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
No comments:
Post a Comment