Confrontation and Christian Leadership

Two weeks ago, I quoted Beale’s History of Fundamentalism where Dr. Beale made the claim that Steve Pettit has led BJU into broader evangelicalism. I did not express agreement or disagreement with Beale’s statement, I just noted it and wondered if there would be a further explanation. Several have pointed out to me that my quote left the definite impression that I endorsed Dr. Beale’s assessment. While I have an appreciation for Dr. Beale and his perspective on the history of fundamentalism, I was not saying or intimating that I agree that BJU has left fundamentalism for broader evangelicalism. (Generally, I would define broader evangelicalism as characterized by a willingness to fellowship and join in ministry with theological liberals. Conservative evangelicals will typically oppose and separate from false teachers, but do not practice separation from those who bid Godspeed to false teachers. Fundamentalists will separate from both. These are simplistic identifiers, but I believe they are fairly accurate).

I have not made it a regular practice to publicly assess the fundamentalist credentials of various institutions. There are times when such an assessment is necessary, but it should be rare and clear when it does happen. What I wrote was not clear, I should have been more careful.

More conversation continues behind the scenes–where it should continue to occur.

This type of business is no fun, but it is essential. In this week where we give thanks for all the wonderful things God has done, I must also give thanks for all the uncomfortable things He does as well.

Relationships among leaders can be messy at times—actually a lot more than most church members realize. It is our human tendency is to assume that if we do not KNOW something is happening, we assume it is not happening. Fundamentalist leaders—even FBFI types—have some personally challenging conversations behind the scenes. These are rarely pleasant. Just this week I have been on the receiving end of a lot of critical input. Some of it I sought out, and some I did not. It is all quite humbling.

While not always agreeing with those who critique me, I must never reject their input. That kind of arrogance will lead to destruction. There is a balance to all this. I cannot act simply out of fear of how I will be critiqued. I must be a God-pleaser, not a man-pleaser. What we–maybe I should say I–would enjoy most is for us all to cheer one another on, and love and encourage one another constantly, but that is not how New Testament Christianity works. God uses confrontation among believers (often called admonishment) is an essential part of the practice of our faith and I am thankful for it.

We have to talk about how to face new challenges.

Our world is not the same as it was 40 years ago—even two years ago. Sometimes we just need to wrangle through new issues to come up with some sort of common clarity. Fundamentalists of a century ago did this as they faced theological liberalism. They did it again as they contended the compromises of cooperative evangelism in the mid-20^th century. We now have to work through and clarify such things as marriage definitions, transgenderism, social media, and even the biblical data on race. At the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) the Church did the same as they sought God’s will regarding how the gospel should be defined and lived out in a new gentile setting.

We sometimes have to confront one another over doctrinal failure in proclamation or practice.

Paul did this with Peter in his account in Galatians 2. Peter was not teaching a different gospel, but his practice of treating the gentile believers as second-class Christians was effectively undermining the gospel, and Paul confronted him on it. There is no indication that this conflict produced irreconcilable differences between Paul and Peter. Peter even speaks warmly of Paul in his epistles (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Confrontation about moral issues must also take place.

This is common in the New Testament. Paul confronts in 1 Corinthians 5 and 6 on issues of morality and behavior between believers. He also warns against argumentative and divisive believers in Titus 3 and Romans 16. I just preached on the Titus 3 passage last Sunday.  Paul is not saying that there should be no divisiveness at all, after all, he commanded separating from a divisive person.  Our challenge is making sure we clearly distinguish between “foolish questions” and important issues.

Sometimes we even have disagreements regarding wisdom issues.

The conflict between Paul and Barnabas at the end of Acts 15 was a wisdom issue. Should they take John Mark with them on the Second Missionary Journey? Paul said no and Barnabas said yes. The difference was so sharp that they went their separate ways—Paul taking Silas and Barnabas taking Mark.  There is no indication in the text that the conflict was a public one.  It almost certainly happened behind closed doors, but it was recorded in the scripture for our benefit.

We tend to think that all believers of like faith should get along with one another in almost everything. Evidently, this is not true. The Bible never tells us who was right in the Paul/Barnabas argument, although in his last written words Paul asks that John Mark come “because he is profitable to me for the ministry.” Sometimes people just need to part ways and still be friends. The net result of this conflict was two missionary teams instead of one. It seems that God had plans for the early missionaries that neither of them had considered.

We will disagree with one another. Hopefully iron will sharpen iron. I am speaking generally here, not addressing any specific present controversy. This is how New Testament Christianity must function. Even if we do not come to a perfect agreement with one another, we will hold one another accountable on some level. There are even times when we just need to go our separate ways.

We do not celebrate theological diversity in obedient New Testament Christianity, after all, we have one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. What we do celebrate is that the Holy Spirit works in the minds and hearts of all of us to help us see ourselves, not as we want to see ourselves, but as others see us, and even more importantly, as God sees us. Even the gifts in the local church were given for the purpose of making us collectively essential to one another to grow into what our Lord would want us to be.

True biblical relationships will be unpleasant sometimes, but they are essential.