Criticizing pastors

[evangelist6589]

The other day ago I was having a chat with a certain PostModern Charismatic Pastor from Canada and he was complaining that I have no grace, tact, am too harsh or what not. I had said that he does not know the truth, but I could not say for sure if he was not saved, however based on his teachings I found little if any fruit.

Reading various books by John MacArthur, and listening to The Way of the Master, Paul Washer and the like, I am taught to boldly confront sin and to preach the truth in love. Those that are in sin do not see this and will make accusations against me, and complain that I am "criticizing a pastor" however I wear those accusations with a badge of honor that I have boldly spoken the truth against their lies and deceptions. However with secondary issues I think its wise to remain silent and not criticize. How do you criticize a pastor whom is teaching false doctrine?

 

[abcgrad94]

You don't. You show the error of the doctrine, you don't attack the man who believes it.

 

[evangelist6589]

You don't. You show the error of the doctrine, you don't attack the man who believes it.

How do you differentiate? People will interpret attacking their doctrine as a attack on them personally. According to The Jesus You Cant Ignore by MacArthur I need to expose false doctrine.

 

[webdog]

How do you differentiate? People will interpret attacking their doctrine as a attack on them personally. According to The Jesus You Cant Ignore by MacArthur I need to expose false doctrine.

MacArthur would not be my mentor in speaking truth in love. Mr 'Grace To You' often exhibits very little of it in his attack on others (both doctrine and person)

 

[abcgrad94]

There is a difference between attacking a person and attacking a false belief. When you use phrases like "you don't know the truth" you are slamming the person as if he's dumb. Instead, say, "Here's what the Bible says" or "Here's what God says about that." There's no need to accuse others of "not believing the Bible." Let the Bible speak for itself.

Saying "I believe this" or "I am confident of this because of. . .(insert Biblical reference) is much more tactful and less confrontational. Walking up to someone and telling them how wrong, horrible, or error-filled they are is harsh and will turn people off to the truth simply because of the manner and wording.

Same thing is true when addressing a spouse during an argument. You don't say, "YOU make me so mad." That is putting the blame on THEM and builds a wall. Instead, say, "I feel upset when you do x,y, or z because it seems you're not listening to me.

Do you see the difference? One way is "in your face" and comes across as "I'm right, you stupid idiot." The other way comes across as more open and less accusing.

 

[evangelist6589]

MacArthur would not be my mentor in speaking truth in love. Mr 'Grace To You' often exhibits very little of it in his attack on others (both doctrine and person)

You may have a point as n the Vanishing Conscience he showed very little if any grace. However he is strong to speak the truth and expose. David Jeremiah and Erwin Lutzer have written books that have more grace, however they are weaker at exposing. I guess a balanced approach would be best. Read MacArthur, and the others. But learn the most from Jesus whom did both.

 

[ktn4eg]

However with secondary issues I think its wise to remain silent and not criticize.

The problem that I see with so-called "secondary issues" is that what may be a secondary issue to you might not be considered as a secondary issue to someone else.

EXAMPLE: To me, the "KJVO vs. Modern Versions 'Debate,'" is a secondary issue----BUT, OTOH, to someone else this may NOT a secondary issue. IOW, some times one needs to define what exactly what a "secondary issue" actually means to him/her.

This is merely MHO and nothing else but MHO.

Hope this helps as opposed to confusing you more. (I'm really good at confusing people----Maybe that's my "spiritual gift"!??! :laugh

 

[evangelist6589]

There is a difference between attacking a person and attacking a false belief. When you use phrases like "you don't know the truth" you are slamming the person as if he's dumb. Instead, say, "Here's what the Bible says" or "Here's what God says about that." There's no need to accuse others of "not believing the Bible." Let the Bible speak for itself.

Saying "I believe this" or "I am confident of this because of. . .(insert Biblical reference) is much more tactful and less confrontational. Walking up to someone and telling them how wrong, horrible, or error-filled they are is harsh and will turn people off to the truth simply because of the manner and wording.

Same thing is true when addressing a spouse during an argument. You don't say, "YOU make me so mad." That is putting the blame on THEM and builds a wall. Instead, say, "I feel upset when you do x,y, or z because it seems you're not listening to me.

Do you see the difference? One way is "in your face" and comes across as "I'm right, you stupid idiot." The other way comes across as more open and less accusing.

This is the opposite of what MacArthur, Washer, and Way of the Master have taught me. However I see your point. However when I witness I never approach someone like that I just run through the 10 commandments and have them see that. But often they get hostile to it.

Perhaps a more Apologetics approach would be best. Show a video clip of Joel Osteen saying something and then expose the truth. But his followers will call me attacking even though I just quoted from his own words what he said.

 

[evangelist6589]

The problem that I see with so-called "secondary issues" is that what may be a secondary issue to you might not be considered as a secondary issue to someone else.

EXAMPLE: To me, the "KJVO vs. Modern Versions 'Debate,'" is a secondary issue----BUT, OTOH, to someone else this may NOT a secondary issue. IOW, some times one needs to define what exactly what a "secondary issue" actually means to him/her.

This is merely MHO and nothing else but MHO.

Hope this helps as opposed to confusing you more. (I'm really good at confusing people----Maybe that's my "spiritual gift"!??! :laugh

KJVO can be very confrontational but I usually ignore them, but often they wont have peace with me as to them its not a secondary issue.

 

[abcgrad94]

If you watch The Way of the Master closely, you'll see that even when using the 10 commandments method of evangelism, Comfort says "If I tell a lie, that makes me a ?" and then he and the person usually answer "a liar." He doesn't say, "If YOU tell a lie, that makes YOU a liar." It's a subtle difference, but one that is important, because one way is accusing, the other way is sharing the guilt--a more humble approach, if you will.

It is true that some will get angry no matter how kind your approach. But you'll get farther, and reach deeper, with a more gentle approach. Gentle doesn't mean wimpy or compromising, either. There's a time and place for gentleness and a time and place for "in your face."

 

[JonC]

You differentiate by focusing on the doctrine and listening to the other person. I’d suggest instead of telling him “you don’t know the truth,” begin by exploring the truth as he knows it and weigh that against scripture.

 

[evangelist6589]

If you watch The Way of the Master closely, you'll see that even when using the 10 commandments method of evangelism, Comfort says "If I tell a lie, that makes me a ?" and then he and the person usually answer "a liar." He doesn't say, "If YOU tell a lie, that makes YOU a liar." It's a subtle difference, but one that is important, because one way is accusing, the other way is sharing the guilt--a more humble approach, if you will.

It is true that some will get angry no matter how kind your approach. But you'll get farther, and reach deeper, with a more gentle approach. Gentle doesn't mean wimpy or compromising, either. There's a time and place for gentleness and a time and place for "in your face."

Yes the idea is to get the sinner to see their sin and not to accuse. But regardless people will still get angry or not want to talk no matter how you talk to them. I have had long chats with people and short ones. The Holy Spirit opens the eyes of the blind.

 

[abcgrad94]

Yes, they might get angry, but you cannot control that. We can only control our own selves and present the truth in love.

God will bless your efforts, brother.

 

[ktn4eg]

Yes, they might get angry, but you cannot control that. We can only control our own selves and present the truth in love.

God will bless your efforts, brother.

BRAVO, abcgrad94!!! :thumbsup:

As I read your most judicious replies, I couldn't help thinking about what Proverbs 15:1-2 & 4 have to say to us:

1 A soft answer turneth away wrath [anger]: but grievous [harsh] words stir up anger.
2 The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.
4 A wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness is a breach in the spirit.

Here's what the Life Application Bible comments about Proverbs 15:1:

"Have you ever tried to argue in a whisper? It is equally hard to argue with someone who insists on answering gently. On the other hand, a rising voice and harsh words almost always trigger an angry response. To turn away wrath and seek peace, choose gentle words." [Life Application Bible (c) 1988 through 1996, Tyndale House Publ, Inc.]

And then there's also Proverbs 25:11---

11 A word fitly [properly] spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.

 

[gb93433]

Isn't it scripture that teaches we are to pick the log of out of our own eye first. When we do that then we are not so quick to pick others apart. That qualifies us to have some humility when we come to another.

Gal. 6:1, "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted."

Humility seems to work best especially if we are wrong and need correction instead of correcting the other person.

 

[saturneptune]

How do you differentiate? People will interpret attacking their doctrine as a attack on them personally. According to The Jesus You Cant Ignore by MacArthur I need to expose false doctrine.

How about do what the Bible says. Make a reasonable effort to correct the error, then dust off your shoes and move on without comment.

 

[evangelist6589]

How about do what the Bible says. Make a reasonable effort to correct the error, then dust off your shoes and move on without comment.

Thats what MacArthur bases his book on! He loves the Bible and teaches the passages that people often ignore on exposing false teachers.

 

[evangelist6589]

Isn't it scripture that teaches we are to pick the log of out of our own eye first. When we do that then we are not so quick to pick others apart. That qualifies us to have some humility when we come to another.

Gal. 6:1, "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted."

Humility seems to work best especially if we are wrong and need correction instead of correcting the other person.

Wrong! The passage was not talking about false doctrine and in no way hinted that we are to ignore it because we ourselves have other problems.

 

[gb93433]

Wrong! The passage was not talking about false doctrine and in no way hinted that we are to ignore it because we ourselves have other problems.

I understand that. My point is humility. We are not to be approaching people in arrogance. We can be direct and be humble too. Humility does not mean weakness and being an easy pushover. It actually communicates strength.