Does Error Have Any Rights?
by Jeff Kingrey
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 3, 30 September 1991
During the famous years of the Roman Catholic Inquisition, hundreds of "heretics" were burned by zealous clergy to grind out all opposition to Papal rule. Many of these enemies of the Roman church were executed without even the primitive due process of the day. One Roman cleric, Tomas de Torquemada, condemned over 2,000 people to death, chiefly Jews and Muslims as well as Protestants, after a process of interrogation called "L’Ordeal." Torquemada’s victims often would "confess," choosing the swift torture of being burned alive rather than Torquemada’s chamber of horrors.
A modern Roman Pope, Pius XII, was asked what the Roman Catholics’ current policy on human rights was towards such atrocities as the Inquisition. He replied, "In matters civil, the Church has always supported and demanded the rule of law in human rights. However, before God, in matters ecclesiastical, error has no rights."
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Interestingly, only those who have lost the moral confidence of living by faith feel obligated to turn to oppression as a means of imposing their order on others. What does the Bible say about the "Rights of Error?"
First Disagreement
In Acts 15, we find the first major disagreement among the brethren—the dispute centered on the act of circumcision. The Judaizers said, "Unless you are circumcised according to the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1).
They made it clear that faith, repentance, and baptism were not enough. To go to heaven and have fellowship with them, you also had to submit to circumcision and keep the Old Law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas "had no small dissension and dispute with them" (Acts 15:2).
After a meeting in Jerusalem with the Apostles, elders, and the church, it was concluded ״that it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no unnecessary burden upon you" (Acts 15:28). The demands of the Judaizers were shown to be in error.
Unfortunately, that never ended the controversy, though it did establish the truth by the mouth of the Apostles.
What is interesting to our discussion is, "What rights did error have in this debate?" Luke records that the false teachers were given first right to speak: "And when they came to Jerusalem...some of the sect of the Pharisees rose up, saying, ’it is necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the Law of Moses’" (Acts 15:5). Although all the evidence was against them, they still were granted the right and dignity of a hearing.
How Do We Listen to Error?
When Jesus was being tried by the Sanhedrin and was asked "about his disciples and doctrine," Jesus said, "I spoke openly...and in secret have said nothing... Why do you ask me? Indeed they know what I said" (John 18:19-21).
One of the officers thought that he was impertinent and slapped Jesus in the face, saying, "Do you answer the High Priest like that?" Jesus responded, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if not, why do you strike me" (Acts 18:23)?
This raises the question again, "What standards do we apply to arguments made by those we think are in error?"
Obviously, the Temple officer felt that Jesus was in error. In his mind, he would not consider the evidence, but who opposed his friends. His experience had led him to respect and admire the priests. He could not imagine that this ragged Carpenter would presume to be so uppity and disagreeable. He saw Jesus’ response as a rebuke of those he viewed as powerful, godly men. He was so disturbed by the effrontery of Jesus that he slapped him and rebuked him for stating the truth: The Jewish law does not accept the testimony of the accused against himself. The judges must find witnesses who agree about the details of any crime.
How would any of us ever know the truth unless we are willing to hear things with which we may disagree? If "error" is not granted at least the same rights we give people we like and with whom we agree, then we will surely lose our opportunity to change when it is necessary. Consider that in another context, if the unsaved felt that "error" must not be heard, then we would never convert a soul to Christ!
The only other option is to conclude that neither I, nor any of my friends, nor the people I respect and love will ever make a mistake. Only the deceived believe it.
Much of Jesus’ teaching was to convince men that the time for "rebirth" of thinking and spirit was at hand. No longer would the status quo be the safe course, but the first shall be last and the last first. The harlots and publicans would enter the kingdom of God before the religious Priests, Scribes, and Pharisees. He warned about the ”blind following blind men, that both would fall into the ditch." He wagged his finger at the pious preachers who appeared like whitewashed walls in their pulpits, but whose practices were like the rotting corpses inside the tomb. It was a contradiction similar to fresh water and bitter water in the same well. One does not gather grapes from thorns. How would we ever recognize Jesus today? If we give "error" no rights, we would miss Him entirely.
The Arrogant Refuse Examination
In trying to teach Nicodemus, Jesus warned the "ruler of the Jews" that the condemnation that comes upon the disbelieving is that "light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed. But he who does the truth, comes to the light that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they come from God" (John 3:19ff).
Our question is this: "How do we distinguish between right and wrong? How can we know for sure?"
Jesus told us: Always be willing to expose your practice to free and open examination in light of the word of God. Right has no fear. Error is always afraid to allow examination by those who disagree.
I sincerely doubt that there are very many people in religious error who are convinced their practice is evil and who are afraid to expose it to examination on that basis. No, they are arrogant people who are convinced that they are right and that discussion and examination are a "waste of time."
In my experience, those who disagree with me usually think I am not too bright. If I were as good or well-informed as they are, then surely I wouldn’t have this irritating error in my life. Funny thing...I usually feel the same way about them. God calls us to rise above feelings. People who disagree with us are irritating, time-consuming, and threatening. We consider what it would mean to change our view, and the option is often so unpleasant that we reject the position out of hand.
The first time I heard the Gospel, I was an Episcopalian. I recall my own emotions. "If this is true, then everything I have said and believed is wrong. My parents and family are in danger of damnation. The dear "Father" at Saint Andrews is a false teacher. Why! It will turn my whole world upside down! It will put me at odds with most of the world! And, worst of all, it will mean I must identify myself with these hillbilly bumpkins who don’t even have an organ. Their clergy look like used car salesmen, for crying out loud!" Satan had a field day with my heart.
But the experience was a good one. Christ began breaking down the wall that looked only at appearances rather than substance. I began to think in God’s terms rather than stereotypes. The righteous heart keeps questioning. Keeps listening to those who differ - who are in "error."
Those who declare, "We won’t discuss it" are on a path that can only lead to deception and destruction. The mouth that declares "Let’s study the Bible together on this matter" is probably going to be on the same head whose ears will hear "Come, thou good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your Lord.״
