Some thoughts on discernment.

I might be going soft in my old age, but there's something that is mildly perplexing to me at the moment. I am as eager as the next believer to stand up for the truth of Christ. I get to do it almost every day with my children, and a number of other times a week with those outside of my immediate family. Did it yesterday with my own father.

I hope this blog stands as testimony to that fact. There are many, many things in the modern church that shock and appal me. Just this morning I was saddened by the spoof rap video doing the rounds that is aiming for humour, and falls headlong into blasphemy. I shan't link to it, because honestly, I don't think it needs any more oxygen.

There are many preachers, teachers and general personalities with whom I have strong disagreements, but will still consider them to be brothers and sisters in the Lord. I perhaps could not in good conscience join a church with them, but that's the case with my best friend who is a Charismatic, and yet still a precious treasure to me.

I enjoy CS Lewis, who was an able apologist for the faith, even though I disagree with him on a number of points of doctrine. I love The Last Battle. I leave aside the erroneous Emeth, and revel in dialogue that explains that in our world a stable was much bigger on the inside than the outside.

I enjoy RC Sproul, though I don't see the covenant sign of baptism in the same way he does (and yes, I think I'm right *shock*)

I still cannot get my head around the notion of 'reformed charismatic', but I've been blessed by John Piper.

I couldn't be an Anglican if you paid me, but our local vicar is a dear, honest man who believes the gospel and baptises people in the river next to his church, rather than the font.

I am not shy about talking about things that are way out of line. Error is error, and rightly pointed out.

But it's important that what we are pointing out is actually error, and not merely the words of someone who is in error in some other area.

It's often appropriate to quote Origen, but the man had some highly questionable views. NT Wright is lucid and readable on every area other than justification, imho. Goodness, Steve Chalke wrote a book about the resurrection of Jesus Christ that even my unbelieving mother found compelling, and yet I would challenge him seriously about his attitude to the atonement.

Now, granted, some of these errors are more serious than others. Justification seems to me to be the very heart of the gospel, and once obscured, the whole edifice is distorted.

But it's important to note that just because one thing that someone has said is heretical - it does not follow that every last thing they have ever written is to be cast out as entirely worthless and spiritually dangerous. I used to believe that Jesus was the archangel Michael, and I even, at one point, believed in transubstantiation. You may well disagree with me over any number of doctrinal issues that I still hold to now. I've quoted Spurgeon before now, who anyone will tell you smoked cigars.

But you know what? The Puritans, and even Paul, quoted Pagans - sometimes approvingly, sometimes not. These quotes were not, in and of themselves, a blanket endorsement of the teaching of the ones quoted.

I've heard some beautiful things said by, yes, Roman Catholics. One of my favourite quotes is Mother Theresa's 'How can there be too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers'.

I am still happy to point out RC error and even that of Mother Theresa. But it was still a beautiful and good thing for her to say.

Of course it's important to be discerning about what one hears or reads. I would imagine almost every individual who loves the Lord Jesus Christ and makes sermons would expect you to have your head screwed on when you hear them, so that you make sure for yourself that what they say is true.

But to quote a sensible or useful statement from someone who may well be unsound in another area is not a giant leap down the road of rank heresy. Nor can we expect everyone to see things the way we do the first time, or any number of times we explain it.

I did not believe the Doctrines of Grace overnight - and I am thankful that our church didn't throw us out because I couldn't get my head round total depravity. Even if you explain to someone about something you have been convinced by - as we have done a number of times about some of the worrisome elements of the emergent church - you cannot expect that they will instantly become, not only a convert to the cause, but an able apologist for it, and if they don't, you question their whole faith.

This isn't meant to be an attack - more a plea to those who are engaged in the useful and important ministry of discernment - be wise in how you approach these things. There is a place for boldness, but there is equally a need for graceful persuasion.