Churches of Christ do not conduct “heresy” trials because we, in accordance with New Testament teaching, do not have a national or international organization which possesses such authority. Instead, if we discover that someone is consistently teaching false doctrines, which are clearly refuted by the Scriptures, and he refuses to repent of it, we will not receive such an individual (2 John 9-11), and we mark him so that other brethren will not be duped (Rom. 16:17). [In many cases, however, these efforts are disregarded because some brethren cannot be warned, and others simply don’t care.]
But most religious denominations do have a structure and a body of doctrine (a man-made creed). What do they do when someone teaches contrary to their theology? Theoretically, they can conduct a “heresy” trial. The Episcopal Church has only charged two of their bishops with this serious offense in their 206 year history. Cautious, aren’t they? We could accuse at least a dozen of our own in the city of Abilene right now–and perhaps even more in Nashville.
The Episcopalians’ most recent case involves “Bishop” Walter Righter who is being criticized for “ordaining” a non-celibate gay man. David Briggs wrote the Associated Press article that appeared in newspapers like The Journal-Gazette in Fort Wayne on April 20th under the headline, “Discipline for Dissent Divides Denominations.” He also cites Catholics and Mormons as those practicing “excommunication.” Finally, some have seen a need to take a stand.
Who Has the Authority?
The subject of this article, however, does not concern the issues that are being debated among those groups; rather, it is the rationale of the “bishop” who is in trouble. His accusers state that he (in taking the action he has) has violated the authority of the Scriptures. By such a statement they presumably mean that a practicing homosexual should not be ordained an Episcopalian Bishop.
It is all too obvious to point out that the Scriptures do not recognize any denomination, including theirs, and that bishops such as exist in their organization are also unauthorized. Think about it: what verses could someone use to justify either of these concepts? So they disregard Scriptures on these matters but wish to invoke them on matters of morality.
Perhaps Righter thinks that his denomination is inconsistent. Consider this interesting assertion of his: “The Episcopal Church says the Bible exists for the church to interpret.” Whoa! That brings up an interesting question: “Does the Bible exist for the church to interpret, or is the church under the authority of the Scriptures?”
We infer from Righter’s statement that he believes that the church (a governing body of “officials”) has the right to accept or reject God’s laws. Many would agree; they reserve the right to label Bible teaching “cultural” (homosexuality, women preachers).
If this is the course people wish to pursue, then people would be free to do virtually anything. In fact, we could start out with the works of the flesh in Gal. 5:19-21 and relegate each one of them to culture-based statements. Fornication? Oh, sure, it’s condemned in the Scriptures, but that’s just promiscuous fornication that is meant, not two people living together who have a loving relationship. “Witchcraft”? That was probably “black magic”; why, today’s witches help people. “Heresies”? There may have been a time when orthodoxy was needed, but in today’s world of diversity there is no such thing as heresy. “Revellings”? We don’t have any problem with that today, as long as there is a designated driver.
If the church is allowed to interpret the Bible, it will end up changing every doctrine imaginable. Just consider the Catholic Church alone. They use sprinkling for baptism; what Scripture authorizes that change? They also “baptize” (actually, sprinkle) babies so their “original sin” can be forgiven, but where do we read that infants are born with sin or that sprinkling will get rid of it? Where is the authority for the Rosary, holy water, a separate priesthood, etc.?
Not only did the Catholic Church exercise the right to “interpret”; they also claimed the “right” of invention–making up whatever teachings they desired. Every denomination begins with the same assumption; otherwise, they could not exist–because there is no authority for them.
The fact of the matter is that “the church is subject unto Christ” (Eph. 5:24). Christians have no right to change the word of God to suit any culture; neither have we any authority to add to the commandments contained in the perfect law of liberty, or to take away from them.
“But there is always some interpretation involved when we study the Scriptures.” Yes, but the only correct approach in understanding them is the attitude that says, “What do they mean?” It is not appropriate to ask, “What would I like them to mean?” Responsible interpretation respects the authority of the Word of God; it does not kowtow or cater to culture.
In other words, God revealed to us His will in all matters of morality and doctrine. Our task is to discover and abide by these truths. No group of men has been granted the power to change what God has written to suit themselves or someone else. God never authorized His leaders to begin making changes if people balk at what He wrote. If God’s revelation becomes unpopular, it will not be the first time. No one wanted to hear it just prior to the Flood , either. No one cared just before the captivity. The fault lies in the hearts of men, not with the Word of God.
The Modernist Attitude
Righter’s real attitude toward the Bible is revealed in the following quotation:
Are we going to be a church which buys into the funny farm of saying, “Every word in the Bible is true?” We never have.
Funny farm? Is he saying that we are crazy if we believe that the Bible means what it says? In the absence of further explanation by him, we can only conclude that he does not believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, which it presents itself throughout (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21).
In fact, Paul was apparently challenged by some about his apostolic authority, and he responded in the following way: “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).
The Bible does contain some figurative language. Not every word or statement can be understood literally (e.g., Jesus saying, “I am the vine”); but every word is true. Some might cite a statement such as “You shall not surely die” as being false. What Satan told Eve was untrue, but it is true that he said it. And given the context and the results, no reader could possibly misunderstand that it was a lie he told.
What words does Righter think are not true that are in the Bible? Let’s take a guess. Since he “ordained” a practicing homosexual, he must not believe Gen. 19, Rom. 1, and other equivalent passages. Since he thinks the church “interprets” the Bible, he must have a problem with Jesus’ statement that all authority has been given unto Him (Matt. 28:18). Since the Bible speaks of only one church (Eph. 4:4), it’s a safe bet he disagrees with that.
Righter merely reserves the right to sit in judgment on the Bible. If he likes what it says, he’ll accept that verse. If it rubs him the wrong way, well, the Bible simply becomes invalid on that point. This system would work really well–if God was the author of it. Satan, however, is behind this philosophy. Note how Jesus viewed man’s response to His word.
Not everyone who saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father in heaven (Matt. 7:21).
Note that God is not pleased with the one who quibbles with His will nor the one who rejects it. The wise man (Matt. 7:21-28) is the one who hears–and does it. Man has never had, nor ever will have, the right to sit in judgment upon God, His ways, or His word. Our responsibility is to believe and obey.