The Cowardly Disfellowship of the Brotherhood Police

Everybody’s a “false teacher”

As the rhetoric of climate alarmism has reached a fever pitch in the last decade, a glaring hypocrisy has undermined virtually every word from these prophets of doom.

Their words say one thing, yet their actions say another. They claim ocean levels are rising, yet they buy lavish beachfront properties. They claim emissions are killing the planet, yet they continue to cruise around the world on gas guzzling private jets and yachts.

Even further to the point is their lack of urgency. If they really believe the planet will be uninhabitable by 2030 (or whatever the latest apocalyptic claim is), why on earth would they talk about anything else until that problem is solved? Who has time to debate tax rates or policing if billions of people are on the brink of death?

Again, their actions prove their words to be totally unserious. They’re just saying these things because they stand to gain something and not because they really believe them.

Oddly enough, this is exactly how the church of Christ’s self-appointed “Brotherhood Police” operate.

A good example came in a response to Jameson Steward’s thoughtful piece on Romans 8 and “creation’s groaning.” Though I have my quibbles with some of the article, I thought he gave a fair treatment of the hot button “New Heaven New Earth” (NHNE) issue, particularly when he said, “I think rushing to condemn those who think and teach this as being hellbound false teachers is running too far in the opposite direction.”

Right on cue, one of the usual suspects popped up to say that no, we can’t agree to disagree because anyone who teaches this “promotes error.” I have no issue with someone thinking that, under one condition: they had better act as though they mean what they say.

That would entail condemning Alexander Campbell to hell as one who promoted this “error.” That would entail publicly condemning and disfellowshipping the many members of the church who believe that way. That would entail following through and not just making a bold statement and moving on, as typically happens with doctrinal dustups.

If someone were teaching that transgenderism isn’t a sin, or that churches can have lesbian ministers, we would not throw out a bold statement about the error and then go on interacting with those people as per usual. We would draw the strongest of lines and never allow them in the door again.

Yet with issues such as NHNE, or our Think Deeper podcast episode on alcohol, people have no qualms about slapping on labels like “false teacher” and “false doctrine” for a week or two before moving on with life as usual.

If somebody actually is a hellbound false teacher, don’t you have a duty to do everything you can to try to stop them?

(And no, a poorly studied attack article does not count.)

But just as with the climate alarmists, we ask, “Why should I believe what you’re saying when your actions prove you don’t even believe it?”

Instead, you can read between the lines and see what these people really mean is “I disagree strongly with you and want to claim a doctrinal high ground rather than debate you.”

But if they don’t actually believe it, why do they do it?

Because, like climate alarmists, they stand to gain from it. You get some pats on the back and a merit badge for “taking a stand” and then you go back to business as usual. You’re a “defender of sound doctrine” even though it cost you nothing and required no action. It’s nothing more than ecclesial slacktivism and doctrinal territorialism.

All of this can make it sound so benign, something at which we can just roll our eyes. Be warned that it is not so small a matter.

As I’ve pointed out before, Matthew 7:2 should scare us into extreme caution on these matters: “For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you” (NKJV). Terms like “false teacher,” “false doctrine” and “error” make for serious accusation. You had better be ready to stand behind all of the implications that come with such labels, because you’ll answer for them someday as they are measured back to you in kind.

But few are willing to take that stand. It’s just more grandstanding from the brotherhood police. We have to learn what constitutes a “fellowship issue,” what can be categorized as a matter of concern but not of fellowship, and what is in the realm of “agree to disagree.” Not everything I disagree with makes somebody a false teacher.

As I’ve said before, I and my colleagues at Focus Press are more than ready to join in a brotherhood movement to get past such a self-congratulatory cancel culture. I know we’re not the only ones. In order to put those tactics behind us, we need to stand ready to call it out and challenge such people on the implications of their accusations.