Do you ever play the telephone game? Not the one where you whisper something around the room and see how botched it has gotten by the time it gets back to its original speaker. The other one. The one where you overhear a conversation and try to piece together what it’s about simply by listening to one end of the phone conversation. On occasion I’ll be able to get a decent understanding of my wife’s conversation—at other times I’m totally wrong.
Understanding early heresies is similar to those phone conversations. (Also, don’t give me credit for this illustration. I don’t know where I heard it but it isn’t original with me). All we really have to go on is the way Paul responded to the church at Colossae, or Galatia, or Corinth, etc. We don’t get to read a book about the teaching of the Judaizers of Galatia. So, just like in our phone conversation game, we have to piece together a heresy based on one side of the story.
But here is an interesting thought experiment. Imagine that someone three hundred years from now is doing a history assignment on some of the heresies of our day. It wouldn’t be a one-sided conversation. For one, such a person could likely read the original sources. But he could also read through some of our Christian books. He could read through a systematic theology and read a full explanation of differing views. He could read some of our historical theology views and could come to a complete understanding of not only the orthodox position but also that of the heretics.
Now I understand that this isn’t really a fair comparison because our books and such are a bit more permanent than papyrus. But I cannot help but wonder if we are doing something a bit wrong. Should we ask ourselves, why in the world didn’t Paul outline the teaching of the Judaizers? Why didn’t he say, “the Colossian heretics are wrong about x, y, and z”? We only know bits and pieces but a vast majority of what Paul did was speak the truth of Christ.
Sure Paul’s words were to be directly applied to very specific heresies. And truth he presented was set over and against these heretics. But he seemed to have a different view of truth than we do in our day. He didn’t give them much of a showing. He didn’t say, “here is what they believe, here is why they are wrong. Now, here is what we believe, here is why we are right”. He didn’t give false teaching much of a platform.
Spurgeon once said, “We do not deliberate, for we have decided. To be for ever holding the truth of God, as though it might yet turn out to be a lie, were to lose all the comfort of it.” Sometimes I wonder if we’re chewing on postmodernism a bit too long. I understand our need to respect people and to honor them as those created in the image of God. But does that necessarily mean that I have to pretend like their positions are almost as valid as the gospel? Am I so scared of being called bigoted that I cannot do as the apostle did and just dismiss a great deal of false teaching and move on preaching the gospel as if it really is the only truth for humanity?
I want to preach the gospel in such a way that if folks listened to the whole catalogue of my sermons or read all of my writing they wouldn’t come away with a good solid understanding of world religions and be able to articulate a ton of false teaching. My aim is that it’d feel a bit like listening to a one-sided phone conversation where they got a whole lot of Jesus and his unchanging gospel and just bits and pieces of whatever contemporary competitor I’m kicking in the teeth with God’s truth.
—
Photo source: here
2 Comments
Comments are closed.