your examples of gnostics, mormons, etc. are certainly the “easy” examples–i certainly don’t feel the least need to apologize for the fact that many mormon ideas to me are intolerable and i should never endorse those ideas nor the people that hold them as though we share a spiritual communion. and as you point out, i think the real heart of the matter among the church is not *whether* we can declare heresy and treat it as such, but precisely what ideas do and don’t fall into the category of “heresy.” you’re right, i don’t think i’d tell anyone to please leave the auditorium or something just because he was a post-miller instead of an a-miller or whatever. but i’ve never personally met anyone (and i definitely interacted with some rather “conservative” congregations back in my preaching school days) who didn’t think that there was, indeed, a realm of freedom in which people could disagree–even sharply–and yet still be in communion with one another.

i remember back in those days, it was fairly clear among all the men i heard speak that though some of them debated pretty heavily about it, they generally agreed that this matter of the indwelling Holy Spirit was one of these gray areas. Translations seemed to be one of these areas also. Despite me getting nearly sick of hearing Robert Taylor rant about the NIV at every lectureship i ever heard him speak on (and regardless of the topic he’d been assigned!), i never heard him speak unkindly of anyone who thought different, nor did i ever see him treat other lectureship speakers who differed with him any differently than anyone else. Buy hey, i may be wrong, and the guy may go home and pray nasty imprecatory prayers every night about each and every person who uses an NIV. These are just my observations from within a circle that i suspect would be included in your “magisterium” group. but again, even when i was in the thick of it, i never heard any man really claim or even come close to claiming that he had the right answers about *everything.* Every class teacher i had at BTSOP at one time or another admitted there was something they just didn’t know and weren’t sure about, and while they had an idea, they could be wrong, and they didn’t necessarily expect to know til eternity.

now maybe you didn’t mean that we have a “monopoly” in the sense that we possess all correct answers to every possible question. but rather, just that we view questions in such a way as though we are the only possible candidates qualified to answer them correctly, and if you’re not one of “us,” then it should be obvious you couldn’t possibly have the right answer. ehhh…yesss..if i thought about it..i suppose i’ve met a few people who had this ambiance about them. but they were very few. most average members that i engaged in my short years in church work seemed far more openly searching in their attitudes than that. and at preaching school we used plenty of textbooks written by men who were not CoC. but i suppose i would concede that it’s present enough to call it a “trend.” But, maybe i’m wrong, i suspect you could probably go to any denomination and find people who viewed their own denomination in much the same way. If you were a committed Baptist (you became religious believing that Baptist doctrine was the true representation of what the Bible teaches), doesn’t it make sense that *in general* you might be naturally more inclined to trust Baptist sources and to first-consult Baptist sources than non-Baptist ones?

i suspect though that you also maybe aiming to say something like this (correct me if i’m wrong)–what answers we do claim to have and claim as correct, we treat them flatly; each has equal force against those who differ. if i am right about translations (let’s say), then i ought to sharply oppose and rant about those who differ with my answer just as much as i ought to attack any teaching which differs from the divinity of Christ. Now i certainly have encountered this sort of attitude among quite a number of people in the old days in the preacher school environment. i did have one or two class teachers who seemed to get more irate about churches with gyms and youth ministers than they did about Barthianism which seems quite an upside-down stack of significance to me. Maybe you weren’t trying to point this out, but if not, i certainly think it’s a worthy criticism. Jesus did, indeed, say that the Pharisees ought to be straining out *both* gnats and camels; and because of that i do find myself still annoyed by quite a few in the church who seem to think Jesus said gnats don’t matter and we can swallow as many of those as we like. but Christ’s comments there in Matt 23:23 also clearly show that all issues are not equal; some issues are camel-sized, others are gnat-sized. and i believe others in the church need to learn that there are appropriate levels of emphasis or focus. pretty soon out of preaching school, i started to wonder why so many were willing to toss around the word “unsound” when we heard a congregation letting women lead over men or doing something bizarre musically. but i never heard many inquisitions conducted over whether a church did anything to help the poor or widows or orphans or whether they materially supported one another whenever needed.

also, i really can’t see why i should have any problem having the sense in my heart and mind that certain issues (whether God exists, whether Jesus is the Messiah, whether the Bible is the word of God) are *settled.* but maybe i’m thinking of a different connotation of “settled.” Maybe all you’re suggesting is that we can always learn more *about* those particular issues. If so, then i absolutely agree. i enjoy studying those bedrock issues the most. (by the way, have you ever looked much into presuppositional apologetics?) but i certainly don’t feel any need to apologize for seeing them as “settled” in that my most basic answers to those questions (does God exist? is Jesus the Messiah?) are correct, they are non-negotiable, and anyone who differs is wrong. i don’t see how that is any sort of spiritual defect in me. in fact, i tend to see that immovable commitment to those answers on my part as a spiritual strength.

You ask some good questions here that have to be dealt with by people…I’ve dealt with these questions myself, so I’ll provide you with my answers…others may differ.

To me, it does not mean that we can’t believe we’re right about something. We must have our own beliefs, both as individuals, and as a church; and, we must believe that we are correct, otherwise, those beliefs aren’t worth much. As such, we can certainly act as if we are right about those beliefs. We can teach those beliefs to others, discuss our belief with those who disagree, and guide others into our understanding.

The problem comes when we bind our belief on someone else. The millenium is a great example. Some are amillenial, some are pre-millenial, some are post-millenial, and some are even preterist. We have all sides in Churches of Christ.

Each congregation has to determine what it will teach. However, if my congregation teaches amillenialism, and the congregation across town teaches partial preterism, must we not have fellowship? I think we can and should. This issue, as well as most others, don’t bar fellowship. In fact, fellowship between the two groups can bring a better understanding of our own beliefs, as well as the beliefs of others. Examining our beliefs makes us learn, and brings us closer to God. There are other issues that people feel bar fellowship, those being instrumental music and the various styles of doing communion. While I don’t have time in this comment to talk about those in detail, I must say I don’t think those bar fellowship either, but, this is for another time.

I think we have a responsibility to declare heresy when we see it, but we may disagree a little as to what a heresy is. I see heresy as something that is divergent from the accepted teachings of the Christian world. Gnosticism is a heresy. Mormonism is a heresy. The teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is a heresy. I will even go so far as to say that the Society of Friends (Quakers) are heretics as they refuse to celebrate any sacraments. So to me, those are heresy. In my mind, instrumental music is not heresy, believing that baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace is not heresy (even though I disagree that that is all baptism is), calvinism is not heresy (again, even though I disagree with calvinism), etc.

Treating a matter as settled… I’m not sure that we should even totally do this. It is my belief that we must always be willing to study an issue, especially if someone comes to us with a differing opinion on the matter. The other day I almost bought a book entilted Understanding Four Views on Baptism. I didn’t because I ended up buying two other books instead, but I will probably end up buying it and reading it. One section is on the “Christian Church/Churches of Christ” view of baptism. I want to read it to learn even more about baptism than I already know. Even though we teach baptism strongly, I don’t think that even we full understand its power and meaning.

To clarify “monopoly on truth,” we in Churches of Christ act like we have one. We have declare that we have studied the bible and come to the truth on ALL ISSUES. That is dangerous. Yesterday, in class I teach, we discussed whether or not it is biblical for two people to have different beliefs or opinions. We talked about Tolbert Fanning, founder of the Gospel Advocate, who answered the quesstion with a resounding NO. Fanning was a premillenialist. 50 years later, the Gospel Advocate staff condemned premillenilism as heresy. So…is truly the heretic? Tolbert Fanning, or present day defenders of amillenialism/preterism? We named colleges after Harding and Lipscomb, but many in Churches of Christ today could not stomach their teachings. Who has the monopoly on truth? Harding and Lipscomb, or us?

Finally, I do believe that there is a firm, grounded medium. It is accepting the Lordship of Jesus the Christ as our master. When we do that, and we put his words into practice, our focus will shift off of doctrinal correctness and instead to loving one another, serving the downtrodden and the poor, and sharing the good news with those who do not have it.

-Clarke

The Bible doesn’t explain the time period between 70 AD to about 300 AD or for that matter any future event . However some claim it does in order to try to deal with scriptures that are seemly prophetic or do not have a doctrinal ending time period. A few of these issues are heavily theological and need a secondary stories outside of Biblical context to remain true. 70 AD for most scholars is the demarcation of the Jewish system and the rise of Christianity. But for those who seemly can interpret correctly the symbolic coded language often become sectarian in view.
Here are some of the debated concepts:

The nature of the Holy Spirit and miracles
The end of the world and when it will happen
The prediction of apostasy
The rise of denominationalism
The restoration of the church
The compilation of the scriptures into a Bible outside of the time period the Holy spirit worked
The authority of cultural indebtedness (women’s role in the church)

The point being is as you have said , no one has cornered truth about the Bible or nature of God. I believe there is a reason for this and that is simply faith. There is a lot of room for debate and deep study not just of Bible but of history. Here is a question what difference does it make Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD? Ironically for some it means nothing! However for Preterist 70 AD is the hub of their belief system. Many church of Christ people have become partial Preterist again to try to debunk certain scriptures meaning. Even more so we live in a time that most all belief or faith can be challenged adequately . The question is whether we will go on this journey of faith alone or with friends and family. Too some how do it alone dogmatically in some depraved intellectual stance is pure insanity.