Found
here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------
We find many of these self-styled "discernment ministers," whom we have deemed the Doctrinal Police, to be consumed with the latest thing about this false teacher or that false teacher. They consider it their duty to point out their flaws and errors, usually expressed in hyperbolic terms with breathless urgency. We have posted numerous critiques of them in these pages. Not only do we examine their fallacious arguments, but we also address their insulting language and egregious name calling.
One of their most pointed claims is that false teachers are, well, false. That is, through and through they are false. Not saved, not entitled to grace, respectful correction (Tit. 3:10), or the restoration prescribed in the Bible (Ga. 6:1). Not even entitled to our prayers! That is, false teachers are despicable wolves, liars and deceivers, even beyond redemption.
Thus we note that the ire of the Doctrinal Police exceeds the level of mere doctrinal disagreement. Merely setting the biblical record straight is not sufficient, though ironically they rarely even do that. No, those who come into their sights deserve only mocking, derision, and attack.
Our complaint is not that the "Doctrinal Police" are defending the truth, it's that they tend to view even the smallest doctrinal difference as false teaching. Perfect doctrine is the highest goal for them, and any deviation is false teaching, and by inference, is a matter of salvation.
The doctrinal hairsplitting gets to ridiculous levels, which means for them that the category of false teachers is extremely large. This has the effect of branding every sort of doctrinal deviation as "them," which means they are not "us."
This is cultic thinking.
Here is an example of a discernment ministry critiquing an unfortunate woman:
- hideously ugly
- post-menopausal woman
- bizarre wardrobe choices
- a penchant for cackling
- no personal charisma
- a face that scares children
- a voice that sounds like nails down a chalkboard
- pugnacious
- unladylike
- uglier on the inside than she is on the outside
- the personality of a Roomba
- the personal charisma of fetid corpse
- unpleasant and evil woman
This is simply unchristian behavior.
Here's a self-described "discernment minister" who wants all charismatics to die: Might God use coronavirus to wipe the plague of charismaticism off the map and sweep these charlatans into the dustbin of history. Might God place the entire world into a quarantine against the Satanic false claims of charismaticism and innoculate (sic) us against their devilish assertions. Might God rid the world of every last one of them.
Here is someone who actually condemns someone as having committed the unforgiveable sin.
Now, these are not fringe people, they are recognized and celebrated discernment ministers.
In addition, we have noted in the past that "discernment ministers" do not like being criticized. They bristle at any suggestion that maybe they should reexamine their motives. One particularly egregious "minister" goes off on her critic for the critic's simple suggestion that she examine her attitude.
This lack of self-awareness is pretty common. Which in itself is interesting, because one on hand they continually trumpet the nobility of their activities, but on the other hand are completely oblivious to how they come across, and hostile to the possibility that they may be making mistakes.
So, the author of today's article makes a fundamental error by isolating behavior from motivation. The writer appeals solely to his self-avowed noble motives, and simply presumes that his actions are definitionally an expression of love.
Thus the discernment behavior (no matter how hurtful or clumsy) means love.
So we would ask the author the obvious: Can a person point out biblical error and yet be unloving? Can a person deal poorly with their discernment? Can a person forget that the one he is criticizing is a soul for whom Christ died? The answers are obviously yes.
Indeed, the author concedes that some "discernment ministers" are indeed unloving: Admittedly there are some who for love of controversy and isolation partake in the field of polemics to satisfy their blood lust for argumentation. The author attempts to disarm this by stating, However, it is an unbiblical character to assume all men who pursue this field of ministry are unloving, ungracious bloodthirsty beasts.
This is dishonest. It should be obvious to even a casual observer that those who criticize discernment ministers are criticizing the former and not the latter. There are a lot of bad actors in the discernment arena, and they should be subject to scrutiny. No one thinks it is "all men."
He then states, It is love for God that drives a man to speak when his master is attacked. This is the matter to be demonstrated. It is not self-evident.
Last quote: The author cites Titus 1:13 and concludes, Those who commit the sin of false teaching need sharp rebuke. Perhaps so, but this instruction to Titus is not prescriptive for any ol' person. Paul was writing to Titus to tell him how to handle issues in this particular church.
Titus was not sitting at his computer 1000 miles away critiquing a video snippet of an errant Bible teacher. Titus was in this church. He was in authority in this church. He was directly dealing with certain rebellious people who needed correction.
In this church.
The author writes,
Whoever engages in polemics must be rooted in sound doctrine.
Actually, all Christians should be rooted in sound doctrine. We would think that a polemicist ought to have several other qualifications:
- Spiritual fruit
- Spiritual gifts
- A position in the Body that gives authority to speak into the situation
- Humility
- Wisdom
Lastly, the author tells us that polemics' three "displays" of love are
- Love for God
- Love for the Church
- Love for your Enemy
Polemics is not a person, and cannot display love. A polemicist ought to have these characteristics. "I do polemics" does not mean "I am loving."
--------------