly, ironic to be criticizing the motives, character and godliness of someone for raising questions about motives, character and godliness. But we can pass over this small difficulty, for the more important complaint seems to be that such character attacks fail to do justice to the substance of what a false teacher is saying.
On the face of it, this is a reasonable objection. After all, it may well be that people who write books with titles like You Need More Money or Teresa of Avila are, indeed, promoting a false gospel. But how can we know unless we look past the speaker or writer, and read or listen attentively to what they have to say?
Well, fair enough, at one level. After all, one of the ways false character in wicked teachers reveals itself is not usually in an obviously immoral lifestyle, since openly immoral or violent people tend not to rise very far up the leadership scale. Even if they do, they generally manage to conceal their grosser sins from the eyes of churches they pastor. When Paul sums up his view of human sinfulness in Romans 3:10-18, notice that a significant number of his Old Testament quotes concern not so much our actions as our thoughts, and, subsequently, our mouths and what comes out of them:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
Paul diagnoses the human condition painfully well: it’s throats, tongues, lips and mouths that cause great damage—damage as great as any other body parts are capable of doing. His thought parallels James, who observed that “the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness” (3:6). So if we are trying to spiritually dismember lying liars, we need to pay at least some attention to their lying lies. How can we truly interact with the author of Teresa of Avila, some may ask, if we are unaware of what he or she said? (There are a few Teresa of Avila authors out there, not to mention the lady herself.)
All these thoughts were dashing through my mind faster than a one-horse open sleigh when I stumbled upon Romans 16:17-20, which I’m reading because I’ve been hurtling towards the conclusion of a series of Matthias Media Romans Bible studies faster than a blog post to a point. Have a read:
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. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
(Before you read on, make sure you check the immediate context to ensure that I’m not about to twist Paul’s words a la your average false teacher.)
This is a good warning from Paul about false teachers. We ought to “avoid them”. It is also a great encouragement that God is going to judge them: “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.”. Even if we can’t face down our false teacher problems entirely, we know that God will get them in the end.
But an important question remains: just exactly who are these false teachers? Well, if you want an honest answer, ‘I don’t know’ is probably the best. If you want to do better and get a scholarly, thoughtful, honest answer, here’s Doug Moo:
Identifying these false teachers is nearly impossible.
He says this on page 929 of his otherwise reasonably detailed commentary. Essentially, so out of the blue is Paul’s attack on these false teachers that a few desperate commentators have even resorted to saying that this is not really a part of Paul’s letter to the Romans. Someone, they suggest (perhaps Paul’s Aunty Gladys or a helpful scribe) thought something was lacking from Paul’s letter, and just popped this bit in to round the message out a bit. For there really has been no mention of false teachers and their beliefs anywhere in the letter up to this point (Romans 3:8 is as close as you’re going to get). Unfortunately for commentators, however, the idea that this bit of Romans was added in after the event has not a single shred of supporting textual evidence.
To return to our topic, however, what exactly does Paul do to help his Roman readers identify and respond rightly to these false teachers? Simple: he attacks the character of the people doing the false teaching. As far as the content of their teaching goes, he has nothing to say. The only issue of substance Paul addresses is that they don’t think the same as he does—that is, to quote Paul, they “create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught” (Rom 16:17). Beyond that, he just describes what these people are like: they don’t serve the Lord Jesus, they follow their own appetites, they use smooth talk, they are flatterers, they deceive the naive, they sell their grandmothers, they hang around schoolyards and take photos using mobile phones, and so on.
All right, I admit the last couple of items on that list were completely made up. But even so, this two-verse dismissal of false teachers is darker and smearier than a piece of Vegemite. It is a complete hatchet job on Paul’s part.
May the Lord Jesus grant us the courage to treat all false teachers with the same contempt.
It would seem to me that Paul in Rom 16 is actually suggesting an approach which is contrary to what you assume. Isn’t his point precisely that we shouldn’t be taken in by appearances, and that we should go straight to the content of their message in order to make our judgments? The mark here is doctrine (v17, & esp. vs 25-26), not appearances. Note also that it’s the ‘naive’ (v18) people who are deceived by such shallow things as ‘smooth talk’. I think the assumption here is that if we know our stuff then we’ll not be side-tracked by character. All this points to the message being the key test, <i>despite</i> what it is that we observe.
While not denying that bad character and false teaching are linked, it still remains a logical fallacy to rely on <i>mere</i> appearances to decry a person’s theology. Hillsong is a questionable church because of what they say and teach, not because they have a sound desk “the size of a billiard table”
Gordo – I guess my reluctance to publicly critique those who are wrong – is that it’s a slippery slope to joining those like our friends at that creationist site (that I won’t name for obvious reasons).
Where do we draw the line between bad teaching and herecy? Is wrong teaching always the same as false teaching? My reading of Pauline writing suggests that there are teachers who teach wrong things for their own personal gain, and with the purpose of leading people astray – and those who teach in error (eg Peter re: circumcision).
I wonder where that line is – and I wonder if polemic is the best way to “dialogue” with people we disagree with.
I think the instruction regarding false teachers in the first category is clear – but there must be room for Christian teachers to make mistakes. Given that we are sinful fallen creatures by nature.
Heretic is such a loaded word based on church history that I am incredibly hesitant to apply it – even to the aforementioned Houston. The prosperity doctrine, while wrongheaded, does not question the primacy and lordship of Jesus in the way that someone like Spong does.
The scriptural standards for preachers set the bar pretty high – and God no doubt will judge shepherds of his flock with regards to how they lead the sheep. But I’m not sure it falls to us to play the man – more question the legitimacy of the teaching.
Having said that – I’m just as eager as you to lovingly sink the boot in to those in error.
I think this is an absolutely critical issue to discuss because the issue of character is tied directly to inegrity. (I would also add the part in Matthew (I think!) where Jesus said it what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.) So many people claim to be Christian but when you closely examine their words and compare then to their actions and the Bible there’s contradiction all over the shop. I take it then that we’re to weigh up their character because if it’s lacking then all they teach is in questions. Words and actions just go hand in hand… Often when you question someone’s character you get the old ‘judge not that ye not be judged’ which itself is taken out of conext because those who say it overlook the fact that one day God WILL judge!
I’ve been engaged in a discussion on FB over the last week with Christians who actually believe that you (not you personally, Gordo!) can be a practising homosexual and Christian at the same time… When pressing these people they typically arrive at their conclusions by junking parts of Scripture that they just don’t like (e.g. Leviticus 18, 20, Romans 1), disparaging the human authors who co-wrote it (saying Paul was a wowser and contradictory), and even doubting if all the Bible actually comes from Him. They can’t even get their minds around the marital model of Genesis 2-3, that sex belongs in marriage and instead of talking about that part of Scripture they niggle about the law. They can’t debunk Genesis 2-3 so then they invent crafty doctrines like ‘All sexuality is from God and we glorify Him by practising what we feel like doing’. When you take a closer look at their lives they talk smutty jokes, speak about purile things, and profess hatred of other Christians who hold to the Bible as truth and shut down dialogue with them. At that point you really start to wonder if they are Christian… Their claims to be Christian are denied by their actions and eventually the words catch up with them.
The problem with this all is that it’s creating confusion among Christians and some Bible-believing ones today still don’t know what the Bible actually says about the subject because there’s been so much confusion. Eventually people start to doubt the goodness of God and the clarity of what he says on such subjects because people with wicked characters and intent are white-anting the discussion.
I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that the character of teachers allows us to cast doubts on their teaching, or that their teaching allows us to cast doubts on their character?
It seems to be the second.
One assumes that Pauls description of these particular false teachers was true, rather than a prescription or even example of how to throw mud at someone who may be teaching an error.
Surely then our speech about the character of particular false teachers should bear some resemblence to their character, even if we are to warn our people away from them. In fact, if we are to warn our people well, then we need to pay close attention to the reality of the teachers character.
While error can come from malicious conniving, it can also come from the best of intentions, even from good godly people. If we go about saying that all who teach error do it for one reason, or we slander those teachers without really looking into the reality, eventually our poeple will find out and think the warning irrelevant.
Or even worse, they may think that because they don’t cause dissentions, or aren’t particularly driven by appetite, and aren’t nasty deceivers or flatterers, that they are then immune from falling into, and even teaching error.
Yet let us look back at your Romans passage ” There is no one good”.
It would seem to me that Paul in Rom 16 is actually suggesting an approach which is contrary to what you assume. Isn’t his point precisely that we shouldn’t be taken in by appearances, and that we should go straight to the content of their message in order to make our judgments?
Marty, if this is so, where in Romans do we find evidence that Paul takes his own advice?