Emerging Heresy?
9 May 2006
A few days ago a friend of mine pointed me to an interesting article by Scott McKnight at Jesus Creed entitled “What is a ‘heretic’ anyway?â€. Scott offers three definitions of “hereticâ€, only one of which he feels is “justifiableâ€. The timing of this article and our conversations here on Jason’s blog seemed too perfect to pass up. Does this “thing†we are talking about, a revisiting of the message, a renewing of understanding and a reapplication of truth fall into this final category that Scott defines as: “anything that denies Nicea or Chalcedon, etc.â€.
Somewhat more of a coincidence was that a day before I read Scott’s article, I was sitting and watching “Casanova†with my wife when I heard the following quote from one of the Inquisitors: “Heresy is an affront to the teachings of the church. It is a rebellion against our moires and our morals, more to the point … heresy is whatever I say it is.â€. Mind you this is a Hollywood movie, so the definition is somewhat dramatic.
For some we are treading the sacred ground of “teachings of the church†and thus the discussion of heresy needs our loving attention. I believe those on all sides of this conversation need to revisit this definition, first to not too quickly judge those who are exploring change and second to understand where those opposing change may be coming from.
Tagged: Emerging-Church, Heretic, Key-Posts, Theology
61 comments
Trackback
Comment by Edward Pillar
8.22 am on 9 May 2006
Very interesting.
As Scott points out, Jesus was very hard on hypocrisy (teaching one thing, but doing another) rather than heresy (believing the unorthodox thing). I wonder whether we should take this as meaning that Jesus is concerned far more with actions than belief. We continue to battle over ‘TRUTH’. We fight to the death (literally sometimes in our churches?) over TRUTH, but not so much perhaps over hypocrisy. Perhaps we shouldn’t bother too much about the Da Vinci Code, Gospel of Judas, etc etc and rather engage in action – compassionate, generous, merciful, acts of justice…?
Blessings
Edward
Comment by Kamsin
1.42 pm on 9 May 2006
Thought what Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy) had to say on heresy had some interesting points.
“Thus it will be perceived that “heresy” has no purely objective meaning: the category exists only from the point-of-view of a position within a sect that has been previously defined as “orthodox”.”
“The term heresy is also used as an ideological pigeonhole for contemporary writers because by definition heresy depends on contrasts with an established orthodoxy.”
I wonder if it’s not the very act of questioning and critically re-examining what Christianity is all about itself which is seen as heretical.
Comment by Steve Reynolds
2.06 pm on 9 May 2006
Jason,
If I may. There is a flaw is the discussion here already. Perhaps one of the key errors of the Emergent Discussion is to too often paint those with which it disagrees in stereotypes. The idea that heresy is “whatever I say it is” as even being vaguely true is a perfect example of this. It is also another example of the protestant predjudice and stereotype of the Catholic Church as the archtype of arrogance. But for those who are even slightly endevouring to really understand the early church, the definition of heresy is really quite simple. And it is anything other than arrogant. It is a concept that was espoused by the apostles and those that they layed hands ona nd commissioned to suceed them. Heresy was that which was outside of Orthodoxy. This is defined first by the Bible, and then by the Creeds and the Rule of Faith. These things are there for anyone to check but unfortunately within too much of the Emergent discussion there is only a stated regard for the past and unfortunely more protestant weakness for endless “reform” and racing to see who can outdo the last with new definitons and ideas. This is very dangerous ground and if you ask me, it has become the new soft arrogance.
Comment by dh
2.48 pm on 9 May 2006
Steve, I agree with you but it isn’t the Protestant in that Augustine, Luther, Spurgeon and others had Truth. Especially when you read the Westminster confession.
Comment by Dean Whisnant
3.14 pm on 9 May 2006
Steve, I’m sure there are flaws in the discussion. But first let’s step back a moment and address some of your concerns. I hope that you do not see this conversation as being overly critical of Catholic history. It is this Orthodoxy that we all come out of.
The comment of “whatever I say it is” was placed in here as an overexageration of the better definition provided on the link to Scott McKnight’s web page.
I would like to be one who changes your opinion of the Emergent movement (if for nothing else to find common ground). Hopefully through my previous comments, you can see that we are not about placing blame through history, nor about throwing history away. But rather about reclaiming that history, stripping away non-essentials that have been taken as essentials.
Please read Scott’s link and see that this post is about coming to a common understanding of heresy.
I apologize if the satirical comment was not taken in that way.
Comment by dh
5.15 pm on 9 May 2006
Dean, while I appreciate the appology it is the Emergent and PM that seem to use these overexagerations or overstate the problems of the M rather than focus on the attitude not the theology as the issue. Rethinking the theology of Salvation (as implied in the McKnight piece, etc.) IS actually is an attempt to strip away essentials NOT non-essentials. These type of things push myself and others and give creedence to what I have been saying all along. I want to converse and think respectful about Emergent in that conversation among Believers is important but rethinking these things kindof make me question the Believer thing. The understanding of Salvation and attonement Christ is beyond the recognition thatof Christ being perfect. The stating of essential things as being non-essential is what pushes me away. Are there things that are non-essential that are being stated as essential? yes but some foundational essentials are being dismissed as non-essential and I have problems with that.
Comment by dh
5.16 pm on 9 May 2006
“Example: some of those who deny final judgment end up denying a host of things — like God’s holiness or the ultimacy of Christ and the like — but some don’t, and we need to let each person speak for him- or herself.”
Denying final judgement is denying an essential. Maybe not for Salvation but as a Believer it isextremely important. That is one of the examples I give.
Comment by dh
5.18 pm on 9 May 2006
Paul was very hard on heresy and the “teaching another Gospel” etc. The DaVinci code, etc. Paul would have ridiculed andindirectly did so with his indirect attack on Gnosticism and the like.
Comment by brett jordan
6.09 pm on 9 May 2006
Surely the important thing to realise is that there is such a thing as ‘truth’, and that to a greater or lesser extent, we all fall short of it, in our beliefs, and particularly in our lives.
Billy Graham tells a story about meeting one of the head guys at the Royal Mint, and being shown some of the forged notes that they had intercepted. Billy Graham said ‘I guess you spend a lot of time examining those forgeries’, to which the expert replied, ‘No, we spend all our time making sure we know what the REAL notes look like, that way we can instantly discern a fake note’.
For me, that means spending a lot of time studying the scriptures, and not wasting too much time on what is obviously fake.
I have yet to read the DaVinci Code.
Comment by Dean Whisnant
6.34 pm on 9 May 2006
dh: Not specifically in reference to the ‘Salvation’ comment (I need to go back to the article and have more time to put thoughts together), but we both need to be able to accept that our views are challenged and rather than pulling away from the conversation, we need to lean in closer and listen to others. Maybe our position needs more fine tuning. maybe we will find that we were about to leave a conversation over semantics and not over something monumental.
Be the voice in both the things you feel are stripping away essentials wrongly, but also be the voice in bringing to light the non-essentials that are being treated as essentials.
We need your voice in the conversation and not just a closed door as many moderns are coming out to be.
Comment by Steve Reynolds
11.44 pm on 9 May 2006
Dean,
I’ve read Mcknight’s article. I wish I could say that I was impressed. Let me be blunt if I can. Plenty within Emergent talk a good game when it comes to Orthodoxy, but whenever pressed, they crumble or just disappear. This says to me that Orthodoxy is irrelivant. Itis only affirmed in word but not in reality. I see the anchor slipping away and the ship is drifting. Very few even care. “We’re moving!” And apparently that is a good thing.
Let me try to pin you down if I could. Please, in as little words as you can, give me your defintion of Orthodoxy and heresy. What si the satandard by which you define such?
Also have you read DH Williams Retrieving the Traditions?
Comment by Dean Whisnant
4.28 am on 10 May 2006
I have to admit that I am almost at a loss for words regarding this post. It is almost if I am reading a completely different article than everyone else. Where, in this article, do you see that Emergent = Orthodoxy is irrelevant?
When I read this article I see McKnight directly stating that his view of Orthodox belief refers directly to the creeds established at Nicea and Chalcedon. Personally I would revert back to the Apostles Creed. The other two creeds came about via controversy (heresy) regarding the divinity of Christ as well as the humanity of Christ. I love the added emphasis in Nicea, but still would define an Orthodox, base belief from the Apostles Creed.
Now let me add to this that I, the Emergent type/PM type that I am, also value heavily the Great Commandment and the Great Commission, which I’m sure almost all of the rest of us would agree are foundational.
Do you see why I do not understand why you are equating Emergent and non-Orthodoxy? Where is the anchor slipping from? The anchor is solidly in the ground, but I am for lessening some of the ballast that is pulling the ship down.
What is a heretic or what is heresy? I will again return to McKnight’s thoughts that “heresy is anything that subverts the Orthodox creeds.â€
So to suggest that ‘God did not create the earth’ because you were intending upon showing that another deity was really responsible, certainly the label might fit. But if one were to suggest that ‘God did not make the earth in 6 literal 24 hour periods’ because they believed a day referred to something else I don’t think the label fits. In addition, to suggest that there is much evidence within evolution as to how beings have evolved over a time has little to do with whether God created everything. Though being contrary to God creating the earth altogether and to be a Christian, does present a problem as this is an Orthodox view.
Please continue the comments, but lets bring them into the context of this discussion with specifics. I don’t mind answering questions solidly.
Comment by Dean Whisnant
4.30 am on 10 May 2006
Steve, sorry to not answer the question of reading DH Williams book. I have not, but the title sounds intriguing.
Also, I hope the above answered your other questions, though I could not keep at a loss for words very long.
Comment by Steve Reynolds
4.56 am on 10 May 2006
No Problem.
This will lead somewhere. a few more questions.
Have you heard of the Vincentinian Rule?
So do you limit Orthodoxy to the Apostles Creed? Or do you personally also include the Nicean and the Chalcedonian Creeds as well?
Does the Athanasian Creed also count in your opinion?
So, I’m zooming in here. Would anyone who taught (and I emphasize teaches [as opposed to simply personally entertains] particularly those with influential platforms) anything that conflicts with the Apostles, Nicean, Chalcedonian Creeds, would they thus be teaching heresy?
Comment by Steve Reynolds
4.58 am on 10 May 2006
And yes, that DH Williams Book is Great and should be a must read for every Emergent and Protestant for that matter.
Comment by Edward Pillar
11.52 pm on 10 May 2006
hmmm
I’m left wondering whether all this discussion about orthodoxy and creeds and heresy simply demonstrates that we are coming at discipleship from the wrong direction. This is not say that truth is something simply to be dismissed, but rather we need to acknowledge that the truth that we profess is not found in a creed, nor a doctrine nor a statement of faith, but in a person – that is: Jesus. Teaching people the way of Jesus is not about teaching them doctrine – but rather modelling in our lives and training the would-be disciple in acts of compassion, mercy and generosity. In this way we communicate the truth that is Jesus. Doctrine may follow, but the training in the Way of Jesus is what it is all about. Making disciples, active followers, passionate about Jesus and making him and his Kingdom known.
So, let’s move aside from divisive debate about ‘heresy and emergent’ and ‘I’m more right than you’ and ‘we should use this creed or that creed.’
Let’s take up the far more challenging and searching task of living in the Spirit of Jesus and making him known by compassion, mercy and generosity.
Blessings
Edward
Comment by Steve Reynolds
5.12 am on 11 May 2006
Edward,
Ho hum… Forgive me for being tired.
Historically the formula is that belief precedes action and behavior. Or more properly, Orthodoxy is the foundation for Orthopraxy. Right doctrine first, right living flows out of this. Not that a new believer needs to have a degree in theology first. But my gosh they do need to basics. The creeds are quite simple ulitmately. Creeds do not divide; hyper individualism divides. And petty squabbling is the result of hyper-individaul interpreattions and a lack of adherance to the creeds. Which is why the church that forgets the creeds and the traditions splinters. While the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church remains One. Or two. :) Yet we are over thirty thousand. Believe me that we do not need to put aside the creeds so as to unite. We need to hold up the creeds so as to unite. In the history of the Church, a Catecumin spent about a year learning the creeds and so forth before they could even be baptised. How can one live an incarnational life if one does not even know what the incarnation is? The Church has always lived its mystical theology. One does not however, simply try to love people and expect that truth will follow.
Make sense?
Comment by Steve Reynolds
12.18 pm on 11 May 2006
“…but whenever pressed, they crumble or just disappear.”
Comment by Dean Whisnant
1.28 pm on 11 May 2006
Steve… Did I miss something what was post #18 in relation to?
Comment by Steve Reynolds
9.36 pm on 11 May 2006
Dean,
My point was that we were in the middle of discussion. I thought. I asked you several questions and you then seem to have disappeared.
Comment by Dean Whisnant
10.17 pm on 11 May 2006
Ahhh… I must have missed the questions, or continued to answer them in another post… But obviously in your mind I “crumbled and disappeared” or did I just brush the dust off of my sandals…
In any event, in the spirit of fairness that I do honor your questions. Here is what I say:
Jesus = truth. My creed, the Apostle’s Creed. My command from God, to love Him and others. My commission, to share this truth to the ends of the earth.
Though I do respect many of the creeds and covenants that have been created since such time. I am not intimately familiar with the ones you posted above.
Was I able to answer your questions in this or other posts? I’m more than happy to continue the discussion.
Comment by Steve Reynolds
2.34 am on 12 May 2006
or did I just brush the dust off of my sandals…
Thank you. You have just changed my mind about the Emergent “discussion” as you expressed was your desire.
Did you answer my questions? Some of em’, but mostly you just confirmed my suspicions.
The last one that you did not answer was this:
“Would anyone who taught (and I emphasize teaches [as opposed to simply personally entertains] particularly those with influential platforms) anything that conflicts with the Apostles, Nicean, Chalcedonian Creeds, would they thus be teaching heresy?”
Comment by Dean Whisnant
11.25 am on 12 May 2006
You’re right, I did miss that. I figured that my previous answer did suffice. But I am sure that you will be disappointed in me as I really don’t have an answer for the following question:
“Would anyone who taught (and I emphasize teaches [as opposed to simply personally entertains] particularly those with influential platforms) anything that conflicts with the Apostles, Nicean, Chalcedonian Creeds, would they thus be teaching heresy?â€
You see, I do think that teachings that conflict with Apostles may be falling into heresy. I believe there is more behind it rather than just the act of teaching otherwise, specifically intent. Though arguably I would assume a teaching other than that may lead one to believe that it is obvious that the intent was not good.
As I understand the history of the other creeds, which you may or others may know more than I, is that they specifically addressed what the church considered heresy in the day. Apostles Creed allowed too much interpretation about the humanity or deity and therefore the Eastern church revised to be more specific in the Nicean and then something similar was the effect that led to Chalcedon.
Let me be me some more and say that merely questioning in ones mind or in discussion to resolve understanding likely does not fall into this category. Conversation of the sort can lead into heresy, and should be cautiously approached.
Let’s take an example such as “He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.â€. I think this clearly states a heaven, a position of Jesus in God’s eyes and a final judgment. Were I to discuss with others in an attempt to learn what is meant by the judgment statement and I posed that possibly judgment is a multi-step process and maybe we are judged and sent somewhere and we can get somewhere else after some time. (not meaning to sound like purgatory and such as I am less versed with that side of Catholic tradition.). There is nothing in this creed to say I’m wrong. Though I may be treading on tradition which says you are judged once and it’s final (I do believe in final), my question and search are not heresy. Were I to instead question that there is any judgment, I’d be treading on heresy and should be warned and informed as to why. But should I say there is no judgment and teach such a thing, certainly I am guilty.
What is in DaVinci Code for example is heresy. It’s a Gnostic belief that has been debunked (yeah, borrowing McLaren’s words). It’s a false teaching. People should know that it is false and why it is false, though the information should be conveyed in a manner that recognizes the way the hearer will best hear the message. For some that will be boycotting, for some that will be preaching about the evils of the movie, for some it will be explaining what a Gnostic is and why they were debunked.
On the other hand, Left Behind (I didn’t really care for the books either, but loved that the first one was made into a movie, I’m a media generation person), is not heresy. It doesn’t deny anything similar to what I believe constitutes heresy. It presents A view of an essential (end of times), but not the only way that event is looked at in a Biblical manner, though some traditions may believe it crosses the lines of their tradition.
(I’m using these examples, but not justifying anything from our other conversation here)
So this is what I understand heresy to be. This is why I for the most part appreciate and agree with McKnight’s view of heresy. But in the end, heresy is Not what I say it is (lol).
Not to distance myself from McKnight for any reason. This is one of the first articles of his I read and I thought it was well written and will likely read his blog from time to time. On the other hand, I’ve read quite a bit of McLaren, so yes I do try to support him, I like his views on much, I don’t see the bashing in the same way as many obviously do, but I won’t say that it doesn’t exist. Others obviously feel that way.
What are your thoughts on my logic and understanding?
Comment by Steve Reynolds
1.56 pm on 12 May 2006
One of the big mistakes that too many from our corner of the Christian world make when viewing the early church is to completely miss the fact that the church was entirely episcopal from the very get go. It was only through such an episcopal ecclisiology that the church was able to make such authroative creeds and so forth. People are very quick to write off the traditions of the fathers and instead appeal to the Bible. The irony here is that tit was the very councils that also gave us the canon. So the question becomes what bible? And the answer is the one that the One heirarchical church gave us. We do we stick with that? Because we give ameasure of authority to such. But we do so selectively. When they make a declaration about hell or something we don’t like, we need to re-think their conclusions. But the problem is that we cannot have it both ways. If we accept their Bible and thier articualtion of the trinity etc, then we need to accept their authorative statements and creedal statements with regard to even the smaller issues. We need to see the creedsas the working of the voice of the spirit in the Church. Because this was the form of governement that the apostles established after Christ, we must also trust that it was meant to be by CHrist.
So, all that to say, I agree that anyone merely entertaining ideas contrary to Creeds is in danger, they are not heretics. But when someone deviates and actually teaches that which is contrary to the creeds, (Anthanasian included – though the Eastern Church does not recognize it as authorative) then in my opinion they are ignoring the voice of the spirit and are acting arrogantly and are in danger. The responsability of the teacher is very differetn than the thoughtful cloud gazer.
The problem of course is that very few i the protestant church are even aware of what is contained in the various creed or what they are about. Thus, false teachers (those who teach that which is contrary to the creeds) are able to take advantag of our ignorance, often being ignorant themselves. Our little conrer of the Christians world thrives on new information. New teachings. New ways of thinking. Teaching Ministries die that do not produce new material. Its a bad set up. Orthodoxy is the picture of standing in a field and setting your eye on the opposite end of the field and making a bee-line to the other end. It is an attempt to stay straight. Not to create a new way, but to follow the pattern that came before them. That was passed on. To preserve the deposite that was given to the Church. To stick to that which has been passed on by the apsotles and the fathers (those whom the commisioned to succeed them and so on). But too many today look for the new, the novel the fresh bread.
Anyway, I’m rambling. But my point being that unless we are willing to stand up and say, “hey man, thats heresy. Stop that. Youre going to hurt your children (your listeners)” Then we have lost. When we put relationships on such a high pedestal that we are willing to allow heresy to flow unchecked then we have allowed the pedestal to swing too far and are actually damaging souls rather than caring for them. Despite our purest intentions.
Paul and the early fathers readily used the word heresy and yet we don’t want to hurt anybodies feelings. Thats good that we don’t want to hurt anyone, but in our attempts to be so civil, we end up allowing lies which corrutp mens souls to infect the church which is supposed to be among other things, the repository and safehold of the truth – which of course is Christ. We can talk all the just live it that we want but these things, trends have a cum=ullative effect. Today we question hell. Tomorrow we question the atonement. Then hell. Then the authority of Scripture, etc. It takes time, but any disregard for Orthodoxy has a corrosive effect. I see this happening and thats why I am acting like such an ass.
So thats who I am and thats how I see it…
Comment by graham
4.03 pm on 12 May 2006
It seems to me that we need more heretics in the Church. There’s something, how can I put this, boring about orthodoxy.
The fact is, that orthodoxy as we know it only exists because people asked questions and pushed boundaries. There’s something exciting about that! :-)
Comment by Dean Whisnant
4.53 pm on 12 May 2006
Steve, Very well stated. I appreciate the time it took to put these views on the table. Out of coincidence, in my small faith group we determined that we would like to look back to the beginnings of traditions that we collectively don’t understand. This is part of what I would call being Emergent, stripping away my built up beliefs, looking back to the Bible AND early church to see where they originally came from and then rebuilding my beliefs about these things.
Specifically we chose to investigate and discuss Baptism, Penance and Communion. Mainly being a group that individually grew up in protestant or no denominations, except for one couple, our understanding of these is primarily shaped by two things 1) personal experience and 2) conveyed understanding. You can see the problem right there, from the git go. This would obviously lead one to say that seeing we are so far removed from these traditions, we’ve grown up with one meaning of the and we’ve heard others “dis†them, there is a high chance that we have a skewed view.
So what to do? Throw away all of our beliefs and join the local Catholic church? No, that wouldn’t be good but not because of disdain for Catholicism. What would be good is for us to understand 1) What the Bible says, 2) what the early church leaders taught regarding the practices, 3)how or why change occurred over centuries within the central Church, 4) where our particular tradition comes from in it’s understanding, and 5) how people of today understand their traditions place within these sacraments.
I’m not positive, but I think very strongly that I am correct that these approaches are NOT the norm in our churches today. Not that all of the teachings are bad, but they may not be giving credence to these issues as they want to lull the masses or they just frankly don’t know how to communicate this stuff.
You see, though I love to read McLaren (because I do see him saying some of these things, just in a different way ((Generous Orthodoxy))), I know that he is but one voice calling on the masses who are outside the church, to think about their faith. And calling those inside the churches to examine their faith. And reconciling the two. In fairness, it appears shots are fired and toes trampled on. But I think between McLaren’s part of the message, Sweet’s part of the message, McKnight’s part of the message, and others who may be less out of line (trying to use my assumption of your view) we will find more people beginning a trip back to a faith that engages them as the early fathers and our Father in Heaven would want them.
I almost want to write a book someday called “The Secret Message of Brian McLarenâ€. No, please, no inference here to him being Jesus, though I respect him much. This would be the message he isn’t writing, which is to those in the church that are doing already what he is saying, showing how though there are differences, the words were tailored for folks not in the church and not doing things in a Christ manner. The Gospels are worded differently for different audiences, at least as I learned it. Paul spoke many times in many ways to convey his message. Certainly if the wrong audience heard the wrong message there would be issues.
We’re all fallible, and those of us who admit we are, are trying to be truthful to God, ourselves and the world. (not inferring you aren’t being truthful, I appreciate your post).
Does this give you a different picture of a Post-Modern/Emergent? Or do I fit the stereotype? Please, continue conversing so that we continue to see our differences and similarities and likely grow toward the similarities.
Comment by Steve Reynolds
12.59 am on 13 May 2006
Very well stated? That’s awfully gracious after I re-read it. Sorry for all the typos.
Comment by Matt
7.35 pm on 17 May 2006
If I may interject two comments, as a casual observer…
1. In response to the idea that Orthodoxy is a boring pursuit, I must take the Chestertonian high ground and insist that what is truly boring is the perpetual rehashings of gnostic, oversexed, and solipsistic theology that attempts to reinvent perfectly sound doctrine every few years or so. The theological (more usually cultural) attention deficit disorder that poisons successive generations with cyclical and utterly predictable symptoms is what might truly be seen as ‘boring.’”There never was anything so exciting and perilous as Orthodoxy.”
2. Steve, I appreciate thoroughly your opening statement on post #24. As one who associated heavily with the “emergent/postmodern” church before being confirmed as a Roman Catholic, I had wrongly attached myself to the idea that the early Church was simply a community (emphasis on the commune) who got together, sang a bunch of songs, discussed the love of Christ, and occassionally got eaten by lions.
The statements you make about the apostles establishing an episcopal ecclesiology from the beginning were the sort of line of reasoning that eventually toppled my spiritual house of cards. I agree entirely, we can’t accept sacred Scripture and throw out sacred Tradition; it was through that Tradition that we recieved the Scriptures.
Likewise, we cannot pick and choose our favorite early Church doctrines, cafeteria style, according to the vogue du jour. The inventions of new terms by new competing groups every couple of years to get at what the fathers really meant does us no good if we abandon everything that has happened between them and us (i.e. up to and including the establishment of a Scriptural canon). We cannot affirm the Fathers when we agree with them, and classify them as archaic and outmoded when we disagree with them. To do so is to deny the authority given to the Apostles by Jesus to set up the church in the way they prayerfully chose to, and to base our doctrine subjectively based on our own situational presuppositions and tendencies. If I may loosely borrow from Thomas Merton, we are arrogant to question the Scriptures; it is the Scriptures which question us. This is not to say that we shouldn’t search our faith; it is only to say that we should aim for a bit more humility.
I apologize if any of the above comments seem more scathing than I mean for them to. I truly love Christ, and his body manifest in his earthly Church, and the more open these lines of communication are, the more unified that body will hopefully become.
Comment by Matt
7.37 pm on 17 May 2006
how embarrassing… I really should have closed that italics tag…
Comment by Dean Whisnant
8.10 pm on 17 May 2006
Matt,
I don’t doubt one bit that the more we look back to our common roots, the more rooted in the common tradition we will become.
But to say that:
1) All decisions of the church from after the Apostles on are completely scriptural would be an overstatement that is worriesome. That being said one could assume that either anything done in the name of the Apostle’s is good or anything not done in the name of the Apostle’s is bad.
2) If the only view you have received of the Emerging community is a commune, I am sorry, a link to tradition is important. We cannot be a community unto ourselves.
3) I’m not sure where the picking and choosing of church doctrines comment comes from exactly. But I will say that even if you look within the tradition itself, the “picking and choosing” is a part of refinement of understanding.
I think your points are fairly stated and worth the viewing of Emergent types.
Dean
Comment by JEFF
3.04 am on 18 May 2006
Friends,
At the turn of the millennium there was only one church body that thought it was important for the benefit of all mankind to “give an account of the joy within you†by placing in one volume it’s deposit of faith and morals. I speak of course of the Catechism of The Catholic Church. (Actually, that no other ecclisastical body thought about doing this speaks volumes. ) This profound gift to humanity, called for by the great John Paul the II, is a result of the Holy Spirit, speaking through the teaching authority of the successor to the apostles in obedience to the call of our Lord and Savior. If you have never read it, it will provide you with thrilling insight and the true Grace of the Lord’s bride.
As many have endeavored to define the church as “emerging†I offer up in love and with the most profound respect this question: On who’s authority and definitions is the church emerging? “
It is unlikely that Jesus sees his Church as emerging but everlasting. After all it is HIS CHURCH ( as in “You are Peter and upon this Rock I will found MY CHURCH) . Jesus Christ defines the Church and he said so in Holy Scripture when, with unspeakable clarity he gave to Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and gave Peter and his office authority that no other Christiana would have—specifically the power to bind and lose on both heaven and earth. You all know this, it’s right there to be examined in the Gospel as well as Isaiah 22.
Now—this beautiful (yet often flawed) Church was in the past, is now, and will be until the second coming the sole authority to define just exactly what Heresy is. Not me. Not any of you. Not Scott. And here is what the one, holy and apostolic faith has ALWAYS taught:
1. Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
2. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning same.
3. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith.
4. Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him
These are found in 2089 of the Catechism.
So there we have the true definitions, given under and by the authority of the Church, Jesus wonderful gift , as a testimony to the world. Bless you all in your honest love of Jesus.
Jeff
Comment by Dean Whisnant
3.38 am on 18 May 2006
Comment by Dean Whisnant
3.41 am on 18 May 2006
Jeff,
So are you saying that no matter what the Catholic church does, it is right? And that no matter what other churches do, if they are not following the Catholic church then they are wrong?
I’m not arguing your point, just trying to understand what you are saying…
Are you also then saying that God only reveals to Catholics? And that He may not reveal to another person for any reason?
Thanks
Dean
Comment by Matt
1.07 pm on 18 May 2006
Dean,
It is the great weakness of the internet that it obfuscates intent and transmits discussion only, and not expression. These sorts of topics are always better explored while enjoying delicious unpronounceable beers.
That being said, I want to clear up what for me was a huge misunderstanding as a former outsider of the Catholic church.
I was under the impression that Catholics believed that the Pope was infallible in action, belief, and every other aspect of his life. If this were so, one can only imagine the horrible theological implications; we could have a new religion with every pope, and the downfall of the church as a result.
However, Catholics only believe that the pope is a really good guy, and, as an apostolic successor to Peter, the first bishop of Rome, can make infallible pronouncements when speaking ex cathedra, or “from the chair” of Peter, the original apostolic leader of the Church on earth. Again, that’s Peter, the deserter, the rash and impetuous, the one who Jesus at one point refers to as Satan. Knowing this about Peter helps us understand not only the human element of Church leadership, but also the great trust which was bestowed upon the apostles.
(by the way, I’ve often said that I don’t believe in organized religion… I believe in disorganized religion, which is why I am Catholic.)
The ex cathedra pronouncements have been very rarely employed. A couple of examples would be the doctrinal declarations of the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary, things which the early Church believed but hadn’t yet stuck in any of the creeds.
And please don’t think I endorse every action done in the name of the Catholic church, just as I don’t endorse every thing done in the name of the Scriptures, of God, of America, or any other institution subject to interpretation. To do so would be to give more credence to Catholics than to the Church.
Also, I apologize about my statement “community(emphasis on the commune)”; I wasn’t attempting to indict you or any other emergent group, only to discuss the error I had fallen into. I am empirically aware that postmodern/emergent communities vary from church body to church body, and run the sort of spectrum about which it would be foolish for me to generalize.
Lastly, if I may answer one point on Jeff’s behalf, Catholics absolutely do not believe that God reveals only to Catholics. To believe so would be, among other things, to deny the philosopically and spiritually vital doctrine of General Revelation, and that would be….. heresy?
Thank you again, Dean, for your thoughtful comments and questions.
Comment by Dean Whisnant
1.44 pm on 18 May 2006
Matt, Thank you for replying to the questions. Blog posts are certainly easier to confuse what one intends than even a chat session. Which is why I “try” to pose things as questions, though I don’t always succeed (human in me).
Your explanation is sobering and much different than what I have heard in the past from various former catholics, though I believe that is largely a result of local church issues, much like I believe we see in the Protestant churches. We all know that each of our branched out traditions have fallacies within them as we have human leaders. But these fallacies tend to show themselves in several places, but not as a whole of the denomination.
My “Emerging†is less about “throwing away†and more about “rediscovering†and “re-engagingâ€. Certainly within this process we “Emergents†will find many non-essentials that at some level have been made to be essentials. The important part is to strip away first, our preconceived notions of our own and other traditions. Dropping the hearsay and focusing on the traditions themselves, their roots, that central point we can all come back to and share (Jesus). With this, I think people who are on that journey may find a closer connection to God and the Church than ever before.
I appreciate the apology about “communeâ€. I didn’t take it personally as I have seen some branches within the Emerging community that would all but cut themselves off from the tree and try to grow new roots. But much like other misunderstandings within our churches today, this is often a smaller scale misapplication that somehow then labels an entire group.
I like your response to my questions to Jeff. I would still love to hear from him to the points, accepting that I am asking honest questions to understand where he is coming from. I think I and others may be mis-reading him and thus possibly causing undue stress.
One of my hopes in posting this article about heresy was to get us around to the point of gaining understanding that the larger view of Emerging churches is not to commit heresy against the church. But to rediscover the church and help it to rediscover itself and put-off that which may have been built up that now creates barriers from God’s people to associate themselves with Him through the church catholic.
I know we’ve gotten off track, I can do that easily.
Thank you for your reply and for our future conversation.
Comment by Dean Whisnant
1.46 pm on 18 May 2006
I appreciate the learning experience of talking, discussing, arguing and getting to know each of you who have participated in this discussion.
For those who have read it and said “oh no, not another one of these”. Thank you for tolerating my questions and allowing “another one of these”.
Comment by Matt
3.37 pm on 18 May 2006
If we’re off track, we seem to have accidentally found a good spot. Don’t worry, I won’t accuse all tracks of leading to Rome;)
If the things I mentioned about Catholicism sounded surprising, don’t feel bad. Most of the Catholics I know have very little understanding of their own doctrine or rich tradition. There is a very real sense in which Catholics, particularly in America, have cut themselves off from the Church, believing every Hollywood parody about it and purposely avoiding good solid catechesis. No wonder there are so many misperceptions out there.
In that very basic sense, the Catholic Church in America could stand to learn an awful lot from the spirit of rediscovery that is in many of the emergent churches. Maybe we Catholics could benefit not so much from an “emergence,” but perhaps more from a “resurgence.”
Thank you again for your generosity in dialogue. I always feel badly whenever I get too straightforward with any of my postmodern brethren. Afterwards, I tend to feel like I’ve punched a pacifist in the face. I think a good clarity of speech and belief is a fantastic way to build a bridge of charity between people of faith; forgive me when my straightforwardness obscures that charity.
Comment by Dean Whisnant
7.12 pm on 18 May 2006
Matt, true, a good spot indeed. Though all the roads do lead back to Rome in some sense.
Whatever term we use to signify a renewal would be great. FOr some in the world it may be emerging from darkness. For others it will be resurging or rediscovering their faith. Still for others the experience may have a better verb (I’m not an english major, but I think that works).
Above all – Charity
I’m there.
Comment by graham
11.04 pm on 18 May 2006
Matt, thanks for the response.
For the record, I was not meaning to imply that the pursuit of orthodoxy is boring, if by orthodoxy we mean right thinking. What I meant was that the constant need to fence the Church and disallow certain questions and different answers is boring and ’safe’, in the worst sense of that word. It lacks the dynamism that we see in the very process of Orthodoxy developing in the first place.
Nevertheless, I’m not sure that the only alternative is ‘perpetual rehashings of gnostic, oversexed, and solipsistic theology that attempts to reinvent perfectly sound doctrine.’
As for the perils of orthodoxy, I think I’d fear more for heretics.
Comment by steve reynolds
2.56 am on 19 May 2006
Matt,
Welcome home. Dean, the faster that you rediscover your roots, the sooner that you will become a Catholic. :)
Comment by Matt
5.40 am on 19 May 2006
Graham,
I hope I have not represented myself errantly as one who thinks that the most valiant defense of orthodoxy is the protection of the Church from ever encountering any questions about itself. I fear as though, in a country with a semi-Christian heritage, the attempt to defend the faith is often confused with the hands-over-the-ears-la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you approach to the culture writ large. Trust me, my ears are open. Also, trust that the ears of the Church are open, or she would never be able to formulate even the slightest valid response to any aspect of the culture.
An unpursuant spirituality is a dead spirituality; I think all of us can agree upon this point. But to champion the cause of the heretic in hopes that it will keep things interesting is perhaps to go a bit too far. It smacks of the Pauline warning that we should not aspire to sin more in the hopes that grace might abound more fully. We must search, and search with our whole person; but we shouldn’t tempt our Lord by endorsing false doctrines just to turn a head or two.
You closed your most recent post with the sentence “As for the perils of orthodoxy, I think I’d fear more for heretics.” If you don’t mind indulging me to exopound a bit more upon this sentence, it might give me a clearer picture of where it is you’re coming from. Clarity, charity, and beers usually make theological allies out of theological enemies. Electronically, we can engage in the first two.
And Dean, don’t let Steve’s comments be too off-putting for you. You’re in no rush. I myself stalled for a good eight years ;)
Comment by graham
12.47 am on 20 May 2006
It’s more a championing of heresy, then the heretic, that I am playing with. I think we need to protect the ability to ask questions and push boundaries. I know too many nervous Christians, like those who breathed-in when I mention 6 years ago that I was writing my dissertation on full preterism. There’s almost a fear of what’s out there.
Some branches of Celtic spirituality cherish what sociologists have come to call ‘the heretical imperative.’ I think it’s important that we ask the naughty questions, push uncomfortable boundaries and think the disallowed.
Having said that, there are certain heretics I would want to champion: Montanus, Athanasius, Pelagius, Origen, Menno Simons, Michael Sattler, Edward Irving, John Mcleod Campbell. They’ve all been ‘outside the camp’ at some point.
Comment by Matt
4.52 am on 20 May 2006
“Montanus, Athanasius, Pelagius, Origen, Menno Simons, Michael Sattler, Edward Irving, John Mcleod Campbell.”
Know also that we only champion these because they landed on the firm ground of Orthodoxy. I doubt we would laud their heresies had they landed elsewhere.
Comment by graham
8.55 am on 20 May 2006
Well, some of that. Some of them are still routinely condemned.
However, the point is that perhaps the heresies/heretics that some are unwilling to explore today are yet to land. In the case of someone like Athanius it’s not that he changed, but orthodoxy developed/moved/changed. Perhaps what is unthinkable today will be orthodox tomorrow.
However, if we rule out that possibility we will be no different to those who dismissed these great men and missed their contribution.
Comment by Matt
2.12 pm on 20 May 2006
I would like to address your statement in the previous post:
“Perhaps what is unthinkable today will be orthodox tomorrow.”
What is unthinkable today may be accepted tomorrow, but it won’t be orthodox. I think that’s the primary point where we see differently. New Christian beliefs may become established that are different than the ones in the creeds, but they won’t be orthodox. Orthodoxy was set out by the fathers, and affirmed by the creeds.
Athanasius didn’t invent the incarnation; but he is one of the earliest and clearest expositors we have upon it. People like Constantine did not invent the idea of Christ being fully human and fully divine; they just commissioned an official church statement condemning the fringe that argued against that principle. The creeds did not change orthodoxy; they put it in writing.
There will never be a “new” orthodoxy, at least as far as the Christian church is concerned. Any doctrine based on the life of Jesus that disputes or eliminates pieces of true Christian orthodoxy can only be heterodoxy.
I hope you don’t see me as being utterly dismissive when it comes to ideas that originate outside the church. On the contrary, if we have any love for orthodoxy, we have a duty to know what is unorthodox, in order to educate ourselves and give a strong defense of the faith.
You mention the prospect of laudable heresies in today’s culture; would you mind giving me what you believe to be an example of this?
Comment by steve reynolds
10.58 pm on 20 May 2006
Matt,
All I can say is that you got out at a good time.
Comment by Dean Whisnant
3.34 am on 21 May 2006
Steve… Lol… I’m already catholic, not sure about Catholic though. Not looking down upon the entire institution, but alas not as familiar with it either. I think the most important part is to continue a persuit of being “c”atholic.
You see, I have no doubt that many of the roads of discovery will lead back to “C”atholic belief. But then “C”atholic belief is “c”atholic belief. hmmmm… playing with you on words here…
Matt… Nah, all is rolling off here.. We have a good exchange going on and that is most important to me at this point.
Comment by Matt
4.52 am on 21 May 2006
Steve,
Here, I disagree with you… I got in at a good time;)
Dean,
The first step in becoming Catholic is to become catholic. Maybe we’ll sucker you into capitalizing the “C” in the Apostle’s Creed.
I wish you the best of tidings on that perilous and wonderful road of discovery. Who knows, you might one day have an Emmaus experience, and have your burning heart affirmed in a Eucharistic encounter with our Lord, as did those pilgrims. But that’s a capital “C” matter.
In the meantime, however, it is encouraging, at least to me, to discuss the points upon which we currently agree, and even occasionally disagree. Keep it flowing.
Comment by steve reynolds
5.32 am on 21 May 2006
Dean,
Presently I’d say that you are somewhere in between catholic and universalist. Much more catholic of course, but yet a wee bit too universalist. Matt is correct however, when you understand catholic, then your on the road to discovering Catholic. Of course, I’d be fine with Eastern Orthodox too. Wanta listen to a great podcast to get you started?
Ancient Faith Radio, archives podcast, Februray 06
There’s three podcasts on Apostolic succession. I would love for you to listen to these and give me your thoughts. They are obviously Eastern Orthodox, but very well done.
http://www.ancientfaithradio.com/ourlife/archives/2006_02_01_index.html
Honestly, I’d love to hear your opinions. If they spoke anything to you.
Steve
Comment by Dean Whisnant
12.48 am on 22 May 2006
Gents, I appreciate the “labels” in hopes of finding where I am… I’m somewhat humored by it.
Let me tell you where I think I am at. Denominationally, I am a Nazarene (Church of the Nazarene, http://www.nazarene.org). Vision Quest-wise, I’m following Christ and what he would have for me. Leadership-wise, I am following Christ and walking with others on a journey through beliefs.
I wouldn’t say that I am somewhere between Universalism and Catholicism. I’ve got a couple reasons for that:
First, I’m not sure that they are two ends of a scale, in many ways the two of them are on the same side of the fulcrum. Certainly they are on opposites in a dogmatic sense.
Second, I’m not sure it’s fair to put sides of a scale on beliefs. I’m going to do a McLaren comment here for you, but I think that Brian said it best in the full title of “A Generous Orthodoxy”.
“A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished CHRISTIAN”
You see, the similarities in what is behind these “labels” binds me to them all. In addition, much of the specialized focus within each category resonates in my heart as something that is honoring to God.
Where I am coming from is that it is not as important to be labeled within any one category. But to celebrate our differences and be bound by our similarities.
I can hear it being said that this would push me more towards being labeled a “Universalistâ€. I won’t take offense to this, nor will I agree with it either. Or perhaps there is more in that word itself that binds it to “catholicâ€. Hmm… I hear a new post coming on here.
Let me throw in here that I find Christ talking through many traditions, including ones that we and they wouldn’t consider Christian. Now, don’t go off the deep end and use the “H†word with me here. But have you ever spent time reading wisdom literature from other faiths? Sure, I bet you read Jewish wisdom, but ever venture outside that?
Now, I’m not saying that all paths leads to God or to Heaven. Christ is the one way, remember I’ll stand with the Apostle’s Creed, which would negate other possibilities.
Comment by graham
12.46 pm on 22 May 2006
Hi Matt. Thanks for the continued dialogue.
I guess I’m thinking bigger than simply those heresies that are somehow “official” (rightly or wrongly). I’m also thinking about our notions of orthodoxy and heresy and the attitudes that go with that.
If I can give an example, I am not a Universalist, but if I never looked into universalism with an open mind (because it’s an out-of-bounds heresy) then I would not have grown in my appreciation of the wideness of God’s mercy, or learnt of God’s inclusive grace. Does that make sense? (Regardless of what you think of that topic, or my conclusions, I hope you can see what I’m struggling to say.)
Actually, I don’t think that’s strictly true. If you’re talking about Orthodoxy, then it is a living tradition and there is no theoretical reason why a Council could not be held and more “truths” given the EO stamp of approval.
Perhaps. But, if such a dichotomy were the only option, I wouldn’t hesitate to fall down on the side of the life of Christ. (In fact, it’s highly interesting to me that many of the groups that have historically been considered off-limits were those that emphasised the life and teachings of Christ over the seemingly static dictates of orthodoxy.)
Bless you.
Comment by Just testing
12.49 pm on 22 May 2006
Comment by Matt
2.05 pm on 22 May 2006
A Response To Steve:
Good on you. I did the Nazarene thing for roughly seven years. There’s a lot of solid stuff in the Holiness tradition. Of course, I only did the Emergent thing for about a year, so I’m probably not as qualified to comment on it as the Church of the Naz.
As to our friend McLaren… aside from his ambitious titles, I think he himself may be able to be considered a bit more prophetic if looked at as a gateway drug. As one who has met him, and heard him speak, i can say that he has a very similar effect upon me to that of Philip Yancey; I’m not interested in what he’s writing as much as I’m interested in what he’s reading. And both of those guys are reading a lot of capital “C” stuff.
To slice our terminology up a bit, I think that we need to make a distinction between our faith being “universal” and being “universalist.” One is catholic, quite literally, and the other is apostate. As per usual, the Truth of Christianity runs an exciting razor’s edge on this one. That’s the boredom of Orthodoxy for you.
Also, it’s not crazy to hear Christ in other traditions, at least not for us capital “C” varieties. Keep in mind our last Pope hung out with the Dalai Lama, and most of us think Virgil’s in heaven. Everything good in a flawed faith is still good.
Comment by Matt
2.32 pm on 22 May 2006
A Response To Graham,
In all fairness to the definition of the term, Orthodoxy is not based upon our notion of it, any more than inches are based upon our subjective notion of the idea of a ruler, or gravity upon our varying desires to get to the center of the earth.
Also, I think you misunderstand me in my approach to what you term “out-of-bounds” thinking. It is never “out-of-bounds” to study heretical ideas (in fact, I encourage it), but it is utterly “out-of-bounds” to assume they are compatible with Orthodoxy. I say this as a former Presbyterian/United Methodist/Nazarene/Free Methodist/Pseudo Buddhist/Nondenominationa/House Church/Emergent spiritual traveler. I’ve tried an awful lot of square pegs in the round hole of Orthodoxy.
Lastly, I would like to dispel what I see as a bit of a misunderstanding in some the current Emergent movement, and that is the idea that the life of Christ and Orthodoxy are contradictory concepts. Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it; for crying out loud, he celebrated Passover (as do Catholics, and many Protestants, if only in a memorialist sense). The liturgy and Orthodoxy of the Church were in place from the beginning (read: Peter), not invented during the reign of Constantine, as the hack academia of a Dan Brown might suggest.
Furthermore, to think of Orthodoxy as something at war with Christ is inconcievable. Jesus is the Christ; and Orthodoxy is in place to make sure that he stays that way. To emphasise the life of Christ over the full divinity and full humanity of Christ is the sport of the secularist, who changes his habits daily. The Orthodox person keeps himself familiar with the changeful and cyclical habits of the secularist, and has plenty of experience with the fads of heresy.
I’m interested to know which off-limits groups you are referring to that you claim emphasized the life of Christ over Orthodoxy, and your reasons for endorsing them. Name names.
Comment by dh
4.20 pm on 22 May 2006
Dean, I too am a Nazarene but I’m a BaptiNazaEvangiCostal. I had been attending a Nazarene church for over two years. I totally love the concept of Holiness and living for Christ as much as we can “…because He first loved us.” Matt I really enjoyed your last post. What I find interesting is how many Christians don’t want to react negativly to DaVinci code because they are so anti-Catholic. While I’m not a Catholic, I do think as Believers of Christ there are foundational Christian doctrines and Beliefs that are attacked or attempting to attack by the Davinci code that we must set aside our issues between Catholic and Protestant. Opes Dei? I don’t know that is secondary to how the nature of Christ isbeing portrayed by the movie.
Comment by graham
9.13 pm on 23 May 2006
Hi Matt,
Again, I’m unclear if you are using Orthodoxy to speak of Eastern Orthodoxy or in the more general sense. In seems to me that you are conflating the two. Of course, if you are using it to mean EO, then we are all heretics! I’m just glad that “we know where God is, but we do not know where God is not.”
Well, that’s partly what I’m getting at. I have no problem with going beyond the fence and I want to toy with the idea that the very notions inherent here are not particularly helpful. (Of course, I may eventually decide that they are, but I’m still happy exploring the idea that they’re not.)
I don’t see anyone suggesting that orthodoxy was invented during the reign of Constantine, but I’m happy questionning the statement that the liturgy was there from the beginning. However, experience tells me that we’re not gonna solve that one here any time soon! :-)
I didn’t actually endorse any of these groups, Matt. Neither did I say they emphasized the life of Christ over Orthodoxy (again, not sure in what sense you mean that). What I said was ‘over the seemingly static dictates of orthodoxy.’ As for who, take your pick! :-) I was specifically thinking of Donatists, Anabaptists and so on.
Bless you.
Comment by graham
9.14 pm on 23 May 2006
Oops, my 2nd and 5th paragraphs above are quotes.
Comment by steve reynolds
3.12 am on 24 May 2006
If Eo then we are not all heretics. Unless you are referring to Emergent. Then yes, most lilely. But many of us are Orthodox yet schismatics. Big difference.
Comment by graham
10.29 am on 24 May 2006
Not that much of a difference really, Steve. I might be wrong, but it seems as if you are understanding orthodoxy, heretics and schismatics from a Catholic perspective, not Orthodox.
For the EO, the Latin and the Protestants and any schismatics (by definition) are heretics. There plenty of express statements by both Councils and Patriarchs explicitly naming Catholics, Protestants, Calvinists, Lutherans, “Latins” and so on as heretics.
I might have misunderstood their position, but I’m fairly sure that Philipp Schaff, or a site like orthodoxinfo.com, would provide enough evidence to support this.
Comment by steve reynolds
12.47 pm on 24 May 2006
One can be outside of EO and be fully Orthodox theologically, is my point. At what point did the old faithful women from the West who was Orthodox suddenly become unOrthodox and a heretic when the East West split took place.
Comment by Matt
1.10 pm on 24 May 2006
Graham,
I had a bit of trouble following you in #56, so to start us back up, I’ll revisit an earlier part of the dialogue:
ME: There will never be a “new†orthodoxy, at least as far as the Christian church is concerned. Any doctrine based on the life of Jesus that disputes or eliminates pieces of true Christian orthodoxy can only be heterodoxy.
YOU: Perhaps. But, if such a dichotomy were the only option, I wouldn’t hesitate to fall down on the side of the life of Christ. (In fact, it’s highly interesting to me that many of the groups that have historically been considered off-limits were those that emphasised the life and teachings of Christ over the seemingly static dictates of orthodoxy.)
ME: I’m interested to know which off-limits groups you are referring to that you claim emphasized the life of Christ over Orthodoxy, and your reasons for endorsing them. Name names.
I’ll concede that the word “endorse” was my own, and may suggest that you have stronger feelings about them than you actually do. But what I really want to know is what it was about the Anabaptists, Donatists, etc., you found to be laudable against the “seemingly static dictates of orthodoxy.”
To clarify my own position, I am understanding orthodoxy from a classical Roman Catholic perspective. The confusion has probably come from my capitalization of the word; I only meant to emphasize its dynamically static nature by doing so.
It seems to me that we are trying to distill the definition of orthodoxy down to its purest form (which is what I understand to be a goal of many Emergent Church enthusiasts). In all fairness, orthodoxy is a word that belonged to the Catholics first, so the definition of orthodoxy, from a linguistic standpoint, is in its purest form when defined by its originators. Americans may live in a democracy, for example, but it’s a bit of a linguistic stretch to say we live in a “truer” democracy than did the Greeks. We hold to a great many of their democratic principles, but we’re fiddling with a term that did not originate with our nation, and only dilute the “purest” definition of the word with any tampering we do.
It is this distinction that draws the line between rediscovery and reinvention, between defining orthodoxy and letting orthodoxy define us.
Comments are now closed.