watching the watchdogs

I was confronted (in a good way) recently by a friend for criticizing critics. He was right but I still struggle with the Christian "watchdog". As I read/listen to them, I typically see offense in them greater than what they are warning against. So I'm trying to figure out a way to fire off a warning without becoming like those I am warning about.

Here is a general example of what I am getting at. I just read that Joel Osteen has signed a huge deal for his next book. As expected, the blogshere is lit up with this. Quickly the conversation drifted to "guys like Osteen and Warren"...what?!? Osteen and Warren? The connection being what, people that have made money selling books? What about Osteen and Sproul or MacArthur? So - learning one, be real careful when making links. If you are going to be critical, focus on the actual issue and avoid the association trap. Especially when the association has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

After the guilt by some association warnings, the argument generally (1) looks at all of that could go wrong if someone takes the offending persons teaching/statements to extremes or (2) presumes that the offending person's points are the full balance of their ministry. Warnings of what could happen and taking snapshots as representing the whole would make anyone look bad. I cannot tell you the number of times I've read these criticisms about Warren (and others) yet I cannot recall reading someone showing where he has taught contrary to Scripture. So - learning two, try to determine what is actually wrong and don't make judgments based on what could go wrong.

Regarding Warren, I read attacks about his use of various Bible versions. Typically these are really against the Bible versions themselves and not so much against Warren. It seems some people just don't like these versions. I can respect that but I'm not sure how that makes Warren a danger for using them since the principles he is teaching are not contrary to Scripture (regardless of the version). He explains in PDL why he did that (efficiency in communication) which again may not be the best approach (he could have written a heavier book) but I doubt that puts him in the "evil" category. So - learning three, don't get caught up in a great argument about what is wrong with X and then conclude that because someone's name is mentioned in the article that they are guilty of something.

Net, please be careful in the criticism of a brother. Look for specifics that show a teaching contrary to Scripture. Avoid guilt by association and attacks on straw men. If there's error, then we need to judge but as I read the watchdogs, I see very little of substance. Be careful.

I love John Piper. I recently heard him speak about a denomination that he has great issue with but he spoke with regard for others and he focused on specifics. He started by first acknowledging things he had in common with this group and that while he disagreed with them on the topic he was about to address, he acknowledged that they were sincere in their thinking, etc.. Then in an uncompromising way, he took statements that he verified from the other viewpoint and contrasted them to Scripture. He purposefully avoided using examples that he could not verify. Piper demonstrated integrity yet he was unwavering - we could use more like him.

Technorati Tags: watchdogs, current events, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, John Piper