Scriptorium Daily
Bottom Line: Christians should forcefully oppose wrong ideas while loving their neighbor.
...
Americans (to our shame) don’t take ideas very seriously. If Joe is a nice guy, the fact that he is a Communist is unfortunate but no bar to friendship. Most Americans would not even pause, especially if Joe is buying the drinks.
We don’t like ideologues and who can blame us? The person who cannot endure the slightest disagreement without splitting a community, church, or club is the bane of any leader’s life. But Americans run the risk of becoming so intolerant of ideologues that we forget the power of ideas.
Bad ideas lead to bad consequences. Bad ideas (such as racism, misogyny, or socialism) lead to death, destruction, and poverty.
Bad ideas should, at the very least, strain a friendship, especially if the ideas are very bad.
When should it end it? How much support can I give to my neighbor who is wrong?
I think it depends on the depth of the friendship and the nature of the bad idea.
Having a positive relationship with a person who is wrong is one way of helping them become “right.” Since there is a positive good to having a friendship with a wrong person, we should not refuse the possibility lightly.
This much we know. The Bible is clear that we should love our enemies. It is hard to imagine loving someone, praying for them, without having any relationship with them.
This love included praise for the heretical Samaritan.
Saint Paul also says (I Corinthians 9: 9-13):
The fundamental rule seems to be: God judges outsiders. If my neighbor is someone “outside” the household of Faith, I can leave his condemnation to God. I can argue with this neighbor, witness to him, boldly proclaim the Gospel, but his judgment is in the hands of the Almighty.I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
...
Willful evil from members of our Church community must be dealt with forcefully.
...
...Aside: We also must distinguish between a person exploring an idea and practicing it. One could consider (as a serious academic exercise) if Mormonism is true, without being a practicing Mormon. False ideas can harm, but only if we fail to recognize them as false and embrace them by putting them into practice.
Second aside: A man might also be better than his proclaimed ideas (or worse!). A man might say he does not believe in morality, but then behave as a gentleman. There are (I have been told) people who proclaim fidelity to Christ, but then behave as cads.
The Biblical assumption is that the bar for fellowship with a non-Christian is lower than the bar for a Christian. The remainder of this discussion will be about friendship with the (insert wrong idea here) non-Christian neighbor.
Defining the types of friendship would require a book, but fortunately such a book has already been written. Aristotle was the first to write extensively of friendship in his Ethics and C.S. Lewis made good use of his categories in The Four Loves. I will borrow freely from both!
...
...Aside: Don’t mistake me. I don’t think we have to be “friends” with everyone to obey the law of Love. You can love a man without making him your friend or colleague. I can wish better for a man who joins the Communist Party, but I shan’t be working with him. Still refusing friendship is itself a major decision, a breach of community, that will seriously impact opportunities for my Christian witness. It should not be done lightly.
My thinking to this point suggests I can be a (colleague level) friend:
1. when the error is not serious. Surely trivial errors are not the basis for the evil of denying friendship.
...
2. OR when the error is serious, but is not relevant to the task at hand.
...3. AND when the serious theological error is held by a person “outside the Church.”
...
4. AND when serious error is not directly empowering a civil (non-theological) evil that should be known (via natural law) as evil by all rational men.
...
5. AND when a person practicing the evil is open to hearing my point of view.
...
6. AND when the friendship does not publicly associate me with the evil or wrong idea.
...
7. AND when the putative friend can also express their point of view, but can (with you) then agree to disagree. (more)
