Lately I have
been grieved with the proliferation of ministries with the self-proclaimed
status of “discernment”. Don’t get me wrong, I firmly believe in the necessity
of discernment, and I build my life on the sound doctrine of God’s word.
What I do not
believe in is the formation of isolated, autonomous, unaccountable, self-proclaimed
groups organized to sit in judgment of God’s servants. There is a reason that
ministry is given to the one body of Christ, and that the New Testament does
not show any Christian Sanhedrin group in the church who takes on itself the
responsibility to judge and condemn its members.
The issue is
not about whether we want discernment, or whether we want to “teach what accords with sound doctrine.”[1] The
issue is that these discernment ministries are taking discernment out of the
hands of the gathered church, where leaders and members seek God together about
anything over which people “think
otherwise,” believing that “God will reveal
that also” to the church, if only we, “hold
true to what we have attained.”[2]
Instead of the
church banding together to let God do the revealing of what we should think,
these discernment ministries divide the church before people have an
opportunity to come together. In fact, when people do come together, they are
often already divided by the Discernment Ministries who have forced people to
choose between their critique, and a ministry’s credibility.
My primary
interest in the critiques of the Discernment Ministries is in the area of what
is commonly referred to as “Freedom Ministry”. This label identifies those
ministries focused on helping people find spiritual freedom from spiritual bondage.
Because I love the sound doctrine of God’s word, I truly want to be sure I am
living by “every word that comes from the
mouth of God,”[3]
with no “spirit of error.”[4]
However, at
the same time, I have witnessed the kinds of real-life experiences that Freedom
Ministries are dealing with, so I want to know that no one is being neglected
or rejected because of wrong beliefs about these real-life experiences. What people
have gone through in childhood sexual abuse, occult trauma, broken families,
painful losses, are as important to God as sound doctrine. One does not need to
preclude the other. My concern is that the Discernment Ministries are doing
just that; deciding that sound doctrine rules out freedom ministry, at least
when it involves things they can’t accept as real.
Sound doctrine
requires us to deal with everything fairly. As Paul wrote with the utmost of
exhortation: “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.”[5]
This means that we are not to prejudge against a Discernment Ministry or a Freedom
Ministry when there is a perceived conflict, and neither are we to come into a
perceived conflict showing partiality to one side instead of the other. Our
assessment of any ministry, or any critique of a ministry, must be done in a
way that “accords with sound doctrine”[6]
in relation to everything contained in the two ministries and/or critiques, but
also in relation to everything God reveals about his hatred of false witnesses,[7]
and his love of the truth.[8]
To be clear, I
am not asking us to choose between Discernment Ministries and Freedom
Ministries. As with most things (I cannot say more than that with any
confidence), there are likely good and bad on both sides. Rather, I am asking
us to have such a love of truth, and the holiness of God, that we choose truth
over falsehood no matter whose side that puts us on (or off). Let us choose
true testimony over false testimony, no matter how much that requires us to
adjust our perception of sound doctrine to match the reality of sound doctrine.[9] Let
us unite with each other in what is true, not in what is preferred; in what is
right, not what is merely comfortable. Let’s unite with those who love God and
his word, not those who divide the one body of Christ with favorite doctrinal
distinctives.
In a very
personal way, I have lost relationships with people because I mentioned that a
certain ministry has blessed me, and they had read some review that blacklisted
that ministry, and so they could no longer have anything to do with me. Their
response was, of course, contrary to the sound doctrine of how to handle such
situations. And, their response turned out to be based on a false report about
that ministry. However, the Discernment Ministries are trusted without regard
for their truthfulness (somehow “discernment” trumps “freedom” even when the
discernment is not truly discerning), and it damages the fellowship of the
church that should band together to help each other know how to walk in spirit
and in truth,[10]
speaking the truth in love,[11]
and so building up the body of Christ[12]
rather than dividing the church with the dishonesty God hates.[13]
With that as
the general view, that we are to live by what accords with sound doctrine no
matter whom we must side with, and no matter whom we might lose in the process,
I want to address one of the characteristics of the Discernment Ministries that
puts a false spin on Freedom Ministries. I want to show that there is a
distinctly dishonest tactic that is used consistently enough that it must be
confronted with the same earnestness as the Discernment Ministries claim in
using such a deceiving strategy.
The tactic I
refer to is called the “bait and switch” method. It is a way of drawing someone
into a discussion (baiting them) by using a particular term or label they are interested
in, subtly switching attention to some other focus, while leaving people
thinking that the arguments proving the second focus false are really proving
the first focus false. As the “bait and switch” method draws people into an
argument based on one topic, when part way through the discussion the first
person deceitfully changes the topic, it makes the second person’s arguments
appear meaningless, even ridiculous.
This is a
common tactic of evolutionists where they present the topic of evolution, drawing
creationists to debate them, and then use arguments that refer to adaptation to
prove their points about evolution.[14]
Since the arguments do support adaptation, and the creationist would
acknowledge that the information is accurate, the evolutionist makes it appear
he has proven evolution. In reality, he has really baited a creationist into
discussing evolution, switched the real topic to adaptation, while continuing
to claim they are discussing evolution.
The same
deceptive trick is used when Discernment Ministries present the topic of
doctrine, switch to examples of real life experience, show that these real life
experiences are not mentioned in the Bible, and conclude that this means the Freedom
Ministry is promoting false doctrine. Let me explain.
When the Discernment
Ministries critique a person’s ministry, they are dealing with two components.
The first, the area of main concern, is whether the person teaches what accords
with sound doctrine.[15]
This is the issue of whether a person’s beliefs, teachings, and practices, are
based on God’s word. Sound doctrine is in God’s word; accurately applying those
sound doctrines to life experience is teaching what “accords” with the sound doctrine of God’s word. The Discernment
Ministries’ critiques claim to expose errors in sound doctrine, and errors in
applying sound doctrine to real life experience.
The second
component of these critiques relates to the real life experiences of people
receiving the ministry in question. When the Discernment Ministries critique
someone who claims to have a healing ministry, the according-to-sound-doctrine
component is whether they believe, teach, and practice what Scripture teaches,
and the real-life-experience component is all the kinds of illnesses,
conditions, diseases, that are going on in people’s lives.
The issues of
sound doctrine, and how to relate to life experience in the way that accords with
sound doctrine, is one side of the picture. The other is that people are coming
to a ministry with all kinds of life experiences. The issues of sound doctrine,
and teaching what accords with sound doctrine, is judged by looking at what is
in the Bible. Sound doctrine must be found in Scripture, and found in a way
that is a straightforward, in context, understanding of what God reveals. On
the other hand, the life experiences are not sound doctrine, do not need to be
sound doctrine, and do not need to be found in Scripture.
Real life
experiences simply describe what people are going through in real life. A drug
addict does not need to find his particular drug-of-choice in Scripture to
testify to what he is going through. A war veteran does not need to find
post-traumatic-stress-disorder in the Bible for him or her to receive the hope
and ministry of Jesus Christ through the church. People who have been
traumatized by the occult, and feel like a collection of broken parts and
pieces that don’t make any sense whatsoever, do not need to find their real
life experience described in God’s word to know that it is their real life
experience. People who have professed faith in Jesus Christ, and yet experience
demonic activity in their lives, do not need to find their life experience in
the Scripture. They already know it is their real-life experience.
Instead, it is
the doctrine relating to what God does for broken people that must be found in
Scripture. What we tell people about the person of God, the way God thinks of
them, the issues of relating to God, the hope of God doing something about
their life experience, all must come from Scripture. When we tell broken people
what God is like, it must be the way Scripture reveals him to us. When we tell
people what they can expect from God, it must be what Scripture tells us we can
expect from God. When we tell people about God’s plans and purposes for our
lives, no matter where we are starting from, we must not only show these plans
and purposes in Scripture, but must show that they are the legitimate plans and
purposes of God for the New Testament church, not some out of context
expression of a plan or purpose declared to Israel under the first covenant,
relating to the earthly promises of that covenant.[16]
In practical terms,
we must separate the way we judge someone’s doctrine from the way we judge
their life experience. We judge doctrine by Scripture, seeking to determine
what Scripture really says and means, and measuring whether someone’s teaching
is consistent with that sound doctrine. However, we do not judge life experience
by Scripture, but by physical evidence, eye witness testimony, whatever applies
to confirming or disproving whether someone is going through what they say they
are going through.
For example,
someone claiming to be a war veteran went on one of the “got talent”
competitions. He received honor and recognition as a vet, increasing people’s
hopefulness that he would do well in his singing. He did well, people loved
him, but later found out he wasn’t really a vet after all. He was humiliated,
claimed he didn’t know what got into him, and that’s the last I heard of the
story.
My point is
that, the only way to judge someone’s claim about their real life experience is
to do the detective work to find out if they really have the condition they
describe. In relation to faith-healers, aside from what they believe, teach,
and practice in the area of sound doctrine, we are also dealing with the life
experience of those who claim that these faith-healers are healing them. To
test this, we would have to look at what physical evidence there was that the
people in question were actually sick, injured, or diseased, in the way they
claimed. And, we would need to see some physical evidence that they were now
genuinely healed.
None of these
life-experience needs to be found in Scripture, they only need to be found to
be true in real life. If the faith-healer teaches what accords with sound
doctrine, and people who are genuinely sick, injured, or diseased, come away
from that ministry genuinely healed, then all is well. If the faith-healer
teaches false doctrine, and people are genuinely healed, then something is
wrong no matter what the results. If the faith-healer teaches false doctrine,
and it is proven that no one was really sick, or no one was really healed, then
we have a problem that needs to be exposed by the church.
When it comes
to the way Discernment Ministries critique Freedom Ministries, one of the deceptive
methods of the Discernment Ministries is to bait people into thinking they are
dealing with doctrine, when they are really dealing with life experience. In
one case, a Discernment Ministry critic condemned a Freedom Ministry leader
with thirteen points that were declare to be “all his ideas” (which was not
true since many were concepts about real-life experience of people coming out
of the occult into the kingdom of heaven).[17]
The author
then made the declaration that, “one would be hard pressed to find them
anywhere in the Bible.”[18] If
people read the list thinking that these were doctrinal issues that had to be
found in the Bible, and then agreed that none of these things were found in the
Bible, they would think that this was proof that the Freedom Ministry was
teaching unsound doctrine.
However, since
the points in question had to do primarily with beliefs about life experience,
it was dishonest to claim that these things needed to be found in the Bible to
be valid issues of concern. The people who were coming to this Freedom Ministry
for help because they wanted to follow Jesus Christ, but were experiencing spiritual
battles and problems directly related to their occult involvement, were
describing what was going on in real life. How they were affected by the
spiritual activities of the occult, and how the beliefs and practices of the
occult were still affecting them, do not need to be found in the Bible. They
only need to be validated that they really are going through the things they describe,
not making something up to get attention.
It is
interesting that, because a Freedom Ministry knows that it is accountable to
teach what accords with sound doctrine, they include their statement of beliefs
in their materials so that their doctrine can be measured by Scripture. Secondarily,
their beliefs about God and ministry come out in their resources, so it can be
tested whether they have additional beliefs that are not mentioned in a
statement, or whether they have practical theology that is in conflict with
their doctrinal profession.
For example,
if a doctrinal statement declares that the Freedom Ministry believes in the
divinely inspired authority of the word of God, but then they deny the biblical
account of creation, or that man fell into sin in the Garden of Eden, or that Jesus
really died, or that he really rose from the dead, or that he really did
miracles, we would have a right to challenge the doctrine that comes out in
their teachings that may contradict what they claim in their doctrinal
statements.
At the same
time, we must be on guard against Discernment Ministries that falsely accuse Freedom
Ministries of unsound doctrine when they are really only talking about
interpretations of sound doctrine. A Discernment Ministry that claims to
present fair and honest critiques of ministries, but sneaks in slander, innuendo,
judgmental perceptions, dishonest statements, and false testimonies, is as
guilty of violating sound doctrine as any of the ministries they claim to
expose.
My contention
is that, when we read about a Discernment Ministry judging a Freedom Ministry,
we are not to show favoritism to the side we prefer, but to judge both sides
fairly. In my case, the articles I have read where a Discernment Ministry judges
and accuses a Freedom Ministry of false doctrine, consistently show that it is
the Discernment Ministry that uses deceptive tactics in their critiques. They
claim that someone said something, or wrote something, or taught something, that
was unsound doctrine, but far too many examples show that they have
misrepresented what the person really did say, write, or teach. At times they
claim that what someone does say, write, or teach, is contrary to sound doctrine,
when it is only contrary to the way the article’s author has interpreted or
applied a particular Scripture.
There is a
tendency for those who show favoritism to the Discernment Ministries to ignore
all the mistakes on “their side” and go looking for other proof that the Freedom
Ministry is in the wrong. We see this all the time when evolutionists attack
creationism with one particular argument. They are shown that their argument
does nothing to disprove creation, but actually discredits evolution. However,
they are so devoted to being evolutionists that they ignore the fact that they
were shown a proof against their worldview, and they simply go looking for another
way to try to win an argument.
This is what
the religious elite of Jesus’ day did all the time. They tried many ways of
proving that Jesus could not be the Messiah. The more things they tried against
him, and the more times Jesus confounded them with his wisdom, knowledge, and
understanding, the more they tried to come up with deceptive tricks to prove
him false. Every one of their attempts proved them false, and Jesus right, but
their devotion to holding on to their system of religion was so intense that
they couldn’t believe in Jesus no matter what he did. Instead, they would band
together to find other ways to try and trap him; to no avail, of course.
The same is
true when people have a bias to the Discernment Ministry, and against the Freedom
Ministry, so they ignore how many times the Discernment Ministries are outright
dishonest and deceptive in their critiques. However, when we judge fairly, we
often see that it is the Discernment Ministries that present false statements
in their critiques, and use the bait-and-switch deception of suggesting to
their readers that they are dealing with something that needs to be found in
Scripture to be valid, when it only needs to be found in real life experience
to be valid. The real-life experience only needs to be shown to be a genuine
real-life experience. The teaching we use to relate to that real-life
experience must be from the word of God, and the ministry we offer must “accord with sound doctrine.”
When we look
at Jesus’ ministry (which is all revealed in scripture), we see him constantly
receiving whatever people were going through in real life (which wasn’t necessarily
described in any scriptures of the time). He would then relate to those people out
of the sound doctrine of the Scriptures, and the perfection of deity in bodily
form,[19]
God with us,[20]
God in the flesh.[21]
From this, it
is more accurate to say that, through the church, Jesus will continue to relate
to the real life experiences of people according to the sound doctrine
teachings of the word of God, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit gifting
people for ministry, and filling them up to do the ministry they are given.
Now, take a
look at Discernment Ministries and Freedom Ministries from this viewpoint.
Which ones are open to welcoming people from any and every life-experience they
are enduring, and then presenting Jesus Christ as the one hope of healing for
the broken hearted, sight for the blind, freedom for the prisoners, and release
for the oppressed?[22]
What I have
witnessed, is that the Discernment Ministries are consistently dishonest about
what the Freedom Ministries believe, teach, and do in relation to sound
doctrine, and give false testimony about these ministries to make their judgment.
This is called the “straw man” approach, where a ministry first portrays a man
in their own version of him, and then proceed to tear apart his ministry. This,
of course, is another classic bait-and-switch strategy, baiting people into
focusing on a man and his ministry, and then switching this to their straw man
caricature, and their straw man ministry. When people see how cleverly the Discernment
Ministries tear apart their straw man and his ministry, they are deceived into
believing that they have really proven that the real man and his real ministry
are as bogus as the “studies” claim. In reality, it is the Discernment Ministry
that is bogus in its critiques, and promoting false doctrine regarding our
accountability to God in how we judge others.
Obviously, I
cannot speak of specific Discernment Ministries, or specific Freedom Ministries,
because it is the responsibility of the corporate church to examine these
things together. My aim is to level the playing field, so to speak, so that
churches recognize the bait-and-switch tactic that often deceives God’s people
into believing things about God’s servants in ministry that are not even true.
They continue listening to the side that is dishonest, believing that the other
side is false, because of the false critiques they treat as true.[23]
This deception
creates untold situations of division among God’s people, forcing totally
unnecessary losses of friendships and fellowship because people are forced to
pick sides between the “strong” case of the Discernment Ministries that seem to
prove a Freedom Ministry is false, or the Freedom Ministry that appears to be
applying sound doctrine to the real life experiences of broken people in ways
that match the promises of God to heal the brokenhearted and bind up their
wounds.[24]
One way to
heal these divisions would be for Discernment Ministries to acknowledge that
they have become caught up in the bait-and-switch tactic, with its
characteristic straw-man arguments, and so they have come to conclusions about
people that are totally unjustified. Another way would be for those who read
the critiques of Discernment Ministries to exercise their own level of
discernment to judge the critique with the same impartiality as the Discernment
Ministries claim in reference to those they judge.
If all of us
are just as willing to call the Discernment Ministries on their dishonesty and
false testimony, maybe we would see a new wave of reconciliation and unity
between the Discernment Ministries and the Freedom Ministries where both sides
recognize the difference between the wolves and the sheep on both sides of the
divide, and band together to provide the very best ministry that “accords with sound doctrine,” in
relation to every kind of real-life experience that people bring into the
church.
After all, Jesus
said that, “whoever believes in me will
also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I
am going to the Father.”[25] Doesn’t
it make sense that, instead of rejecting and renouncing ministries that are out
there healing the brokenhearted, binding up their wounds, giving sight to the
blind, freeing captives from their prisons, releasing the oppressed from unfathomable
darkness, and showing the time of God’s favor in the lives of those who have
only known despair, maybe we should reject the false testimonies of those who want
to shut them down?
For my part,
when I have to choose between a ministry that is setting people free in a way
that looks an awful lot like what Jesus did, and a ministry that is trying to
shut down these freedom ministries in a way that looks an awful lot like what
the religious elite did to Jesus, I know whose side I will pick. Of course,
wishing there were no sides to pick at all.
© 2014 Monte Vigh ~ Box 517,
Merritt, BC, V1K 1B8 ~ in2freedom@gmail.com
Unless otherwise noted,
Scriptures are from the English Standard Version (The Holy Bible, English
Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good
News Publishers.)
[1]
Titus 2:1
[2]
Philippians 3:15-16
[3]
Matthew 4:4
[4]
I John 4:6
[5]
I Timothy 5:21
[6]
Titus 2:1
[7]
Exodus 20:16; 23:1; Deuteronomy 5:20; 19:15-20; Proverbs 20:23; Micah 6:11; Matthew
15:19
[8]
Psalm 51:6
[9]
Sometimes when people think they are discussing sound doctrine they are only
discussing their interpretation of sound doctrine, or their beliefs about
applying sound doctrine.
[10]
John 4:23-24
[11]
Ephesians 4:15
[12]
Ephesians 4:11-16
[13]
Proverbs 13:5; Zechariah 8:17
[14]
Evolution requires evidence of one “kind” changing into another in order to get
from the supposed primordial ooze to the present experience of humanity.
Adaptation is the ability of any one kind to adapt to a variety of environments
while never changing into a different kind. Creationists have no problem with
the idea of God creating such genetic engineering into creatures that they can
adopt in remarkable ways. This does nothing to demonstrate one “kind”
developing all the new features that would make them another totally different “kind”.
[15]
Titus 2:1
[16]
This is where the false doctrine of the prosperity gospel goes so wrong. It
combines new covenant teachings on faith, with old covenant promises regarding
the nation of Israel, and concludes that believers in Jesus Christ should have
the faith to be rich. When we keep Scripture in context, the new testament
teaches nothing that resembles the prosperity gospel.
[17]
Article name, etc…
[18]
“Into The Schmutz With Neil T. Anderson,” by Pastor G. Richard Fisher on
December 13th, 2012. http://www.midwestoutreach.org/2012/12/13/into-the-schmutz-with-neil-t-anderson/
[19]
Colossians 2:9
[20]
Matthew 1:23
[21]
John 1:14
[22]
Isaiah 61:1-3; Luke 4:16-30
[23]
Yes, I enjoyed that little play on words, while grieving the sad reality I was
seeking to describe.
[24]
Psalm 147:3
[25]
John 14:12
No comments:
Post a Comment