19th Century Theologian Nails the Dynamics of Error

[DMcFadden]

19th century theologian, pastor, and educator, Charles Porterfield Krauth, was a reformer with an amazing gift of prescience. Writing in the last half of the 19th century, he nailed this tendency which has become so evident today. This quote comes from his most significant work, "The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology" (pgs. 195-196). The full quote is chillingly spot on in terms of its insight into the dynamics of the campaign for error within the church.

When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of others . . . Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are two balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. Their recommendation is that they repudiate that faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skilful in combating it.

Charles P. Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology. (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1875), 195–196.

 

[Leslie]

Very wise, and the phenomenon is not only in the church. It's also in the state as regards Islam.

 

[Marcus417]

Wow that gave me chills

 

[DMcFadden]

Another part of the quote, dealing with the second stage, goes on to observe:

Truth and error are two balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them.

Isn't that the point we have heard repeatedly? The argument errorists make is that we all agree on the fundamentals. Therefore, by definition anything we disagree about must be non-essential. It would be "divisive" to argue over non-essentials. So, we must accept error on the same footing with truth.

A friend of mine from my high school days lambasted me for this quote, saying that it is nothing but a "slippery slope" fallacy. I retorted that logical fallacies have to do with necessary connections of logic, not practical and anticipated outcomes. Telling two teens who are dating that they may not stay alone in the house while the parents are gone is not about logical necessity, but reasonably predictable human behavior. It may not be "logically necessary" to say that staying alone will result in mischief, but it is prudent to believe that one thing would lead to another. Both the left and the right speak of outwanted, if not completely unanticipated, consequences of actions. The left went ballistic over the Citizens United decision of the court (cf. the famous Bill Murray "dogs, cats, living together" scene from Ghostbusters)just as the right has done over Obergefell. In neither case was the alarm based on formal logical necessity, but practical political savvy.

In any case, from the persecution of Anathasius at the hands of the Arians, to the Battle for the Bible in the 60s/70s, to the ordination of women, to the acceptance of homosexuality in the church . . . Krauth's three steps seem mighty prescient to me.