Throwing Down Error

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 181]

     Recently a fellow-editor in Texas wrote an editorial entitled, "Undenominational Christianity," in which he demonstrated a different spirit than he sometimes manifests. People who are sick of the narrow image of the ekklesia as frequently projected by orthodox journalists hail such declarations with delight. I join them in commending the general attitude expressed by our brother.

     However, I confess to being a bit wary at predicting any tremendous result, knowing as I do that future articles may express a complete reversal of policy, and realizing how often hopes have been dashed in the past. It is evident that a growing number of our brethren would like to have the world believe that they are more open and charitable than they have been in years gone by, but "when the chips are down," they reveal the same sectarian spirit as always.

     Even in the most encouraging statements there is frequently concealed a barbed hook, so that what appears to be a noble and forthright declaration may be interpreted so as to reassure the establishment if some of the old guard of the party express undue concern over the liberality shown. The real hard fact is that these brethren equate the particular segment of the restoration movement with which they are identified as the one holy, apostolic and catholic church

[Page 182]

of God upon earth, and no one is a part of the ekklesia who is not affiliated with this party. They are exclusively "the Lord's church," and everyone else is on the outside looking in.

     The article to which I allude concludes with this paragraph. "The one common denominator of all groups is Jesus Christ. Upon him they can unite. On no other basis is unity possible. When we turn down Jesus, there is no other to whom we can go. He alone has the words of life. Upon him, and upon his teachings we can unite. When each has thrown down what error he may have possessed and embraced the truth his brother has been able to show him, we will have pulled down all the strongholds of sectarianism that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and will have undenominational Christianity."

     Before our brethren accept such statements as the precursor of a brighter day we urge them to ask a few questions. In this instance there is a concealed "booby-trap" and when it is uncovered it will be seen that our brother is offering absolutely nothing new or relevant in the current unity dialogue. Instead he is advancing once more the same divisive principle which fragmented us originally and has perpetuated our shameful and sinful schisms for a century.

     In new language, dressed up for the occasion, he is simply predicating unity upon conformity. The statement, "When each has thrown down what error he may have possessed and embraced the truth his brother has been able to show him," is as loaded as a Gatling gun.

     Does our brother affirm that he has proper understanding and is absolutely free from error? If not, is he in the fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ? If he is in that fellowship in his ignorance and error, does God endorse his ignorance and condone his error by receiving him into his fellowship? Is there any person on this earth in the fellowship of God who is not possessed of some error? If one does not need to "throw down what error he may have possessed" as a condition of entering the fellowship of God, on what ground does one assert he must throw it down to be received into the fellowship of men?

     God is free from all error, and if he can in such an exalted state, receive an editor who is possessed of error, why can that editor not receive others in the same condition? I deny that freedom from error is a condition of fellowship among fallible and finite men. I have never been in the fellowship with any man on earth who was free from error. All the brethren I know are brethren in error. If one thinks he is not, he is the worst mistaken of the lot.

     Of course our brother would not deny that he is in the fellowship with brethren in error, but he would point out that they are not in error where it really counts, that is, on those items which have been selected from the error heap, and given primacy by the party, being elevated to tests of union and communion. This is what promotes division. Every faction and sect exercises selectivity in the field of errors, but whatever is made a test of partisanship thereupon becomes a matter of life and death. If you are wrong about that thing you "turn down Jesus."

     Let us be specific. We need to get away from glittering generalities and get right down to the nitty-gritty of our problems. Does our brother hold that a child of God who sincerely loves Jesus but can see no harm in using instrumental music has turned down Jesus? Does he believe that a saint who honestly interprets the scriptures to teach the pre-millennial coming of our Lord has turned down Jesus? Or, would he hold that all pre-millennial brethren were dishonest? Will he make an honest opinion about music or the millennium a test of fellowship and divide the body of Christ over either view?

     How much error can one hold and still be in the fellowship? Has our brother changed his mind about anything in the past ten years? If not, he has not learned anything. If he has then he was in error ten years ago. Were the

[Page 183]

brethren with whom he was affiliated guilty of sin by receiving him before he threw down "what error he may have possessed?" Who determines the degree of error at which one ceases to be received of God? Who is the official interpreter and the infallible arbiter who decides what is error on every point?

     Any person who makes freedom from error the basis of unity can never make Jesus the common denominator for oneness. Freedom from error is the result of the rational faculties exercising themselves in research in an attempt to arrive at the truth. Belief in Jesus is the response of the heart to testimony related to historical facts. When you substitute knowledge of propositions for faith in a person, as the basis of unity you become a schismatic, and you are divisive and disruptive. If a person is right about Jesus, he can be wrong about a lot of things and still be saved; if he is wrong about Jesus he can be right about everything else and still be lost.

     Let us be fair with struggling mankind. Let us renounce all guile. Let us tell it as it is! Our brother talks about the "desire to translate into reality all of the talk we engage in about unity." That is a laudable ambition. The place to start is with a firm resolution to quit playing God with the consciences of other men. We will be a long way on the road to unity when we make nothing a test of fellowship which God has not made a condition of salvation.

     In one respect the problem is quite simple. All we need to do to exhibit our unity is simply to welcome and receive all whom God has received, and on the same basis that He has received them. If God receives people before they "throw down what error they may have possessed," let us not judge God, but let us follow His example. Freedom from error is not a condition of entering heaven or none of us would ever make it. It is your attitude toward truth, and not how much of this precious commodity you have at any given time which determines your worth.

     When one is in Jesus he is in the truth, for Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. It is not that such a person has the truth on every matter, but the truth has him, caught up in a divine-human relationship because of grace. One who trusts in Jesus obligates himself to accept all truth as it becomes known to him. He will not deny any truth for he loves truth for truth's sake. But it is being in Christ that makes fellowship possible and not being in "the know" on every point of theological doctrine or deduction. Until we admit this we will continue to be the advance agents of schism and strife.