Fallen and Flawed

I think you are right.. It’s the humble thing to do to seek out the individual first to show them something hazardous to their readers or themselves. Jonathan didn’t parade David’s sins to the town before first giving David a parable to think about.. pure repentance came from it.

This reminds me of an HBO special on Ted Haggard. Of course I only have the documentary to draw from, that it seems his church did not approach him first by Paul’s recommendations, and seemed to have just totally exiled him to go “straighten himself out” so to speak first, then they’d think about whether he could come back. Christ never asked us to straighten ourselves out before he’d consider shedding his blood for us.

This is a tough one.
In one turn, it is hard to imagine a letter from little ol’ me would go far with more popular people. I tend to poke fun at (or shred, in some cases) more popular people because they are in the spotlight and can lead people astray.
On the other hand, is it my place? I don’t know. With a book review, I will if it is called for. After-all, publishing houses send me books to review honestly. Does that mean I point my finger at the author? I think in some cases, yes.
This could be one of those grey areas where good judgment is needed. As you said, is it for self promotion and glory? If so, think long and hard before you post it.
Arg. My brain hurts now.

Don, this one made my brain hurt, too, for the very reasons you pointed out. It’s not a black and white. That’s why I defaulted to: What’s the motive behind the rebuke? Seems like a good filter.

Julie, I don’t know much about the Haggard scandal, so can’t comment. I do find it strange though to think that a church would just go straight to the press. Maybe HBO pressing for a story? Or we’re just hearing one side of the story? I don’t know. Good point about David but I’m wondering if you meant Nathan? Not familiar with the Jonathan story.

When a Christian makes a public statement you may rebuke or challenge them publically without going to them personally first. Remember if a brother is promoting a scriptural error that is not a personal offense that Matthew 18 is referring to. It doesn’t mean you can’t go an address this person personally but there is no biblical requirement. Jesus states,
“…If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone…”

The Lord is referring here to a personal offense or misunderstanding between two people perhaps something that has broken their fellowship and has little or nothing to do with anyone else. Personal and private matters of wrongdoing should always be dealt with personally and privately first. That is indeed, biblical.

In the case of Paul challenging Hymanaeus, he did so publically, strongly and by name.
I believe that MacArthur was following Paul’s model in this case.

Well said, BF.

Demian, you and the commenters ahead of me seem to have pretty well hashed this out. I’d like to share an observation that may apply to the matter of clarity over what to do in a given situation…

Between the Exodus from Egypt & the building of the Tabernacle, God led His people by day in a pillar of cloud and by night in a pillar of fire. Is it possible that by day, when sunlight illuminated their lives, they could see clearly enough, so God dwelt in a cloud, a mist, a grey area. I do not suggest by this any hint of uncertainty regarding God or His will, but rather that in the light of day some things are plain and clear.
At night, when the less commanding heavenly lights ruled, God was present in a pillar of fire, brightly illuminating His people with His own essence, lest they decide things badly for lack of light.
Of course, to ignore God is to choose wrongly day or night. But for those who seek His face, to know and perform His will, His Word is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, regardless the hour or the conditions…

Damien, while reading your post I was formulating my reasoning and suddenly, I discovered BF had already said everything. We have the category of private sins and that shouldn’t be exposed before the Biblical procedures (those procedures were/are intended to protect the person, giving them the opportunity to repent before the church/community take notice of it). But when someone intentionally and in a public way promotes a biblical or theological error, EXPOSING THE BIBLICAL TRUTH, we have to rebuke it publicly DEFENDING THE BIBLICAL TRUTH. I believe we have to make a clear distinction between personal sins and sinful teachings. Even when you know that that teaching is an anomalous mistake in comparison to the rest of material published, it has to be corrected publically in defense of the Truth, as you don’t know how many have been contaminated by that untruthfulness.

Not really adding a lot to the discussion, but I wanted to mention that my motivation in publically pointing out biblical error, is not primarily for the correction of the person promoting the error but to warn those who are not as mature in their understanding from falling into such error.

lol.. I did mean Nathan.. got him mixed up with Saul’s son …. you burst my Bible scholar bubble. Thank you for correcting me

Hmm. Well, if I’m speaking of Benny Hinn, I’ll publicly rebuke him on my blog. May I use yours? Okay, I regress, just because I don’t know you that well. But if I was on Don’s blog, I would call Hinn a heretic. Oops!

When it comes to personal experience, I’m not sure. I had an a terrible experience once with a pastor. He was a friend, actually. Things didn’t go well with us in ministry. I, along with a few others, got treated very badly. It went all the way to a board meeting where I got cussed at by this pastor. Afterwards, I blogged about how I felt abandoned and kicked in the teeth. I didn’t mention names though.

Was it wrong? I don’t know. My point in the post was to testify to God’s faithfulness IN SPITE of my circumstance, which others could see clearly.

FWIW.

This is a difficult ethical question.

I feel that it is proper, even required, that a public statement of error (heresy) be challenged publicly.

Like ODI, I think that if the error has been propagated in public, it should be publicly challenged.

Those who may have been wrongly influenced by the statement need to be exposed to the truth in order to have an opportunity to evaluate the degree to which there thinking on the subject has been corrupted.

The problem is, most Christians opt for peace at any cost.

Everyone, thank you for your great comments. I read them all and especially like the private/public distinction you are making. Thank you for taking the time.