Responding to Public Error
The Christian blogosphere has been actively discussing Pastor James MacDonald’s invitation to T. D. Jakes to participate in The Elephant Room. If you’ve been out of the loop the past week and you want to catch up on the controversy, you can read my Friday Five: The Elephant Room Edition for links of note.
My focus today is not to rehash the issue, but to raise an issue I addressed in a comment on Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile’s blog post Collateral Damage in the Invitation of T. D. Jakes to the Elephant Room.
My Comment
Here’s what I posted on Pastor Thabiti’s site:
Pastor Thabiti, As you know from our email correspondence and my reviews of your books, I have great respect for you and your ministry. I also think this post was gracious yet bold, and carefully worded and well-reasoned. I do have a questions/thought. While I don’t think one could make a biblical case that you “must” contact James personally, I wonder if there is any reason not to contact him at this point? You and James are friends, brothers in Christ, speak at conferences together, and fellow members of TGC. I would think that the next time you met in person, the “elephant in the room” would be the fact that you’ve blogged about the ER but never talked directly. Now, James could also take the initiative to contact you. Either way seems fine and beneficial. But I wonder what positives might result if you called James and said something like, “Brother, I’m sure you’ve heard about my blog regarding the ER. I love you in Christ. Could we talk about this one-to-one?” Just a thought…and a prayer. Bob
In case you are wondering, “Yes, I have ‘walked the talk’ by reaching out directly to Pastor Thabiti about this before posting today’s blog post.”
I do not know whether Pastor Thabiti has reached out directly to James. Today’s post is not directed to Thabiti and James nor is it limited to that issue. Today’s post raises the broader issue related to what biblical principles might guide us in our Internet age, especially when writing posts about people we know personally and minister together with.
My Own Practice
As most of you know, I’m the Executive Director of the Biblical Counseling Coalition. We have a six-member BOD and almost two dozen Council Board members.
If one of my fellow BOD or CB members posted something that I felt strongly about, I personally would not post “against” or “about” them or what they wrote or did, without first privately reaching out to them. At the very least, I would let them know that the post was forthcoming. I would also express my concern directly and seek to gain clarification. With someone I know personally and minister with even indirectly (as in a coalition), I could not look that brother in the eye if I had posted about him before contacting him. It would be a “relational elephant in the room” that I would not want to live with.
I’ll go a step further. I’ve tried to practice the same principle of direct connection even with people I don’t know well personally and don’t have a ministry connection with. I posted a ten-part blog series responding to Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity.
I’ve only met Brian once. We do not serve together in any ministry. Yet, I still reached out to Brian at the start of the series to let him know I would be posting and to offer him the opportunity to interact/respond. At the very least, I think that’s common courtesy.
In a similar situation, I wrote a lengthy book review of John Coe and Todd Hall’s book Psychology in the Spirit. While I was positive where I could be positive, I also expressed several points of disagreement and perceived weaknesses in the book. Although I’ve only met John once and have never met Todd, I reached out to both of them before publishing the review. I emailed copies of the first draft. The three of us interacted together via email before I crafted the final draft.
I’m not suggesting that the “Bob Kellemen approach” is the only model. I’m simply sharing that “as for me and my house,” before I post a public critique, if I have any connection with the person or any means of connecting, I try to reach out to that person before “going public.”
Why?
Why do I do this? Well, it is not directly because of the Matthew 18 principle. Others have, I think correctly, indicated that the Matthew 18 principle relates more to one-to-one issues of being sinned against personally (Matthew 18:15-20).
Other passages (such as Galatians 2:14; Titus 1:10-16; Jude 8-23; etc.) address or illustrate what one might do in cases of “public sin” or “public error.” The biblical principle in those passages seems to indicate that public sin/error can be responded to with public rebuke.
Consider a summary of principles that I find relevant.
• The fact that a public sin or error could be responded to with public critique does not eradicate other biblical principles of relational interaction.
• If a brother I know personally and minister together with in some form or fashion is involved in what I perceive to be a public sin or error, I choose to interact privately before considering a public response.
• I fear that sometimes in responding to perceived “doctrinal heresy” we might become guilty of “relational heresy.”
• Should we speak the truth? Yes, of course. Should we speak the truth in love? Yes, of course.
Consider a summary of passages that I consider relevant in developing a practical theology of interacting with a brother who we perceive might be in error.
• Matthew 7:1-6
• Matthew 22:35-40
• Romans 13:8-10
• 1 Corinthians 12:12-31
• 2 Corinthians 6:11-13
• Galatians 2:11
• Ephesians 4:15-16
• Ephesians 4:29
• Philippians 2:1-11
• Colossians 4:6
• 1 Thessalonians 2:8-12
• 2 Timothy 2:23-26
• Hebrews 3:12-19
• Hebrews 10:24-25
• James 3:13-18
Some might say, “These passages do not say that you can’t publicly rebuke public error.” I agree. I list them simply as the types of passages I try to follow in discerning how to respond relationally to a brother.
Here are the types of questions raised in my heart by the passages listed above. A brother is in “public error.” What does the law of love suggest about how I respond? A brother is in “public error.” What does Hebrews 3 exhort me to do in response?
I’ve been around the block enough times to imagine how some might respond. “That’s all love! What about truth!?” Let’s avoid a false dichotomy. Relationships in the Body of Christ are not either love or truth. Relationships in the Body of Christ are both/and: truth and love.
I’m not saying that someone can’t respond publicly. I’m simply saying that as for me, I believe there are biblical principles that suggest that we might want to respond privately first when it is someone we already have a personal and/or ministry relationship with.
Does that make life messy and complicated? Yes. Does it take more time, effort, and relational energy? Yes. Is it possible that misunderstandings might arise that you have to work through? Yes. Grace-oriented, sacrificial, agape love is so committed to our brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ and to glorifying Christ that we’re willing to risk entering into a messy, complicated relationship in order to speak the truth in love so that we all grow up in Christ.
Join the Conversation
What biblical principles do you follow in prayerfully considering how to respond to a brother who you perceive to be in public error?
I appreciate your example and the thoughts in this post. I can often assume that since I’m only dealing with someone’s ideas, that I don’t need to contact them. I live in a world of ideas, after all, and expect people not to take disagreement personally. Life isn’t always like that though – and I can certainly see how someone I am relationally connected with would appreciate a personal contact before I publicly disagree with them. I’m not sure I will always be able to practice this but it seems like a good goal to pursue.
I appreciate your perspective. That’s an interesting observation about “ideas.” Personally, I think it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate someone’s ideas from who they are. If it is just a discussion/debate about two perspectives, then perhaps a person interaction is not as vital. But when one person is claiming the other is sinning or in doctrinal error, then, for me, I would apply the principles in this post. Thanks again. Bob
Bob, What do you think about Jn 21.15-22? Peter had clearly sinned publicly. Jesus had even announced it publicly before it happened (which certainly wasn’t a rebuke, given the compassionate tone of that conversation). The closest Scripture seems to come to recording a rebuke is either the look Jesus gave Peter in Lk 61 (which I can’t see as a rebuke) or his three fold questioning of Peter here in Jn 21. While I don’t really see even this as a rebuke, even if it was, it seems clear that Jesus and Peter were walking “alone” together (except for “nosy” John following them). I suppose one could see this as Jesus “practicing what he preached” in Mt 18 by privately confronting a sin committed personally against himself, but surely, given the nature of the offense, it couldn’t be limited to him (any more than David’s adultery was limited to God, or even Bathsheba and Uriah). So what do you think? Is this a narrative pattern that address the issue to which you’re speaking?
David, I think that’s a great example. I’m not sure that any one narrative, or even several, could provide a one-size-fits-all model. I’m a proponent of applying biblical principles in each unique case. I’m also a proponent of both/and: starting with the private, and possibly, depending on the situation, moving to the public. Thanks. Bob