By publicly sharing my conviction, it made me feel the committment of it all. It has become time for me, at least, to visit other writings, and test how far off my concept is compared to the experts.
Pickering
Dr. Pickering's book titled, "Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church" was originally published in 1979. According to Kevin Mungons who wrote the Foreword to the Second Edition, Pickering had "come to write a book that became the standard defense of fundamentalist ideas" [1]. Before it, there was no established text on the subject.
The word "heresy" is addressed in Biblical Separation, but to my reading I have only found one page where it is mentioned. It says on page 191,
It should be carefully noted that heresy (using the term in the strict sense in which it is used in the New Testament) is not apostasy. The word "heresy" is used only in Titus 3:10 and refers to a selfish choice that results in party divisions within the church. It emphasizes carnal troublemaking, not theological error.
Interesting.
Pickering's idea of false teaching and preaching falls altogether into the category of -- "apostasy" -- not "heresy." I may publish some excerpts soon on the subject of "apostasy," for, to Pickering this is where we would take the popular question of "what constitutes heresy?"
Okay. Now off to visit Swindoll.
Swindoll
In 1990 Chuck Swindoll published a text called, "The Grace Awakening: Believing in Grace is One Thing; Living it is Another" Swindoll addresses what the word "heresy" means on pages 104-105: [2]
Legalists were disturbing others and distorting the truth as they spread doctrinal heresy. Their heretical message was that the Galatian Christians should let Moses finish what Christ began. ... We continue to hear that "different gospel" to this day and it is a lie. It is heresy. ... The problem is, it appeals to the flesh. Paul's twice repeated reaction to the one who introduced that doctrinal heresy is "Let him be accursed!" This is Paul's way of saying the person is doomed! The original word is anathema! It is the strongest single Greek term for condemnation. Nevertheless, the heresy goes on. Most every cult you could name is a cult of salvation by works. ... Please allow me to be straight with you: Stop tolerating the heretical gospel of works!
Both confirm the two variations of which I took note. In the case that readers have not read the original comment I made regarding "heresy," here were are two variations: One - the use of the word in doctrinal matters, designates legalism. Two - in non-doctrinal matters the word designates opposed camps of Christians attempting to be treated first. This would be opposed to Christ's teachings "For many who would seek to be first shall be last, and the last, first." It also is hypocritical to the practice which is under dispute in the context - The Lord's Supper - at which event Christ washed the feet of the disciples, setting an example for them to follow.
I do not observe further apparent liberty in using the word beyond those two variances. I should say, however, that the second variance may have many uses beyond the context's discussion of the Lord's Supper.
Summary
Can "heresy" mean what it is popularly said to mean?
Can it mean an invasion of untruths against any biblical doctrine?
I don't know what freedom there is to use the word in this generalized manner, since the scripture only uses it to reference the schismatic effect of the teachings of legalism. Legalism is so easy to fall back into. John Maisel, with all his incredible life-experience in church-planting, confirms this sort of disappointing phenomena in his FGA National Conference presentation. I can imagine why Paul wished to be rid of it, yet it kept creeping back in, even affecting Peter for awhile. If there is truly a "Christian's slippery slope," I imagine legalism would be a top contender for destructive things to keep one on constant lookout.
I am very interested to hear what others think "heresy" means in the scriptures.
[1] Pickering, Ernest & Houghton, Myron. Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Schaumberg, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press; 2008.
[2] [2] Swindoll, Charles R. The Grace Awakening. Walker & Company, New York; 1990.
23 comments:
You sure do an awful lot of heavy research don't you?!
This is interesting what you've shown here. I'm going to do some study on this myself. Or, I could just let you do all the heavy lifting and just tell me the answers... that sounds better. :F
Hey bucktooth brotha from the DEEP SOUTH,
Not really. I haven't done hardly any work honestly. These are things I've been sitting on for a long time but since they're topical, out they should go. Right now I'm trying to figure out where and when God wants me to go on a mission. The door to Rwanda is closed. My mommy said, "I won't let you go to Rwanda." :D So that, and the whole 2-3 weeks of being gone, just spoke His will. I know I want to share the gospel with kids. Dr. Larry Moyer wrote in his most recent EvanTell newsletter,
"85% of Christians trust Christ before they are 14 years old."
I've known this for some time, so it seems apparent that this is the most honorable sort of ministry that could be had. Lately I've been teaching in a good news club after school too.
I also would love to finish uploading my JW apologetics and index it on the sidebar, and see what other materials I've written through the recent years.
I would also LOVE to write a few blog posts on the two books I'm reading right now, "Confident in Christ" by Wilkin and "Reign of the Servant Kings" by Jody Dillow. Wow, they are so great.
I really desire to read all the FG books I bought at the conference before the end of the year. Not too hard a goal to make, is it? I'm decidedly digging in with both hands and also possibly a foot if necessary.
Here's the other ones I got, hope I didn't forget some of them:
The Epistle of James by Hodges
Unlocking Wisdom, Reitman (Can't wait!)
Romans Unlocked, Lopez
Secure and Sure, Wilkin
The Power to Make War, Hodges
Absolutely Free! Hodges
Plus I realize I have a few leftover books from the seminary classes I've attended, like
The FIve Points of Calvinism, Weighed and Found Wanting
Experiencing Worship and Not Worshiping Experience, Radmacher
And I need to finish... The Nature of the Church, Radmacher
And... what else? Well, I better stop. As you can see I am a mess. That's rather typical.
But I am so uneducated and it's just slightly, slightly embarrassing. 'Course as I explained in my opening post, I don't like very much being told what to believe.
:D Michele
Readers,
Why Swindoll?Ed Underwood, former board member for the GES, writes of Swindoll's "Grace Awakening,"
The purpose of this volume, to infect believers with the liberating grace of God, makes it one of the most effective weapons available to combat the bondage of legalism that the Grace Evangelical Society was founded to arrest.To read more on the "Grace Awakening," read this article, here. In the comments under this post, you will discover that Rokser and other influential FGA men give the book a very low recommendation.
Michele
Why Pickering?
Dr. Pickering is a personal mentor to my friend Rose's husband John, who attend his church. What's more as said above in this post, Pickering has written a truly Baptist-centric doctrine concerning "separation."
Email me for more information on the various interpretations of Pickering by FG friends. Many comments needed to be deleted from this thread which should give a running start to readers in answering the question, "Why Pickering?"
I have now read Pickering's book "Biblical Separation," and out of the 300 pages of this text, only fifty of those pages actually discuss the scriptures involved in formulating the doctrine. And in those fifty pages the scriptures are used quite thinly. The remainder is preoccupied with drawing the separatist movement through church history, and modern-day examples of ecumenism and their arguments.
IMHO, while the teaching of "separation" is biblical, most of the scriptures used in forming the doctrine are inappropriately utilized, in his text. I know that is rather bold, but there you have it.
What I would like to see is a rather free-grace hermeneutic applied to these passages to see if this Baptist tradition might be supportable.
If there is going to be any "cooperation" beyond the most rudimentary sort, it will require an enculturation with IFB practices of keeping those who differ from them at more than an arm's length. Free grace needs a universal vocabulary requiring knowledge of Pickering and his popularly-induced influence.
It has been a small passion to immerse myself in the gap between these two philosophies, which both have merit. I'm not adept yet. Most of the people who got me deeply embedded into this sub-culture of FG are currently less available to myself. I'm more on my own now, but still have some helpful tips for those who also find this of interest and necessity.
Michele
Readers,
Though they aren't the best devices, I am hoping that you will find the use I have in treating these two texts as "temperature gauges" in the polar realms of living in grace (hot) and practicing separationism (cold).
Michele
The more I read the book of Titus, the more I am impressed at his defense against those who are known to be legalists, along with his simple "two chances" test of those who are not yet known but exhibit legalistic behaviors.
Chapter one - To appoint overseers who are sound in doctrine (not legalists) and are also capable to refute (the legalists).
vs 1:10 "For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group."
Circumcision group = legalists, Judaizers, etc.
Am I correct so far?
Chapter two - Paul teaches what sorts of behaviors accord with grace, for the rest of the assembly who have not reached the position of overseer. He then concludes the chapter saying (in paraphrase) "It was the grace of God which made these qualities of godliness in us. Do not let anyone despise you" - as you are a work in progress under the tutelage of grace.
Chapter three - Paul wants the overseers to stress amongst everyone what is profitable for everyone. Having been justified by grace, we should be careful to devote ourselves to good.
(Now logically my mind takes a detour to Romans 7 - you are dead to the law so that you might bear fruit for God. Of course I can't mix books, but Paul's mind seems to jump to the agitation of the written law, too:)
Paul says, "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless." 3:9
IMHO, the book of Titus has clearly juxtaposed grace vs. legalism in understanding who to accept, approve, and reject.
I am curious:
How do you discern the presence of legalism? What sorts of behaviors tip you off? (I'm not as smart as some of my readers so I have to rely on spiritual gifts.)
Here's something I find quite fascinating. Paul gives in to the consciences of those who seek to gain outward conformity, here:
"Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." Acts 16:3 (referring to Timothy here)
But later Paul changes his mind, commanding to not give in to their conscience meant to gain our outward conformity:
"Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek." Galatians 2:3
What happened here?
Paul later taught that obedience to the Jewish-based conscience compromised the gospel of grace. So, what sorts of expectations and conformities compromise the gospel of grace, here in our community? How do you know? What tips you off?
(Redeeming the proper, most biblical usage of the word "heretick," out of the bible....)
Hey, Michele
In response to your question about circumcision for Timothy and Titus:
The two situations are not really comparable. In Galatians 2, Paul is recounting how he submitted the gospel he preached to the Gentiles for approval by the Jewish-Christian "Poobahs" in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 15). At least that's how I read the text of 2:1-3. So the point was that he was not going to compromise that gospel to Gentiles by requiring circumcision and he brought along Titus to show the Jewish-Christian "authorities" a case in point (or an exclamation point [!], if you will).
Acts 16 was clearly a missionary endeavor with Timothy in support to "be all things to all men so that they might by any means win them." Hence, it made sense to circumcise Timothy, because he was half-Gentile, and he would have more credibility as an evangelist "because of the Jews who were in that region..." The issue had nothing to do with compelling Gentiles to be circumcised---which was the hot topic in Jerusalem---because here they were witnessing to Jews, not Gentiles (at least at first).
Hi Jim,
Just arrived home. Glad to read what you said.
Was Timothy supposed to have been circumcised and just wasn't yet? Would the (unsaved) Jews have considered him disobedient? I thought that because it was his mother, not his father who was Jewish, he did not have to be circumcised. Help my info here....
Otherwise I hope we're on the same track. You're right, they aren't related. That's sort of the point, to me. You said well - different circumstances require a different response.
It was for the sake of ministry that Paul recommended Timothy's circumcision. Does this hold up? If so, let me take another crack at it:
Paul wanted Timothy circumcised to decrease the offense, so that attention would alternately go to God's glory.
But Paul wanted Titus uncircumcised to let the offense remain intact (maybe it can be said, like that), so that attention would alternately go to God's glory.
I sometimes say things with the wrong language, for instance I re-read what I wrote saying "Paul changed his mind" and I think I need to try a little harder.
Thanks, Michele
Yeah, Michele,
I think you could well say it that way:
For the sake of the gospel to unsaved Jews, who weren't sure Timothy was "one of them" because of his Greek father, Paul had him circumcised.
To preserve the simple gospel to the Gentiles before the legalist elders in the church in Jerusalem, Paul kept the Gentile Titus uncircumcised.
Regarding the issue of Timothy's "obedience," I'm not sure about his "official" status as a Jew in the Hellenistic period with a Greek father and Jewish mother. But that isn't crucial to see that he already had a good reputation among the Jews, and he would gain a lot of points by then marking himself as a physical member of the covenant community, a child of Abraham.
Regarding whether you need to "try harder," Michele, you are already one of the "tryingest" people I know. As an editor for seminary students, I would recommend the same thing that Rose recommended to Alvin, "Measure twice, cut once." Just proofread what you have written on the "Preview" panel, then "edit comment" as many times as you need to for it to sound right. You might be amazed at how many times I edit my comments before I click "publish comment." ;)
Hi Jim,
Yay. I'm glad I turned out more or less alright! Thanks for the advice - measure twice, cut once. I think you would understand if I said I often wrestle with the question, "why blog?" when I am unqualified (outclassed). Yet by two ways I am encouraged just as from you also in the Word:
1 - God's righteousness and use of us for His glory comes through faith, and that I have, even if my knowledge is not yet matured
2 - "For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: ...." Rom 12:3-6
I love this verse: Paul quoted the Old Testament in saying, "I believed, and therefore I spoke" (2 Cor 4:13).
With the same sort of confidence generated by the word of God, I too, speak. What would I do, without that sort of assurance coming from His Word? I'll tell you what I would do - I would not speak.
Grateful for encouragement & advice,
Michele
Michele, as far as I'm concerned the most important thing here is that you are staying connected.
Growing knowledge follows faithfulness, and you strike me as faithful.
Evangelists are always concerned with decreasing our disobedience to God's standards so that our testimony of the gospel will not be compromised - the offense caused by man.
Paul, however, was careful to maintain the offense of Jesus Christ crucified, by not permitting our desire to look obedient, too far.
At some point, what is good can become bondage. What are some good things Christians do that can be abused by legalism?
An expectation of ones-self to dress nice for church may please God, but taken too far would create bondage, obsession, and a distraction from the glory of the cross.
An expectation such as in my case, to "try harder to be right" could be pleasing to God. But taken too far, it would crowd-out the operation of faith in my life, and would no longer leave room for God's work, instead making it all about my own strengths.
Paul's choices regarding circumcision prove the same truth - the same attempt for balance - to at once, both decrease the offense of men and still maintain the offense of the cross.
So what sorts of things tip you off to the presence of legalism??
They may indeed be "good things." However legalists will have taken them too far. How do you discern a gross imbalance?
This is how I would answer my own question. Scripturally, this is a key verse for me:
"As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation." Gal 6:12-15
"And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased." Gal 5:11
Boasting in the "flesh" - in the Greek this word "flesh" means both the physical body and human nature.
As Swindoll pointed out with mentioning the endless array of cults (legalism), they abandon God's sufficiency of grace to produce our righteousness, for some code of conduct which can produce fast results outwardly - but not results borne by faith and love for God. All this so they may boast. Boast in their code, boast in their division, boast in their new doctrinal heresy, and amass a following, splitting the Spiritual body apart.
"Heretick" - schismatic, divisive
I have often wondered.... Why did Paul command that hereticks be "REBUKED" "SHARPLY" ?
What you have read in the book of Galatians 2 I find quite true in experience. As I narrated in a post titled, The Cult in My Life,
"And so we play this game of body language. Here is what she does: she recognizes me, forces herself not to be happy, lifts her face toward the sky, and looks far off in the distance, like I do not exist. "
What was Peter doing in Galatians 2? I think it compares. He just stood off at a distance, refusing to even eat with the Gentile believers, without explanation or open communication.
Legalists operate powerfully with what I call subtle disdain. They create your awareness that you just aren't good enough, and sort of manipulate you to do and think as they do, through less obvious gestures of never-ending disapproval. It supercedes the preeminence of the Holy Spirit inwardly. Imagine living like this, if this was the norm. No wonder Paul wants to BARK the correction! REBUKE, SHARPLY. It'll take something significantly rougher - and roughness, not kindness or patience - is what they have been deceived into being led by.
So... lots of thoughts, on legalism. I'd like to hear someone else's thoughts.
Thanks for reading along, and please correct me if I mis-step doctrinally. I am grateful.
Michele
Readers,
As Ed Underwood is quoted above, the GES was formed to defend the gospel of grace. I can remember sitting in seminary, learning of this wonderful acknowledgement of Paul's "Galatians" and "Romans" by something called "free grace" -- formed to refute legalism -- the logical end of Calvinism, and many other erring evangelical teachings. Then I turned on my computer and discovered a sizeable strain of legalism sitting right in the center of it all. Imagine the shock and surprise to see it. It was not so hard for me to spot it, after all I've noticed hanging out with the LDS and so-on. The same familiar habits....
I said once before at JP's blog that I suppose it should not be surprising that even our "Peters" could for a time take a stand opposed to grace.
Maybe I'm using the following terms incorrectly? But I hope you'll understand me regardless:
Orthodoxic legalism - False doctrine systematically taught by heretics.
Orthopraxic legalism - Legalism taking practical sway in the Body.
Theological legalism - Legalism beyond the gospel issue that adds excess, complex theological understanding as prerequisite for righteousness of whatever sort.
As for theological legalism- may go hand in hand with other legalistic practices, but it may also be coincidence, especially in the case with just the gospel issue.
What does the bible say on the matter of how to handle practical legalism?
"Orthopraxic legalism" - Worthy of one/two admonition test (Titus 3:10-11), sight unseen? I don't know. Paul got right in there with Peter and didn't wait to prove and refute its doctrinal source.
"To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." Galatians 2:5
Paul means business. He didn't wait.
However, the Orthodoxic legalism was already established by fourteen years' time. When Paul confronted Peter's and Barnabus's legalistic practice, I believe their false theological construct had already been surmised.
In our case, we DO have the theology at least in part, easy to identify to back up the practice of beginning the one-two admonitions to divisive persons. What we don't have is the fourteen years' worth of awareness, by comparison. So perhaps the "admonitions" can be put off for a little longer?
"Admonition" - In the Greek, means rectify, educate, or exhort.
My hope is to lay before you, in Pickering's text, one central source which promotes "orthopraxic legalism" in our community. I believe there are two hubs where legalism is being allowed to take an influential effect in to our community, and Pickering is representative of one of those two.
The next two posts which I am working on, will be concerning Pickering's teaching of what is called "Secondary Separationism." I'll start with the most controversial part. It always helped me engage in learning and thinking, if I began with the controversial part, first. Apologies.
Thanks for reading....
Michele
Michele,
I wanted to share these quotes that I foundonline from Pickering's book (makes it really easy to share them). These demonstrate his humility.
“Separatists must ask God for humility. We do not know everything. We can yet learn from others.” p. 290
“On occasion some separatists seem to view with glee the uncovering of some fault in another Bible-believing servant of God. We ought to weep and not rejoice.” p. 289
“Some separatists have evidently tried to imitate Martin Luther and other controversialists of his age (and other ages) in employing rather strong, colorful, and pungent language about their evangelical brothers and sisters . . . However, separatists need to employ caution and restraint when speaking of those who are our brethren but with whom we may disagree.” p. 291If this seems off topic or jumping the gun on your series, you can delete it and I won't think anything of it. I don't want Dr. Pickering to be associated in the minds of anyone reading your blog with beat-people-over-the-head kind of fundamentalists. He wasn't like that.
Rose,
This is really important for me to mention how kind he was. In fact last night I almost pulled out his text and quoted some really GOOD quotes from him, how he is grieved by it. But I got tired. And I think it's probably worth it's own post, because it is so important.
I do think there are false things in the book and in the premise, but setting all that aside, I see this man being completely soft hearted.
Later today I'll share some of his comments that I appreciated too.
Running out of time lately! My son has become demanding and my two girls are not well.
:) Michele
Post a Comment