Constitutional Crisis

Hi Everyone,

Our local church is going through a transition regarding its association with the Missionary Church.  The Constitution of the Missionary Church limits membership to those who affirm an extensive set of moral and doctrinal positions.  It seems that some of the members of our Church (me obviously) are not on-board with all of these doctrines and we’re debating whether this fact should force us to disassociate ourselves and start a new church.

So I read through the Missionary Church’s constitution this morning.  Got a big kick out of it!  Frankly, if the Missionary Church is committed to limiting its membership to individuals who agree with each of their stands, there needs to be a serious membership purge.

But I digress.  Of particular interest to me were the sections that began “we recognize that sincere Christians have conscientious differences as to their understanding of the teaching of the word of God regarding . . .” and “we recognize there are committed Christians who hold different views concerning . . .”

The issues being discussed were “participation in war” and the doctrine of “assurance.”  The constitution explicitly stated that “sincere Christians” can reasonably disagree about these issues – implying that sincere Christians could not reasonably disagree about the issues on which the Missionary Church was willing to take a stand.  On those issues, the rightness of their views is so obvious that no genuine believer could, in good faith, take a different position.

It takes a remarkable degree of arrogance to think, for example, that the doctrine of inerrancy is so obviously correct that no sincere Christian could question it.  The doctrine is absurd on its face, given that the only way confirm it would be to check the bible for errors - and the doctrine itself expressly forbids such checking.  I’m guessing that we’re supposed to believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures because the scriptures themselves claim to be inerrant.  But how do we know that scriptural claims of inerrancy (assuming they exist) aren’t themselves errors of the very sort some of us are worried about?

I mean, come on guys.  This is low hanging fruit!  I can’t make myself accept a doctrine justified by such obviously circular reasoning.  Add to that the fact that the scriptures endorse some pretty questionable ideas, practices and historical narratives and I’m wondering how anyone in their right mind could believe in inerrancy.

Don't even get me started on Gay rights!

And yet the Missionary church is so confident about this doctrine that it is willing to say every genuine Christian accepts this doctrine as obviously correct?

I’ve long believed that we should always remain open-minded.  I don’t believe open mindedness is an intrinsic virtue – that it is valuable in and of itself.  I don’t think that we should expose ourselves to new ideas just because they are new, particularly when older ideas have served us well.

But open-mindedness has “instrumental” value because it is a necessary condition for correcting error.  An interesting feature of having beliefs is that everyone necessarily thinks their current beliefs are true.  It is impossible to think otherwise.  Of course, everyone also knows that they have believed wrongly in the past, so it is reasonable to assume that at least some of our current beliefs are wrong.  The problem is that we don’t know which of our current beliefs are incorrect.  They all seem correct right now (or we would have already abandoned them).

And there is only one way to find out – we must listen to those who reject our beliefs with an open mind.  By “open,” I don’t mean uncritical.  Beliefs that have served us well are entitled to some deference.  And criticisms of our beliefs should themselves be subjected to scrutiny.  “Open” means actively entertaining the possibility that my current belief or understanding may be wrong, or partially wrong, or incomplete.  It means giving those who dissent a fair hearing – not for their sake, or out of some silly notion that all beliefs are entitled to respect – but for our sake, so that we might have the opportunity to exchange error for truth.

That’s why I think constitutions of this sort are so problematic.  There’s nothing wrong with a statement of beliefs.  What’s wrong is the attempt to protect these beliefs from criticism by constitutionally excluding members who disagree. That is not only wrong.  It is foolish.  It guarantees that all members of the Missionary Church will continue to hold false beliefs to the extent that the constitutional drafters were wrong about anything.

Joe Huster