The “Heresy” Boundary
 |
| Religion Overthrowing Heresy and Hatred by Legros the Younger |
I know I ask this ‘bout once a year, but what do you do with the category of “heresy?” I keep wondering about the distinction between someone having a wrong doctrine and someone being cut off from fellowship and naming by other Christians.
On the one hand, I think my reformed sisters (and brothers) are wrong about a great many of things. This wrongness that I assign to them (and them to me) cuts deep, it pertains to matters as important as the nature of God and the process of salvation. But I still name them Christians and fellowship with them as much as they allow (which can vary greatly, let me tell you).
On the other hand, I think of some of my Latter-Day Saints brothers (and sisters) are wrong about a great many things. This wrongness that I assign to them (and them to me) cuts deep; it pertains to matters as important as the nature of God and the process of salvation. Because of this, I refuse to name them Christians (unless I am talking about how they self-identify) and fellowship with them in terms of our common humanity and not on the basis of a shared faith.
I’ll name the one set of wrongness “heresy” and the other I’ll brand “disagreements." These may seem to be obvious examples, but where do you draw the line between them? I’m not interested in dead men’s formulations being quoted ad nauseum, I wanna hear about how you all deal with such things on the ground, in real life.
Also, I get the sense that Christians, here and throughout time, have been quick to name, reject, and delegitimize views different than our own, as if they no longer had anything meaningful to say to us. Do you get this sense? Is it just me? I am reminded of countless blog posts, conversations, readings of Church fathers, and Christian columnists summarily dismissing an idea, movement, or everything a figure had to say on the basis of a boxed, wrapped, and delivered heresy that we assign to them. I will recognize the value of striving for truth and truth alone, but I wonder how useful this approach is – or when this approach is useful and when it is counter-productive to the growing of the kingdom of God.
When we stifle opposing voices, we turn them off and turn them away. Our truth cannot be conquered by a lie and it need not worry itself (nor do we need to worry ourselves) concerning this. Additionally, it may just be the case that people with certain wrong views can teach me a great deal – maybe it is God’s will for me do learn from them. But it can’t happen if I reject them wholesale. Additionally, if we set ourselves up as a community that ostracizes at the hint of dissenting, then we risk stifling doubt and risk cast people who might have such doubt along their journey towards the Father out, thereby alienating them from God’s community.
Anyway, this is just some ramblings from a tired person who can afford to question such things at the moment. What do you do with such things?
Honzo, I am actually dealing with some people in my life that have different views of mine. They read the bible but they are not Christian. They love Jesus, but follow the Oprah model (me, me, me). They preach the law but fail to observe it themselves.
All that said, since these are really close people to me, I must still go to parties, do lunch, hang out, and play along. I think at some point – meaningful conversations stop. That’s the worst part of it all.
Hi, how are you? good. good. so you want to watch a movie? cool. good movie. well. see you.
This is how I deal with it.
I believe a heresy to be a belief that is a clear and bona fide contradicition of a core or cardinal doctrine or dogma of Christian orthodoxy. Yet this just raises the question, what is a cardinal Christian dogma? I think we can see what this cardinal dogmas are by observing the Scriputes first, and Church history/tradition second.
When observing church tradition though in order to ascertain what a cardinal dogma is, we see that many of these dogmas were established as such as an answer against heresy (cf. the Arian controversy, Tritheism/Modalism and th trinity, the Pelagian heresy). So what we see is not only dogmas defining what heresy is, but also heresies defining what dogma is (or better yet, what it is not).
So how do we differ between heresy and disagreements? I think that in former category we have controversy over cardinal doctrines (e.g. the diety of Christ) and the latter we have controversy over non-cardinal doctrines (e.g. predestination, the ordination of women in the church).
I know my answer has been vague and not very determinative, but maybe this will get the ball rolling.
EI – I think that continuing the relational witness can be as powerful, if not more powerful than our verbal witness. Meaningful conversations can be replaced with meaningful relationship. I’d encourage you to at least retain the latter, which will keep the door open for the former.
Travis – I like what you have going on up there. There are some problems that I have, however. Firstly, what is a core doctrine? Some of the “disagreements” seem to be over very core doctrines! Not everyone can be right in these disagreements – someone is wrong and someone might be right (or all are wrong)! Same thing in the historical heresies. Are they worth disavowing fellowship over them? Can the Arians be wrong and still faithful followers of Christ? They are seeking Christ and are coming to different conclusions. Is wrong theology a sin that can be forgiven? That is the crux of my question. When do we play God and restrict fellowship? I know there is some support for doing this in the Bible, I am just aking for real-world advice on this matter.
Honzo,
I can see what you are getting at. I completely agree with you that we all cannot (necessarily) be right, and there is the possibility that we are all wrong. But what is at issue here isn’t really who is right and who is wrong. What is at issue is what beliefs are necessary for being a redeemed child of God and a servant of Christ.
I will tie in the answer to that along with considering you concern over whether wrong theology forgiven. First, wrong theology can always be forgiven. There is no sin (except blasephemy of the Holy Spirit) that God will not forgive. However, with forgiveness though comes true faith, the means of our justification and salvation. And true faith requires true theology to be believed by the person whom God saves. (The Reformers called this part of saving faith the notitia, or the content of our beliefs). Thus, wrong theology is forgiven in the presence of correct theology (after the due work of Holy Spirit of course).
Now this brings us to the question, what is the content of the beliefs that are found within true saving faith? I think that we can seperate beliefs into three categories with regard to this question. A belief is either (i) absolutely necessary for having true faith, (ii) absolutely not necessary for having true faith, and (iii) a penumbral belief that may or may not be necesary for true faith. In the first category, I think we can all agree that in order to be saved then one must believe that Jesus anotoned one’s sins, that Jesus was resurrected from the dead 3 days after his death, that Jesus was and is God, that God is one and 3 in persons, et al. Likewise, in the second category, I think we can all agree that one need to believe that all ravens are black or that St. Paul had a beard in order for one to be saved. But the third category is where the difficulties lie. Such beliefs here might be that God is a necessary being, or that human souls exists.
So when do we break fellowship? I think if a certain group is positively claiming the negations of any of the beliefs in the first category, then this is sufficient for a need to break fellowship, for you are no longer with Christians who have true faith. On the other hand, this is not necessarily necessary for breaking fellowship. St. Paul tells us in 1 Corithians 5 that certain actions, not beliefs, are sufficient for breaking fellowship.
Obviously, a lot more can and needs to be said about this subject.