By Uche Chris
Obviously, Pastor Abel Damina has become the nemesis of the church in Nigeria because of his sweeping revisions of doctrines that we hold sacrosanct.
I never paid attention to him, as with most Pentecostal preachers, until a friend brought some of his controversial statements to my notice. This was followed shortly by the so-called ” Disclaimer” by the Supreme Council for Ecclesiastical Affair, in October.
In spite of this half hearted rebuttal, it is really surprising that the mainstream leadership of the church has remained aloof and impervious of this crisis, as they did with late T.B Joshua
Such silence signifies some level of acquiescence and complicity in the errors, contrary to church history, when errors were confronted frontally.
The definition of heresy, offered by the SCEA as “beliefs or teachings that deviate from established or orthodox doctrines,” is really ironic and paradoxical, because, stripped of its dogmas, most of our beliefs and teachings both in orthodox and Pentecostal churches are heretical, as they deviate from the established doctrines of the apostles and the early church.
Strictly speaking, few preachers can convincingly answer the question of what are the established doctrines and teachings of the church without running into self-contradictions.
As a Pentecostal, I find it hypocritical for Damina to condemn Catholic doctrines when some of ours are questionable, such as prosperity gospel, feet washing, anointing service, tithe, first fruit etc. Jesus said, “Remove the log in your eye so you see the speck in others eyes.”
Interpretation of the Bible and heresy are two sides of a coin. Nobody sets out willingly to be a heretic by going outside of or beyond biblical context from the outset of teachings.
However, the attempt to be innovative and different in interpretation could lead to extra-biblical definitions, interposition, and inferences that introduce or produce errors
.Once an interpretation is erroneous, it becomes a seed that would ultimately produce heresy and the best thing is to repent and admit a mistake, as RCCG G.O, Pastor Adeboye, did recently on the issue of non-tithers going to hell.
It is, therefore, important to point out such errors before they degenerate into heresy. Not every error is heretical. A heresy is one that undermines or contradicts the cardinal or principal foundation of Christianity; and Damina’s teachings are tipping toward heresy, as he get emboldened with his errors.
However, historically, such simple task of accepting error has proved onerous and daunting for most heretics, because of pride and arrogance, by placing their self-image above the purity of the gospel. Knowledge, Paul said, puffs up, but not the true knowledge of God and the Bible, which actually humbles.
In a largely ignorant society, such as ours, where illiteracy is high, and biblical Illiteracy overwhelming, and where the church has become cult-like, and thrives on collective silence, as everyone does what is right in his/her eyes, as the Israelites of old, preachers and teachers run a higher risk of sliding into errors, because there is no fear of ethical correction, reprove or censure from any quarters.
As already stated, the line between biblical innovations and heresy is very thin; only through a careful and diligent study, a strong mental discipline, and a large dose of doctrinal and intellectual humility can one escape the pitfalls of scriptural innovations.
Heresies do not come from unbelievers or the world; they come from amongst the fold: people, who had been schooled in the scripture and understand its essence and reality, but, who, being driven by inordinate desires, are misled into overstretching the truth of the Word. As somebody once said, truth overstretched becomes a lie; and any lie is a sin.
There is little doubt that Abel Damina poses a dilemma for most well meaning Christians, church leaders and preachers alike, because of the contradictions of biblical misconceptions with which they have bound themselves.
Many people know he is overstretching the truth, but not being sure of what is the accurate interpretation, resign themselves to fate. Others, who know the truth would not challenge his errors because they believe in the false notion of maintaining the unity of the church by assuming that it is better to live with error and falsehood than create division in the church. Well, they forget that only Christ alone can build the church.
Indeed, this ostrich attitude is more dangerous than the error itself, and negates the basic foundations of the gospel. Abel Damina may be saying a few popular and attractive things, especially those against church establishment, such as tithe and offering etc. But he is wrong in basic interpretations of the Bible and should be called out on it.
In the history of the church, we have had such contentions that threatened its very essence, as we have now with Abel Damina.
One of such is Arianism, which he seems to propagate inadvertently by questioning the Trinitarian doctrine. It was the worst and longest controversy in the early church, lasting over a century. Started by Arius, the “pastor of the influential Baucalis church, when he came into conflict with his bishop, Alexander.”
According to Bruce Shelley in Church History in Plain Language, sometime in 318, “Arius openly challenged teachers in Alexandria by asserting that the Word (Logo), which assumed flesh in Jesus Christ (John 2:1-14) was not the true God, and that he had an entirely different nature neither eternal nor omnipotent. To Arius, when Christians called Jesus God, they did not mean that he was deity, except in a sort of approximate sense…” It was a fundamental revision of the Bible and the gospel. This controversy led to the convocation of the First Nicea conference and the adoption of the Apostolic Creed in 323, but the matter did not end there.
After Emperor Constantine, two of his successors accepted Arianism, and persecuted its opponents, such as Bishop Athanasius. But the church stood its ground and the truth ultimately prevailed.
Roy Zuck in Basic Bible Interpretation, states that a cardinal belief of the Christian faith is the inerrancy of the Bible. This principle of faith has three basic characteristics: the Bible is authoritative, has unity, and is a mystery. This means that it has to be believed; no interpretation should contradict any part of it, and there’s no full knowing of it, which calls for humility and circumspection in its handling, as human knowledge is limited in time, age, and circumstance. These are the true test of accurate understanding and interpretation of the Bible.
However, Abel Damina’s interpretations do not fulfill these standards, and therefore, fail the litmus test of biblical acceptability, and so fall into error. First, his reliance on Old Testament as the basis of interpretation is faulty, because both testaments happened under different dispensations, and therefore, cannot be theologically aligned in interpretation. Second, his interpretations are simplistic, and often in conflict with other aspects of the scripture. Third, he is focused in the letters of the Word or scripture, rather than the spirit; the Bible says the letter kills while the spirit makes alive.
To give just one example: In one of his teachings, he said that the sin of Adam and Eve was not eating the fruit, because Jesus taught that nothing that enters a person defiles him, but what comes out of him. The most important requirement in Bible interpretation is the context; if the contexts are not similar, be careful of interposing or extrapolating one from the other. As such, he says, it is not a sin to either drink alcohol or smoke, because common sense tells us that both are unhealthy to the body. But the question is; why do people do it, or commit crimes; don’t they have common sense?
Herein lies the fallacy of his teachings in contradiction to the Bible. The very fact of the Bible suggests the inadequacy of our natural senses and abilities, because if they were sufficient to protect us from ourselves, and perfect us, then there would have been no need for the Bible, which is God’s way to life.
Generally, the Bible is expressed in symbols, figures and metaphors. A good interpreter must pay attention to them. The moral lesson in the Adam and Eve story is not in what they did, but why they did it. The fruit is simply a figurative expression of God’s commandment to them.
My Catechism teacher once said that the fruit they ate was sex. Does that change the fact that they disobeyed God? It is their collective disobedience that should concern us, and not the fruit, which is tangential to the divine wisdom portrayed in the story.