The Ethics of Christian Criticism (Part 2)

Today we continue our series on the ethics of Christian criticism (check out part one here) with a proposal for how exactly we are supposed to deal with the problem of heresy in the church and what is a proper and ethical way to identify and challenge it.

Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy and Heresy

Not all strange sounding ideas are wrong, and not all wrong ideas are heretical. Within Christendom there are many different streams of theology and often the vilest conflicts within the Church in history have been between groups that are separated by only the smallest variance of doctrine rather than the gaping chasms that sometimes exist between groups on opposite ends of the spectrum. There is a famous religious joke that makes this point well:

“Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!" Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.”

It’s a funny little piece of humorous hyperbole but it makes a very serious point (and one that would work if you switched out ‘Baptist’ for just about any other Christian tradition), too often we as Christians are more interested in pursuing ‘doctrinal purity’ than we are with pursuing Christ. The reality (that we may be loathe to admit, but our reluctance does not make it any less true) is that orthodoxy is hard to pin down. What is the definition of orthodoxy? Who gets to decide? How specific must such a definition be? Is orthodoxy defined by ecumenical statements? Is it defined by large categories (Catholic, Eastern Churches, Mainline Protestantism, or Evangelicalism)? Who gets to set the rules and who gets to arbitrate between the conflicts?

Evangelical theologians Stan Grenz and Roger Olson in their book, Who Needs Theology, make the case that there are three different types of beliefs that we hold onto in the larger Christian church: Dogma, Doctrine and Opinions. Dogma is what we would get from the early Church’s ecumenical creeds, things like The Trinity, the divinity of the Spirit, the two natures of Christ, the unity of the Church, the resurrection of the dead, etc. These are the non-negotiables of the faith. These are the things, without which one can confidently say a theology is not sufficiently Christian. Issues of Doctrine on the other hand are important beliefs, often things that make their way into denominational statements of faith, but things that fall short of being ‘essentials’ for Christian theology. An example from our context would be our belief in the Christian and Missionary Alliance in the doctrine of healing in the Atonement. We support this doctrine from texts in Isaiah 53, Matthew 8, and James 5 (among other less thorough examples) but many other Christians would not share our views and so it becomes an issue of doctrine and not dogma.

Then there are the issues of opinion. And this is where most of the fighting happens.

In my context, in the Christian and Missionary Alliance, we have agreed on 11 articles of doctrine (some of which overlaps with ecumenically received Dogma) and that is it. 11 articles of faith that one needs to hold to in order to be fully in line with the theology of the Christian and Missionary Alliance. There are a lot of hot button issues that are left wide open when only 11 restrictions are placed on belief and that leaves room for a lot of conflict over opinions.

Is the Earth thousands of years old or Billions of years old? You can believe either one and be doctrinally sound. Is the second coming of Christ going to be pre-millenial, post-millenial or amillenial? We welcome all sorts in our fellowship. 5 point Calvinism, or Armenian theology? We say come and join us either way. These and many more issues are officially issues of opinion within Alliance Churches in Canada. That means that a divergence of opinion on these types of matters doesn’t even warrant an exclusion from the family of churches, let alone the family of faith!

Another way of speaking about these doctrines is in the language of orthodox, heterodox and heretical. For arguments sake I am going to make the test of orthodox teaching conformity to the 11 points of the Alliance statement of faith (not that I’m sure of that line, but it works for argument’s sake). If something lines up with our denominational distinctives – regardless of how you personally feel about it – we would have to label it orthodox within this tradition. If someone was preaching a type of theology that fit within the larger framework of ecumenically received Christian theology, but that was outside of what we held to as a denomination we would consider that heterodox (literally other belief). Heterodox theology is theology that is divergent from what we would call orthodox teaching (literally straight belief) but not divergent enough to cross the line into heresy. And then heresy, as we know, is the crossing of the line between what defines belief as Christian, and what puts faith on the outside of historically agreed upon belief. There are many streams of Christian theology out there that may be sufficiently heterodox within my context, but that does not make them heretical.

I was always taught when I was training for the ministry that to call someone a heretic is to invoke the Christian ‘F-Word’. It was a declaration that they were, by virtue of their understanding of theology, outside of the body of Christ and condemned to the eternal destiny of the unrepentant. It was not a word to be thrown around casually and it was not something that just anyone could engage in. Only those who were qualified, called and empowered by the Church were allowed to make such a declaration. Talking about an idea or doctrine that crossed the line into heresy was one thing – it was challenging ideas, but to label someone a heretic was something that one simply did not casually do. It’s like the difference between accusing someone of doing something stupid, and accusing someone of being stupid. One is an action, the other is an identity.

So in consultation with some colleagues of mine (many of whom are much wiser than me!) I have come up with a set of rules for pronouncing someone a heretic. These are rules that I believe honour the ethics of Scripture and the tradition of the Church.

Rules of Heretical Pronouncement:

1.       The accused needs to be judged by their own words and work - not others’ interpretations of their words and work.

2.       The accused needs to be in violation of ecumenically agreed upon, creedal Christianity (not in violation of denominational distinctives or personally held convictions).

3.       The accused should have a chance to respond to the allegations.

4.       A declaration of heresy should only be made by a community of which the accused is a part (Church, denomination, theological society, etc) and they should be examined by their peers and people who have a relationship with them.

5.       The accused should have the opportunity to recant or restate their positions to provide clarity and those clarified positions should supersede any previous things that may have been unclear or questionable.

None of these things can be done by someone on the internet, or by someone who doesn't know or have contact with the accused. None of these things can be done from a distance or from outside of that person’s personal worshipping community. To call someone a heretic based on anything but these criteria opens us up to intellectually and ecclesiologically immoral behaviour.

Now at this point, you may rightly ask, “How then do we identify, correct and combat dangerous ideas and theology that seem to be everywhere today?” In our next post we will deal with that very question as we try to move away from an unhealthy expression of Christian criticism to a healthy one that builds up the Church, and honours the opponent as a child of God, made in his image with (quite often) more good things to say than bad.

Until tomorrow,

Chris

The Ethics of Christian Criticism (Part 1)

It seems that in this connected web of social media upon which we all dangle and spin, not a day goes by without my wall, news feed  or inbox being assaulted by someone being labelled a heretic. Perhaps it’s because I’m connected to so many concerned Christians and theological thinkers by virtue of my calling that I see so much of this stuff, but I have to believe that most people in Christian circles of any sort (and sadly a great number outside of them) experience this on some level or another.

I have to confess that this troubles me a great deal. And it’s not because I’m some wishy-washy theologian who preaches a watered-down Gospel, with a desire not to offend or make waves; but rather I’m troubled because when I can condemn another brother or sister in Christ based on their theology I have set myself up in the place of Christ as judge over their salvation. It’s because I’m committed to sound doctrine and a fidelity to the revealed truth of God that I am wary of pronouncing summary judgment on someone else’s understanding of that truth.

Today I’m starting a three post series on the ethics of Christian criticism. I will say at the outset that not everyone out there will agree with me and my position – which is fine, I’m not claiming infallibility in my position. However I have given this issue a lot of thought and prayer and as a pastor and a teacher in the church I think that these things are issues that Christians must concern themselves with in our instant message, socially networked, always connected context. In the first post I will look at the pitfalls of knee-jerk criticism, tomorrow I will propose what I believe is a better (and more traditional) way of testing and confronting heresy, and on Friday I will share my grid for evaluating and processing teachings and ideas that confront my positions and presuppositions. I urge you to stick around for all three posts as I think they compliment and complete each other.

But for now, let’s look at why we should be reticent to pronounce quick and dirty summary judgment on our brothers and sisters in Christ.

1.     It’s arrogant

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.

Romans 12:3-8 (TNIV)

You might have something to learn from this person. Perhaps not in the area that you are objecting to (perhaps exactly in that area) but even in some other things they say. There may be some very important and true things that you will never hear or understand if you close yourself off to their teaching.

There are some very famous and influential preachers, teachers and authors out there that I have serious issues with in areas which I believe to be important theologically. I bristle with frustration when I think of some of their better known teachings, nonetheless I endeavor not to stop listening to them. In fact I force myself sometimes to read their articles and books, and more often to listen to their sermons because I know deep down that I need to be open to God speaking through them despite all their faults. I know that as hard as it may be, that I can still learn from them despite our significant disagreements. To think that God cannot use these gifted and educated men and women who passionately love Jesus to teach me is the height of arrogance and folly – after all, do I not believe that he can use me, as flawed and mistaken as I sometimes am?

2.     Its judgmental

Now I don’t mean to say at all that we should be indiscriminate about doctrine. I think that Scripture is full of admonitions to consider carefully what we believe and to be critical thinkers about teaching that we receive. Moreover it is full of admonitions to seek the wisdom of God in such things by the testing of Spirits and measuring against the scriptures. Please don’t misread or misunderstand this. However, we take that mandate too far when we move from critical engagements with ideas and doctrine to ad hominem attacks on the people who are advocating the ideas and doctrines.

Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount exhorts his listeners to avoid the hypocrisy of judging others (Matthew 7:1-5); Paul warns the Christians in Rome against judging someone else’s servant (Romans 14:4-13); and James warns his church against slandering or judging their neighbours (James 4:11,12), something that very much fits the description of much of what I see going on when people feel free to arbitrarily label each other heretics.

Critical engagement with ideas and doctrine is something that every Christian is called to; summary judgment upon our brethren in Christ is something we are NOT to be engaging in. The difference between the two may not seem like much, but the perils of confusing them are severe.

And while the teaching of Jesus regarding the plank and the speck does propose a path toward loving correction (once the plank is removed, THEN go and help your brother with the speck in his eye), loving correction starts from a place of humility (acknowledging and dealing with one’s own sin) rather than a place of superiority. There is a big difference in approach, and we will examine a positive plan of engagement in the third post in this series later on.

3.     It presumes that God is small

The book of Job is a wonderful story about the nature of true wisdom and the question of who has it. Throughout the book we see cycles of speeches from Job’s friends pronouncing judgement upon him based on their understanding of God and his workings. In reply you have Job, equally stubborn about his understanding of God, contesting his friend’s condemnations and declaring his innocence of any wrong-doing. In the end, it is God who shows up and puts everyone (including Job!) in their place for brazenly assuming that they know anything at all. He speaks out of the whirlwind and asks Job questions that he cannot possibly respond to and the only response Job can muster is to cover his mouth (Job 40:4).

When we speak words of condemnation over Christians who have different theologies than we do; when we vilify well respected ministers of the Word because we don’t like what they say; when we flippantly call a brother or sister in the Lord a heretic what we are really saying is that we understand God better than they do. We are saying that we, or a community of theology that we pledge allegiance to, have the corner on truth. We are saying that we understand God so well that we can definitively pass judgement on doctrines that (in most cases) have been hotly contested for 2000 years of Christian history. Only a small god can be spoken of this way. Only a small god can fit into our little theological boxes. Only a small god can be mastered by the intellects of humans. That is not a god that I have any interest in worshipping; I would rather worship and study a God who’s appearance demands that I cover my mouth – awestruck and dumbfounded by how infinitely great and unexplainable he is.

4.     It violates the rule of love

If I speak in human or angelic tongues, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (TNIV)

Can you be critical of someone whom you love? Absolutely. Can you criticize with love? Most assuredly. Can you label a complete stranger a heretic without seeking their response, input, or a relationship with them and claim to be showing them Christian love? That’s where things start to break down.

Many of us, either consciously or unconsciously, assume that famous people are not really people at all. We assume that because someone is a well known preacher, or a published author, or famous internet personality that they have somehow been de-personalized into this disembodied entity which is fair game for some of the harshest and most unchristian accusations and slander imaginable. The internet gives us strange and unusual confidence to rain down condemnation upon people in ways that we would never say if we were to confront them face to face. I have seen and heard people called not only heretics and apostates (someone who has walked away from the faith and their salvation) but even demons and agents of the Devil. When is the last time you shook the pastor’s hand after the sermon and called him or her one of those things? I doubt that most of us have ever witnessed that sort of thing – because when you are caught in relationship with someone you are forced to come to terms with their humanity and the reality that this person is created in the image of God.

When I was at seminary back in September for a modular course, the professor was telling us a story about why we need to be gracious and charitable in our critiques of other people’s work. He was a PhD student at the time writing a paper on a very famous scholar’s work on Karl Barth. He had very serious objections to some of this scholar’s conclusions and assumptions and made a point of calling these things out in his paper. He could have done, what so many other people do and gone on the offensive; questioning everything from this person’s credentials, to their intelligence to their eternal salvation, but he decided to take a charitable approach to his criticism. When he was presenting the paper at the conference he had written it for, he noticed a man at the back of the room listening intently to his presentation, and when he had finished this man made a point of coming up to him, shaking his hand and thanking him for his thoughtful and charitable engagement with the work. Immediately after this man left the room all of my professor’s friends and colleagues flocked to him and asked what he said? How did he respond to your paper? What was his tone? Perplexed by his friend’s interest in this conversation he inquired why they wanted to know – only then did he discover that this stranger at the back of the room was the very scholar he was critiquing! How thankful he was at that moment that he grounded his critique in charity and Christian love.

We need to be so careful when we criticize brothers and sisters in the faith for their teachings, or theologies or ideas because these people are most often people who deeply love Jesus, and who are doing their absolute best with the light they have been given to honour him with their teachings and doctrine. Ben Quash in his excellent book, Heresies and How to Avoid Them, reminds us poignantly that even those who err, do so primarily because they have a great passion to see Christ glorified:

[H]eresies (and heretics) aren’t all bad. Even if we grant that too often heretics allowed a good point they wanted to make to get out of proportion, and to have a deforming effect on the larger picture painted by Christian teaching as a whole, nevertheless it may already have begun to become clear that many heresies were sincerely proffered as attempts to clarify the belief of the Church and inform the lives of believers. Many of those who proffered them regarded themselves as orthodox and catholic believers. We can afford to listen to them generously in many cases.

Let’s ensure that in our zeal for doctrinal purity we do not assume too much of our expertise over these (quite frequently) highly learned and researched figures we are attacking; lets ensure that our critique is in the form of generous dialogue, rather than slanderous summary judgement; lets ensure that our positions are rooted in a view of God that is sufficiently beyond our understanding and control; and let’s above all, ensure that our engagement is rooted in the love of Christ, not only for purity – but for the person we are critiquing as well.

I’ll end with a quote that my wife sent me a few weeks back on this very issue by C. Michael Patton:

Folks, if we are hanging out on theology corner looking for a fight, we can find one. We will also always have an audience who is willing to watch and cheer as we beat someone up. But what we will find is that we become blood thirsty after a few rounds. The cheers of the crowd will become our heroine. However, in the end, we might discover that we are punching the face of our brother . . . We need to be theologically discerning. We need (to) ‘appraise’ things. But when we realize that this is all we are doing, I think we need to appraise ourselves.

Tomorrow, I’ll continue this train of thought with a look at exactly what constitutes heresy.

Until then,

Chris

Thoughts for a social media generation