Persisting in error

"To err is human, to persist in error is diabolical."

I have often seen a tendency in myself and in others I have observed to develop personal favorite activities and to eventually come to a point where we hate to give those activities up. The obvious example of this is something like drinking or smoking, which may develop into addictions that require intervention to break. The smoker or the alcoholic refuses to quit, even when he is told how very bad continued indulgence in this activity will be for him. In fact, even the good of exercising may lead to addiction and become a bad thing. The Apostle Paul directly addressed the fact that we need to keep even these good things under check by saying: "For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come" 1 Timothy 4:8.

Matthew Henry Those are marked for ruin who persist in sin, and are not ashamed of the abominations they have committed

 

Jeremiah 8:12Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not at all ashamed; they did not know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among the fallen; when I punish them, they shall be overthrown, says the Lord.

Many other activities we get involved in may have bad consequences as well, especially if we persist in them after we have been alerted to a problem. Consider the concept of propounding or defending a particular doctrine. Let's say we have been convinced of the truth of evolution. We are determined to convince folks that evolution and not creation is the force that brought our world into existence. We push and push and push that line of thinking.

And then one day we run into a well-educated and well-spoken Intelligent Design proponent. We present our argument to him, laying out each tile in the mosaic of our complete system, complete with our interpretation of the archaeological data backing our idea and statements from experts who agree with our position. But as we lay each tile, this Intelligent Design guru obliterates every one of our arguments with solid fact, science, and philosophy. In the end, we find that we have not been able to answer his positions in the way he has answered ours. He has won the debate, and done so clearly.

And yet, the next day, we accost the first person we see and present to them all the same things we said before because this new person probably doesn't know the things the Intelligent Design guy did and he will likely be persuaded by our presentation.

This is called "persisting in error." It happens when we have a "pet" doctrine that we like to proclaim, but then our arguments in support of that doctrine are shown to be wrong, say by scripture and by a demand on using proper terminology and historically accurate definitions. Nevertheless, we continue to push our defeated arguments on other unsuspecting victims.

I have recently been made aware of a group of bloggers who are promoting a non-biblical use of the word modesty. Although many people have pointed out the error in definition that is giving rise to a tremendously inaccurate interpretation of the scripture, these folks persist in their use of the inaccurate definition. No defense has been made along the line of why this inaccurate definition is being used. The simple fact is that the only reason someone who cannot defend their position will post that position again after it has been refuted is that they choose to "persist in error."

This scenario played out over the past couple of weeks on Mrs. Stacy McDonald's blog, Your Sacred Calling. She was made aware of the errors she had made in her application and interpretation of a scriptural passage. She made no defense of her position, and yet persists in her error.

This is the passage in question:

1 Peter 3:3-4 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.

The blogs I have seen covering this passage are almost all making the same mistake—that of thinking that this verse is talking about women dressing in a way so as to entice men. That is quite clearly not what this passage is talking about. The blogs not making this mistake are discussing the passage to point out that the mistake has been made by others.

Because words may have multiple definitions, we sometimes clarify our speech with qualifying phrases using parallels, examples, antonyms and synonyms. These techniques help us to more clearly convey our thoughts and help keep people from misunderstanding what we were saying.

The inspired words of scripture here use such techniques to help keep us on track. Peter says, "Do not let your adorning be external." He then ensures the reader's understanding by giving some examples: "the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing." He then continues the clarification with an opposite parallel: "but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit." Quite clearly this passage is not encouraging women to be careful that they cover themselves appropriately with clothing. It is in fact saying that this should not be their primary focus. We can probably agree that proper covering will be an outworking of that gentle and quiet spirit, but it is certainly not being demanded by this scripture.

A similarly misused scripture is found in 1 Timothy 2:9-10, which says:

Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

Here Paul is telling Pastor Timothy that he should instruct women to be modest in their appearance. Again he uses communication techniques to qualify and focus his statements. He begins with: "Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel." He then focuses that "respectable apparel" with the phrase: "with modesty and self-control." To make sure that Timothy understands what he means by "modesty and self-control" when regarding apparel, Paul then gives some negative examples: "not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire." He is obviously using the more common meaning of modest here: living in a simple way rather than in an ostentatious way, as in "he is a man of modest means." He is saying that the women should not be slaves to fashion, worrying incessantly about what they're going to wear. This parallels exactly the requirements in the previous passage that the women dress themselves in a "gentle and quiet spirit."

Paul then continues the clarification with a definitional phrase to make clear what he meant. He does this by way of a material example: "but [they should adorn themselves] with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works." Paul is saying that the woman's focus should not be on her manner of dress, but rather on the good works "which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" Ephesians 2:10.

I know that we are all prone to this sort of idolatry of our "favorite" doctrines—holding them in higher regard than scripture at times. But the fact that we are all prone to this does not make this right. I urge all who see the name Stacy McDonald attached to a book, a blog, an article, a group, or a conference to beware. Don't fall for the veneer. Do some research. Find the truth and don’t allow yourself to be drawn into a well thought out philosophical system that is not biblically based.