On Theological Controversies and Confusion

Every so often, I receive emails, phone calls or letters asking for my take on the latest theological controversy running through the Christian community. While most enquiries are from sincere laymen concerned about some new “idea” threatening to tear their church apart; sometimes these requests are not-so-subtle attempts to obtain ammunition against “The Other Side.”

The problem (from my perspective) is that while the latest controversy might actually involve a deficient, or even heretical idea, many of those in “attack mode” use questionable logic in trying to “prove” their point. For example, over the years I have heard the following argument many times; “So and So said THIS, which sounds as if he means THAT and since THAT resembles something that a well known heretic has proposed; therefore, So and So has adopted and advocated false doctrine.” Never mind that the person being accused may have taken great pains to separate his views from the heretical ones – and in some cases may never have even read the “heretic” in question. This is awfully close to the classic logical fallacy called “poisoning the well” wherein you do not refute someone’s ideas as suggest that their source is tainted.

And sometimes even good people can shoot themselves in the foot. Over the years it certainly seems that at least part of the problem was that some of the men who wandered into hot water were not nearly as smart or insightful as they thought they were. And while often I appreciated much of their work – still, their lives and ministries were significant only in fairly small communities. Some of them really were the brightest lights in their little group; but if you are a forty watt in a bunch of twenty watt bulbs, your “brilliance” is only a relative thing.

Hence, when some of these men were accused of advocating less than orthodox positions, and I read what they actually wrote (or listened to their tapes), I am not so sure that they were trying to deny true doctrine so much as not really understanding the issues they were writing or speaking about. Sometimes; they just were not good at explaining their position. Not everyone is as articulate as they want to be, or need to be. They may in fact have a good idea, but not be able to express it as clearly as they would like. Furthermore, they may not always fully appreciate all the implications or nuances of a statement; implications that their accusers will jump on at the drop of a hat.

Add to this the problem that if a man has written a lot, it is not difficult to take “THIS” statement and put it together with “THAT” statement and come up with a totally fallacious conclusion, making it appear that he is saying something that he never meant at all. We all err in many ways, and where there are many words, transgression is unavoidable. Yes, we all need to be accountable for what we speak and write (“let not many of you become teachers my brethren knowing you will incur a stricter judgment…”). However, when I have seen people attack my own writings and state unequivocally that “Abshire asserts such and such” and that conclusion is utterly contrary to my views on various issues, I cannot help but conclude that other men must be victimized in a similar way. Sure, at times I wish I would have written something more clearly, or better developed what turned out to be a controversial statement; but some people seem to be LOOKING for something to attack – they intentionally misinterpret even the most innocuous statements because they already have an agenda in mind.

And then of course there is the issue that some men, who are “Big Fish” in little ponds, have become accustomed to being “beyond criticism.” They simply do not seem to know how to deal with conflict in a Biblical manner because in their circles, everyone thinks they are “wonderful.” Hence, when someone critiques their position, their pride can lead them to justify and defend, rather than admit they might have made a mistake. The problem then is a lack of humility, rather than intentionally trying to endorse aberrant theology.

And let us not forget that some of these controversies may arise because otherwise good men are looking for answers to problems. But ideas do not arise in a vacuum; what we believe, what we find “credible” is often deeply influenced by the teachers we had, the books we read and the people with whom we associate (which is why we are warned to keep away from “bad company” c.f. 1 Cor 15:33). No one comes to the Bible with a blank slate; we all have assumptions, prejudices and blinders. Thus in the circles I have travelled through over the past thirty years, many men see themselves as “reformers” and “visionaries,” self-consciously reacting against “business as usual” evangelical Christianity. One might even speculate that this could even be a personality trait; men who by nature tend to think “outside the box” can be attracted to theologies, movements and churches that tend to be at the “edge.” After all, there is a lot to criticize about both the modern, broad evangelical church as well as how the Reformed faith itself is portrayed and practiced - Lord knows (no blasphemy intended) I have written a lot about both subjects.

However, it is not hard to cross the line into theological error because quite often, many of these men do not take confessional orthodoxy as a given. In at least three cases of which I am personally familiar, the controversial theology could be directly traced to men who had refused to be bound by the Westminster Standards - and then ended up advocating positions that caused a firestorm in the broader Reformed community. In other words, they already had made the assumption that nothing other than their own conscience determined Biblical truth - hence when their “conscience” led them in certain directions, there was no “back stop” to prevent them going over the line into error.

The Westminster Assembly was the high water mark of Reformed dogmatic theology, composed of some of the wisest and godliest man in church history. While they were still fallible men, and the Confession they wrote may be open to correction, is anyone else a little concerned that some of the brethren are willing to pit THEIR wisdom, understanding and scholarship against the Westminster Divines? Now the Assembly was a debate, different views were proposed, discussed and argued until a consensus was achieved. With modern controversies, however, it is usually one man, or a small group of men who attempt to redefine certain theological points – but no convocation was called, and the debate was conducted PUBLICALLY through books, conferences, web-sites, etc – rather than PRIVATELY where good men could disagree without their reputations being damaged for being on the OTHER SIDE.

Finally, a wise man once told me that when Christians battle over doctrine, you may want to peek behind the curtain to see if there are interpersonal issues at the root of the disagreement. And in many supposed “theological” controversies, if one looks carefully, it just might be that the principles are all interconnected in various ways and have some serious, unresolved personal issues that color the way the intellectual disputes are being handled. In one case that I know of, certain people were gunning for a particular pastor, looking to throw him out of the denomination. When he became associated with a particular theological controversy, the “Powers that Be” found a justification they could “sell” to the people back home in removing him. Now that does not excuse, justify or in any way lessen the very real problems with his position on that particular issue - just that it was, at least in my assessment, an excuse not a reason. After all, that same denomination allowed men into the pulpit who flagrantly violated the Confession and Catechisms without correction; e.g., elders who did not baptize their covenant children, advocated dispensationalism, speaking in tongues, etc.

In another situation that I witnessed, there were some interpersonal rivalries, problems, and internal debates between various ministers. People were angry, envious and frustrated with one another. And when a certain theological position was advanced by some men, others saw in it an opportunity to damn their rivals, remove certain people from their pulpits or even take over certain churches. I cannot help but conclude that the doctrinal differences were excuses on both sides, to “theologize” these underlying interpersonal issues - issues such as envy, power, jealousy, etc.

Finally, in a third situation, the denomination was undergoing a political reorganization; certain people needed to be removed to make room for others more compatible with the “new administration.” Therefore, to justify the new appointments, men were tarred with the “dubious theology” brush so that the “Powers that Be” could put their own people on various committees or in important academic positions. Literally, almost overnight, what had been previously seen as a legitimate development of sound Reformed theology came under vicious attack, illogical, irrational and academically worthless attacks, but the result was that the “Powers that Be” got their way.

Now again, the above does not in any way excuse the very real damage that various heretics have done to the historic Christian faith over the centuries - but it does demonstrate that at least sometimes, the issue can be a little more complex than just a theological difference. And in some cases, where I had personal knowledge of the origins of a dispute, I also just so happened to know where some of the bodies were buried - and my assessment was that something other than theology was probably driving the controversy.

The older and wearier I become, the more it seems that men often use theology as an excuse for doing what they had already decided to do anyway. While I believe in Van Til’s theory of “epistemological self-consciousness” (i.e., that over time, men tend to become consistent with their presuppositions), there can be a difference between a person’s stated presuppositions, and his real ones. There are many reasons why a man MAY affirm one set of ideas over another; we are not computers and logic and reason are not the only factors in determining why we believe whatever we believe - or do what we do.

For example, one of the most troubling events in the last twenty years or so has been people leaving the Reformed faith and going back to Rome. A number of explanations have been given for this “defection” and there are those who are quite willing to point fingers at others saying, “You taught THIS, which led to THAT, and therefore MUST have caused them to join the Papists!” On the one hand, I am sure that some people have left the Reformed faith and gone to Rome because of sincere, theological convictions based on flawed theological premises. But my “gut” tells me that most Christians are quite happy living inconsistently with their theology and that far too often, men drag their doctrine out only when it suits their purposes to do so. In other words, some men were already predisposed to go “back to Rome” and then hunted around until they found a theology that would justify it.

The same seems to be true of many other controversies. I have debated many people over the years on the Law, postmillennialism, presuppositional apologetics, covenant theology, etc., and with all due modesty, PROVED that the opposition’s position was logically flawed, inconsistent with Scripture, arbitrary, etc. Yet I also have very seldom seen anyone change their position just because they lost the argument. Clearly they held to their beliefs DESPITE the evidence not because of it (irony intended).

This came as a shock to me because I believe what I believe today BECAUSE it was logically necessary; I left dispensationalism, premillennialism, pietism, credo-baptism and congregationalism BECAUSE I believed I had to follow the Scriptures- and I paid a high price, personally and professionally for every change in doctrine. Yet, a lot of good men, with greater gifts and better educations, exposed to the same information, never made the same changes. Clearly, there is something other than pure reason that affects what doctrines we accept or reject, and what “evidence” we find compelling.

Therefore, we ought not be surprised if some men (on OUR side of the issue) pick up on the errors on the OTHER side because they have problems in their own lives, churches or ministries and need a “Big Issue” they can rally the troops around. I am not saying that such men are intentionally being manipulative - just that many Christian leaders can be amazingly resistant to living a self-examined life and are able to find all sorts of “good” reasons to justify going into attack mode. My own admittedly limited personal experience has been that when a controversy breaks out, the most antagonistic and unrelenting, (not to mention vicious) antagonists will often be personal and professional failures who thrive on cutting others down because it makes them feel better in comparison - I know this because I know them.

On the other hand, we also should not be surprised if some men on the OTHER side wander into “aberrant” theology because they needed something “new” and “revolutionary” to keep their troops convinced that THEY were still on the “cutting edge” of “truly” reforming the church. After all, we have a long, cherished history of turning “sacred cows” into “holy hamburger;” Luther started it, Calvin systematized it, and the Westminster Assembly incorporated it. The Reformation had a necessary task of ripping down the old religious establishment so they could rebuild something closer to the Biblical ideal. Lesser men with lesser gifts may not be able to do the constructive work of the Reformers; but they can revel in looking for things they can tear town. Let’s face it, some men thrive on controversy; they live for the next “big thing” they can pillory, ridicule, or expose. And if there are no real heresies to refute, some might be tempted to invent a few…

Thus, I am increasingly hesitant to get into these family fights other than encouraging people on both “sides” to be kind to one another, talk to one another, and debate one another civilly and respectfully - something sadly, that neither side is often willing to do. There is no doubt in my mind that otherwise good men can say or write silly, stupid, or erroneous things; and when they do, they ought to be corrected – and they ought to be correctable. God must be worshipped in Spirit and Truth; and untruth, no matter how piously held or sincerely believed does not honor Him. But saying that is not enough; and in my not so humble opinion, does not get to the root of the problem - the real issue probably has more to do with a lack of basic Christian character on BOTH SIDES - jealousy, pride, envy, having an overly critical spirit, being full of arrogance, willing to gossip, etc.

So, when the latest bandwagon comes into town, I am trying to resist my natural urge to climb on board and add to the cacophony; instead, by God’s grace I intend to take a step back and think about it for a long while before issuing an opinion – one way or the other. After all, the Apostle Paul wrote an entire book of the New Testament about a church ripped apart by theological controversies (1 Corinthians). Maybe, from God’s perspective, He thinks less of who may be right on some of these issues, as He is the way that we handle such differences (Rms 14:1ff)?

Yes, I agree, that “speaking the truth in love” means that we must always speak the truth; but surely there is also such a thing as “speaking the truth without love” which too damages souls, destroys fellowship and leaves us weak and ripe for the attacks of our real enemies? Perhaps if we followed Priscilla and Aquilla’s example, and took some people aside, privately and personally, we might be used by God to bring an erring brother back into line rather than driving him further into the arms of true heretics? Maybe by not giving someone we think in error the grace to think through the implications, recognize their mistakes and then qualify their original assertions we only push them further away? Maybe, if we handled it correctly, gently and lovingly, some “false” doctrines just might die on the vine.

Yes, there are real “doctrines of demons” that must be fought, refuted and those proposing them corrected – and if necessary because they refuse to repent– removed from the visible church. But surely, we also ought to remember that “the anger of man does not accomplish the righteousness of God…” or that the Lord’s bond-servant “must not be quarrelsome, but kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those in opposition if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth…”