Throwback Thursday: Rightly Dividing And Wrong Division - by DEBBIELYNNE KESPERT

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

It's become increasingly clear that the Doctrinal Police don't understand why they are criticized. It isn't because they have the truth. It's not about correct doctrine. It's about how they deal with people. 

The author hides behind various standards, like "sound Bible doctrine," "doctrinal purity," and "truth." These are not synonymous, and they are not excuses for bad behavior disguised as discernment. Thankfully, the author herself rarely does this, but there are plenty who do.

Particularly troubling is the idea of doctrinal purity. That is, having a set of doctrinal beliefs so finely honed that it is then possible to define the great majority of Christians as heretics. This is a tightrope walk for those who might come under the attention of the Doctrinal Police. Such a person would have their every word examined, their every doctrine micro-analyzed, and any misstep, perceived or real, would bring the big guns out against them.

This is not discernment, it is "scorched earth discernment."

The reader may wish to review our extensive examination of "discernment ministries" here.

-----------------

Originally posted January 9, 2016:

Those of us who believe in adherence to sound Biblical doctrine frequently endure accusations of divisiveness. (Let's see if the author can properly identify the reason...)

The majority of present day evangelicals believe that unity among Christians requires an abandonment of doctrine to the degree that salvation and discipleship revolve around a “Jesus” who conforms to individual preferences. (...nope. She cannot.)

Those of us who stand up for doctrinal purity (The author moves the goalposts from "sound Bible doctrine" to "doctrinal purity."

There is no such thing as "doctrinal purity." Thus, using this standard as a condition of unity inevitably causes disunity.)

quickly learn that doing so invites censure. (The author makes it sound so innocuous. But it's not a simple matter of standing up for "sound Bible doctrine" or "doctrinal purity." Typically, it involves going postal on an isolated quote from a pastor 1000 miles away, mocking them with derisive comments, and impugning those who follow this pastor.)

We learn that we must keep our convictions to ourselves, lest we cause “division.” (Oh, really? Could it be that it isn't the convictions themselves, but instead it's the way they are wielded like a bludgeon?)

We dare not question women leading worship, church growth strategies, contemporary music that lacks theological content, contemplative prayer or replacing Bible Studies with small groups that focus on subjective impressions of how Scripture speaks to each member of the group. Standing for truth, (Moving the goalposts again, from "sound Bible doctrine" to "doctrinal purity" to "truth.")

in an increasing number of evangelical churches, means that we cause division.

Yet Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament epistles, saw division very differently than 21st Century evangelicals see it. Consider this quote:

Paul regards divisiveness as those who depart from sound doctrine. Doctrine is not the cause of disunity, departure is. ~Carl Trueman

(Mr. Trueman creates a Category Error. Sound doctrine is not a subset of unity, and unity is not a subset of sound doctrine. One can assert sound doctrine and not be unifying. Mr. Trueman's mistake here is he regards the goal of promulgating sound doctrine to be self-justifying. 

That is, is seems there cannot be any negative effect from asserting sound doctrine in regardless of the manner in which it is conveyed. This, of course, does not follow.)

Responsible reading (not to mention study) of Paul’s epistles bear out Trueman’s point. The apostle wrote several of his epistles (most of them, actually) with the purpose of clearing up doctrinal error and preserving correct teaching. (Ah, the author swerves into the truth for a moment. Paul corrected doctrine because he had authority in those churches. He was positionally able to do this.)

As a matter of fact, right doctrine meant so much to Paul that he refused to tolerate those who would corrupt it with human philosophies. He furthermore warned church members to reject anyone who deliberately and persistently deviated from the truth. (Again the author gets it, if only for a moment. Paul is speaking to a local church regarding how they should handle divisive people in their midst.

This has nothing to do with discernment ministries denigrating Bethel or IHOP or Elevation Church.)

17 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. 18 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. ~~Romans 16:17-18 (ESV)

Notice that the divisions Paul condemns thwart the doctrine that he and the other apostles taught. He never targeted Christians who stood for God’s Word in opposition to attempts to dilute or distort it to suit their own agendas. As he saw it, the Body of Christ could only experience true unity by teaching and obeying the doctrines given by the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles. Those who watered down those doctrines caused disruption in the church.

And today, the very people who plead for “unity” seek to erode theological truths around which Bible-believing Christians should unite. (The author does not document this is true.)

Instead of blindly accepting repetitious “praise” songs that focus on human feelings rather than the Lord’s character and work, for example, we should courageously point out how these songs deviate from Scripture. (Again the author makes it sound so innocuous. But she does not have authority to tell people 1000 miles away they are wrong. Offering a critique of a worship song is different than calling the songwriter a heretic or branding the church that sings the song as apostate.)

Similarly, instead of embracing pragmatic church growth strategies, we should encourage our pastors to preach expository, verse-by-verse sermons so that the Word will produce faith that results in genuine conversions.

Those of us who insist on doctrinal purity (Back to "doctrinal purity.")

do so because we love the Lord. We want to see His church united around His Word, forsaking subjective interpretations of it in favor of understanding it properly and obeying it faithfully. (Actually, "understanding it properly" really means "you must agree with our doctrine.")

We grieve when people deviate from the clear teaching of Scripture to follow evangelical fads, ("Evangelical fads" is not necessarily a matter of doctrine, doctrinal purity, or truth.)

agreeing with Carl Truman that true division comes though such people.