The future of every church, agency, and educational institution rests on its theological standard.  It’s not about a historical statement of faith or whatever creed an organization claims to adhere to.  As the years pass, those creeds become a façade, little more than a piece of advertising, while an organization’s real standard is about what they practice, teach, and represent.  Maintaining a historical standard can be very difficult, and sooner or later all human organizations tend to leave behind either a portion of or most of such standards.  One would expect that at that at the point of departure there would be an open admission of that change, but that usually is not the practice.

When a move away from an original position, it can be identified by several things.  The most obvious has to do with whom they “fly” with, because birds of a feather do stick together.  I am not talking here about general associations or being in the same room, so to speak.  This discussion is about giving a place of participation and respect to those who have moved further down the road toward error and, ultimately, liberalism.

Turning the platform, classroom, or leadership over to someone who holds error is the same as approving the error, because you cannot avoid the identification.  All one has to do is to follow the practice of accommodation, and you will know where a group is going theologically and, in the end, morally.


The problem of serious association is coupled with a second indication of a move to the left.  This problem is a failure to clearly identify doctrinal and moral issues, as well as a defense of theological accommodation.  A few illustrations will suffice.  The trend toward looking lightly on the cults has become popular.  The idea that Mormonism or Seventh Day Adventism is not a cult is by no means new, but now there is a move afoot to view them as legitimate church groups.  Where someone comes down on this gives us a clear identification of where they are headed theologically; after all, the scholars have made this decision for us.

Eschatology seems to be the slippery slope for many.  It is a simple matter for the sleight-of-hand agent to gain respectability and move from one error to another.  This misdirection moves slowly, hoping not to be noticed.  Joining hands under the table like this is one way for a group to hide their move to the left.

In moral issues such as abortion, sodomy, and the use of alcohol, the race to accommodation varies.  Biblicists are often castigated for referring to abortion as murder, even though God’s Word is very clear on the subject.  This softening of language is very telling.  Even the word “sodomy” is forbidden amongst those who want the identification of sin to be made respectable.  Alcohol use is a perfect example of how hard people will work to ignore scripture in order to make sin acceptable.


There is no such thing as a single stand-alone error; one error simply leads to another. When one gives credence to one error, all you have to do is look for the others.  In front of me is an advertisement containing several names.  At least four of the persons listed here are known for at least one theological error, while others are known for their accommodation of those who hold error.  How could this happen to a self-proclaimed fundamentalist group?

The answer is in the third thing that identifies theological drift.  The people involved in the above simply say that the error is not an error, or that it is only a small error and not all that serious.  Even small moral and theological errors, however, are very dangerous. Once the small error is accommodated, it is not long until another more serious one finds a comfortable home.  James puts the progression this way:

…but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.  – James 1:14, 15


Why would a professing fundamentalist deny or defend error?  The answer can be found in the common hermeneutic that they use.  The Reformed hermeneutic is flexible; it allows the interpreter freedom to adjust theology as he travels the road that leads left. This is the illustration I have used here before.  The hermeneutic that allows you to leave the any-moment catching away of the church, called the rapture, is the same hermeneutic that allows you to choose any eschatological error all the way to denying that there is such a thing as a Millennial Kingdom.

The three things that identify the accommodation of error are a warning to all of us.  We would do well to use care in the depth of our relationships, small and great, with those who have chosen respectable error.  We would do well to clearly identify erroneous theological and moral issues that lead to a chain of compromise.  We would be wise not to follow those who have today’s plethora of popular theological errors. Accommodating error is unwise, and denying it is serious; but defending it is sinful at best.  Let the bad examples of others be a good lesson to those of us who are committed to the authority and sufficiency of scripture.