Scripture References: 1 Kings 22, Galatians 2:11-21, Acts 17:11-12
Thank you for reading to this point in the series. So far, we have learned that Micaiah, when he had a CRITICAL yet politically incorrect TRUTH, spoke it publicly in the face of the error. He also undressed the error publicly. His loyalty to the truth offended the unanimous deceit of 400 colleagues. Did his colleagues deserve such an embarrassment? That’s the wrong question. Were his colleagues deceiving the Kings intentionally? Maybe not. But that’s also not the main question. The major issue here is that two nations, God’s people, were going to war with an enemy. Lives were at stake.
Also, like Kobby Seli pointed out recently in a comment, the “integrity of God” was at stake. God’s name was involved. The prophets purported to be speaking from God. If their prophecies failed (and they did), people may lose faith in the God of Israel. Possibly, they may rather lose faith in the prophetic ministry – an important institution of God in His dealings with His people.
Three things were therefore at stake; God’s name, people’s lives and the integrity of the prophetic office. The humiliation of the 400 prophets was therefore a necessary casualty in the circumstance. God’s name, people’s lives and the integrity of the prophetic office mattered more than the face of the 400 prophets.
In the long term, Prophet Micaiah’s action profited the prophetic ministry. In the instance, it disgraced 400 men including a “major” prophet. In the instance, it caused confusion. Later on, there was clarity. But the most important benefit of his frankness is the glory it brought to God.
How this story relates to polemics have been repeated throughout this series. But I will share it again. Just like Micaiah, we are often faced with situations where a popular doctrine is false, or a popular man of God shares a faulty and dangerous teaching. Doing what Micaiah did would imply stating the truth and punching holes in the false teaching. When this is done in a way that clearly contrasts the two positions, a party may feel embarrassed.
To avoid this embarrassment, some suggest that polemists correct doctrines without naming the persons who are in error. There is some wisdom in this suggestion. However, the embarrassment of humans, where it is necessary, must not be considered more expensive than the dangers of false doctrine. If you agree that “shying” Zedekiah is a small “crime” compared to “shying” God and getting people killed in a battle that lacks divine backing, then you will also agree that shaming false teachers (habitual or incidental ones) creates a small discomfort compared to the devastation a false doctrine can cause to the body of Christ. False doctrine can be likened to malnutrition sometimes. Other times, it is plain poison. It kills. I think you admit that it is better to bruise a few egos, if necessary, to save a life.
If you agree with me on this, then you understand the importance of sound doctrine and the effects of false doctrine. Otherwise, kindly take some studies along those lines.
The next question is, In what instances is it necessary to mention the name of the person who has made the mistake? I will offer my opinions as gleaned from Scripture and from experience.
Firstly, the example of Paul rebuking Peter in the Bible is an instructive place to look. From there, I think it is important to mention names when the person in error has significant influence over others. The wisdom in publicly stating that a popular preacher is wrong is to alert their followers to ignore the specific chaff or poison they spewed. If the preacher is however a point-blank false teacher, or their wrong position is one that affects the very foundations of Christianity, then it is also wise and necessary to name them and warn Christians against such teachers. The goal, in both instances, is to save lives.
We are simply saying, “Beware of dogs”, or “Beware of this very dog here.” To beware of dogs requires being able to identify them. For learning purposes, can’t we name and use some specific dogs, especially very dangerous yet unsuspecting ones?
“Look out for the dogs [the Judaizers, the legalists], look out for the troublemakers, look out for the false circumcision [those who claim circumcision is necessary for salvation]” (Philippians 3:2 AMP).
Secondly, Paul did not only rebuke Apostle Peter. He reported on the incident to make the point that the doctrine of justification by faith for both Jews and Gentiles could not be compromised. In other words, calling out an influential figure is necessary if the mistake is so grave. The wisdom in doing it publicly is to send the appropriate signal on the seriousness of the matter. Minor issues may be treated with kid gloves. Major departures must be corrected with major strikes, howbeit in love and gentleness. The specific falsehood under attack informs the tactics that are deployed.
Another benefit of calling people out publicly is that it indicates the uncompromising value for truth. It is a way of demanding that leaders lead by example in their commitment to truth. I see it as a beautiful announcement of the true authority. It is a public signpost that points at the Bible. When the words of bishops are subjected to the test of Scripture publicly, people will know the true place of preachers. It will be known that the Bible is superior to the words of any man. Luke described the Bereans’ investigative approach to Paul’s sermons as a noble thing. It did not offend him. I believe Paul was happy to know that his sermons were being evaluated against the written Word of God. Luke knew and reported it in the book of Acts because there was a public aspect to this further investigation of Paul’s words. They were glad to make their additional checks public. If the checks had shown Paul’s message to be false, it would be made public (by the same means that Luke knew about the checks). The Holy Spirit (through the hand of Luke) describes such a habit as “more noble” (Acts 17:11). What was the result of this approach?
“As a result, many Jews believed, as did many of the prominent Greek women and men.” (Acts 17:12, NLT)
Modern-day preachers should be happy too when their sermons are scrutinized in comparison with what the Bible says. The fact that a scrutiny of our sermons scare us suggests that we have a lot of work to do in aligning our messages to the Bible. Otherwise, if we are preaching the right messages biblically, such checks will build rather than break the Church. Indeed, it may break falsehoods and the empires of false teachers, but no good scrutiny of Scripture will break the true Church of God. The book of Acts shows us that when the Word of God prevails, the Church grows. (Acts 6:7, 19:20)
I have a few more posts to make in this series, but let me conclude this one like this. Polemics, when done properly, is beneficial to the Church. There are more benefits to polemics. But in this episode, we see that, especially when we name the incidental or habitually false teacher, their followers are properly warned and the place of preachers in general (through the example of the influential preacher) is properly fixed under the authority of the Word of God (the Bible). This practice is certainly healthy. Don’t you think so?
With love,
PDS.