It isn’t exactly PC to talk about heresy. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, and that it isn’t pervasive. Accusing others of holding (not to mention teaching) unorthodox beliefs is perceived as mean-spirited, brutish, even un-Christian, particularly in an American context which has difficulty speaking of truth and error. We prefer to chalk differences up to points of view and clashes in perspective, even though a better way forward might demand that we undertake the hard work of discerning that which is in accord with sound doctrine (Titus 2:1). Of course, this would require that the body be given the tools to think theologically–something which many Christians (not to mention pastors) woefully lack. I think it would be hard to make a case for strong, sound, theologically thinking Christian people as the norm, rather than the exception, in our churches today. God help us all.
So why the rant on heresy? Partly because I care about truth. The discourse over truth is nothing new–as long as people have thought, they have been concerned with truth. And from time to time, conceptions of truth have been divergent, and the conversation surrounding how one determines which school of thought is dominant has been intense (for instance, in moral philosophy the differences between Kant and Mill). Even divergent schools can both possess value, or glimmers of truth, which later yield a better conception of understanding after having moved further along in history. The theological divergences which have emerged throughout Christian history are such instances, such as classical Calvinism and Arminianism. Though persons on either side of the aisle in this debate might strongly disagree with the position of their opponents, this does not mean that one or the other falls outside the bounds of historic orthodoxy. Members of each party, though their convictions are strong, are willing to concede that we now see “through a glass, darkly.” Though they believe that there convictions are true and that they are doing their best, they ultimately concede God’s thoughts are higher than our own (Isa. 55:9).
This week I had the occasion of reading an excerpt from a new book to be released by a somewhat popular writer, speaker, thinker, and provocateur hailing from the emerging sector of Christianity. Like a canary in a mining tunnel, this person is right to perceive that something is wrong, but their identification of the problem is, in my opinion, far from correct. This writer chose to rail against the antiquated nature of “Christianity” in its historic forms, claiming that the Christianity which he had encountered and received only provided answers to questions of another age, coming across as stale, out of touch, and lacking relevance for our world today. Rather than complain (though in effect, he is doing this), this person has set out to explain their own beliefs for what Christianity can and should be in our world. Thus, they attempt to overcome the baggage of historic Christian belief and provide something fresh, in touch, and relevant to our times. Among their opening comments, they identify the previous 1500 years of Christian thinking to be the most problematic, making me wonder if (roughly) the first 500 years were somehow more pristine, and if so, how this author gained access to those earliest truths through the fog created by medieval and post Reformation Christianity.
While I am thankful that there are concerned Christian people out there writing books, heading out on speaking tours, and leading congregations in such a way that they are connecting with our world, at times I am deeply disturbed by the lack of concern for integrity with the best of Christian theological reflection and historic practice. This isn’t universal, but it is common enough that it is difficult to ignore. I have a great deal yet to learn about our history and our theology, but I know enough to see that one of the by-products of some of the proposed elements of a “new” Christianity seem to lead down a dangerous path of faulty doctrine and distorted witness that points to something which may resemble the Kingdom of God, but ultimately is a kingdom of our own making. I can be stronger here–sometimes the ignorance of historical theology results in heresy being taught today. There, I said it.
While in seminary my wife had a teacher who challenged her class to invent a new heresy, and if they could do so, they would automatically be awarded an A for the semester. It couldn’t be done. Heresies are pervasive throughout Christian history, and they are easier to identify when you are familiar with that history. This is how to avoid heresies–by knowing where we’ve come from. Within our own history we have seen thinkers who not only possessed good minds, but were intellectual giants, and it is only to our detriment that we write off their contributions as antiquated and out of touch with our current realities. What could be more important in our time than rich thinking on the Trinitarian nature of God, or upon the nature of human beings and how God has provided for their redemption? Some of the claims internal to our tradition do not lose relevance for they are true.
When I discussed these thoughts with my wife, Molly, she was right to point out that I should temper my attitude and be a little more generous when engaging those with whom I disagree, and I am glad to heed her words. But part of my reply was quite sharp, and I ask you the question I posed to her (though here I state it a bit more mildly):
“Where would we be without people like Augustine, who stood up boldly to Pelagius and fought for the belief that human beings are sinful and in desperate need of the grace of God?”
To cite another example, Wesley wasn’t exactly mild in his responses to Whitefield’s Calvinist leanings, though the two remained friends. This post sheds some light on their relationship.
There is a need for people like Augustine still today, as we are not dealing with only sheer matters of preference, but with truth. I, for one, believe such a thing exists.
Modern “mainstream” Christianity in most of the developed world is so heretical that it can barely be called “Christianity.” The Enlightenment represented the move to heresy by the most educated in the form of Deism, and Western civilization has steadily followed over the last few hundred years. I recently commented on the quasi-Unitarian/Universalist nature of modern American Christianity that can be seen in the latest survey from the Pew Forum.
This is noteworthy in that America is not (and was not founded as) a Christian country. It is a spiritual country with a Christian iconography/mythology and this has become more pronounced in the twentieth century (except for a spike of Christian pseudo-orthodoxy after WWII in response to atheist communism as a dominate political power).
So to your point, if orthodox Christians want to find the root of their faith, they should absolutely be turning back to Augustine as well as Ignatius, Clement and other fathers of the Church (even Origen, but that’s almost a post in itself).
But before that, I believe they should read Acts. Acts lays down, in Canon, how the Church is to be structured and how it is to behave. It is very difficult to see the Church of Acts in any large American church I’ve seen. It’s not a matter of picking through Acts and trying to match it up to the churches we have. It’s a matter of starting at nothing, openings Acts, and asking “What should a Christian Church look like?” The answer, in my opinion, is a theocratic commune, but that seems to bother our modern sensibilities.
pantheophany, you make some excellent points, especially about returning to the book of Acts. The interesting thing I note about many who say that we should return to the New Testament church is that none seem to want to include the description Luke gives of commune in which all things are shared and no one claims possession of anything. It’s odd how many American Christians (especially many called evangelicals) who want to go to great links to show how the Bible requires some belief in ‘private property’.
Can you say more about the ‘theocratic commune’? What would that look like, given that Luke’s thrust is more showing the spread of the gospel than church structure? I’ll admit there are hints, but the hints given also show something of God sharing the task with us (Acts 15.28). Also, reading Paul’s letters, even the early church ran into trouble that suggests Luke’s story can run on the idealistic side at times. Galatians shows the huge break between Paul and Peter (and James) where you don’t get the idea that they liked each other very much, despite working for the same goal.
I don’t disagree with you: I imagine that getting there is a case of starts and stops that can be extremely frustrating. I think Molly’s words are worth taking, even if I don’t always do it myself!
Will, my response got quite long, so I’ve posted it here.
[...] 18, 2008 in religion, society | Tags: christianity, communism | In my discussion with Ben Simpson on what a Biblical church would look like, I mentioned that the Biblical model [...]
Our history…our STORY…is but one aspect to consider. We must also have a clear vision of where we want to be, engaging the present (as well as our history) in order to achieve that goal. In addition to clergy, theologians and teachers, the prophets of our past are no less vital than modern-day prophets, nudging us to creativily and meaningfuly serve in the manner Christ commands. No matter some prophets of today spew heresy. We have a responsibility to our stories, to light the paths of truth in the here and now, and lead us to tomorrow. The neverending story. World without end.
Jamie,
I’m curious from your post how you believe that Christians should distinguish between prophets that spew heresy (by which I assume you mean false teachings) and those who nudge Christians towards the truth. What besides scripture and passed-down tradition should Christians use to create a clear vision of where to go?
pantheophany, thanks for the reply.
To seek God faithfully and live the gospel, could we not discern the history, and engage the collective creativity of church leaders in the here and now, to achieve the vision for the Church? We are equipped with the tools of exploration, imagination, and intuition. We are called to worship, and to study scripture and our stories, and to rest in His presence, and to give, and to love. To do so thoughtfully and with imagination is servant leadership. And what do modern day prophets tell us? To serve God and others. That is also what my intuition says. What does your intuition tell you?
Jamie
Jamie,
Well, my intuition (which I believe is the correct guide) tells me that we are all connected to each other and to God. Through study, exploration, prayer and imagination I see God everywhere I look. But this is exactly the reason for my question. I believe that the Universe is God, that we are God. I believe we are born good and do not need to be saved, only taught and loved.
Is this a proper thing for Christians to believe, or am I speaking heresy? It didn’t seem very Christian to me, so I decided to give up Christianity rather than give up my beliefs.
That is why I wonder what tools Christians believe they should use. I used those tools and stopped being a Christian. For me that was a wonderful thing, but it doesn’t seem like what Christians would teach.
Thanks for your thoughts. If you are curious, I go into a bit more depth on my beliefs in this essay and a bit more on how I got there here.
Many Christians would reject many elements of your statement above, and label them heresy. A pantheistic understanding of God does fall outside of traditional Christian orthodoxy, and is foreign to Jewish and Islamic perspectives as well. As for your belief that we are born good and do not need to be saved, this has been revisited and rehashed again and again as part of Augustine and Pelagius’ historic clash over the nature of human beings.
I would agree with you that intuition is a guide in our search for truth, but I would disagree with you in the sense that it does not hold ultimate and final authority in our arrival at things deemed “true.” As a follower of Jesus currently swimming in a Wesleyan stream, I believe that Scripture, Reason, Tradition, and Experience all four play a part in our search for truth, with Scripture holding greatest weight. Truth rests outside of me and has been/is revealed by God’s grace.
It seems as though we’ve delved into a topic about which there is much to say. Much has already been said.
Thanks for keeping things civil. This space has been created for dialogue and discussion, and I’m doing my best to see to it that different voices can be heard.
Ben – I think that you are right to recognize and bring to attention that heresy is not something that is past history, it is alive and well today. It may masquerade as other things, but it is a reality as old as the church.
I believe that history will ultimately be the arbiter of what current practices or teaching are heretical. It takes a determined effort of listening, prayer, discernment, and trust in the Holy Spirit to hold up to scrutiny our own beliefs and those of others.
Andrew, I’m curious what you mean by “history will ultimately be the arbiter of what…are heretical.” Are you suggesting that we can determine true teachings by looking at what ideas survive over time? Buddhist teachings have survived much longer than Christian teachings, but I don’t believe you’re suggesting they are more valid (I personally think they are, but that’s not the point here). This almost sounds cynically like “the winners write the history books.” I assume you mean it in a different way?
This brings again the question of how the church should or can determine what is orthodox and what is heretical. To Ben’s point that the first priority is to Scripture, my study indicates that this is circular reasoning (though I’m interested in others’ views on the history of canonization). I say it is circular because the Church Fathers had as one of their key criteria in choosing the canon that a book must be orthodox (that is, it had to conform to what was already believed). Consider the rejection of the Apocalypse of Peter, for instance, with its Universalist message. It was accepted by early Church Fathers such as Clement, but not ultimately canonized. The Gospel of Thomas has as good a claim to authenticity as the Gospel of John and certainly 2 Peter in my opinion, but is quite heretical and so was not accepted. Even books quoted by canonical books were not themselves canonized (Jubilees, Assumption of Moses). So the question is, if Scripture is the primary determination of truth, how does one know for certain what Scripture is without first knowing truth? How does one distinguish between the Gospel of John and the Book of Mormon in determining which is actually Scripture?
Thanks for providing this forum. It is good to have a place to speak civilly on difficult questions.
On a practical note, I don’t have enough fingers to count the number of clergy i’ve run into in the mainstreem church who will flat out deny things like the Resurrection. And some of these in very significant places of “power”. So ya heresy is still alive and well.
[...] On Heresy – epiteleo [...]