In 2 Peter 2:1-3 we read, "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping."I have been thinking recently about the issue of heresy or false teaching in the Church. As a pastor who provides teaching regularly, I am keenly aware of the added accountability that comes with the responsibility of teaching others how to live as followers of Jesus. James' warning (3:1) that "not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly" comes to my mind often as I study and prepare for our Sunday gatherings. I do not want to be guilty of teaching falsely how to live as a follower of Jesus, nor do I want to model poorly what that might look like applied in my real life.
But the question that has been rolling around in my mind as of late has to do with the declaration of heresy. I have been both the recipient of and a participant in the declaration of heresy in the past. With a little study of historical theology, one should be able to correctly identify current manifestations of the false teachings that the Church faced in past generations. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity has been a foundational teaching to the Christian faith since the very first Christians. So when a person desires to teach non-Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian theology, one should be able to identify a problem. And as a pastor, my understanding of my role in the local church is to protect the congregation from this kind of teaching and as appropriate teach the church about such views and why they are outside of the foundational teachings of Scripture and the Church.
But what happens when the teaching is outside of the historically discerned heresies? Who gets to decide what is false teaching and what isn't? I suppose if I were a part of the Orthodox or Catholic churches which have a structure to deal with these teachings, I could look to those in authority for guidance. But being a part of a congregationally oriented Protestant church which has no apparatus for discerning and declaring teaching to be false outside of our Statement of Faith, I am left on my own. I can also turn to other pastors for input, but what I have found is that in many issues there is not a consensus of opinion. What I find to be biblical and helpful, others declare as heresy; and what I view as a poor understanding of the teaching of Scripture, others hold to with a devout fervor.
I am left, then, to do my best to listen to the voice of the Spirit as I read and study Scripture, and as I relate to those in my local church and beyond who want to be teachers. But I continue to have a sense that our independent approach to life and faith is leaving many open to being unfairly labeled as heretics on the one hand, and on the other leaving the Church open to false teaching. Heresy: Who's to Say?
8 comments:
Jeff,
First off, I solved my problem. I kept trying to log in with my REV name rather than my email. Doh! So I think its working now.
Secondly, onto heresy. I would ask the question not only of heresies outside of traditional biblical interpretation but also of original issues.
"Who decided?" One of the big arguments against Protestants is the fact they they came out 1500 years after Jesus ascended. Many Roman Catholics have argued that that was heretical. Not that I disagree with sola scriptura, but its definitely a Reformation assumption.
Now onto modern heresies outside the bounds of history of debates. Open theism - for example - didn't get a whole lot of press among the Church Fathers or Reformers. It has become a modern issue, however.
Most Protestant denominations root their authority on the Bible. And so if open theists make a biblical case, we would be hard pressed to scream "heresy." Yet 7-point Calvinists use that same Bible to prove precisely the OPPOSITE.
Hmmm... perhaps we need to take a step back first. Before we ask, "what is heretical" and "who decides," perhaps we may need to ask, "what is the Bible?" And "how ought the Bible be used?" Is the Bible a systematic theology book? Is the Bible an Almanac? Is the Bible a devotional? Is the Bible a story - like theater? Different genres of literature in our culture carry different "authority." We might go to Wikipedia for one sense of authority, but we might go to poetry.com for another kind of authority.
So I dunno, Jeff, is your question presupposing another question we may have to ask first?
On a side note... Paul, John, Jude, and Peter were clearly concerned about heresies. Their NT letters attest to this. Jesus never really seemed to have been primarily (if at all???) concerned about this topic. Thoughts???
REV
REV,
Good questions. The context/setting of this discussion is certainly important. In talking with an Orthodox friend of mine, I asked what he thought of me as a Protestant. Am I heretical? Am I outside of the saving work of God? His answer was gracious and cautious in nature. He did not want to offend me, but did say that in his view I was missing some important pieces of the truth. The Orthodox position is that they are the 'fullness' of the Church in Apostolic tradition. And perhaps they are correct. If so, then what does that make Protestants? Heretics... Misguided... Confused?
Does the term 'heresy'apply only to those issues which the Church historically dealt with? Or, is it rightly used of newer controversies like open theism, Trinitarian subordinationism, etc.?
In addition to your comments on the Bible, perhaps the terminology of 'heresy' is used too widely. It certainly is an alienating word to use towards another.
Thoughts?
Traditionally "heresy" refers to teachings outside of orthodox or established teachings.
In a math class, 2+2=4 would be orthodox. 2+2=purple would be heresy.
Math, sciences, history, etc. -- all these fields make truth claims that are accepted until proven otherwise by the evidence.
The most brilliant scientific minds at one time believed the earth was the center of the solar system and had elaborate mathematical equations to explain the sun, moon, planets, etc. When it was demonstrated that the sun was the center of the solar system, there was chaos, debate, upheaval, a sifting of the evidence, and then a calming down and eventually a scientific "new" truth was established.
And so in Christianity, a truth claim is put forward. It may be challenged with chaos, debate, upheaval, a sifting of the evidence.
The great councils did this (Jerusalem in Acts 15, Nicea, Constantinople, etc.) They sifted through weighty stuff and decided, based on rigorous sifting, what was "orthodox"
Indeed many historians have noted Christianity's contribution to western scientific method.
So new teachings may be frightening and threatening on the one hand (as indeed Paul confronted Judaizers and John confronted Nicolaitans) and yet they may also create new truths or new understandings of truth (clearly Jesus was absolutely not what the Jewish leaders had in mind).
Here there is a VERY fine line. "Heresies" may actually be truths (we Protestants/Reformers wouldn't be Protestants/Reformers if we didn't believe - at least in some measure - that Calvin, Luther, etc. "got it right"). But that said, "heresies" may literally be heresies.
We ought not buy tradition simply because it is tradition (geo-centric solar system), but we also ought not believe "anything new" simply because it is new (helio-centric solar system). Rather, discussion, debate, sifting of the evidence is called for.
Is this helpful at all???
Further, I still need clarification in my mind in terms of "how the Bible is used." Is appealing to the Bible the same as appealing to a math book? A phone book? An almanac? A collection of Emerson? What sort of "authority" is the Bible? And if Christian denominations cannot agree, on what basis then CAN we base our evidence to be sifted, discussed, debated???
How did you orthodox friend base authority?
Many questions
REV
REV,
I appreciate your comparison to the scientific process of discovering truth (eg. geo-centric or helio-centric). But, the argument will go, that will open us up to accepting heresies as truth if are willing to examine and reexamine our strongly held doctrines. This requires a real desire to pursue truth, especially for those of us believe in unverisal truth. Also, it would be helpful for us to have a context in which we can question, wonder, and sift through these thoughts in a way that is gracious.
Regarding the Bible, why don't you start another new post with some of your thoughts and then we can respond there. Okay?
On the issue of openness, YES, this will require an openness to "scientific methodology" (I use that loosely) in the realms of theology, ecclesiology, biblical study, etc.
And yes, this is extremely frightening to most denominations, leaders, and even laity. This strikes me as odd in the "Reformation" tradition...
Secondly, YES, this will require a desire - indeed an insatiable one - to pursue truth. Again, my experience is that many in our American churches today aren't interested (and perhaps not even intellectually attuned) in doing this. Most want spoon feeding. And they'll only object when they don't like the Gerber they're given.
Third, YES, we will need such a context. But it seems our current churches are often not the place for this. Small groups offer better opportunities in my experience. A trusted group of people committed to one another in love and covenant provides a "safer" place for such wondering and sifting. The large assembly does not. The large assembly (often, sadly perhaps) seems to be the place to tow the line.
Woodland Hills in St. Paul, MN lost 1000 of its 5000 people during the months leading up to the 2004 re-election of George Bush largely due to the fact that the senior pastor preached that the church ought not be the state and the state ought not be the church and he also stated he would not publicly endorse a candidate (the candidate these folks had in mind was George Bush). By not towing a rising evangelical tide line, their church paid a price. Thats bold leadership. Not all our churches and pastors are brave enough to following convicting, truth, and passion and push the boundaries of the official line.
REV
REV
Following Jeff's suggestion, I propose then the "how ought the Bible be used?" discussion.
My paragraph in my earlier blog at the end, the one ending with the word "Further" will suffice as a series of questions to get this discussion going.
Thoughts?
REV
I was communicating outside of this blog about the heresy issue with another friend who is a professor in a university. (I'll not use his name because I did not ask his permission.) In response to my questions about heresy, he said (oops, I gave away that he's a he) that his view is that heresy is only a breaking from the historic creeds of the Church - eg. Nicea and Chalcedon. For him, the Trinity is really the most basic level that if broken from he would consider that to be heretical.
What if that was our common understanding? Would that be sufficient to provide a boundry marker without stifling variation in thinking and understanding in good faith? If so, and we disagree on something else, could we refrain from labeling each other heretics?
Great start. A level playing field of respectful dialogue. Let's not be too quick to throw out the "heretic" label. Not that it may be untrue, but if both sides profess to be Christians, then perhaps a more loving approach IS possible, thanks Jeff.
Secondly, on the matter of just the Trinity... there may be a few other markers.
Incarnation of Jesus is a biggie.
Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection are also central. The meaning of these events may be debated, but their historical reality really ought not be up-for-grabs among Christians, for if such events (as the flow and climax of all four gospels AND the basis upon which Paul builds his gospel) did not take place, then the entire history of all the NT would be extremely suspect at best, pure fiction at worst.
Love (for God and for others) is simply an uncompromisable biggie.
As a Protestant, I somehow want to cling to the Bible as having some importance. Likewise I want to cling to the church. Salvation, faith, and grace are also so dear to my Protestant heart that sacrificing them to achieve a common denominator that would allow us to evaluate heresies would be really tough. I'm willing to explore, but perhaps I'm too embedded in my theological and spiritual understandings.
Enough for now. This is by no means exhaustive. I'm just getting wheels turning.
REV
Post a Comment