Bible Policemen or A Berean

In a Sunday sermon a pastor had mentioned about some people who came to church as “fault-finders” and “bible-policemen”, and that these people should not be in church, occupying the seats.

Should a church deride those who disagree and differ instead of addressing the issues raised. The church of Christ is a church with ears and without walls; it is not a church without ears and with walls. It is because people care, and are not ignorant or complacent that they give feedback or critique. We should be delighted when the members of the body function accordingly, taking ownership of the body, and exercising the gifts and responsibility to protect (Heb 3:13) and perfect (Heb 10:24,25) one another. Noble saints searched the scriptures to verify the word delivered should be commended rather than censured (Acts 17:11)

The statements were unexpected and disturbing, coming from a beloved pastor whom I am proud of, and known for his giftings, soundness and even-handedness. Isn’t the church open to all, except probably those who are adamantly antiChrist.  “Fault-finders” and “Bible-policemen” should not be persona-non-grata.

Two words flashed through my mind – ‘prejudice’ and ‘presumption’. Both allude to the negative motives of those labelled as ‘fault-finders’ and ‘bible-policemen’.

Personally, I would like to think of all who come for Sunday services assemble with other believers to worship and to listen to the preaching of God’s word. And there would be not a few who would be ‘Bereans’ (Acts 17:11). Scriptures clearly exhort us to uphold sound doctrine and contend for the truth.  Indeed believers who love Jesus and the church are to be bible-policemen.  It would be fault-finding in a positive way if indeed there are issues of distortion of scriptures or deceivers and devourers – wolves in sheep’s clothing. People within Christ’s community would be the best mirror and sounding board to protect and perfect one another.

Admittedly, there would also be fault-finding from distractors and dissentors, without any ownership of the shared community.  However, even for this latter group, it would be opportunity to defend polemically or apologetically (1Pet 2:23; 3:15) teaching aptly, correcting opponents with gentleness (2 Tim 2:24,25) and teach sound doctrine (Tit 1:9), especially when they placed themselves as captive audience!

In the first place, could I presume that I am correct in all my teaching? Or have I pre-judged and attributed evil motives to those who commented and critiqued, or even criticised?  This description flashed through my mind – Big head and small heart.  Sorry, I am being opinionated, and likely even judgmental.  But I want to be a ‘Berean’.  A few days later, I sat beside a foreign domestic helper (there are many who attend this church).  When she commented that the pastor should not have said such things in the service, a brother added that even a ‘simple’ and ‘not so educated’ domestic helper disapprove of the pastor’s position.

I am reminded of what Frank Viola wrote on :

 Living with the saints in heaven will be glory; living with the saints on earth is another story.

To dwell above with saints we love ‘tis grace and glory; to dwell below with saints we know . . . that’s another story. Thus whenever your ego is touched, whenever your pride is exposed, whenever your weaknesses are pointed out, the cross is ready to do its deep work.”

Scratch a Christian and you’ll find out what’s underneath.


Coincidently, a blog post came in my email – a blog along the same subjective gut reaction to comments –


“In political parlance there is often talk of someone playing the “race card” to shut down conversation.  A person is convicted of some crime and there is discussion about what the penalty should be.  Then the “race card” is played: the charge is made that the person is only being prosecuted because of their race.  Immediately all discussion must be stopped, or it must revolve around whether or not racial bias is in play.  Whether or not the person is guilty or should be charged is moot from that point on: when the “race card” is played, it’s all about race.  Discussion is effectively over when the “race card” is on the table; it is the nuclear bomb of rational discussion.”

“I’m noticing the same thing in regards to the discussion on xxxxxx, but in his case it’s the “jealousy card” that is being played by his supporters.  Don’t know if you read the comments in regard to my IWJO post, but someone posted the charge that I’m just sadly, sinfully jealous.  Ironically, I didn’t even question (him) or his teaching in that comment or in my previous comment.  Yet, some (supporters) felt it necessary to come to my humble blog and condemn me for being sinfully jealous of the man.”


Labels are mischievous.  ‘Bible policemen’, ‘fault-finders’, ‘race card’,  ‘jealousy card’




Acts 20

20 You know that I did not hold back from proclaiming to youanything that would be helpful, and from teaching you publicly and from house to house, 21 testifying to both Jews and Greeks about repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus. …..

24 But I do not consider my life worth anything to myself, so that I may finish my task and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the good news of God’s grace.

25 “And now I know that none of you among whom I went around proclaiming the kingdom will see me again. 26 Therefore I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of you all. 27 For I did not hold back from announcing to you the whole purpose of God. ………..

31 Therefore be alert, remembering that night and day for three years I did not stop warning each one of you with tears. 32 And now I entrust you to God and to the message of his grace. This message is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.


We were considering the meaning of “the whole counsel of God” (v27 KJV).  This question was raised about pastors and teachers who might be championing certain truths exclusively (e.g. the Gospel of Grace), to the exclusion of other essential teachings, as some commented and critiqued, not criticize (e.g why scant teaching on the letters of Jesus, not just the letters of Paul, our common life – community, bible-study, evidence of the fruit of the Spirit, etc).

All ministers would endeavor and ensure that the ministry, message and teachings must be complete, consisting of all ‘the whole purpose of God (NET). Admittedly, this indeed is a daunting task, with the fifty Sundays each year, with a few additional week-night teaching sessions thrown in.

So can we be defensive, justifying and rationalizing that intentionally and practically, we have been complete and balance, majoring on the majors, and not majoring on the minors.

[With regards to feedback or critique or comments, Frank Viola wrote a penetrating blog – “Scratch a Christian and You’ll Find Out What They’re Made Of” (].

One pastor whom I acknowledge and hold up as the best teacher of the Gospel today had this to say.  When Paul mentioned about not holding back the whole counsel of God, he was referring to the Gospel of Grace.  The interpretation of the “whole counsel of God” can be found in the preceding passage of v24, and the following passage in v32, and v27 sandwiched in between. For in v24, Paul testified to “the good news of God’s grace” and in v32, ”the message of his grace”.  Hence the ‘whole counsel of God’ obviously refer to the Gospel of Grace.  And one who majors on the good news of grace would be following Paul’s example who 27 …. did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.

Understandably, this makes sense to one who is called to proclaim and advocate the primacy of the Gospel of Grace.

Why is this understandable.  A lesson I learnt recently – “to a man with a hammer in his hand, the world is a nail” (a proverb, not a promise, not a proclamation… an anecdote, a preference, a personal answer to prayer, illuminates doctrine, does not formulate doctrine)

I know of someone who has the gift of teaching, making concepts clear.  But unconsciously, somehow people often end up being his “students”!  In spending casual time with others, the session, whether over lunch or coffee would inevitably turn into a Sunday school or teaching session.

Christ endowed the saints with a diversity of gifts.  Each believer is given gifts to make him important, and each believer is given gifts to make him dependent, as each do not have all the gifts.  Do we have to be defensive, justifying and rationalizing that intentionally and practically, we have been complete and balance, majoring on the majors, and not really just indulging in our pet topics and themes, and ‘proof-texting’ and cherry picking verses that support my conviction and calling?

Coming back to the meaning of the “whole counsel of God”.  So can we conclude that it is the Gospel of Grace because it is sandwiched in context between the two references to grace? Undoubtedly, the whole counsel includes the central message of grace. And I would add that it is more than that.  It can also be argued that a better and more direct association can be inferred and implied from v20, as the passage describe the same intensity and ministry of Paul in v27

20 ….. did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable,

So if one contend earnestly that the whole counsel of God is the gospel of grace, he is correct.

Another is also correct who consider that the whole counsel of God is anything that would be helpful (v20) and it is the whole purpose of God from the dawn of redemption through eternity, to making known the mystery of His will, according to His purpose, which He set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in heaven and things on earth. (Eph 1:9,10)