Censorship Policy Versus Christian Liberty
By Curtis Lydic
[Page 153] |
"You've got to walk that lonesome valley,
You've got to walk it by yourself.
Nobody here can walk it for you,
You've got to walk it by yourself."
From my childhood up, one idea which was
impressed upon me was that each person had to undergo first
death, then judgment. I was given to understand that he faced
each as though alone. Preachers and Bible School teachers taught
me that in both of these inevitable experiences, each man would
bear his own burden, would have to stand on his own two feet,
figuratively speaking. The only help he might expect would be the
intercession of Christ, providing that the man were a faithful
Christian. Subsequent study has made me increasingly aware that Christianity is not primarily a collective matter, but an individual matter. Unlike Judaism, in Christianity a man's hope is not based upon membership in a group, nor is fidelity to God equated with conformity to group standards of thinking and conduct. Furthermore, no member can consider that his individual responsibility is discharged through the collective effort of the congregation so long as that effort is expressed through a hired professional representative rather than through activity of all its members. No, the New Testament teaching is that Christian responsibility is individual responsibility.
Now, the significant thing about this is that the individual's primary responsibility necessitates his being allowed the freedom to (1) assess his specific obligations according to his own interpretations and (2) conduct himself according to the direction of his own consicence. No one, including "elders," has the authority to interfere with the exercise of these rights. Every Christian has a duty of love to teach his neighbor, and to exhort him to reform in any case where he is either doing evil or believing erroneously. But this duty does not extend beyond verbal exhortation. Once a warning is issued, the point communicated, then the obligation is discharged. Any pressure brought to bear upon the individual beyond this point necessarily tends toward the abrogation of his liberty of conscience.
Exceptions to the above must be recognized by reason of instructions to the New Testament churches to "drive out" or "mark and avoid" certain ones who were guilty of flagrant moral violations or of defying the authority of the Holy Spirit. Difficulty arises, however, when the church in these days takes from their contexts passages such as 1 Cor. 5:13; 2 Thess. 3:14; and Titus 3:10 to apply them to those who are guilty of nothing more than insisting on doing their own thinking and not generally recognizing the authority of party leaders.
An "elder" recently told me that one obligation of his office was to protect the congregation from "false teachers." His conception of the proper way to do this is to see that no one gets a chance to express in the assembly any idea which the "elders" cannot endorse, and to make every effort to prevent such ideas from being communicated to the members of the congregation in private. This man was a Texan, trained in a large Texas religious college, and I believe that his attitude in this is quite typical.
I hold this policy to be unscriptural and extremely detrimental to Christian welfare. It violates not only Christian liberty but Christian dignity as well. It places the responsibility for the formulation of Christian faith in the hands of men who are as fallible as any member under their "care." The correctness of the beliefs of the members must depend entirely upon the correctness of the beliefs of these few rulers. Any errors of understanding on their part are multiplied by the number of members who submit
[Page 154] |
This policy is a Protestant counterpart of Roman Catholic clerical censorsbip, both in intention and in effect. The intention (to guard against spiritual harm to "the flock") may be commendable, but the policy is ill-advised and the effects are disastrous. Only if the rulers were infallible would the results be as intended, and even then it would violate New Testament principles, for faith would then be spoon fed, and Christians would be cast in a mold. It is better that they are not infallible--but would to God that they would recognize the fact and act accordingly. Of course, none would claim infallibility, but they do hang the welfare of the entire congregation upon their being right, which indicates a lack of appreciation of their fallibility.
No man and no group of men, whatever their qualifications, has a monopoly on the truth. The revelation of God is preserved and presented to every Christian, and by careful study any Christian, regardless of chronological age or religious background, may arrive at an understandmg of some specific point of teaching. His improved understanding may be of great benefit to him, and he may have good reason to believe that others would benefit by it also. If so, it is quite possible for him to give others the benefit of being informed about his idea without trying to force it upon them and without pressuring them to agree. Any other Christian may hear his idea, examine it at leisure, and decide for himself as to its merits. If a third Christian, being familiar with the idea, is convinced that it is wrong, he is free to express his convictions to either or both of the persons involved. The examiner is free to heed either the exponent or the opponent of the idea; but since he is responsible for his decision, the decision he reaches should be genuinely his own. All communication involved should be in a spirit of love and in a sincere desire to edify one another, as per New Testament teaching.
Granted that love and honesty prevail, any arbitration by any other person, purporting to have special authority, is uncalled for. There is no threat involved to anyone's spiritual security.
It is a pity that Christians in this country have so little regard for their own ability and integrity that they have to designate rulers who have the power to decide what they will hear, and thus what they will believe. By submission to such authority, members of the congregation forfeit their rights to freely express their convictions, to hear freely the expressed convictions of others, and to decide for themselves what the truth really is.
(Editor's Note: The author of this article is an instructor in the Art Department, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, and can be addressed at that place).