REVISITING PUBLIC CRITICISM

It’s a subject we examined over a decade ago in the pages of our newsletter publication. Yet it’s an issue that keeps being raised. In letters, on the phone, and nearly always during radio broadcasts examining those “hot button” topics, PFO is challenged with the scriptural validity of public criticism of public teachers and teachings.

Our criticism of the heretical doctrines of such groups as Latter-day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Way International and other bona fide cults is routinely accepted by Christians without any measure of apprehension. Yet, when we apply the same criterion and evaluate the false teachings of those regarded within the mainstream of Christianity, we are sometimes questioned: “Have you contacted the brother before publication of your criticism or public comments?” The basis for their charge is always Matthew 18:15.

First, it should be noted that we see heresy as heresy, wherever and by whomever it is taught. And heresy inside the Church is much more lethal than heresy outside the Church. Moreover, false teaching within the Church is not new to the Christian body. Paul (Acts 20:28-31; Romans 16:17-18), John (1 John 4:1-3), Peter (2 Peter 2:1-3) and Jude (Jude 3) all warned against it. Believers do not become immune to Satan’s deceptions immediately upon joining the body of Christ.

Now then, when examining the subject of heretical teaching in the Church, is Matthew 18 a proper method to employ? Are those who go public with criticism without first personally addressing their “brother” violating of a biblical mandate? To the surprise of many, the scriptural answer is a very resounding, “No!” to both these questions.

Dr. Jay Adams, in his volume Grist from Adams’s Mill, addresses the illegitimate use of Matthew 18 in an attempt to censure public criticism:

“Any Christian who sets himself up as a teacher in the church of Christ and publicly teaches anything thereby opens himself up for criticism by others (cf. James 3:1). If they think what he is teaching is harmful to the church, they have an obligation to point it out just as widely as it was taught. Such public warning or debate on the topic should not be considered a personal attack at all. The teacher’s plea that a critic should first have come to him about his disagreement on the basis of Matthew 18:15 does not hold. This passage has to do with personal wrongs known only between the two, who should privately discuss the matter that separates them. What a critic of a public teaching does in pointing out his disagreement with that teaching has nothing to do with personal affronts or lack of reconciliation; he is simply disagreeing at the same public level as that on which the teaching was given in the first place” (pg. 69).

The Apostle Paul wrote that the elders of the Church “must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9). When the books, tapes and media broadcasts of “Christian” superstars begin to confuse believers and eclipse their understanding of the truth of the gospel, measures must be taken and the erroneous theology addressed. When false teaching is introduced into the Christian body, Galatians 2, not Matthew 18, should be the standard for the Church:

“When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. ... The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?’” (Galatians 2:11, 13-14).

Peter suffered a cutting rebuke by Paul “in front of them all.” His false teaching and subsequent actions were public and influenced other believers. And, as such, his doctrine and practice were examined and exposed, not in the private confines dictated by Matthew 18, but in a public forum. Teachings that are harmful to the body of Christ, leading believers to not act in accordance “with the truth of the gospel,” are not intended to be resolved under the “personal offenses” banner of Matthew 18.

Remember also that these teachers often inflict false teachings on the body of Christ by publishing ideas apart from the counsel of other godly leaders or teachers. For example, Harold Camping confused susceptible believers by peddling the idea that Christ would return in 1994. His teaching was imposed on the Church over the airwaves and in bookstores relentlessly. Did he not have some responsibility to check with the larger body of Christ or his radio constituency before deluging us with these unbiblical quirks? His unbiblical notion had to be fought publicly because that was the arena into which it had been introduced.

Yet does this mean that we are excused from entering into discussion with those whom we publicly disagree with theologically? Not at all. However, this dialogue is not easily realized. Nearly all of the “Christian” superstars have built virtual fortresses around their persons and ministries. It is practically impossible to meet with them in conversation. A case in point is faith healer Benny Hinn. For years, PFO has been openly critical of the erroneous claims and false teachings of the man and his ministry.

Despite our complaints, we have always been open and willing to personally discuss with Mr. Hinn the conclusions and evaluations we have offered the body of Christ concerning him. Our willingness for dialogue has never been accepted by Mr. Hinn. Rather we have been harassed and threatened by his lawyers. We have repeatedly maintained and promised that if factual data were produced showing where our judgments are untrue or false, we would hasten to publish retractions. However, despite Mr. Hinn’s public claims to have evidence to contradict our conclusions, we have yet to see the documentation. We have been waiting over six years for such validation to appear.

And then there is the problem that when we do enter into discussion with those whom we differ, our dialogue and subsequent action are meaningless. Another case in point is Brownsville Assembly of God theologian Michael L. Brown.

Brown said he was highly offended by comments made in the April-June 1997 issue of The Quarterly Journal that described a Brownsville “Intercessors Service” as an “orgy of voyeurism.” Brown, in a phone conversation with PFO director G. Richard Fisher, discussed his distaste for the comments and said it was an innuendo regarding the morality of some of the Brownsville staff.

Fisher assured Brown that no moral/immoral connotations were intended and that PFO would rush to press with a statement to that regard. A correction was published in the following issue of our Journal. Yet despite PFO’s pledge of a clarification of the remarks and its faithfulness to that promise, Brown still makes our comments a matter of debate.

In his book, Let No One Deceive You, published after the phone conversation, Brown takes PFO to task for the comments (pp. 52-53). Ironically, his disapproval comes just a few sentences after he rebukes critics for examining “ministries with a fine-tooth comb and calling them to account for every little comment or anecdote that has ever proceeded from their mouths.” Such a double standard — this is surely the judgment Christ spoke of in Matthew 7:1.

We have found as well that when there is private talk, the teachers with teachings published in books and broadcast over the airwaves have so many vested interests, pride and reputation issues, and financial considerations that objective interaction is hardly possible. The private meetings turn out to be, not healthy biblical interaction, but rather a one-sided arm twisting laced with heavy-handed accusations and persuasion.

Many people are naive to think that by simply engaging in a private meeting all will be resolved. When a person has a book or books on the market, and their reputation is on the line, correction is difficult. Some individuals and ministries have even reported that in the confines of these private meetings buy-outs were offered. In other words, there were bribes offered. Shocking, but true.

Despite the shouts of Matthew 18 by sincere but uninformed people, despite the rejection of open discussions by the televangelist superstars, and despite disregard for the dialogue that does take place, PFO will continue to follow the guideline of Scripture to “Test everything, hold on to the good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). We will strive to speak the truth in a spirit of love (Ephesians 4:15). We will not entertain envy or strife against those whom we criticize. We will use Matthew 18 as it is intended for private offenses. But as long as lives are affected and destroyed by unchecked false doctrine, we will continue to publicly criticize public teachers and their public teaching.

—MKG

© 1998 - PFO. All rights reserved by Personal Freedom Outreach. This article may not be stored on BBS or Internet sites without permission. Reproduction is prohibited, except for portions intended for personal use and non-commercial purposes. For reproduction permission contact: Personal Freedom Outreach, P.O. Box 26062, Saint Louis, Missouri 63136.