1. Free to Change
2. Freedom and Responsibility
3. My Kind of People
4. "Come Out And Be Separate"
5. Private Intepretation
6. A "Monkey-Wrench" Scripture
7. The Truth That Frees
8. Literary Devices
9. Fear of God
10. A Love Story
11. The Three Trees In Eden
12. Imputed Righteousness
13. Different Essentials For Different People
14. God's Sons In All Ages
15. Looking To Lust
16. Divorce Her!
17. "While Her Husband Is Alive"
18. "They Won't Let Me Preach!"
19. God's Perplexing Prophets
20. Religous Titles
21. Who Sinned?
22. "I'll Join Your Church"
23. The Church As The Route To Heaven
24. One Hundred Years Old
25. Can Our Churches Unite?
26. Can The Cause Of Sickness Be The Cure?
27. When Life Begins
28. Abortion: Law Or Principle?
29. Human Chattel
30. The Hope of Israel
31. The Great Temptation of Jesus
32. The Rich Man And Lazarus
33. My Hermeneutic
34. Is Immersion Proved By Example?
35. Who Gets The Credit?
36. Hook's Points
37. Heresy
38. I Am A Debtor

Other Books at Freedom's Ring

After reading my first book, according to the report of a friend, one woman declared it to be heresy___"pure heresy!" She is not alone in her conviction. If the book is heresy, then the author is a heretic.

If heresy is the teaching of error, then all who teach are in the same heretical boat, for none of us can boast of being free from all error.

If that lady accepts the current dictionary definition of heresy as adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma, then she is right in her contention, for my writings challenge many cherished dogmas of the Church of Christ. Then she would also have to brand Jesus as the chief of heretics by that definition, for he certainly challenged the dogmas of the Jewish religion. If, however, she accepts the meaning of the word as it is used in the New Testament writing, she may find me not guilty and may discover that she is more heretical than I.

The root word hairesis denotes "a choosing, choice; then, that which is chosen, and hence, an opinion, especially a self-willed opinion, which is substituted for submission to the power of truth, and leads to division and the formation of sects; such erroneous opinions are frequently the outcome of personal preference or the prospect of advantage" (W.E. Vine, Dictionary of New Testament Words).

The emphasis in that definition is not on a person teaching some error but on the leading of others into a division or sectarian group. Teachings are not heretical; people are. Heresy is not erroneous teaching but it is the soliciting of followers in building or maintaining a party. A person may be heretical while teaching no error by creating a faction for his own advantage.

As the word is translated in the King James Version, "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject" (Titus 3:10), it is easy to apply a wrong definition to the word. In other versions like the Revised Standard Version, the true meaning is clearly evident: "As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him." The factious (or heretical) person leads in developing parties among disciples so that they reject other disciples. The heretical, party spirit is a divisive, factious spirit.

Let it be noted in passing that when you reject someone as a heretic or factious person, you put yourself under obligation to admonish that person first lest you become self-condemned!

Now, let us consider whether I am heretical, leading people to reject other disciples to form separate parties. I hope that you will interpret this as no personal defense but as an effort to determine who is guilty of being divisive among God's people. The culprit may not be whom you have suspected.

The major aim of my writing has been to free us of our bondage to a legal system which demands conformity. The efforts to bring all disciples together through conformity have forced many divisions among us. The divisions have been caused by leaders who seek doctrinal unity rather than a unity of all because we are in Christ. The Spirit creates the unity by baptizing us into one body, not by bringing about unity of convictions on all points. Differing convictions and practices concerning circumcision, the eating of meats, or the observing of days were no disruption of unity. Different beliefs and practices relating to present-day debatable issues should not be disruptive of our unity. We are to accept and respect each other in spite of our lack of conformity.

Briefly stated, that is what I have been promoting. Have I led any disciples to reject others in Christ? Have I promoted division? I have been accused of dividing churches, but can one honestly bring such an accusation? I have led no group to form a new congregation, nor have I encouraged others to do so. I remain in the congregation which I served for ten years. I reject no one in it even though some of them strongly resist my message. The elders do not call upon me to participate in the program of the church, even to lead a prayer. All of their reaction is because I say that we should cease judging and condemning God's people and that we should accept all who are in Christ as beloved brothers and sisters. How can I be the cause of division when I have never advocated rejecting others, when I have pled for unity in spite of our differences, and when I have continued to accept, meet with, worship with, and serve with all disciples? My only "heresy" is in promoting and practicing unity with all who are in Christ!

Have not churches divided because of my books? Certain members of some congregations have used my books for discussion and Bible study and have been influenced to accept all of God's children. That became unacceptable to others who zealously rejected them for their spirit of unity! So, factious wedges have been driven by those demanding conformity; thus, divisions were forced___not because the accepting ones rejected other members of the body, but because those with the heretical spirit refused to have fellowship with them. In such a case, who divided the congregation? Who led in the forming and protecting of a party? Who became sectarian in refusing fellowship with other disciples? Who was binding their dogma on others and soliciting adherents to it?

In some instances, an accepting group has felt the harsh oppression of an authoritarian system so severely that they have been driven to start a new congregation. Any group may rightly form a new congregation as long as they do not have a rejecting, divisive spirit. If, however, they no longer consider those in their former congregation as brothers and sisters in Christ, they have a factious, sectarian spirit. But usually it is the other way around: those who leave still want the fellowship of the ones they are leaving and they cherish them as fellow disciples, while those left behind withdraw fellowship from the ones leaving, or at least blame them for dividing the church. Division is not in meeting in separate groups. Division occurs when people reject each other even though they may meet in the same assembly each week. Unity does not consist of meeting in the same assemblies. Again, in such a case as we have depicted, who is guilty of heresy?

In Romans 14, Paul gives an emphatic lesson which we have been slow to heed. The eating of meats or vegetables was immaterial to their faith and fellowship. The meat eater did not reject the vegetarian for his scruple. It was the vegetarian who tended to judge (condemn) the meat eater. Thus, he would become sectarian and divisive trying to force his convictions on all others. Paul forbad that he should judge his brother. That was a part of "the doctrine" which he had delivered to them (Rom. 16:17). He had to respect his brother in a united fellowship in spite of their diversity in matters of faith. So it was with the keeping of days. So it was with circumcision. So it is with us today with our differing scruples and practices. When we begin to abridge the liberties of other children of God and demand their conformity to our beliefs in order to be in our fellowship, we lead in forming a divisive party. And, brethren, that is heresy! Those who demand conformity to their convictions are not the weak brothers who are being tempted to sin by the brothers demanding no conformity.

Nobody had to change his convictions about circumcision, eating meats, or observing days. We do not have to change our scruples today in order to be united, but we must cease judging and rejecting each other because of those convictions.

Most all of us can accept those in Christ who are more scrupulous than we are. The meat eater can accept the vegetarian. He is not at liberty to brand him as an anti or as being narrow, ignorant, or stubborn. Those who have Sunday School accept those who do not. But most of us have been led to reject brothers in Christ who exercise more freedom than we do. For example, those who circumcised found it hard to accept the uncircumcised, as though their relation to the Father depended upon it, while the uncircumcised had no problem accepting the circumcised.

Those who have instrumental accompaniment to their singing have no inclination to reject those who do not, but those who do not use it have insisted that they cannot fellowship as brothers those who use instruments. So, this pattern of our acceptance and rejection fits all of the issues of each generation. Our problem is not circumcision, meats, or days, but it may be Sunday School, paid ministers, cooperation of churches, communion glasses, instrumental music, divorce, prophecies, the Holy Spirit, or any other of the many debatable issues on which we hold differing convictions.

Who could expect that we be sane and consistent in all matters? Here is but a sample of our crazy thinking: our elders bind heavy burdens and then condemn as disruptive those who throw them off. Leaders encourage home study of the Bible, but when a group meets in a home to study together, it is considered clandestine, rebellious, and factious. Countless differences in belief are expressed in our adult classes with no threat to fellowship until someone suggests that we are to have unity in spite of diversity. Visitors from any and all churches are invited to participate freely in our services, but if they ask to be on our church roll, we say that we cannot have fellowship (mutual participation) with them! The unscriptural church roll is an invention of ours for judging others and determining with whom we may participate "officially" without compromise!

Again, who is heretical and divisive___the one who is accepting or the one who is rejecting? Who draws the lines defining a new party? Be honest with yourself in answering; you need not respond to me.

The zealous sister who considers my teaching that we accept all other children of God as pure heresy should be concerned that her rejection of me for my loving acceptance may be the purest form of heresy___if there is such a thing as pure heresy.