On Naming Names

Aaron Armstrong has written a helpful post on whether or not we should publicly name false teachers. The only thing I would push back against is in this two-fold conclusion where he writes, "So, is it appropriate for Christians to name names? Yes, if it is to the benefit of our congregations and that our desire is to see those false teachers return the fold as faithful followers of Jesus Christ."

I certainly do not disagree with his conclusion. However I would suggest that in many cases there is nothing a particular pastor or church can do to bring a false teacher back into the fold. Some false teachers are not accountable to a healthy local church. Some operate with such autonomy that there is no realistic hope of trying to urge him or her toward repentance. Others are, to a certain degree, unreachable because of distance and the insulation of fame. The first job of pastors and elders is to protect the flock from wolves. If the wolf can be converted then so much the better and we certainly ought to pray toward that end. But because of the reach of false teachers, pastors and elders are responsible to warn God's people against their damning errors. For a pastor or elder to do less is to fail in his calling.

The first job of the shepherd: protect the flock

From Phil Johnson's message at the Shepherd's Conference:

We're often told by gurus of church-growth and guardians of postmodern values in the evangelical community that we mustn't erect "boundaries." I gather from the way such comments are often bandied about that the word boundaries is supposed to have totally negative connotations. Honestly: I don't see why. I can understand how worldly people whose minds are enslaved to earthbound, man-centered, self-indulgent thoughts might wish for a world without any lines or borders. But candidly, it's an attitude that's hard to reconcile with the whole tenor of the New Testament.

Contemporary evangelicals' resistance to boundaries is especially hard to reconcile with the fact that pastors (the word means shepherds) are expressly charged with guarding the flock and keeping predators out of the fold. And there simply is no realistic way to keep sheep in the sheepfold and wolves out if you refuse to observe any boundaries. In John 10:7, Jesus famously said: "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep." I cannot envision any useful purpose for having a "door [for] the sheep" if there is no sheep-pen or enclosure of some kind with well-defined, secure barricades, sturdy fences, or a protected perimeter of some kind.

But mainstream evangelicals have been indoctrinated along with the rest of postmodern society to think walls and borders are inherently sinister. We're conditioned to favor a whole different set of more stylish and more politically-correct values: tolerance, openness, diversity, mystery, indecision, broad-mindedness, and liberality. It's considered humble and generous to entertain perpetual qualms about what we believe. We're not supposed to think any single perspective can righteously claim to be true to the exclusion of all others.

So today's evangelicals bend over backward not to sound the least bit dogmatic. Because certainty is perceived throughout our culture as a kind of cruel arrogance. Clarity, authority, careful definitions, and firmness are likewise looked upon with deep suspicion. Stating your beliefs with settled conviction is a sure way to start trouble these days.

Listen to the message HERE.

Guarding the flock IS loving the flock

From Martin Downes:

One aspect of the demands of love is the guarding of the sheep from the danger of error. Heresy has a siren's voice and the devil uses its sweet sound to lure the Church away from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. A false Christ, who can never be the proper object of our affections, can never make the new Eve fruitful in the world (2 Cor. 11:24). That is why heresy is destructive, it cannot produce spiritual fruit, there is no power in it to bring a new creation.

Pastors, elders, the demands of love require you to protect the Church from heresies, even when people will call you unloving for criticizing the views of others. To do so, in our age, may well be called unloving, for our age has confused tolerance with love, but the insult is ill judged.

Protecting the Church from error is a loving act, and, therefore, it must be done with the appropriate affections. We are not to love a fight, we are to fight because we are motivated by love.

Read the entire post HERE.