Latest from the Dean of Perth

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

Will Briggs wrote:

Truth in the right spirit, discipline with tears, gospel with passion, correction given and received with humility.  Go to it!

W.

Will, have you been reading the Bible. I love the pithy summary!

[Will Briggs]

Jereth wrote:

Will Briggs wrote:

2) Always treat leaders in the church as Christians.  This was a catchphrase of advice from a wise someone to the young evangelical hotheads of my day (not that long ago).  If in doubt, treat them like a Christian - assume that they are in agreement with the gospel truths.  
Too often we go in playing defensive ready to ring the heresy bell like church politics is a game of operation - BUZZ! HERETIC.

G'day Will,

Thank you for the wise advice. If you would be so kind as to allow a young (if 28 is young) evangelical hothead to respectfully challenge the biblical basis of "always treat church leaders as Christians". I'm all for respectfulness and politeness of manner. But I wonder how the advice stacks up against passages such as:
...

It seems to me that there are so many biblical commands to be on guard to false teachers, and if suspicion is raised, to test what is being taught and reject anything (and anyone) that is untrue. A good paraphrase of NT teaching might be "false teachers are ubiquitous in the last days, and they may be exceedingly deceitful, so maintain a high index of suspicion every time you hear something new or different, and if the alarm bell rings, be swift and uncompromising in your response." On the other hand I can't think of a NT passage which teaches: "if in doubt, assume the person speaking is still in line with Christian truth, and give 'em a fair go, mate".

Hi Jereth,

The catchphrase is imprecise and I meant it's application broadly - note I say "if in doubt".  Let me clarify - sometimes all this means is: just because this guy keeps praying for the poor doesn't mean I've got to ping him for having a "social gospel."

And I don't mean "close your eyes and trust 'em totally" - Let me clarify: I mean act towards them according to the truths that are inherent to their office if nothing else.  Such actions will spur on the faithful leader and do much to speak to the conscience of the errant one.  And you will remain blameless.

The situation where error is blatant and there is ongoing unrepentance etc. requires a more specific point of application. But even in such a clearer situation, an amount of humility doesn't go astray.  What I mean is this:

Absolutely there are division mongers, sheep-clad wolves, false apostles and the like.  The Bible tells me and it's also been my experience. Be watchful, be cautious, judge fruit etc.  What I hear the NT saying is "respond well" (with a lot of meaning packed into "well"!)

And even if the proper response is to "reject someone" (which is not the only biblical option I might add - correction and rebuke?) - make sure you even do _that_ well.

You rightly want to base your response on the Word.  

I guess my broad exhortation is this:  Do what all good preachers do - preach to yourself first.  In your interaction with a church leader (or anyone for that matter) make sure that you are not the one causing division, preaching Christ but with the wrong Spirit, pleasing men instead of God etc.

Paul - ready to discipline, eager to preach truth - was wary of being full of himself (preferring to be scum actually - 1 Cor 4).  Exhorting people to work from humility (Phil 2) etc. etc.  Not all sheep-clad wolves present themselves as "woolly liberals" - some of them start as bible-knowledgeable gospel-preachers who like the sound of their own voice.

I'm not saying that we should roll over and give error "a fair go." (Although one might consider that God is very fair when it comes to judging error). I'm just saying we need to respond well and from a place of such emptiness-in-ourselves that our response does not point to our self-fullness, our rhetorical abilities, the quickness of our skills with a concordance etc. but, as with all our life, uncompromisingly a witness to Christ crucified.

W.

[Jereth]

Thanks Will for that wise and helpful response.

And even if the proper response is to "reject someone" (which is not the only biblical option I might add - correction and rebuke?)

Interesting... in response to Alex M I've been scanning the NT for appropriate responses to false teachers. The impression I've been getting is that the most common response called for is "avoid". There are a few commands to correct and rebuke but these are given to Timothy and Titus, who had authority and might be compared to today's bishops and elders. The last few verses of Jude give 3 options:

- show mercy (? = gently persuade)
- snatch from the fire (? = forcefully correct)
- mercy mixed with fear, hating even their clothing (? = avoid)

God bless, Jereth

[Jason]

G'day Alex,

Alex M wrote:

I guess the question is what is an effective response?

I, now, can give you an example of an ineffective response: I wrote a short critique of the Dean's views on the Perth Cathedral website blog last Thursday and... surprise, surprise, surprise (a la Gomer Pile) they haven't published it.

[Cat Patrick]

Jereth wrote:

It seems to me that there are so many biblical commands to be on guard to false teachers, and if suspicion is raised, to test what is being taught and reject anything (and anyone) that is untrue. A good paraphrase of NT teaching might be "false teachers are ubiquitous in the last days, and they may be exceedingly deceitful, so maintain a high index of suspicion every time you hear something new or different, and if the alarm bell rings, be swift and uncompromising in your response." On the other hand I can't think of a NT passage which teaches: "if in doubt, assume the person speaking is still in line with Christian truth, and give 'em a fair go, mate".

Hi Jereth

I'm constantly challenged by the New Testament's words on false teaching: how clear and stark the lines are drawn between those who are false teachers are those who aren't. And I'm increasingly convinced that false teaching is dangerous and that it hurts people - let alone the way in which God will judge it. We need to speak strongly against it and not shy away from this side of protecting and proclaiming this good news.

But... I think your statement that the New Testament has nothing to say which balances out suspicion about false teaching is not true. I think that teaching needs to be seen in light of the charge  to respect, honour and submit to authority and leadership (1 Peter 5:5, Hebrews 13:17, 1 Tim 5:1, Romans 13:1f, Titus 3:1-2 and more). In 1 Peter 5, these seem especially directed to young men: 'you who are younger must accept the authority of the elders. And all of you must clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for ‘God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.’ I assume that these words are not written for when the young men agree with their leaders, but for when it is difficult.

The New Testament is full of teaching against divisiveness, as well, and also more positively about unity (Titus 3:10, Romans 14, 1 Cor 1:10f, 3:1-23, etc). I was quite surprised last time I was in a group studying Titus... Paul greatly stresses the need for sound doctrine, and warns strongly against false teachings (Titus 1:10-16). But he also takes great pains to exhort them to 'speak evil of no-one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle and to show every courtesy to everyone.' (Titus 3:2) And the bit which struck me: it is 'anyone who causes divisions' who Titus is to have 'nothing more to do with' (Titus 3:10).

I know that you are not unfamiliar with these ideas, but I want to be sure that we don't understand the New Testament as encouraging us to speak quickly or rashly in public whenever anything sets off our false teaching radars. It may be our arrogance, our particular interpretation, our misunderstandings or assumptions which are actually the problem, or which lead us to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

:)
Cat

[Cat Patrick]

Alex M wrote:

But I am hearing very few suggestions about what is an effective response.

Hi Alex

I've been turning this over in my mind the last few days, and scanning the NT just now.

As general comments about our response to any kind of teaching: We should make sure we're self-controlled, that we ourselves are examples of good works, and that our teaching is full of integrity, gravity and sound speech that *cannot* be censured (then any opponent will be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us) (cf Titus 2:6-7). We should be patient and correct opponents with gentleness (2 Tim 2:25). I take it this is when there is opportunity to do so. When they will not listen and their lives are full of ungodliness, we should avoid them (2 Tim 3:5).

What that means in this particular situation... well, you've already responded publicly in one way by raising the topic on here. This is a public forum which is much more widely ready than contributed to - I imagine there are more than a few silent observers, and you have publicly announced your thoughts and desire to discuss this article.

In terms of being effective, most of my thoughts are more long term. We should continue to pray for the church in Australia, for her health and soundness. We should keep raising up new leaders, training them to 'have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.' We should support those who struggle to do these things in other dioceses - presumably the WA synod and commitments are the best places to discuss appointments to leadership and to promote sound doctrine in that place.

Anyway, there are a few thoughts and an attempt to answer the question that you asked particularly.

Cheers
Cat

[Chris Bowditch]

Tim Patrick wrote:

Alex M wrote:

So what is an appropriate response from MASG readers?

As masg's first brief is to engage with the Melbourne Diocese, we probably only look to what's going on in Perth (or anywhere else really) as part of keeping an eye on the horizons - making sure we know what kind of things can be said in the Anglican church so we're quick to pick up on them when they're said here.

I'm interested to know what the Melbourne Diocese policy is if the views of the Perth Dean were publicly expressed and affirmed in a open and public forum by someone holding a Melbourne Anglican Archbishop's licence?

Would a please explain letter be sent to them?  A letter that asked them to explain how their comments did not conflict with their belief in the Biblical orthodoxy of the Doctrine of Anglican Church as expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and Book of Common Prayer?  As surely any such comments as those made by the Dean of Perth do not stack up with these key parts of Anglicanism?

Perhaps one of the diocesan people who reads this site could reply with an answer??

[Jason]

An update...

Perhaps it was just a pre-Christmas delay, but they have posted it now.