Archive: Whatever Happened to Heresy

By Riley B. Case

The dictionary defines heresy as “opinion held in opposition to commonly received doctrine, and tending to promote division or dissension.” Mention of heresy is off-limits among many United Methodists. It would seem to be, well, unloving and suggests we are not nice people.

But the blacklisting of the word heresy is also a sign of our theological impoverishment. If we begin to believe that there is no such thing as heresy, are we not assuming that: (1) we have no commonly received doctrine, (2) doctrine does not matter, or even if it does matter, the new opinions being expressed are not really in opposition to it, or (3) the real division or dissension is in bringing the matter up in the first place.

Let us examine these assumptions more closely:

1. Perhaps we can no longer speak meaningfully about “commonly received doctrine.” In a time of pluralism and multiculturalism, perhaps it is restrictive and presumptuous—if not downright intolerant—to assign significance to a core of doctrine.

Does not doctrine divide? Does it not tend toward exclusivism? Is no exclusivism the opposite of everything the gospel—if the gospel is defined as “post-modernist multiculturalism”—stands for? Are there not many traditions, each worthy of respect? There is a tradition for men and one for women, one for the Western world, one for the Eastern world. There is an Hispanic tradition and an African-American tradition. There is an evangelical tradition and a liberal tradition. And if there is not one tradition but many, does that not imply there is not one truth, but many truths? If so, our United Methodist doctrinal standards should be seen “in context” (another way of saying they do not matter). They may tell us where we have been, but not where we are or where we ought to be going.

Therefore, in the spirit of modernity and without the least bit of apology, our “church-related” schools have begun worshipping at the idol of academic freedom—which among other things—means no religious tests. It would violate the sacred law of the academy if one were asked to adhere to any kind of Christian teaching. Doctrinal boundaries, standards, or restrictions, or even the idea that such things exist, must yield to creativity, modern experience, new formulations, and freedom to express whatever and whoever and however one wishes. Values and beliefs become little more than preference. Nothing that we claim together is so vital to us that it cannot be compromised, traded away, reimagined, redefined, reinterpreted or denied for the sake of expediency, creativity, ideology, or convention. Somewhere in the maze there may be a least common denominator that binds United Methodists together, but we cannot agree what it is, or who should tell us what it is.

In this sort of post-modern climate the H-word is not a protector of truth, but a hindrance to the search for truth.

2. Even if there may be such a thing as commonly received doctrine, can we not argue that other expressions seemingly in opposition are merely new ways of saying the same thing?

The key here is to understand how language functions. Since God is not limited by our words, truth is beyond all our expressions of it, and language is metaphorical—our doctrinal formulations are at best only suggestive. According to many well-meaning United Methodists, we ought to be open to different ways of expressing the same truth.

Thus we can speak of God incarnate in Jesus Christ, of the preaching of the cross and the power of God, of justification and atonement for sin. But without any sense of inconsistency we can also pray to Sophia, name our own God, talk about the God who allows a son to suffer on the cross as guilty of divine child abuse, and argue that Jesus is not really unique because there is salvation in all religions. If such opinions seem to be in conflict we will seek to understand each other and resolve the differences through dialogue, conflict management, conversation, and new studies.

In this way of viewing things, nothing really is denied; all is affirmed. The key word is inclusive. We can confess the ancient creeds but always in a way that no one is offended, and words mean whatever we want them to mean.

So we say:

“I believe (not to imply that others’ beliefs are not also valid) in God (as imaged in my mind) the Father (or some more inclusive substitute) Almighty (but not in any absolutist sense), maker (or creative energy or life force or whatever ) of heaven (poetically speaking) and earth (though not to suggest any form of dualism or separateness from the Divine).

“And in Jesus (as interpreted through the eyes of “modern scholarship”) Christ (a divine principle) his (or a more inclusive substitute) only (if not understood in any exclusivist sense) son (in the same way we are all sons or daughters) our (not intending to be demeaning to anyone who might not feel included) Lord (if it does not suggest a hierarchical relationship) …

In the inclusivist, monistic climate, opinions held in opposition are not really in opposition after all. All is absorbed. Thus prayers, hymns, and homage to Sophia turn out to be not really Sophia worship after all. She who is called a she and a goddess, is not really a she or a goddess after all, but only a metaphor for the triune God we all love. If we don’t care for what a word suggests (such as atonement), we simply redefine the word so that it is acceptable.

Thus, we protect one of the cardinal virtues of modernity: absolute tolerance, meaning that anything—no matter how bizarre—should be considered as acceptable, indeed, should be celebrated in the ongoing search for truth.

In such a climate, the H-word is to be considered not only inappropriate, but disallowed. It is a violation of the spirit of the age. It is to be judged as judgmental and not tolerated because it is intolerant.

3. The logical consequence of declaring heresy inappropriate is to conclude that if there is division or dissension in the church, it is not because of heresy, but because of heresy-hunters.

In former times it seemed logical that bishops, seminary professors, and church leaders would defend our commonly held doctrine against contrary opinions which would divide and cause dissension. No more. If there is a problem in the church, it is with those who argue that seminary professors, bishops, and church leaders ought to defend the doctrine. The problem is not with heretics, but with witch-hunters. It is not with blasphemy, but with those so narrow-minded they believe blasphemy exists.

One might suppose that when division and dissension is disallowed in the name of tolerance, creativity, “new winds of the spirit,” experiences, new paradigms, or whatever else is invoked as an excuse for heterodoxy, a sense of unity would prevail in the church.

The opposite, however, is true. In such a climate there is no center—there is no glue. It is hard to find common ground even for conversation. Without a common score, the voices cannot produce harmony, but merely a babel of sounds. “Unity” would imply there is some kind of covenant, shared beliefs, or values to which—with some seriousness—we have pledged ourselves. But how would such a covenant be defined today. At one time, our covenant was based around what John Wesley called the “essentials” (“In essentials, unity…”), but that covenant has been discarded.

A denomination is surely meant to be more than a common name and an apportionment system! The frequently-heard pep talks about all that holds us together have quite a hollow ring. In the words of Hans Christian Anderson: the emperor has no clothes. We pretend something that is not there. Without the H-word, boundaries are not boundaries, standards are not standards, confessions are not confessions, and unity is not unity. We divide into caucus groups, interest groups, and social groups; then conduct tribal warfare. This is not a coming together as a church, but a splintering.

Restoring the H-word in itself is not the answer, of course. The answer is to gather around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone that can bring us together. When we are committed to him in obedience to his word, we will find focus for ministry and direction as a church. We will become so bold that the H-word will no longer be an embarrassment for us.

Riley B. Case is pastor of St. Luke’s United Methodist Church in Kokomo, Indiana. He is also a Good News board member and a contributing editor to Good News magazine.

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Join Our Mailing List!

Click here to sign up to our email lists:

•Perspective Newsletter (weekly)
• Transforming Congregations Newsletter (monthly)
• Renew Newsletter (monthly)

Make a Gift

Global Methodist Church

Is God Calling You For More?

Blogs

Latest Articles: