Unity and Doctrinal Disagreements Can we have unity with brothers in error? When we encounter believers who are teaching or practicing Christianity with (what we believe to be) an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of scripture, what relationship should we have with them?

I just performed a quick Google search for the term "brothers in error." The query returned 177 links. I did not visit them all, but the vast majority of the ones I saw were making the point that we are all brothers in error. None of us has figured everything out perfectly, so we are all "in error" on some point. So if unity is possible, it must be possible to accept a brother who is in error. And therefore if unity is commanded, it is mandatory that we accept those who are our "brothers in error."

Hebrews 5:11-6:3 says:

We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting, we will do so.

Here we read of a group of Christians who apparently lacked a basic understanding of things like repentance, faith, baptism, laying on of hands, resurrection, and judgment. Yet it is quite clear (eg. chapters 12 and 13) that the writer is addressing them as Christians.

Carl Ketcherside once wrote:

It is not a choice between "the instrument party" in error, and "the non-instrument party" with no error. The fact that there are two dozen factions in the non-instrument segment proves that we are not free from error. It is a question as to which brothers in error I will associate with openly and freely. I do not endorse any of their errors, nor do I expect them to endorse any of mine. Therefore, it is really a choice of brethren, and not of errors. But I have no choice of brothers. I can no more choose my spiritual brothers than I could my fleshly brothers. Brotherhood is established by fatherhood; fraternity is the result of paternity. I shall love all of my brothers and move among them as they will allow, sharing in what they can convey, sharing with them what little I have learned. I shall receive them as God received me, not because of perfection, but in spite of imperfection.

We can embrace a brother without endorsing his errors. And hopefully he can embrace us without endorsing ours! It is not our doctrinal agreement that makes us brothers. Everyone who is a son of God is my brother. Gal 3:26-29 states:

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

What makes a person a son of God? From the above passage, a person becomes a son of God through having faith in Christ Jesus, being baptized into Christ and thus being clothed with Christ. And therefore all who have done that are "one in Christ Jesus." That defines who is my brother. I must accept all such people as my brothers regardless of their misunderstandings about other things. They may need to be gently and patiently taught, but I must embrace them without reservation as my brothers.

In the same article linked above, Carl Ketcherside continued (emphasis added):

Our brother is mistaken when he writes that I think "that all of us ought to ignore all doctrinal differences." That is the exact opposite of what I think. We could not ignore doctrinal differences if we tried to do it, and the harder we tried the less possibility there would be of doing it. What I think is that conformity in opinions and interpretations is not essential to the fellowship but fellowship is essential to arriving at harmony. Not one admonition to "live in harmony with one another" (e.g., Rom. 15:5) was ever written by an apostle to bring people into the fellowship. All such exhortations were addressed to those in fellowship and because they were in it. So long as we try to restore "fellowship" by arguing our differences we will only create more division. We need to restore a proper sense of fellowship first and discuss our differences within this frame of reference. Then fellowship will not be disrupted every time we differ. Our present course is suicidal!

Ketcherside made a crucial point: We cannot restore "fellowship" by arguing over our differences. Instead we need to restore fellowship based on our common adoption as sons of God. Then, we need to instruct one another with great humility, gentleness, and patience, until we all reach unity. Let's not wait until all disagreements vanish before we embrace our brothers. And above all let's not engage in quarrels over every point of disagreement. As Ketcherside points out, that path is suicidal.

Paul wrote in Eph 4:11-13:

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

That is the biblical route to unity. We don't start out knowing it all. We need to be taught, and inspired, and shepherded, until we reach a mature understanding of the Son of God. Let's embark on that route!  ¶ 7:44 AM