Did You Go To Them Privately? - DEBBIELYNNE KESPERT

Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------

It wasn't long ago that we commented on another blogger about the very same thing. Therefore, we will most likely reference our previous article in this critique.

We should note that we embrace the principles of Matthew 18 in our dealings, even with the Doctrinal Police. If we believe the polemicist has sinned against us, we privately contact them. Otherwise, we content ourselves with providing simple analysis of the content of their writings, evaluating it according to biblical principles.

In the case of this particular author, she provides us with her rules of engagement here. She writes, 

Although I have absolutely no objection to a husband investigating my writing to ensure that I don’t steer their wives toward false doctrine, I hope that they stop reading once they feel assured that they can trust me to instruct their wives according to Scripture.

Unfortunately, we do not trust her, based on our prior analyses here, here, and here. Thus we continue to operate according to her open invitation.
--------------------

Social media provides a platform for anybody with access to a keyboard. In many ways, that access makes it easier for Christians to proclaim the Gospel and offer good teaching. In this day in age when fewer and fewer evangelical churches preach expositional sermons and encourage congregants to understand Scripture in its proper context, blogs, tweets and Facebook posts can serve as needed nourishment to Christians. (The author identifies the problem as a dearth of expositional sermons and lack of context for Scripture.)

Sadly, social media can also enable false teachers (Notice how the author pivots to false teachers. She will never return to her premise.

So, she disagrees with someone's doctrine. She of course has the correct doctrine, which means the other person is a false teacher. Based on this she believes she is excused from Matthew 18).

to spread their poisonous doctrines. (Doubling down.)

Since false teachers utilize social media so effectively, we can praise God for tech-savvy people who have both the courage and the discernment to repudiate their errors. (There's very little courage involved. People typing away in their parents' basement requires no courage. However, the principles of Matthew 18 certainly require a level of boldness, since one-on-one confrontation is always potentially risky.)

Admittedly, some writers who consider themselves discernment bloggers carry things way too far and end up making legitimate discernment bloggers look unsavory. (To which writers does she refer? She has in the past quickly named the ones she considers false teachers, invariably those on the charismatic side, but here she seems reluctant to similarly call out errant "discernment bloggers" on the reformed side.)

But once you weed those writers out, you appreciate the ones who stand against error and guide readers back to the Word of God.

Invariably, those of us who expose false teachers receive angry responses, ("Angry?" We do not accept this characterization absent examples.)

demanding to know whether or not we confronted said teacher privately in accordance with the steps that Jesus laid out in Matthew 18.

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” ~~Matthew 18:15-20 (ESV)

Ha! That puts us in our place! (This, of course, is precisely what "discernment ministers" frequently do: Put people in their place. Sometimes in the most egregious manner.

Further, even among the "discernment ministers" who respectfully deal with and analyze what the supposed false teacher says, there is a precious lack of Bible exposition. We cannot say how many times we have pointed out how "discernment ministers" rarely quote the Bible.)

Of course, they hope we won’t notice that they really only mean verse 15. Not the part about our brother sinning against us exactly, because the people accusing us of violating Matthew 18:15-20 really don’t believe the teachers we call out have sinned. (All of them? On what basis does the author claim access to this kind of knowledge?)

And not about us gaining brothers or sisters when the teachers accept correction from us, because the private conversation should exonerate the teachers and make us realize that the fault is actually ours for daring to question their teachings. (All the time? On what basis does the author claim access to this kind of knowledge?)

They demand only that we contact the teachers privately and then say nothing further. (All of them? We don't believe the author. Nor do we accept her weak explanation that since her critics didn't supply the whole process, they must therefore be dismissed. 

In actual fact, the author and other "discernment ministers" reject the need for the first step, which means the other steps are not relevant.)

Interestingly, they almost always confront our failures to go through the Matthew 18:15-20 process by (you guessed it) publicly confronting us on social media. Apparently, Jesus didn’t expect them to abide by the standards they impose on us. (Using other peoples' bad behavior to excuse her own? Or is it that she resents when her own methods are used against her?)

Additionally, as I suggested earlier, they seem oblivious to verses 16-17, which do mandate telling others about the fault when repentance doesn’t occur during private conversations. (No; as we mentioned, there is no burden to offer the entire procedure when the first step has yet to be achieved.)

Perhaps we have tried to confront false teachers privately. ("Perhaps?" Doesn't she know what she did? 

And by the way, we thought Matthew 18 didn't apply. Why would the author appeal to this if she believes it isn't relevant?)

Some of them structure their organizations so that their critics can’t reach them privately. Verses 16-17 definitely allow for increasing degrees of open rebuke when teachers refuse any sort of private conversation. (Having made excuses, the author will now declare that it doesn't even apply anyway...)

Of course, this passage actually refers to church discipline rather than public discourse. (This is false. First we note that Jesus is not necessarily restricting his comments to discipline in a local church body, especially since the Church did not yet exist. 

So who is He talking about? The word "brother" is ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ (adelphos): a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian... having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, countryman. That is, those in the Kingdom.

The author is deceptively attempting to relieve herself of her clear duty to anyone who is a member of the Body of Christ by essentially claiming they are not.)

When people teach publicly, the need to protect their reputation simply doesn’t exist. (This is an astonishing statement. The author does not say that the reputations of "false teachers" do not need to be protected. Rather, the reputations of all public teachers need not be protected. 

But let's assume for a moment that her intent was to say that the reputations of false teachers does not need to be protected. This then justifies her subsequent action based on a presumption, that is, I presume a person to be a false teacher, therefore I can take action. This person is a false teacher, so I do not need to protect their reputation, I can feel free to rebuke them publicly without regard to Matthew 18 or their reputation.

This is strange thinking.)

The Bible says that public sin warrants public correction. (It does not.)

19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. ~~1 Timothy 5:19-21 (ESV)

False teachers (The quoted passage is not talking about false teachers.)

generally persist — in the presence of many more than two or three witnesses who testify to their false teachings — in teaching distortions of Christianity. (That is, they are teaching something that the author doesn't believe.)

Beginning with the our pastors, we must publicly expose their errors, even as we earnestly pray for their repentance and restoration. (The quoted passage does not refer to public exposure.

Previously the author excused herself from Matthew 18 this way: Of course, this passage actually refers to church discipline rather than public discourse. Now she goes the other way. In a passage that actually is dealing with in-church discipline, she deems it to be public. 

Here Paul is instructing Timothy regarding sin in this particular church. This correction is to be done in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. The congregation is the "all," and the "rest" is those who may fear because of the holy discipline being meted out.

The author gets this passage totally wrong.)

The Lord’s instructions in Matthew 18:15-20 are serious. We must therefore take them seriously enough to avoid using them to protect false teachers. (The author swerves to a stop with a statement not previously under discussion. Who is talking about protecting false teachers? How is following the biblical model for confrontation a cover for false teachers? Where did this come from?)