Very respected friends of mine have expressed concern on the possibly divisive or unfriendly nature of public correction of false doctrines. I will address that in this article and/or series, without forsaking direct engagement on the matter. The Lord help us.
Brethren, it is impossible to stand for truth and accommodate falsehood at the same time. Truth is inherently opposed to falsehood. Polemics does not correct grammar or negligible errors in preaching. Polemics corrects critical doctrinal errors through the truth of God’s word. Whether we name and shame the preacher or simply state the untruth they peddle and correct it, the truth is an offense to falsehood – and must be. I am merely speaking philosophically and logically at this point.
Christ died for our sins. If I preach this, it’s a sermon. If I preach it to a Muslim to refute their claim that He did not die, it is apologetics. If I preach it to correct a delusional pastors claim that Christ did not die for our sins, it is polemics. Thus, in this sense, polemics is simply in consistency with the Christian faith’s commitment to truth towards the world and within itself.
Now, the idea that all ideas should be allowed to grow without a confrontational correction of falsehood within the church in general and from pulpits of revered men and women of God is not Christian. No, it’s not. It is the monster of our age which has watered down evangelism and rendered the Gospel of Christ an equal or better religious suggestion to the world where everyone has the right to their own truth. If Christianity is based on opinions, everyone can have theirs. If it is based on truth, the right to an opinion is not curtailed but there is no such thing as personal truth. Next, if there is clarity on the truth of God’s word, anyone is right to declare an opinion false with divine authority. The Bible’s authority on a subject is divine. We can take up God’s truth and boldly announce that everything anyone else says is a lie. This reasoning of true or false is grounded in logic and nature. A thing is either true or false. Christians believe that God has spoken in the Bible and any word against God’s word (the Bible) is wrong, it does not matter who says it.
Just as I am obliged to lovingly tell my Muslim friends that the Quran is false about the claim that Jesus did not die for our sins, in the spirit of consistency, I am obligated to tell my brother or sister (whether they speak from the pulpit in Rome or the streets of Adabraka) when their claim is against the truth of God in the Bible. When I tell the unbeliever, it is evangelism or apologetics. When I tell the believer, it is an important duty of preserving the truth of God in His Church so that His people can grow by it, especially in this age of plenteous deception.
The idea that false doctrine should not be publicly condemned is therefore inconsistent with the commission to evangelize the world with God’s truth. Unless you want to tell me that it is wrong to tell Hindus, Buddhists, pagans and atheists that they are wrong, it is double standard to advise that we should be quiet about wrong doctrines within Christendom. For those who say we should do things backdoor, should we also preach the offensive Gospel only backdoor? Should we lobby for instance, to declare the Quran false instead of showing it to be false? Should we lobby chiefs to declare idol worship false instead of preaching that it is foolishness? Should we remove the offense of the cross? Truth offends falsehood! Period! If we can preach unbelievers (people of other religions) publicly with love, we can correct people of our religion with love. The emphasis is on truth, not saving faces. Otherwise, let everyone be!
I understand the PR approach to false doctrines and heretics. The idea of addressing things only privately or indirectly will help the image of men, not the true state of the Church. The Church must be seen publicly and privately as a pillar of truth in the world. This cannot happen by a false peace between conflicting doctrines shrouded in the opaqueness of coded unclear corrections that potentially and actually confuse believers. I have seen content creators match opposite teachings from great men of God and show the confusion it creates.
Apart from confusing believers, a quiet and indirect resolution may also be pretentious. If a false doctrine has reached a billion people, an indirect and/or strictly backdoor correction will not correct it effectively for the billion who are spreading it too. We will only be pretending. The reason Paul gives for correcting senior Apostle Peter publicly is so that the believers who saw his deceptive actions are not misled. Please reason this out. If people in their thousands are being deceived directly, should you correct the deception indirectly?
Thanks to God, I imagined this example earlier today. If a doctor mistakenly wrote a bad prescription that could kill a patient, would it not be wise and kind to cancel it, alert the doctor and the patient, and then write the correct prescription? Would it be wise or kind to simply strike a line under the old prescription and write a second one beneath it? What can happen? The patient may choose the wrong one, the right one or mix them. (The first and last options will be disastrous and the middle one is still dangerous but that is for another day.) Supposing this is a matter of life and death, would your relationship with the first doctor be enough reason to look on while a patient dies from your friend’s negligence (or wickedness)?
Respectfully, those who advocate for strictly indirect address to heresies either have a weak realization of the life-and-earth consequences of doctrine or have a different motivation that they have not located yet. And I say this with all respect. I once held that position myself, but I learned the importance of doctrine and the dangers of false doctrine. That’s why I started speaking publicly. I have senior brothers who have called and raised some of these concerns. This is not an attack on them at all. I indeed learn a lot from those engagements. One such instances prompted me to check the style of laughing at the preacher who is in error or mocking them. It was Bro Samuel who impressed this strongly on my mind in just one conversation. I have not forgotten. So we learn from such engagements even when we disagree with the call for strictly private correction or the call to suspend correction altogether. Let’s go back to the medicine prescription error.
If a village was dying from this doctor’s prescription or in an epidemic, would you, after finding the error, correct it indirectly or directly? What if it was the world? Would you respectfully tell the doctor he is wrong or you would simply add your prescription? Would you, with or without the doctor of mistake’s approval, announce the cause of the epidemic/pandemic and the cure? Or you would look on as people drink on and add your prescription as an option? As I have said, those who would use the latter method have not been inspired by the Bible or Christian love. They have been inspired by a monster of our age – one that says, each one to their view, each one to their truth; or an African culture I will highlight shortly. Not here! Here in Christianity, we say THIS IS THE TRUTH, and no other way works. Yes, we add the second part.
Examples: Jesus did not only say He is the way, the truth and the life. He added that no one goes to God without Him. (John 14:6) The singularity of truth is fiercely defended. The Bible does not only ask us to preach “our truth”, God calls on us to pull down arguments that raise themselves against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10:5). You pull down by grabbing with force and showing arguments to be shallow, unreasonable and untruthful. You often don’t pull down by merely beating around the bush but by getting to the root of the tree. Of course, wisdom is profitable. And that is why I take the time to listen to those who object to public correction despite the clear biblical example between Apostle Paul and Apostle Peter. I try to hear what their better option is. So far, mm mm.
When I listen, they often do not go against correction. They are against the public aspect of it and the name-calling. That sounds reasonable from the African perspective. I was only telling my sister yesterday that it is not respectful to tell elderly people to their face that they are telling lies. Ask me what I said she should do instead. I said she should couch it differently because it is not an acceptable practice to tell elders to their face that they are liars even if they are.
Family, I believe this thinking is what informs most of the attitude against polemics or public correction of false doctrines. Do you know why I’m saying that? The people who object to our style do not object to it when the bishops they admire correct them or other people’s doctrines publicly. For example, Apostle Johnson Suleman goofed while trying to correct E.W. Kenyon (whom I also don’t prescribe) and Apostle Paul of the Holy Bible (whom he had no ability to correct). Pastor Chris Oyakhilome goofed recently when he tried to correct lyrics of Sinach’s Waymaker song.
My friends who disagree with public correction, when these preachers correct others publicly, do you disagree with them? Be sincere with yourself. Start noting all the times that your favorite preacher is correcting some doctrine of another preacher and you don’t really see anything wrong with it. That process will explain your opposition to what we do. Secondly, for those who express these disagreements to me under my posts (and I respect and appreciate that a lot), if public correction is wrong, why would you correct me publicly? Wait! You are not wrong to do that. I love that. I am not complaining. The fact is, the real nature of things demands that truth is respected above names and titles, especially when it comes to a critical subject as faith. Unless we don’t think truth matters!
It is uncomfortable for you and for us who publicly correct untruths to publicly announce that a Papa is wrong, especially because of our African background and culture. But it is biblically mandated that we defend THE faith that was handed down to us (Jude 1:3), PULL DOWN false arguments (2 Cor. 10:5) and CORRECT erring brethren in love and gentleness (2 Timothy 2:23-26). That aspect must be emphasized too. A brother was concerned about the strength of my emotions in an earlier post. That’s generally a good concern. Even though I think I spoke as gently as I could, I constantly review my post to be sure or correct a few things where necessary. Polemists are not perfect, but polemics is not wrong.
The case for silence over serious doctrinal errors that will leave millions malnourished or make them perish is inconsistent and pretentious as I have explained. The Biblical mandate is clear and the example of Paul towards Peter demands that we correct things publicly if their effect will most likely be very bad on the rest of the Church. Please see that Paul’s correction had to do with doctrinal impact of Peter’s lifestyle/actions. That example is very important for polemics and public correction of false doctrines. I hope to answer those who use Aaron and Miriam’s opposition of Moses and those who use the “let them all grow” parable of Jesus soon. We must use the right examples.
How did Peter feel when Paul rebuked him before the other believers? (Gal. 2:11-14) Maybe, his ego was bruised. But that was insignificant compared to the threat his actions posed if they were not publicly checked. Maybe, he felt ok. That would mean that we are too proud as “Apostles” these days. I nearly asked whether Apostle Johnson Suleman considers himself Paul’s coequal in matters of inspiration merely because he holds a similar title. Pride is something we should check. All of us! To be corrected requires humility. But maybe even the person a correction comes through needs humility more. God help us.
But how did Paul also feel when he moved to correct Peter publicly before other believers? Maybe, he felt bad because he was rebuking a senior/fellow Apostle publicly. In that case, he was consoled by the importance of the action. His sadness would be balanced by the joy of obedience that serves as a stitch in time. Maybe, he felt okay because the truth he defended was more important than any Apostle. In that case, perhaps we respect our own Apostles too much. Any respect that disrespects God must be discarded. Like his namesake, Joshua Ahianyo said, when BBC released a documentary against T.B. Joshua, we saw many lawyers speaking for T.B. Joshua. Now that someone has spoken against Scripture (or Apostle Paul, if you like), we don’t care. Meanwhile, the Bible is the Word of God. Scripture is inspired by God. So, are we not respecting our Papas too much (more than God)? Maybe it’s also fanciful respect. When they are alive like Oyedopo and Oyakhilome and Duncan Williams, we hypocritically call them institutions of inerrant divine knowledge (to win favors, respect and acceptance in our ministerial habitat). When they die like E.W. Kenyon and Apostle Paul (who Suleman, Joshua Selman and Dr. Claudio incorrectly spoke about in a manner that compares his words to any other man’s), we say they were wrong. What kind of double-tongued respect is that? Well, food for thought.
Joshua Selman and Johnson Suleman speak against public correction (at least, of great men of God per their estimation) sometimes. But they have both sought to correct the Bible. Brothers, it doesn’t balance. Also, some of you, my well beloved seniors, correct me publicly once a while. Are there different rules for different people doing the same job of preaching the same Bible? (I pray for the humility to accept such corrections when I should.)
In conclusion, the principle that bans public correction of false doctrine has a weak view of the consequences of heresies, is inconsistent with the Christian posture towards the rest of the world and its falsehoods, and is pretentious in its claim to care about truth.
Public correction can be uncomfortable for both the corrected and the correcting vessel. Therefore, those who correct must do so in gentleness and love – “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). They must also pray and pursue humility. Those who are corrected must respect the Word of God above themselves and gladly embrace good or true correction, whether it is done publicly for the sake of the flock or privately out of respect for them. With the doctors’ example, the dignified thing for the doctor who prescribed wrongly is to apologize and correct his wrong. The loving thing for the second doctor is to correct the prescription urgently with love for the patient, and reach out to the first doctor, if he can, respectfully and humbly in the same urgency. If the wrong doctor refuses to correct the prescription for all his old and new clients, all well-meaning doctors must name and shame him with good passion, clarity and humility – not because they hate him, but because they love the clients.
Private correction and public polemics are not mutually exclusive. They can be done together. In the right way, when a teacher realizes he made a mistake, he must publicly correct his wrong and delete any record of it as much as possible to avoid spreading deception. We must care, because doctrines have consequences in this life and the next.
Christianity is not necessarily committed to keeping a good image but a good character. Christianity does not want to appear united but to be truly united in truth. Christianity does not advocate for a synthesis but an antithetical approach to truth. Christianity unites the world under sin but divides the world too into saved and unsaved with clear doctrine and truth. Christian preaching does not shy from condemning false doctrines.
Many examples in the Bible show that we can be confrontational where necessary. Jesus started on the Mount of Olives; “you have heard it said that…, but I say….” We can refer to the false preaching specifically where necessary. You can also name the false teacher/s after the example of Apostle Paul when he warned against some heretics (Titus 1:10-14), referring to them specifically. How do you know when it’s necessary to mention the name of the person who shared the falsehood? We will discuss that another day. For now, strictly private correction is not always effective. That’s what this article has said mainly. I hope to write on the benefits of public correction or polemics in more detail. But next, we will talk about the circumstances for private correction, God willing.
In my experience, not stating the error you are correcting and its source plainly, can sometimes reduce the impact of polemics. Part of the work of truth is to cancel falsehoods, not to live harmoniously with them.
With love and all humility,
PDS.
God help us all!
PS: Friends, it’s no personal attack, please. It’s never been. I salute everyone. To my Muslim friends, this was addressed to Christians. We can talk about Islam properly another day, in love and in truth. Shalom!
👉Next