I’m really looking forward to reading Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth by Alister McGrath.
In Heresy, leading religion expert and church historian Alister McGrath reveals the surprising history of heresy and rival forms of Christianity, arguing that the church must continue to defend what is true about Jesus. He explains that remaining faithful to Jesus’s mission and message is still the mandate of the church despite increasingly popular cries that traditional dogma is outdated and restricts individual freedom.
I grew up in a setting in which the term heretic was thrown around a little too freely. I remember Michael Haykin warning us one day in seminary that it’s a label that we should never use glibly as an accusation.
But the opposite is happening now. The term is being used glibly, but not as an accusation. It’s been used as a badge of honor.
In 1995, Thomas C. Oden wrote:
An interloper who steals property must be caught and charged. Thinly disguised atheism and neopaganism are interlopers in liberated church circles. They have engaged in the theft of church property. The stolen property must be reclaimed and the thieves brought to justice.
To point this out means raising the issue of heresy. But in the “liberated” church circles of oldline denominations heresy simply does not exist. After centuries of struggle against recurrent heresies, Christians have found a quick way of overcoming heresy: they have banished the concept altogether. With absolute relativism holding sway, there is not only no concept of heresy, but no way even to raise the question of where the boundaries of legitimate Christian belief lie.
This is like trying to have a baseball game with no rules, no umpire, and no connection with historic baseball. Only we continue to insist on calling it baseball because a game by the name of baseball is what most people still want to see played…
The intellectual ethos I am describing is not liberal in the classic sense of that word, but intolerant and uncharitable when it comes to traditionalists of any sort, all of whom are capriciously bundled under the dismissive label of “fundamentalists.”
What he writes still applies today, but not just in what you would call the liberal church.
Heresy is too important a term to lose, or to use glibly either as an accusation or as a badge of honor. It’s not a comfortable topic, but it’s still an important one.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m enjoying McGrath’s book. He takes a very balanced approach to what we call Heresy.
I love what he says on page 69 -
Perhaps the “faith once delivered to the saints” was not a full-fledged set of dogmas but the basic kit for the construction of such dogmas under God’s providential guidance.
McGrath suggests that most heresy starts from within the camp with no intention of causing destruction to the faith once delivered. The problem with heresy is that that would become the net result – if it is allowed to blossom within.
Most heresy does not begin with a conscious attempt to undermine Christianity – it begins as an attempt to improve or correct. The problem is that improvement or correction, if allowed to grow, would severely damage or even kill the host in the particular area where the “heresy” is permitted.
This is disappointing to read. The whole history of humanity, and the natural world is evolution. Especially evolution of our understanding of God and humanities relationship to that concept. Starting with the earliest humans poly-theism to evolving towards mono-theism to evolving towards deism and ultimately realizing all our concepts of God are incorrect.
Heresy, is the charge used by those wishing to stifle that evolution. We are evolving towards a more inclusive idea of God and faith. The history is important but the history of ‘heresy’ is only important in teaching us what to avoid in discussions around religion.
When I hear heresy I hear witch trials, the stifling of scientific progress, the burning of reformists, the inquisition.
I will end with Galileo’s apocryphal statement, “and yet it moves.”
Rob
Rob,
“The whole history of humanity, and the natural world is evolution. Especially evolution of our understanding of God and humanities relationship to that concept.”
I’m not sure about that.
In any case, everybody has beliefs they hold as foundational. Nobody is a completely open to revise and question all of their beliefs. The real question comes as to which beliefs to hold sacred, but when you get right down to it – even the most progressive among us draw lines on some topic, and view those outside of those lines as wrong or worse. You can’t escape this. All you can do is to try to draw the lines in the right place, and to treat others with grace.
Bill,
“Most heresy does not begin with a conscious attempt to undermine Christianity – it begins as an attempt to improve or correct. The problem is that improvement or correction, if allowed to grow, would severely damage or even kill the host in the particular area where the “heresy” is permitted.”
So when, then, does “improvement” and “correction” become heresy, and by what and whose standard? Since the foundation of the Church, our understanding of the nature of God continues to be illuminated by The Holy Spirit, and has undergone some drastic changes. Where once most thought of God as a hard task-master, an angry and unapproachable God, (except by a select few,) we now have an “enlightened view” of His Love and Mercy. Once upon a time The Church held that the Bible should only be printed in Latin, to avoid it being disseminated by the masses. Once upon a time The Church sought to keep God as its own, and forbade access to Him by anyone else. Was Martin Luther then a heretic? Your statement leads me to believe that you would agree that his ideas of “improvement and correction” were heretical.
I agree, to a point, with Rob. There has been an evolution in our understanding of God and our relationship to Him. The litmus test in assessing any “new” concept, however MUST be in keeping that concept true to the Word of God, and in some measure, “orthodox” in accordance with established doctrine. As Darryl has said “All you can do is try to draw the lines in the right place,….” But, just where is that “right place” and when is it okay to redraw the line elsewhere?
My problem is that too many brand as “heretical” any idea that is in disagreement with their view, and that goes for some denominations as well as individuals. I am grappling with this issue, by the way, and look forward to reading more comments that may serve to shed some light onto my thoughts and ideas.
I do disagree with one thing you said Darryl: “Nobody is a completely open to revise and question all of their beliefs.”
I tend to think we ALL should question our beliefs and either verify or disprove them according to Scripture. Nobody should accept anything they are told, even by a trusted pastor, without validating it scripturally. Even some prominent Christian Evangelists have revised their position upon further reflection, Billy Graham among them. We all need to know what we believe and why we believe it, if for no other reason than to affirm our own faith.
Arthur:
You highlight some good points. There is a danger in being too rigid in our beliefs. You can go wrong both ways: thinking that there’s no such thing as heresy, and thinking that things are heresy that really aren’t.
C.S. Lewis talks about “mere Christianity.” Others talk about the Rule of Faith (http://bit.ly/cAhc4J). There is, broadly defined, a theological core to Christianity. If you deny the physical resurrection of Jesus, for instance, you have moved outside the bounds of theological orthodoxy.
I look forward to reading McGrath’s book.
Arthur, you’re right – we should be willing to re-evaluate our beliefs according to Scripture. I don’t disagree there. What I was trying to say is that nobody really thinks there is no such thing as heresy. The relativist, who denies the category of heresy, holds sacred the belief that there is no such thing as absolute truth. They are not so free-thinking or tolerant as to accept the possibility that Christianity makes exclusive truth claims. Ironically, the term heresy becomes heresy. You can’t get away from it.
The same with other beliefs. We all draw the line somewhere in a host of issues – ethical, political, etc.
In practice, we all draw lines based on what we believe. Everyone. It’s impossible not to.