Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The Virtue of Heresy
This may be a little disjointed. Want to jot down some thoughts and see where they lead. Maybe someday this will become something more finished.
I understand why people worry about heresy. Personally, I have a strong commitment to truth, and I don't like it when people say wrong things or build arguments on faulty evidence. And when people teach false things about God, bad stuff can certainly result. I get all that.
Still, heretics keep pretty good company:
'Cause Christians historically do not treat heretics well. In the western world, at least, we seem to be past the point of putting them to death or physically torturing them to make them change their mind, though once in a while I encounter somebody who I suspect would like to at least give that a try. But there are still plenty of people who want heretics to be scolded, censured, and excluded from fellowship.
There are many problems with such hard-line approaches. First is the faulty assumption that it proceeds from, that some human has such a perfect understanding of theology that they can accurately determine what "heresy" is. At least since the Protestant Reformation, we Christians have largely been trying to build a church that gets it all right in terms of beliefs or creeds. Many churches have claimed to do so. Unfortunately, these churches all disagree with each other, so most of them have to be wrong and probably they all are. Certainly none of these churches has distinguished itself as being obviously superior to all the others (and the rest of the world) in love, which is how Jesus said his disciples would be recognized. So either nobody's got that perfect doctrine, or having it isn't the route to the kind of life Jesus said we should and would live as his followers.
And given the more humble approach that we might not be 100% right about everything, then heresy might turn out not to be heresy after all. Now we don't think the earth orbiting the sun has anything to do with God or the reliability of the Bible, but once it was a life-or-death matter. Someday people might look back at us and think, "How did churches get so hung up on homosexuality?" Entertaining that possibility makes it possible for us to think about things.
I'm not saying that anything goes or that all ideas are equal. I think there are plenty of wrong theologies out there. I think I posted here a few years ago about the book I encountered that asked what sense we should make of the story of Jesus' resurrection "assuming the accounts are not to be taken literally." As I said then, that's quite an assumption. I think the people who discount the resurrection as only metaphorical are wrong. I don't think any evidence supports there position, and I think harmful things follow from such a conclusion.
But I don't think people who say that need to be silenced or excluded. I'm happy to engage in dialogue with them. Then I can explain why I find their reading forced, ahistorical, nonsensical, and potentially harmful. And they can explain why it's compelling to them.
The solution to heresy isn't stamping it out. You can't do it, and you shouldn't want to. Somewhere in your belief system is heresy, and probably more than you think. We mortals don't get to be certain about things, and we don't get perfect understand of the transcendent God and God's transcendent ways. So somewhere you took a metaphor God gave us to help us understand and took it too literally or applied it where it doesn't apply. Or you ignored a complimentary metaphor. Or something. And the only way for your heresy to get rooted out is to be exposed to other ideas and test them and see what stands.
That testing is pretty important, and I think people do it pretty poorly. Most people use the test "Is this what I already think, or consistent with it?" That is not a useful test for finding where you're wrong. Sometimes instead we ask "Is this the traditional teaching?" but there too it privileges one view without testing it. "Does this make me uncomfortable?" or any other feeling-based test is problematic too. Feelings are important, but they're too fleeting to have the final word on something like this. Anything new and surprising may make you nervous at first (or excited, if you're a different type of person), but that feeling doesn't make the new thing false (or true).
Therefore I think the second part of the test is like the first: if the theology presented discourages people from loving others--all others--as themselves, it is a wrong path.
With those tests in mind, I'm following Paul and testing everything, to hold on to the good. And some of what I'm testing at the moment is what some people have called or will call heresy. And some of it is turning out to be good. Through it, God may yet get me to where I should be.
I understand why people worry about heresy. Personally, I have a strong commitment to truth, and I don't like it when people say wrong things or build arguments on faulty evidence. And when people teach false things about God, bad stuff can certainly result. I get all that.
Still, heretics keep pretty good company:
- Most of what Jesus said was heretical to at least one group of his hearers. The Zealots couldn't agree with his recommendation to submit to the hated Roman oppressors ("give Caesar what is Caesar's"). The Sadduccees thought his teaching about a resurrected life after this one was heresy, and the Pharisees thought he was pretty much non-stop heresy, most especially for claiming to be God, but also for teaching that the Sabbath could be violated and food rules weren't more important than people.
- Then both Peter and Paul took their turns with the heretical idea that non-Jews were welcome in the kingdom of God.
- And then history is replete with people that we now think were right or partly right but who were heretical at the time: Galileo, Martin Luther, people who thought we shouldn't allow slavery, people who thought women could preach, people who thought blacks and whites could mix and even intermarry.
'Cause Christians historically do not treat heretics well. In the western world, at least, we seem to be past the point of putting them to death or physically torturing them to make them change their mind, though once in a while I encounter somebody who I suspect would like to at least give that a try. But there are still plenty of people who want heretics to be scolded, censured, and excluded from fellowship.
There are many problems with such hard-line approaches. First is the faulty assumption that it proceeds from, that some human has such a perfect understanding of theology that they can accurately determine what "heresy" is. At least since the Protestant Reformation, we Christians have largely been trying to build a church that gets it all right in terms of beliefs or creeds. Many churches have claimed to do so. Unfortunately, these churches all disagree with each other, so most of them have to be wrong and probably they all are. Certainly none of these churches has distinguished itself as being obviously superior to all the others (and the rest of the world) in love, which is how Jesus said his disciples would be recognized. So either nobody's got that perfect doctrine, or having it isn't the route to the kind of life Jesus said we should and would live as his followers.
And given the more humble approach that we might not be 100% right about everything, then heresy might turn out not to be heresy after all. Now we don't think the earth orbiting the sun has anything to do with God or the reliability of the Bible, but once it was a life-or-death matter. Someday people might look back at us and think, "How did churches get so hung up on homosexuality?" Entertaining that possibility makes it possible for us to think about things.
I'm not saying that anything goes or that all ideas are equal. I think there are plenty of wrong theologies out there. I think I posted here a few years ago about the book I encountered that asked what sense we should make of the story of Jesus' resurrection "assuming the accounts are not to be taken literally." As I said then, that's quite an assumption. I think the people who discount the resurrection as only metaphorical are wrong. I don't think any evidence supports there position, and I think harmful things follow from such a conclusion.
But I don't think people who say that need to be silenced or excluded. I'm happy to engage in dialogue with them. Then I can explain why I find their reading forced, ahistorical, nonsensical, and potentially harmful. And they can explain why it's compelling to them.
The solution to heresy isn't stamping it out. You can't do it, and you shouldn't want to. Somewhere in your belief system is heresy, and probably more than you think. We mortals don't get to be certain about things, and we don't get perfect understand of the transcendent God and God's transcendent ways. So somewhere you took a metaphor God gave us to help us understand and took it too literally or applied it where it doesn't apply. Or you ignored a complimentary metaphor. Or something. And the only way for your heresy to get rooted out is to be exposed to other ideas and test them and see what stands.
That testing is pretty important, and I think people do it pretty poorly. Most people use the test "Is this what I already think, or consistent with it?" That is not a useful test for finding where you're wrong. Sometimes instead we ask "Is this the traditional teaching?" but there too it privileges one view without testing it. "Does this make me uncomfortable?" or any other feeling-based test is problematic too. Feelings are important, but they're too fleeting to have the final word on something like this. Anything new and surprising may make you nervous at first (or excited, if you're a different type of person), but that feeling doesn't make the new thing false (or true).
The first part of a better test is from Dallas Willard in The Divine Conspiracy:To this I would suggest we add a second part. Willard's acid test is based on the assertion of Jesus that the greatest commandment is to fully love God with all you have, so a theology that hinders that cannot be right or good. Jesus gave a second command that in his words is "like" the first: love your neighbor as yourself.
The acid test for any theology is this: Is the God presented one that can be loved, heart, soul, mind, and strength? If the thoughtful, honest answer is "Not really," then we need to look elsewhere or deeper. It does not really matter how sophisticated intellectually or doctrinally our approach is. If it fails to set a lovable God--a radiant, happy, friendly, accessible, and totally competent being--before ordinary people, we have gone wrong. We should not keep going in the same direction, but turn around and take another road. (329)
Therefore I think the second part of the test is like the first: if the theology presented discourages people from loving others--all others--as themselves, it is a wrong path.
With those tests in mind, I'm following Paul and testing everything, to hold on to the good. And some of what I'm testing at the moment is what some people have called or will call heresy. And some of it is turning out to be good. Through it, God may yet get me to where I should be.
