If You See Something, Say Something: In the Brotherhood

“If you see something, say something.” This was the advice of the Department of Homeland Security after the events of September 11, 2001. This national campaign was launched to empower ordinary American citizens to report suspicious actions, packages, etc., in the hope of preventing another terror attack. Perhaps we could consider this as New Testament Christians. There are times when we make observations of the behavior of brethren, and we are left to decide what to do with what we have observed.

In recent years, this has often been a case of discussion among brethren. The subjects have varied, but most often it seems that the drinking of alcohol has been at the forefront. The problem that some brethren have is that they believe that the correcting brother should have contacted the erring brother privately. We must ask again, what does the Bible say? Does Matthew 18:15-20 apply in the situation I alluded to last week? If a brother on a livestream, podcast, etc in Middle Tennessee teaches error, do I, as a member of another congregation in West Alabama have to go to him in private? No, that is not the case. We will show why this is not the case in the following paragraphs. 

There are False Teachers Among the Brethren. What Do We Do?

It is most unfortunate that we have brethren who have embraced error, but this is not something isolated to the 21st century, is it? Paul instructed Timothy, the young evangelist, with these words, 

But shun profane babblings: for they will proceed further in ungodliness, and their word will eat as doth a gangrene: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; men who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some.

(2 Tim 2:16-18)

Not only does Paul instruct Timothy on how to handle false teaching, but he also names the teachers. It is with no doubt that we can say that these brethren knew the truth and had erred (it is plain in the context). In addition, by the sheer virtue of this being a letter, we understand that Paul was not in the local congregation with these men or even in the same location. 

If Paul did not point out that these men were teaching error, then what could have happened? For one, Timothy might have attached himself to those men and their error and had his faith overthrown. Now, suppose we apply this today. If a brother on his podcast is advocating for the Renovated Earth Theory or suggests that drinking alcohol (as long as you do it in secret) is permissible, does that brother have the right to teach that error without any pushback? We would hope that the elders or at least someone in the congregation would sit down with him and correct him. What if no one does, as has been the case in several places? Am I allowed to correct this error? Yes, I can, and, at times, should. However, we need to remember that what is in view here is the need to handle aright the Word of Truth. Matthew 18:15-20 cannot apply to brethren in two separate locations because if it were to go to the final step, the church aspect could not have its desired effect. First, elders only rule local congregations. Second, the practice of the entire congregation exhorting an erring brother cannot have the desired effect if the erring brother is not a member of that congregation. 

However, the concept of Matthew 18 is worth consideration even though it does not apply to brothers in two different congregations, let alone on the subject of teaching false doctrine. For instance, if I know a brother, or have him as a mutual acquaintance, he might be willing to hear me out about a subject and receive my rebuke. Others, whom I do not know, might not hear me, because we do not know each other. Remember Matthew 18 challenges us to love each other enough to be able to have difficult conversations. We can attempt to correct someone privately, but there are times when that is not possible and/or profitable. 

When to Say Something

Certainly, we can agree that the internet has been a great tool for evangelism through many means. We all have likely received the benefit of many sermons posted online, devotional videos, podcasts, and even live debates. With all the benefits, we are also left to conclude that much error has been taught in the same formats. So what do we do? Some preachers have large followings among brethren. Some brethren trust them with their teaching because, for years, they have taught the truth on any number of issues. What happens when they teach error? Do they get a pass? Do we treat it as a one-off? 

When an error is ​​uttered publicly and continually preserved on the internet, it can be corrected publicly. If tomorrow I started teaching the sinner's prayer is the way to be saved on our livestream on YouTube, what should happen? For starters, I know my elders would get up and correct me. But what if that were not the case, and maybe a brother hears my sermon and proceeds to teach others in his local congregation, and it spreads to other congregations in an area? Perhaps we understand why the inspired Apostle Paul called it gangrene. 

What Are the Implications If We Say Nothing

If we say nothing, then the teacher of error has an unfair advantage over those who speak the truth. Jason Rollo wrote about this subject a few years ago. His reasoning paints us a clear picture of the gravity of the situation. Brother Rollo said,  

For starters, if a false teacher can teach false and fatal error on moral issues, Christian living, worship, the plan of salvation, the nature of the Lord’s church, etc., in a public fashion, but the man of God can only correct the error after he has contacted the false teacher privately, all a false teacher would have to do is avoid the private meeting and he could continue teaching his error without any fear of refutation.

(https://terrancebrownlowdindysr.substack.com/p/private-vs-public-error)

Should a false teacher be allowed to teach all he wants without fear of rebuke? Sadly, this has been tolerated in locations already. I know some elderships seemingly do not like the names of denominations, let alone brethren, being called out by a local preacher who is simply trying to rebuke and reprove. This was not the circumstance we find in the New Testament. Paul faced opposition that sought to undermine the work of the Apostles. Listen to what he had to say.

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light. It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. 

(2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

Should Paul have allowed them to continue to subvert sound doctrine? No! Neither can we. 

Some well-intentioned brethren have brought up the optics aspect. Their thought is we should not be airing out our grievances in public in front of the world, particularly on social media. I argue again that if the error is taught in public, it can certainly be corrected publicly, and one of the best vehicles to get that out is social media. Moreover, the scope of correction should certainly match the scope of influence. If one can teach public error, then the world, including enemies of the cross, might use that error to bring accusations against the righteous. Moreover, if the world sees us correcting each other and striving to fulfill the Word of God, would it not declare our sincerity and fidelity to that which we claim to believe? We must, however, remember to correct, even rebuke one another in a manner consistent with who we are in Christ.

All in all, we must recognize that love must be the motivator here as well. As I said in the first volume, we are obligated to one another in love. We must approach each other with humility and where it is fitting, hoping that you misunderstood. Yet, in most cases that would warrant a public rebuke, there should be no question on what was taught. This is quite clear when teaching their error criticizes what is known as the sound teaching on a subject. If we love the truth and love our brethren, we will defend the truth and teach our brethren that not all who have said true things are faithful in all things.