FELLOWSHIP AND "BROTHERS IN ERROR"
One of my students at the university where I teach who is a member of the Church of Christ confronted me recently with this: "Our minister tells me that you fellowship brethren who are in error. Is this true?"
How would you answer that question? Do you "fellowship" brethren who are in error? It would do all of us a lot of good if we could sit together for awhile and talk about the meaning of such a question.
I teach my girls to ask their inquirers to "put a point on it" when they are asked vague questions. (Note: This does not apply as much to questions related to dates and matrimony, however, for this would be too unorthodox even for my students, even if the questions are vague! )
So let's "put a point on it." Just what do you mean by fellowship, and how about this term in error? My student explained fellowship to mean something like approval or endorsement, while she understood "in error" to be wrong beliefs and practices in doctrine, mentioning especially instrumental music and premillennialism.
I explained to her, first of all, that I am reluctant to divide our great brotherhood into two groups: those "in error" and those that have the truth. If I did so classify my brethren, I would be inclined to place myself on the side of "in error," for I can hardly conceive of myself being right about everything. Human frailty being such a common commodity, I hardly see how I could be in the fellowship with anyone at all except those that are in error. One may wonder how much Jesus was disturbed by such a question, seeing that he freely associated with harlots and tax collectors.
Language can be tyrannical. Loaded terminology with strong emotional overtones often emerges within social institutions in order to control the thought patterns of the group. Perfectly good words like capitalist, conservative, liberal can become little tyrants when used in some circles. I have always loved the word comrade, but it is virtually ruined by unfortunate connotation.
We practice this kind of tyranny ourselves, for like so many social groups our brotherhood has coined its own vocabulary of oppression. Some of these terms are strictly unique with us. Take the brother who is "out of duty." Does this mean the rest of us are 'in duty"? We also like the term "digressive," which means something different from "out of duty." The "digressive" is nearly always a preacher, though sometimes we apply it to an entire congregation, but whether preacher or church it refers to those that are a step removed from us, such as the Christian Church. The term "unfaithful" is used in a still different sense, and we often use this term in describing our own members.
On and on it goes, this oppressive language; and yet none of these terms are used in the scriptures the way we use them, and some of them do not even appear in the Bible of those who talk so much about adhering to it, even to remaining silent where it is silent. So it is with "in error". All such language serves to tyrannize, drawing circles around brethren so as to exclude them, or to control thought. Orthodoxy must classify men so as to protect itself. When men think and worship freely they do not have to bother about all this baggage of labels, for then a brother can simply be a brother.
But do not I believe that some brethren are indeed "in error", and if so, what am I going to do about them?, I am asked. My answer is that "in error" may be made to mean entirely too much. It is my conviction that my premillennial brethren are mistaken in some of their interpretations about the kingdom of God, but because of this I do not wish to call them "brethren in error". Why not let them simply be brethren? Since I too no doubt do some misinterpreting, they could just as well call me a "brother in error".
Then do I 'fellowship" premillennialism? Certainly not, for fellowship is with the Son and with all those who walk in His light, not in things like organs or doctrines like premillennialism. Then do I "fellowship" premillennialists? I do not approve or endorse some of the conclusions that these brethren make, but I am certainly in the fellowship with them, not because they are premills or postmills, but because they are in Christ. And I might well endorse (which has nothing to do with fellowship) a premill, not because he holds this view, but because he loves Jesus and seeks to serve Him and usually does serve Him better than I do.
I am saying that one mistake in my student's thinking is her equation of fellowship with approval. This whole question of fellowship and unity is going to be fuzzy to us as long as we confuse the endorsement of a brother with the fellowship of a brother. This is why I can say I am in the fellowship with the so-called "brother in error" without in any way approving of the error. It is something like my brothers in the flesh, six of whom I have scattered here and there across the country. The seven of us are brothers together because we were born of the same parents. Family fellowship is a reality because of a common parentage. Like most any family of boys we disagree about things, and sometimes we heartily disapprove of the attitudes and behaviors of each other. They, for instance, would like for me to stay out of jail! But disagreements and disapprovals are irrelevant to our brotherhood. We go right on recognizing each other as brothers regardless of how much we disapprove of each other.
My student had been told that I go among all the churches, "fellowshipping anybody and everybody," and she of course has been taught that this kind of association is wrong. One should rather "Come out from among them and be separate, saith the Lord."
This kind of criticism is similar to that made against Jesus when he associated with harlots and sinners. I readily concede, of course, that Baptists, Methodists, Disciples, and Presbyterians are much worse than harlots and publicans. Or at least it would so appear, for we Christians--the only Christians really--who talk so much about being followers of Christ and the true New Testament church will not associate with them. I should modify this slightly, for my brethren do tell me they would go among such people as I do if they had opportunity to show them their error. Aren't we glad folks don't treat us that way!
My more aggressive brethren press me with such questions as, "Now tell us, Leroy, if when you preach for the Christian Church or the Baptists you condemn their errors." But I notice they don't ask questions like that about preaching at a Church of Christ. The truth is that I don't make it a point to run down a list of errors that I might suppose a denomination to hold to when I occupy its pulpit, whether it be Baptist, Christian, or Church of Christ. I simply try to make some contribution for good, which of course might well touch upon the sins of us all, which I suppose all sound teaching would do more or less.
This idea that one cannot scripturally preach to the Baptists without letting them have it with both barrels is both puerile and asinine. It is also cruel and heartless. It is equally asinine to conclude that if one works with these denominations then he endorses all that they believe and practice. It is like saying a teacher approves of ignorance when he sits with his students, or that a physician endorses disease in being with his patients.
All of us are more or less in error; all of us are more or less sick; and certainly we are all ignorant. We all need to help each other. It is pharisaical on our part to suppose that we are so right and true that we in some way get tarnished by associating with others. I would consider myself most unfree if when preaching to other churches I had to say those things that would preserve my image as a "sound preacher" to the brethren back home.
Those of us who are reluctant to receive within the fellowship our "brothers in error" need to realize that there are different kinds of error, some being much more serious than others. It reminds me of the reaction of the high school girl who asked me whether it was right to kiss the boys. When I ask her in turn to tell me what kind of kiss she was talking about, she appeared to have found her answer. And so I say to those who ask me about my brethren in error: What kind of error do you have in mind?
One might have erroneous views (heavens, who doesn't!) without being in error, giving that term the meaning implied when we use it. There is a difference between holding an erroneous position through mistaken interpretation and loving error. Jude speaks of the latter when he says: "These men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed. Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error, and perish in Korah's rebellion." (Jude 10-11)
If brethren are speaking of people like this, who have bad hearts and ulterior motives in their Christian service, when they refer to "brothers in error," then I will go along and say that fellowship is in such cases impossible, for their evil hearts make it so. But usually this term is used by all our different groups in describing each other. One is "a brother in error" because of instrumental music, missionary societies, cooperation, open membership, premillennialism, and on and on. But is it not true that all these things represent honest differences of opinion? Can we really say these are errors so serious as to cause breaches in our fellowship?
It is altogether possible that the "errors" that are so offensive to us, even to the point of making association with each other impossible, are not important to our heavenly Father at all. The fact that the scriptures say nothing about these things would suggest this. I am not saying that the questions of open membership, organs in worship, and the sponsoring church are of no significance in the least. These are issues that we should ever keep on the agenda for periodic discussion and review until such time as satisfactory solutions are reached, but we cannot allow them to divide us a dozen different ways, thus obstructing our united witness for our Lord. They are simply not that important. They just couldn't be. What has happened to that love that hides a multitude of errors?
Jesus teaches us a profound lesson on the relative importance of errors in Mark 7. The errors that disturbed the Pharisees so much were virtually ignored by our Lord. The passage tells us how meticulous the Jews were about washing their hands before eating, and how they were careful to wash a vessel that had been touched by an unclean person. The Mishna reveals that the Jews had to destroy a jar that was touched on the inside by unclean hands; if only the outside is touched, then a ceremonial washing would do. And as the Pharisees washed their hands the fingers had to be pointed upward with the water flowing to the wrists. The second time around the fingers had to be pointed downward with the water poured from the wrists. The second washing was required in order to purify the hand that washed the other one!
It is this kind of thing that our Lord had to endure. The Pharisees were after him about his disciples not doing this and, of course, they had Bible for it all! They used the word clean very much as we use scriptural. "Why do your disciples eat with defiled hands?" was the question. And what a lesson he taught them! It is surely one of the greatest passages in all the literature of the world. Oh, how we need that same lesson for our bleeding, divided brotherhood!
The lesson he taught them might well be called the defilement that is real, or for our point in this essay we can call it the error that really matters.
The Master said to them: "Hear me, all of you, and understand. There is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him."
He left it that way until his disciples asked him what it meant. Then he explained further, and notice how he spoke of the heart: "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?"
He then added: "What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man."
There's error for you! In this case the "brothers in error" were those who equated fellowship with God with being right about pots and pans and washing hands. If the Christ were with us today would he not ignore the petty things that we exclude each other over, and show us that the real error is excluding each other? Would he not pass over all these things by which we measure brotherhood and talk about the heart of man?
The Pharisees had one idea about "brothers in defilement" while Jesus had another. And our idea of "brothers in error" might be much different from our Lord's judgment. The Pharisees turned Out to be guilty of the real defilement. And so we might turn out to be the real "brothers in error," those of us who will not ask a brother to lead a prayer to the Father because they happen to have an organ where he goes to church.
Notice that Jesus mentions pride and slander, along with deceit and envy and evil thoughts, as the things that defile man. These are the real errors that divide us. Intellectual pride and ecclesiastical self-righteousness do more to divide men than sincere differences of doctrinal interpretation.
When we grow humble enough to lose our pride in the overflowing love of God, we will then be able to see ourselves as the "brothers in error" and to look to His grace to save us and to make us one with all those who receive the Christ as the Lord of their lives. — the Editor