On Heresy

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.

Read Full Post »

Sometimes Eschatology Makes Me Want to Vomit

This story from FoxNews reports that a group of Christians holding a pre-tribulation, premillenial doctrinal understanding of eschatology (or “last things”) have launched a website which will alert friends and loved ones if the “Rapture” has occurred.  According to this report, “Final e-mails from vanished subscribers will be triggered when three of the site’s five Christian staffers fail to log in for six days in a row.”  Those persons administering the site seem quite certain they will be among those taken up in to heaven when the final trumpet sounds.

The site, http://www.youvebeenleftbehind.com/, will alert up to 62 loved ones of your departure via an email message if the above criteria are met.  This form of premillenialism has led the site administrators to also facilitate storage of financial account information.  This is so you might pass your assets on to family before the conclusion of the tribulation, which according to this strand of theology is a period lasting 7 years.

This story does include one bit of poor journalism, stating, “According to Christian theology, after the Rapture, Satan will rule a global government that will torment doubters with seven years of Tribulation”(emphasis mine).  Such broad statements about Christian theology fall short of the truth, as eschatology is but one of many historic doctrines which exhibit broad diversity between different Christian communities.  This reporter could have done a better job by indicating the strand of theology from which this perspective comes, rather than making a blanket statement that doesn’t do justice to the tradition.  Some Christians will no doubt be offended by this generalization, as they would claim that the particular eschatology which gave birth to this website is not only errant, but dangerous.

Dispensationalism (what we’re talking about here) can trace its roots to John Nelson Darby, a Christian leader during the 1800s.  His teaching became largely popularlized through the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible.  I know all about it–I went to seminary at a place that holds dispensationalism as a key doctrine.  I’ve had my fair share of conversations about premillenialism, postmillenialism, and amillenialism.  I’ve read books on the topic.  I’ve sat around discussions concerning the specifics of the “tribulation,” asking if the rapture will occur pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib. I’ve also been around persons who do their very best to match current events with what they understand as relevant biblical passages so that they might speculate on the timing of Jesus’s return.  I’ve spent a good deal of time thinking about these matters myself, continuing to study the different eschatological frameworks and measuring them against the biblical evidence so that I might arrive at a well-reasoned faith. 

We all know that dispensationalism has been popularized in recent years in the publication of the Left Behind series of Christian fiction.  LaHaye and Jenkins (and friends) have not only published books, but guides for Bible studies, a video game, and other forms of media to increase their following.  This particular product is quite interesting, to put it mildly.

For church leaders and preachers out there who don’t like premillenial dispensationalism, what is your response?  Clearly there is one particular form of eschatology that dominates the American landscape.  Aside from premillenial dispensationalism, are there any other options, and if so, are we teaching them?  If we are teaching them, do our people have the ability to clearly articulate the grounds upon which they might hold an amillenial or postmillenial viewpoint?  Can they make clear statements about the nature of God’s actions in history, and what Christians claim concerning Jesus’s awaited return?  Or are they pan-millenialists, asserting they are not worried about particulars, simply confident it will “all pan out in the end.”

Stories such as these present a challenge to church leaders across America, particularly those persons who exist in church traditions that believe dispensationalism is not our best option.  We do have other perspectives which have a rich historical and theological heritage, but are we teaching them?  How well are the people in the pews instructed concerning our belief in last things?

For some persons the response might be, “well, I’ll preach and teach about how dispensationalism is wrong.”  I say unto you, “OK, but are you going to construct a theology in its place that is historically and theologically well grounded?”  If you go about blasting away what you believe are misconceptions, you have to go about the work of construction.  You have to tell a narrative that makes sense.  Eschatology is about hope.  The doctrine which you teach on this aspect of theology is critical for your ministry.

I hope that pastors, church leaders, and Bible teachers who take this stuff seriously will consider how they might address eschatology. It is one of the essential pillars in building a systematic theology.  It deserves our reflection, our esteem, and our best efforts at teaching people in our congregations in a way that they might understand.  Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection are all events that in themselves are eschatological.  The world hasn’t been the same since God took on the flesh, died on the cross, and rose three days later.  Now, we await the culmination or full measure of the Kingdom of God to be brought about as we exist in the time between the times.  Until Jesus returns, what is our hope? 

That, my friends, is a question I hope we can stand to answer.

Read Full Post »