I got this set of questions from a reader at the end of our series on "Our Collective Faith," a series that discussed a book about heresies and how to avoid them. Here is the set of questions, and I've asked some theology friends to respond, but I'm game for anyone's response:To what extent has the application of the label of "heresy" been properly or improperly applied through church history?
How does the notion that "the winners write the rules" influence our take on doctrine today?
What (if any) of the classical heresies and their proponents may merit re-examination, even rehabilitation, in light of scripture and faith as we now understand them?
Who gets to (ought to) be involved in determining answers to the previous question? What groups or individuals are the appropriate arbiters of orthodoxy?
Here is a response from one theologian, my colleague Mary Veeneman:
These are great questions. I choose to define heresy fairly narrowly and I am bothered by how easily the word can get tossed around. I usually define heresy as a belief that is so fundamentally problematic it renders human salvation via Christ impossible (i.e. Christ was merely human or Christ was divine and only appeared to be human, or there are three gods, or Christ is the firstborn of creation, or human beings don't really need the grace of Christ for salvation)...Usually, this involves crossing either Nicaea or Chalcedon.
We can certainly identify other beliefs as heterodox/problematic/wrong, but I usually think of heresy as something so grave that it calls into question the salvation of the one who holds it. For example, as a Thomist, I vehemently disagree with open theism and some strong forms of Calvinism, but I don't think either is a heresy--I have no reason to question the redemption of some the major names connected to these ideas today.
Others want to view heresy as a break with the historic church, but if we went with that definition, we might have to call Luther a heretic (which I don't want to do) and we might in some ways even have to call the fathers of Vatican II heretics, which I also do not want to do. Seeing a break with the historic church also would be somewhat problematic for an understanding of the development of doctrine (which as an evangelical Anglo-Catholic I whole-heartedly want to affirm)...
Coincidentally, I love teaching major Christian doctrines via heresy--I do enjoy observing the ways in which various heresies pushed the church towards definitions of orthodoxy that may be implicit but were not previously formally defined...
These are great questions. I choose to define heresy fairly narrowly and I am bothered by how easily the word can get tossed around. I usually define heresy as a belief that is so fundamentally problematic it renders human salvation via Christ impossible (i.e. Christ was merely human or Christ was divine and only appeared to be human, or there are three gods, or Christ is the firstborn of creation, or human beings don't really need the grace of Christ for salvation)...Usually, this involves crossing either Nicaea or Chalcedon.
We can certainly identify other beliefs as heterodox/problematic/wrong, but I usually think of heresy as something so grave that it calls into question the salvation of the one who holds it. For example, as a Thomist, I vehemently disagree with open theism and some strong forms of Calvinism, but I don't think either is a heresy--I have no reason to question the redemption of some the major names connected to these ideas today.
Others want to view heresy as a break with the historic church, but if we went with that definition, we might have to call Luther a heretic (which I don't want to do) and we might in some ways even have to call the fathers of Vatican II heretics, which I also do not want to do. Seeing a break with the historic church also would be somewhat problematic for an understanding of the development of doctrine (which as an evangelical Anglo-Catholic I whole-heartedly want to affirm)...
Coincidentally, I love teaching major Christian doctrines via heresy--I do enjoy observing the ways in which various heresies pushed the church towards definitions of orthodoxy that may be implicit but were not previously formally defined...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Curiously, if anyone is interested, it was actually Scot who, through his writing and his blog, introduced me to Orthodoxy as anything more than a 'Greek sort of Catholic' (which I shamefacedly admit was the extent of my understanding for most of my life). I was stunned when I read his section in 'Praying with the Church' on Orthodoxy. You see, because my mother has been associated with the Carmelites since she converted to Roman Catholicism, The Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence was a book she sent me perhaps a decade ago? I was captivated with much in the book, but especially the idea of 'breath prayers'. By the time I read Scot's book, I had developed a number and had been gradually incorporating them in my life. What shocked me when I read his book was that the breath prayer I had developed and used most often was a variation of the Jesus Prayer, among the oldest prayer traditions of the church.
And I had no clue.
From there, I paid attention when he introduced his friend and colleague, Brad Nassif. I read and listened to him, stumbled across a few more resources and at some point discovered the Orthodox perspective on the Ancestral Sin, on the atonement, and on 'hell'. How you view those things say a lot about how you view both God and man. I felt right at home. They are the first group of Christians where I really and truly felt like we were looking at the same holy text and the same God.
I share that because it seemed like a good place to share it and I don't think I ever let Scot know he was to blame. ;)
Mark, as someone with some experience with other religions and with friends who adhere to a variety of things, the thought that came to my mind when I read your comment is that a lot of different things can change people for the better. Buddhism has certainly changed many people for the better. Hinduism can change people for the better. There are many paths which can change people for the better. Alone that seems an inadequate standard. I'm reminded of how Jesus opens the section that begins in Matthew 23. I've noticed that people tend to skip over that to the 'Woe to you' bits. But notice it starts with Jesus telling the people to do the things they teach because the Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses and teach the things of God. But they don't practice what they teach. So the people are to do as they say and not as they do. And it seems to respect the seat they fill as teachers in 'the seat of Moses'.
So I don't think it can be reduced to that. Certainly Calvin (and others) burning, hanging, or torturing people was wrong. I would say the things the Puritans did were often pretty horrible. (And the Puritans seem to be one strain that fed the Baptist strain.) Orthodox sanctioned pogroms in Tsarist Russia were awful. The list is endless. I doubt you could find a 'clean' Christian group of any size with any historical depth. But even though there are evil men and bad priests, bad bishops, bad pastors, and even bad communities, nevertheless some have been changed for the better. I would say some by the miracle of the work of the Spirit and the ability of God to bring good out of evil. Nevertheless, it's complicated.
ScottM @ #23:
"Of course, there is nothing in the canon that refers to it as the canon of scriptures (nor is there even one Christian canon of what we call the OT) nor is the concept of scripture as a final authority anywhere actually stated in scripture, much less clearly. So the basis for your interpretive lens does not meet its own requirement."
I agree with your premise, but not your conclusion. I have written extensively elsewhere for a much narrower definition of "God's word" than the entirety of our canon, and I absolutely agree that it is not self-defined. But that doesn't hurt my argument, which was one of exclusion, not inclusion.
I said that a doctrine that doesn't come clearly from the biblical canon may not be accepted as dogma. That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of things people can (and do) extract from scripture that ALSO don't deserve to be classified as orthodox dogma; in fact I have advocated exactly the opposite. But my claim here has been that, at the very least, if a doctrine isn't even in the canon we have, it misses a basic test for acceptance as dogma. Put differently, whatever you think of the authority of scripture, the other sources (councils, patristic writings, tradition, whatever) certainly don't merit a higher level of authority.
Unless you are advocating a more-expansive canon, I don't see how I'm failing my own test here.
I appreciate the questions raised in these posts but I'd like to raise a different question than the those already covered. I think it is related to the original question however. It has to do with the idea that "the winners get to write the history." I don't agree with this statement and there are plenty of examples that I'd be happy to share but not in this post.
It seems that there is a fairly popular historiography (way of writing/telling history) that looks something like this: Jesus and the primitive church ---> Paul (of whom it is said our churches over-emphasizes now and doesn't focus on the kingdom of God enough)---> A bunch of guys that decided to make a hierarchical system for the purpose of labeling heretics and compromised with greek philosophy (to God's surprise and chagrin) ---> Constantine (who is blamed for the single-handed downfall of the entire church, mixing state and church) coupled with more guys who decided to write creeds---> Church Splits---> Reformation when some stuff got fixed ---> Renaissance/Modernism (which the western church uncritically adopted which resulted in a neutered Gospel)---> Nowadays (where we are left with the pieces and there are more guys located somewhere who are interested in keeping the status quo solely for their own benefit). For most this fits enough of reality to be believable. My point in expressing this is that I don't often see this historiography challenged but if we took any amount of time to investigate what actually happened we may find it doesn't hold much water. Why does this matter? If our diagnosis is wrong so will our perscription for change. I think part of the problem with discussing things like heresy and orthodoxy is that the aforementioned historiography is at play which, ironically, paints the orthodoxy (who ever that is) as the anal bad guys and the heretics (who ever that is) as the unfortunate and misunderstood minority who might be your friend next door. I've appreciated Scot's push back on the historical side of things in this discussion because it has shown that things aren't as simple as they're often portrayed but I think it might be beneficial to bring the issue of "whose version of history are we relying on and is it any good (accurate)" to the surface.
What do you think? I understand if this is too far off topic to be discussed. Thanks.
Scott M: Buddhism has certainly changed many people for the better. Hinduism can change people for the better. There are many paths which can change people for the better. Alone that seems an inadequate standard.
I don't think anyone is going to argue that Buddhism is heresy by Christian standards. It's its own thing entirely, and doesn't claim to be part of the Christian tradition.
But if we're talking about a group of Christians incorporating some (say) Buddhist ideas but remaining recognizably Christian, some people might call that heresy. What I'm saying is that nitpicking their doctrinal sources or content--"You can't teach that, it's Buddhism!/it's Pelagianism!/it denies the Trinity!"--is the wrong way to make that determination. The right way is to look at their actions.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.