The true schismatics: observations when cleaning house

[arapahoepark]

Who are the true schismatics? Just throwing thoughts out there based upon what I've seen and read on at least handful of situations (my church, Leithart Case, Enns, Shepherd, Federal Vision, etc.). Feel free to add to anything.

There are generally 3 parties: the defenders, the enablers& the heretics. I suppose this resembles the conservatives, moderates& liberals when a denomination starts to go sour. In this case, however, speaks to churches, denominations and seminaries who actively clean house.

The Heretics:

• Characteristics
  • Tend to be eager, charismatic
  • Easily swayed by the latest fads (NPP, Wright, OT scholarship, etc.).
  • Their popularity gains them some time to disseminate false info.
  • They are wiley in their answers, speaking out both sides of their mouths; wanting to satisfy all parties.
  • Think they are giving new and better info for the church
  • When dismissed they either:
    • Evolve constantly
    • Remove their mask

The Defenders; I'm biased here but, they are undeniably

• Characteristics:
  • Theologically astute.
  • They see the writing on the wall.
  • They try all avenues to quash the teaching be it a board of trustees, a session, church court.

The Enablers: Unfortunately, for all their fighting for 'fairness' they do seem gullible.

• Characteristics:
  • Scream and shout for fairness
  • Not theologically asute or don't care
  • Try to believe the best of the heretic
  • Tend to leave believing the process unfair (despite whoever is in charge is well within their rights...)
  • Rarely hear from them after the fact.

With regard to the last characteristic when the chips are down & the heretics have revealed their true colors( like Enns) you rarely hear the enablers' contrition ("oh you were right. I'm sorry I stood up for a heretic.") They simply vanish or follow the wide path of the heretic while still calling everyone who defends true doctrine a schismatic.
So, who are the true schismatics? The answer is obvious.

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

Obviously I'm biased here, but I find enablers to be the worse. The ones who supposedly cry for unity, yet not realizing that the heretics are the ones causing disunity with their heresy. It seems they think unity and peace in the church equates to people not ever having hard discussions around theological doctrines and everyone singing kumbaya as if everything's okay. Not to mention. I've witnessed countless of times when enablers downplay the seriousness of certain heresies.

Forgive me. I'm a pretty chill and boring guy, but it makes my blood boil when I see enabling heresy happening in real time. I may very well be wrong here(someone correct me), but I think some churches become apostate not only because of heretics, but also because of the enablers who allow them to run rampant on the church, let alone the denomination.

PS- The point you also made about enablers never apologizing is correct as well. Even when shown how dangerous a person was(heretic), the enablers just move on as if they weren't defending such persons and usually would try to tell everyone to "leave it in the past".