Error--Phobia
By F. L. Lemley
[Page 150] |
You never saw this combination of words before? Well, it is an improvised one to indicate a morbid and unreasonable fear of error out of all proportion to the stimuli. The results of such morbid fear are far-reaching and damaging. If followed to the logical conclusion it will lead us to condemn almost every Christian in the first century, including the apostles.
The Pharisees understood that some errors were worse than others (Matthew 27:64) so warned that "the last error shall be worse than the first." If there are worse errors there must be some of less consequence, so it might be well for us to take an honest look at the question of error.
There are errors involving sins of the flesh such as fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, murder, etc., all of which are fatal to the soul. "The soul that sinneth it shall die." All of these can be called errors of the heart. In these, one's relationship to his God and fellowmen is not right. But not all errors fall in this category. There are errors of judgment which involve no moral principle. If all errors are equally grave one might as well commit murder as to miss the age of Methuselah by one year. But such is ridiculous!
Man errs in understanding and judgment and many who have pure hearts before God make errors of this kind without endangering their salvation. Good
[Page 151] |
We observe further that there are errors of doctrine. Some are of grave consequence, others of lesser consequence. Error may be compared to disease. All of it is undesirable but not all of it is fatal. We do not become as excited over a bad cold as we do over a heart attack. Doctrinal errors involving those beliefs and actions essential to childhood are very dangerous. An example is the case of one denying the deity of Christ (2 John 7-9). But some other doctrinal errors can and must be tolerated. An example is the brother mistaken about eating of meats (Romans 14). This last had nothing to do with spiritual birth. It did not affect childhood after birth. It fell into the category of learning and development. It was in "the milk and meat department" of the scripture, and if one develops intellectually by consuming milk and meat, in course of time his error will be abandoned.
From this we conclude that only those errors which would prevent one being born again, or converted to Christ, should be held damnable and made conditions of fellowship (brotherhood) if one should relapse into them after birth. Peter speaks of some who, after being saved and having escaped the pollutions of the world through Christ, fell back into the old ways. He compares them to a dog returning to his vomit and a sow returning to the mire after being washed. The context is clear. The character of such backsliders and the errors into which they reverted were the very things they had to renounce in order to become Christians originally.
If one's errors involve the deity of Christ, morality, or a refusal to repent and obey, certainly such would bring about one's damnation. But suppose that one's error involved abstention from meat (Romans 14), or individual judgment (I Cor. 7:15), or a deficiency of knowledge (intellectual perception) as in the case of those in I Corinthians 8:7 who still thought there was something to idols. These are errors as much as denying the divinity of Christ but the consequences are not the same.
God received the brother who was in error on the meat question (Romans 14) and God received him while he believed erroneously and for all intents and purposes intended to implement his belief. And God received him in spite of it. Now if God receives a man as his child in spite of his error and intent to implement it, certainly he is not going to be pleased with my refusal to recognize such a man as my brother and His child, nor will He tolerate me making such an error a "test of fellowship." This places us all in a dilemma on all of the questions which divide the brotherhood into warring factions.
With the few exceptions of the rash, the prejudiced, or the uninformed, none of the brotherhood issues have been made conditions of childhood, not even a correct view of the instrumental music question. Many of the most radical among us will freely admit that holding an incorrect view of the music question will not nullify one's childhood when held during the process of conversion. But some will be quick to add that as soon as he implements his belief God will cut him off and he will no longer be recognized as a child. This does not make sense! If God received such a person knowing he held the error and fully intended to practice it, reason would demand that such could remain a child of God in spite of it after being born. This is the heart of the teaching in Romans 14.
The only valid reason we have for "re-baptizing" a person is that, in our judgment he has never received Christian baptism and thus never became a child. If an error does not nullify one's birth, it cannot nullify his childhood
[Page 152] |
But this does not answer the question of conscience. Is it possible for error on the meat question to cause one to be lost? Certainly so! Not because his error is morally unacceptable or inimical to childhood but because of conscience. If one believes it is sinful to eat meat and ignores his conscience by eating, he has sinned and is therefore self-condemned. Further, if he believes it is wrong to eat meat and concludes this question is vital to the salvation of the world and goes about demanding a conformity to his belief in order to be saved, he creates heresy or faction and cannot be tolerated in the church. He will have to be rejected as a heretic.
This is but half the story. What of the brother who is right on the issue? Should he not contend for the faith once delivered and demand that his brother accept the truth or be rejected and ostracized? This is the very thing forbidden in verse one. If the brother who is correct should do this he becomes a factionist in spite of the fact he is right and he sins. Verse 22 requires that the conviction (faith) of both be held as personal property--held between themselves and God and not to be bound upon the brethren. This is a clearcut case of where truth cannot be bound as a condition of fellowship.
The fact is that my brother (who is always the one in error according to me) has to satisfy his own conscience and I have to allow him this privilege even if I believe he is wrong. This does not mean that I endorse his error or that I have approved that which I condemn. Nor must I sever relations with him. I can continue joining with him in the things on which we agree without endorsing that on which we disagree. Conditions may make it expedient for us to work apart or to eat at different tables but so long as there is no "unbrothering" and no ostracism from the brotherhood, no sin is committed. My brother must also allow me to freely exercise my own conscience.
All of our divisive brotherhood issues, regardless of faction or segment, which are not required to be corrected by "rebaptism" fall into the category of the meat question in Romans 14. For the abstainer it was a sin to eat, not because of a command from God but because he mistakenly believed God commanded it and any person who is a man of integrity must do what he believes God requires. The brother who believes it is wrong for him to drink from individual cups, teach the Bible in classes, sing with an instrument, support the Herald of Truth, or wear a red necktie--to him it is wrong and such becomes a condition of his personal salvation. I must allow him this privilege and he must allow me also to follow my conscience. All of these become vital issues only as they become involved in the individual conscience for we all recognize that none are essential to childhood but belong to the area of growth and development after birth.
Many of us were "marked" before birth or shortly afterwards by an abnormal fear (error-phobia) of error having been impressed with the story of "strange fire" (Nadab and Abihu), "touching the ark" (Uzzah), or "keeping the whole law, yet offending in one point" (a misapplication of James 4:17). This seems to have clouded our judgment until we have such a morbid fear of error no distinctions are made and we find ourselves arbitrarily pronouncing that any error which becomes an issue is damnable. If no one argues about it we tolerate it, but it they argue we must create factions, cut off communications, sever relationships and otherwise treat brethren as though they were heathen. Those crying the loudest for unity thus become the greatest stumbling blocks to achieving it.
Because of abnormal fear of error pulpits are closed to all except those who speak "sound doctrine" (which now means to agree with the "somewhats"). No one writes for the papers but those who agree with the editors (the exception
[Page 153] |
This intellectual inbreeding has robbed us of our Christian vitality, isolated us from the mainstream of human need and made it impossible to achieve the unity for which we claim to strive. "Error-phobia" has turned our very plea for unity into a major cause of division. Making a few necessary distinctions in classifying error could go a long way toward solving brotherhood difficulties. There should be a free exchange of pulpits, lecture speakers and paper articles, and of dialogues between brethren without incrimination or recrimination.
Editor's Note. F. L. Lemley labors with the Wheatridge Church of Christ, at 5925 West 32nd Avenue Denver, Colorado 80212, and may be reached at that address.