Ship of Fools: Is Heresy Outdated?

Thread: Is Heresy Outdated? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027454

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

In the light of recent threads about Modernism and the Creeds I would like to ask whether the concept of heresy is out of date? If not, why not?

ISTM that for heresy to be a credible concept there has to be (a) an agreed standard against which the correctness of particular beliefs can be tested, and (b) an agreed authority that can adjudicate on particular cases. Neither of those conditions would seem to prevail at the present time, if they ever did.

More fundamentally, one might question whether the concept should have a part to play in Christianity or any religion, given that what can be known about God is extremely limited, and for any individual, church, or religious body to claim the right to lay down what constitutes right belief is a presumption bordering on the heretical. Indeed, one’s experience of “right beliefs” across a range of topics is that such beliefs are most likely wrong!

The more one thinks about it the more one comes to the conclusion that “heresy” is less about the protection of faith than struggles for power within ecclesiastical structures that have little to do with the Kingdom of God.

It is not that I don’t think certain ideas are more credible than others and that some theological ideas are nutty and erroneous, but that these issues can be discussed and debated, in many cases producing a high level of consensus within and across churches, without a resort to “heresy” and its associated expulsions and sanctions against those holding minority opions at any given time.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

In a postmodern, pluralistic religious environment the notion of Christian heresy does seem problematic. Liturgies, creeds and doctrinal statements give structure to religious institutions and rituals, and they remind members of their history, but in reality most Christian organisations seem to have resigned themselves to a membership that increasingly creates its own meaning from the range of religious resources available.

Moreover, there's less and less enthusiasm for religious teaching. People don't want to attend church every week let alone twice on Sunday, and books on religion don't sell in huge numbers. So if people are heretics, that's because they're not being taught exactly what it means to believe. People aren't attending church for that kind of precision, but for other reasons. And those who don't attend but claim to be believers are developing highly personalised forms of faith that take little account of denominational dos and don'ts.

In any case, I never hear the term 'heresy' used in any serious sense about people in the church today. It only comes up in abstract discussions like this - or in humorous comments. Most of our clergy wouldn't dream of offending their members by calling them 'heretics'. I know a minister who's set up a popular discussion forum entitled 'Heretics Anonymous', but there's no hint of disapproval or censure in the title - just an acknowledgement that some people don't have a very orthodox faith. Maybe evangelical churches are still a bit worried about this, but even they have to take it carefully, I'm sure, because it's so easy just to take your 'heresy' and be welcomed into some other church - or not bother at all! These days we go before being pushed.

[ 20. July 2014, 23:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Heresy is anathema to evidence-based knowledge, on which so much of modern society is based. It's inevitable that a concept of "right" belief, rooted in authority, will be used to suppress and reject counter-evidence.

Any belief ought to be decided wholly on its merits. If someone wants to call themselves a Christian while they worship Thor and Odin, their opinion ought to fall based on the poverty of their argument, not a decree. If it doesn't fall, perhaps there's something to be said for turning Christianity into a Vikings cosplay. [Biased]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Heresy is indeed out of date and yet it persists. Why? Money can be made by resurrecting a heresy and doing one of two things. One, pretend it's what Christians believed all along until the Nicene Christians convinced the Roman Empire to kill every last person with an opposing view. Unfortunately, all the evidence to support this contention was either lost when an angry mob of Christians burned the library of Alexandria or remains hidden by the Vatican. Money making option two calls for writing a book claiming that an idea over a century old is really cutting edge scholarship.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

It's just as imporant today, if not even more so. Neither does it matter if those outside don't consider the authority valid or relevant. The reason for this is because such things are for the benefit of those inside, not those outside.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The more one thinks about it the more one comes to the conclusion that “heresy” is less about the protection of faith than struggles for power within ecclesiastical structures that have little to do with the Kingdom of God.

If you'll pardon my saying this, I think you may mean that the more you think about it, the more you come to that conclusion. [Biased]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Heresy as a concept is only valid if you accept that the arguments of xxx are still equally valid today. It is actually nothing to do with the belief itself, but the authority that we trust.

So the reason that I reject a particular belief is not because xxx has declared this to be heresy, but because their arguments - and others that I explore - make sense to me, and I can see why this belief does not make sense, does not conform to thw authorities that I accept.

The declaration of zzz as a heretical belief does very little, I think, because I don't want anyone to reject a belief because I say it is wrong, but because they have understood why it is wrong.

And, of course, what I consider heretical others will consider core aspects of their faith. So I would consider PSA as the only interpretation of atonement to be "heretical" - or wrong - whereas others would treat this as a bellwether of acceptable belief.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I think that there is a place for the concept, but perhaps not always the word. In a search for truth there will always arise ideas that are false. When certain truths have been settled and affirmed, such as those contained in the Nicene Creed, then rejecting those truths places you outside of what can reasonably be considered orthodox belief. The consequences of that are open to debate, however, I'm not sure I'm convinced that a flaw in someone's understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity is sufficient to condemn someone to hell, as Athanasius would have it.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

Vital to the old understanding of heresy (and why it's important) is that there is a well-defined true faith, and that if you believe wrong versions of it then very bad things will happen to you (such as eternal damnation). If you accept that, then it's very important to come down like a ton of bricks on anyone teaching heresy.

If, on the other hand, you don't believe in eternal damnation or you believe that a loving and merciful god would take a loving and merciful approach to deciding whom to condemn, then there's not much point in the concept of heresy.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

I hate heresy - by which I mean using the word as an accusation, as a label, as a boundary marker. I think most use of the word springs from a perceived need to tightly define who is 'in' and who is 'out'; you're 'in' if you can subscribe to this set of core beliefs (which will be of greater or lesser length and detail, across all the different Christian groupings).

It puts all the emphasis on right profession of doctrine (orthodoxy) rather than on right action (orthopraxy); while I think Jesus and the NT writers place far more emphasis on the latter.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

My journey of faith has been one of those cliched left-to-right affairs - by which I mean I think I am becoming more conservative as I get older. In part this may be because as one (sorry, I!) get(s) older, the more I sense that often novel developments with a shitty outcome turn out, if I can be bothered to do some reading, to not be very novel at all.

When I was young, I saw statements of orthodoxy and their corollary as restrictive, perhaps based in fear, and not at all attractive to a truth-seeker like me. Now I feel old, and the realisation that minds much greater than mine saw some of the shit coming a long time ago and tried to steer us away from it, I find peculiarly comforting.

This makes most sense to me in light of my sig, rather than as the fearful clinging onto cloistered orthodoxy / purity I once felt pushed into as a young person. Who wouldn't want to diminish their pain?

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

quote:
Question Authority!!!

Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :

As long as we believe that there is such a thing as Truth, by definition we also have to believe there is such a thing as “heresy”.

If I were to set up a church & declare: “You can only be a Christian if you (a) earn at least £10,000 per year (b) speak the Queen’s English or (c) use apple rather than Microsoft”; to prove that I was wrong you would in the end have to call me a heretic (although you might dislike that term).

OK, no-one is make such assertions (deliberately fanciful for sake of illustration), but those who make other, more contentious assertions can also be said to be incorrect because we believe there is a standard to be measured against. If the idea of heresy is dropped, we also give up on the idea that there is any such thing as Truth.

WHO make the declaration “Heretic” is, however, more difficult. But that is to argue about Authority, not about Heresy.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
As long as we believe that there is such a thing as Truth, by definition we also have to believe there is such a thing as “heresy”.

Why can't we just say there's such a thing as 'error'? ISTM that the use of the word 'heresy' is often intended to close down discussion, with the subtext being 'get in line and don't question the authority figures', whoever or whatever the particular grouping considers to be its 'authority figures'.

That's why I hate the word 'heresy', I think; the implication that we're supposed to outright reject such things and close our ears to any arguments in their favour.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

It puts all the emphasis on right profession of doctrine (orthodoxy) rather than on right action (orthopraxy); while I think Jesus and the NT writers place far more emphasis on the latter.

Bing! Bing! Bing! SCK wins the thread!
Seriously.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Most errors do not rise to the level of heresy. Chalcedonian Christianity has been the orthodox Christian position for about 1700 years now. It is settled. No new argument will justify overturning that position. If you want to accept and teach something contrary to that, you'll be teaching something other than Christianity as it's been understood for nearly two thousand years. What does that mean practically for a heretic? Only that orthodox Christians should treat them the same way they treat non Christians. In this day and age, that means very little unless you actually seek holy orders or some other position of leadership within the church.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
My journey of faith has been one of those cliched left-to-right affairs - by which I mean I think I am becoming more conservative as I get older. In part this may be because as one (sorry, I!) get(s) older, the more I sense that often novel developments with a shitty outcome turn out, if I can be bothered to do some reading, to not be very novel at all.

When I was young, I saw statements of orthodoxy and their corollary as restrictive, perhaps based in fear, and not at all attractive to a truth-seeker like me. Now I feel old, and the realisation that minds much greater than mine saw some of the shit coming a long time ago and tried to steer us away from it, I find peculiarly comforting.

This makes most sense to me in light of my sig, rather than as the fearful clinging onto cloistered orthodoxy / purity I once felt pushed into as a young person. Who wouldn't want to diminish their pain?

I always wonder if this really is the norm, as I have gone the other way, and I know quite a few people who also have. For me, it's the orthodoxy which might stifle; not inevitably, so I will estimate orthodox ideas as much as left-field ones. I suppose I just began to think my own thoughts, and found that they didn't coincide with orthodoxy. This also represents a kind of separation from the collective, which is a kind of rite of passage for some.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

It puts all the emphasis on right profession of doctrine (orthodoxy) rather than on right action (orthopraxy); while I think Jesus and the NT writers place far more emphasis on the latter.
Bing! Bing! Bing! SCK wins the thread!
Seriously.

Actually orthodoxy doesn't mean right doctrine but rather right glory. Anyway, SCK has made a false dichotomy in puting one above the other. The Apostle makes it clear that what we believe does actually matter.

[ 21. July 2014, 15:09: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Bing! Bing! Bing! SCK wins the thread!
Seriously.

Thanks!

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Actually orthodoxy doesn't mean right doctrine but rather right glory.

Sure, that's the derivation of the word. But what it means, at least in everyday usage, is indeed 'right belief' or 'right doctrine', surely?

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Anyway, SCK has made a false dichotomy in puting one above the other. The Apostle makes it clear that what we believe does actually matter.

I simply said that the New Testament speaks far more of right action than it does of right doctrine, whereas we Christians often do the reverse. Where's the dichotomy? I don't mean to imply right doctrine is irrelevant or doesn't matter. Sorry if my words gave that impression....

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Most errors do not rise to the level of heresy. Chalcedonian Christianity has been the orthodox Christian position for about 1700 years now. It is settled.

Certainly it is being settled now that the anti-Chalcedonian churches are being wiped out in the Middle East. (Though the Ethiopian Church I think is going strong.)

Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
As long as we believe that there is such a thing as Truth, by definition we also have to believe there is such a thing as “heresy”.
Why can't we just say there's such a thing as 'error'?

I agree that the word has a lot of "baggage" (I never expected the Spanish Inquisition...) but again that is a different argument.

Heresy is much more specific than "error". A web search revealed:

"we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth"

This is a very specific definition, whereas we all are in error a lot of the time. If people are using the word heretic/heresy, say, about a dead horse, they are using the word incorrectly.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
"we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth"

Doesn't this pretty much let out... virtually everyone, at least from our earthly perspective? "Yes, I know this is revealed truth, but I'm going to deliberately and consciously embrace a LIE! Muhuhuhahahahahaha!!" (twirls moustache) Not that we don't do that on some level, but I think it's pretty much something God can see in people but we can't. You don't get memoirs from people saying, "Yes, I knew the traditional position was right, but I just wanted to believe this other thing."

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Several people seem to agree that one person's heresy is another person's orthodoxy. The most one can say about a given statement is that it would or would not be considered heretical by this or that group of Christians.

Are there statements that would be considered heretical by, say, 95 per cent of Christians?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Most errors do not rise to the level of heresy. Chalcedonian Christianity has been the orthodox Christian position for about 1700 years now. It is settled.
Certainly it is being settled now that the anti-Chalcedonian churches are being wiped out in the Middle East. (Though the Ethiopian Church I think is going strong.)

Those churches represent less than one percent of Christianity and have little claim to being universal. Still, change Chalcedonian to Nicene and that's pretty much everybody. Obviously, it doesn't include everybody who calls themselves a Christian. However, the statement, "We believe in God," would eliminate (unfairly they might add) some folks who call themselves Christians. I'm OK with that. Heck, the Ethiopian and Coptic Christians are OK with that too.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

I don't think the concept of heresy is irrelevant, but as others have pointed out, in today's religious marketplace, where church is no longer synonymous with society, it's more a matter of opinion, isn't it? If my church were to declare me a heretic (fat chance), I could just find another church more to my liking. Or, this being America, get ordained online and start my own. Hmmm...

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
"we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth"

"Revealed truth" is only a euphemism for whatever your institution happens to consider orthodox. It has nothing to do with truth in any other context (beyond of course the claim to have equal status).

Jesus was a heretic. He was about "life in all its fullness", not conformity to the religious expectations of his time. If the essence of Christianity is what Jesus was about, any institution that demands more has become in effect a sub-Christian sect, detracting from the essence of the tradition it claims to represent.

If that's all institutional Christianity has become, its only heretics who maintain the core of the tradition.

[ 21. July 2014, 21:01: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Dave Marshall

quote:
Jesus was a heretic.

An interesting point, but one is not certain that was the case. The charge against Jesus was one of blasphemy, as in the later case of Stephen. What makes heresy similar to blasphemy is that its expression is regarded as insulting to God and brings upon the perpetrator severe sanction in this life, and often eternal damnation in the next. Heresy is not simply about being wrong or mistaken, but the expression of opinions that bring about negative consequences.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Indeed Jesus was a heretic. As a result, I do not claim to be a Jew. Not only that but I have no problem with Jews telling Jews for Jesus types that they aren't Jews.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Not only that but I have no problem with Jews telling Jews for Jesus types that they aren't Jews.

I'm a Christian, and I am also a Jew by blood, and I'm not giving up either of those. And no one can take away my heritage and bloodline no matter how hard they try.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:

Are there statements that would be considered heretical by, say, 95 per cent of Christians?

How about: "there is no god but God, and Mohammed is his prophet"? Particularly the second part.

Also, "Jesus never really died on the cross he just pretended to".

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Several people seem to agree that one person's heresy is another person's orthodoxy. The most one can say about a given statement is that it would or would not be considered heretical by this or that group of Christians.

To an extent that's true, for we all know that truth isn't determined by the number of it's adherents. Arianism, for instance, was still a heresy even when it looked liked it might prevail - and it almost did.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Arianism, for instance, was still a heresy even when it looked liked it might prevail - and it almost did.

And if it had prevailed, you would now be telling us all about how terrible the heresy of Trinitarianism was, and how good it is that the Holy Spirit had guided the church so well in order to defeat it.

Heresy, like history, is defined by the winners.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Clap,clap,clap.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Arianism, for instance, was still a heresy even when it looked liked it might prevail - and it almost did.
And if it had prevailed, you would now be telling us all about how terrible the heresy of Trinitarianism was, and how good it is that the Holy Spirit had guided the church so well in order to defeat it.

Heresy, like history, is defined by the winners.

If one happens to have a low opinion of the Holy Spirit, perhaps. Even if Arianism had "won" it would still have been a heresy.

Anyway, my point was that what is orthodox and what is heterodox can be viewed relatively. Objectively, however, heresy remains heresy even if it happens to "win". Should there have been only one bishop left confessing the orthodox faith, the Church would still have existed, and that the orthodox faith triumphed, I would argue, is proof that it is from God.

[ 22. July 2014, 12:02: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Obsession with finding heresies and heretics is heretical in my αἵρεσις. YMMV.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Orthodoxy is simply the name for the predominant and ascendant theology. The Truth is unknowable. All theologies are a pale, pale, pale attempt at discerning Truth.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Orthodoxy is simply the name for the predominant and ascendant theology. The Truth is unknowable. All theologies are a pale, pale, pale attempt at discerning Truth.

If it's unknowable then why bother? Isn't rather like the blind leaving the blind, and I have to say it betrays a rather low opinion of the Holy Spirit.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
The Truth is unknowable.

It depends what you mean by capitalised Truth. If something like "all truth" then I'd agree, but then it's only a truism.

For uncapitalised truth, rather than assume that of itself it has some reality (that may or may not be discoverable), it makes more sense to me to think of it as a description of reality, where reality is how things are.

We can (uniquely) know our own subjective reality. We can usually rely on objective reality as far as we can agree a generally valid description of some feature of the universe. It's ultimate reality that is unknowable, with objective reality the only useful foundation for our speculation about it.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Latchkey Kid,

I think I know what you said, but not everyone can transliterate Greek letters, nor should they have to, so please translate your Greek in the future.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Latchkey Kid,

I think I know what you said, but not everyone can transliterate Greek letters, nor should they have to, so please translate your Greek in the future.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

Can I also suggest the same for abreviations? Not all of us, especially those of us over thirty, are familiar with text speak. What the hell is "YMMV"?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Can I also suggest the same for abreviations? Not all of us, especially those of us over thirty, are familiar with text speak. What the hell is "YMMV"?

Your Mileage May Vary, i.e., your experience (or opinion) may be different.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

<tangent>There's also this thread for abbreviations</tangent>

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If one happens to have a low opinion of the Holy Spirit, perhaps.

I don't have a low opinion of the Holy Spirit at all. What I have a low opinion of is the church, or to be more exact the band of fuckwits, liars and power-mad wannabe-dictators that have been in charge of it since roughly five minutes after Jesus ascended. Even the Holy Spirit can have a hard time getting that brood of vipers to do what She wants them to do.

quote:
Even if Arianism had "won" it would still have been a heresy.

Not really, because heresy has to be declared by the church and the church would have declared it to be true doctrine. And you would automatically agree with it, because that's what you do.

quote:
Anyway, my point was that what is orthodox and what is heterodox can be viewed relatively. Objectively, however, heresy remains heresy even if it happens to "win".

FWIW (and notwithstanding my previous comment) I agree with that. It's just that I happen to think that heresy has won on a number of occasions, whereas you refuse to countenance even the possibility of that being the case.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Perhaps the concept of heresy is quite valid, but associations with things like torturing people for heresy are so strong that we should be careful how we use the term.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
As long as we believe that there is such a thing as Truth, by definition we also have to believe there is such a thing as “heresy”.
Why can't we just say there's such a thing as 'error'? ISTM that the use of the word 'heresy' is often intended to close down discussion, with the subtext being 'get in line and don't question the authority figures', whoever or whatever the particular grouping considers to be its 'authority figures'.

That's why I hate the word 'heresy', I think; the implication that we're supposed to outright reject such things and close our ears to any arguments in their favour.

Yes yes and yes.

"Heresy" is always used as a scare word to close down discussion and to force people into line. As such it is a tool to inflict an abuse of power. It is also a tool which is used by people out of fear - especially the fear that people in power have of losing power over their minions.

We should be encouraging people to explore and to question - as it is through this route that people will come to a faith that they can genuinely own and which will sustain and nourish them over time.

Now it is perfectly legitimate to argue your case along the lines of "historically, the Christian Church has examined this idea and, for xxxx reasons has concluded that it is not adequate and so has rejected such a position." But I don't think it is ever good to baldly state "you can't believe that - it's a heresy."

If the historic beliefs of the Christian Church are sound, they can stand up to continued probing.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Arianism, for instance, was still a heresy even when it looked liked it might prevail - and it almost did.
And if it had prevailed, you would now be telling us all about how terrible the heresy of Trinitarianism was, and how good it is that the Holy Spirit had guided the church so well in order to defeat it.

Heresy, like history, is defined by the winners.

Had the Arianism become orthodoxy then Trinitarianism would be a bad thing. If you recognize the Holy Spirit as guiding the councils, then it follows that if Arianism became and remained the accepted position that the Holy Spirit guided the church in defeating it. Plus, the Roman emperors at the time were partial to Arianism so casting the Arians as underdogs trampled and marginalized by the more politically powerful Trinitarians is a bit of a stretch.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Beeswax Altar

That is precisely the sort of rhetoric Marvin is talking about. You are making his case for him.

Jengie

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I guess I am.

On the issue of Trinitarianism being heresy if declared heresy by Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus...

Marvin is right.

Ad Orientem is wrong.

I'm consistent. [Big Grin]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I'm not seeing that at all, Jengie--I think Beeswax is spot on, and his correction of Marvin's historiographic misapprehension is not rhetorical. It's a statement of verifiable fact. At one point Athanasius stood against practically the entire hierarchy of Church and State in defense of orthodoxy. The Arians were not poor persecuted underdogs.

If you want to argue that orthodoxy is merely a political mechanism of exclusion, that's fine. The argument can be made, and IIRC Averil Cameron has made it pretty eloquently. As her writing demonstrates, however, you need to support your thesis with more than lazy cynicism and foggy postmodernism.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Roughly, the modern equivalent of 'Arianism' is the 'Unitarian' denomination, and also quite a few on the 'liberal' wings of the mainstream churches who deny the deity of Jesus.

Judging by the state of both those movements, had Arianism won, we wouldn't be "...telling ... about how terrible the heresy of Trinitarianism was" because there wouldn't be much of a Church to be telling it in. The concept of 'heresy' is not so very arbitrary, but very practical.

I'm in agreement with what seems to be the consensus here that persecution of heresy by state churches is not appropriate.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Steve Langton: I'm in agreement with what seems to be the consensus here that persecution of heresy by state churches is not appropriate.

That's putting it mildly.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I'm not seeing that at all, Jengie--I think Beeswax is spot on, and his correction of Marvin's historiographic misapprehension is not rhetorical. It's a statement of verifiable fact. At one point Athanasius stood against practically the entire hierarchy of Church and State in defense of orthodoxy. The Arians were not poor persecuted underdogs.

That's pretty irrelevant to my statement, which was that heresy is defined by the winners. It doesn't matter what their odds of winning were before the fight started.

quote:
If you want to argue that orthodoxy is merely a political mechanism of exclusion, that's fine.

It's a political mechanism by which the ones holding power in a church ensure that they will continue to hold on to that power. It's not so much about Truth as it is about who gets to define Truth (and, not coincidentally, therefore gets to live in a nice big palace).

Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :

If I may make an observation....

Most of the arguments made against the concept of "heresy" have been about the unhelpful/inappropriate/wrong use of the term in some sort of disagreement.

Somebody wants to argue a point, have a discussion etc and are shouted down by someone probably from a big institution, who yells "You can't say that, it's heresy!", translated as "I'm in charge, if you disagree with me you're out!"

I have never experienced this abuse of authority myself in the church, but have no doubt that it happens. It is wrong.

But however bad this may be, to put forward the argument "well, there's no such thing as heresy, that went out with the Ark!" does not help. Because in the end it is to be on the side of Pilate against Jesus (John 18:37-38).

The answer to this "bad behaviour" is to challenge the wrong use of power and authority, which is totally against the way Christian authority should be exercised (cf Matt 20:25-27)

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's not so much about Truth as it is about who gets to define Truth (and, not coincidentally, therefore gets to live in a nice big palace).

I happen to know that the apartment for the Archibishop of Canterbury within the Lambeth Palace complex is quite small. When Rowan Williams moved in with his family, it was quite cramped. The size was probably based on the assumption that archibishops of Canterbury are generally of an age not to have children of school age. You do get the use of the second largest private garden in central London (Buckingham Palace has the largest) but this use is shared with others also living onsite in Lambeth Palace Mews. There is a library, chapel and many offices within the buildings, as well as rooms required for the public functions of the archbishop. Rowan Williams is probably better off living in the master's lodge at Magdalene College, Cambridge.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Saying that orthodoxy only exists so that people can wear big shiny hats and live in palaces is like saying that people only vote UKIP because they don't want to pay the minimum wage. Even if one conceded that the whole thing were merely ideological it ignores a whole range of human motivation that isn't about self-aggrandisement and personal power.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Saying that orthodoxy only exists so that people can wear big shiny hats and live in palaces is like saying that people only vote UKIP because they don't want to pay the minimum wage. Even if one conceded that the whole thing were merely ideological it ignores a whole range of human motivation that isn't about self-aggrandisement and personal power.

I'm sure tribalism and fear of change played a big part as well. Hell, there may even have been a couple who genuinely believed it was God's will, bless 'em.

But for the most part, I'm pretty sure it was about power and control. Just like most of the rest of human history.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Hegemony, innit?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Basically, as with so many of these things, it all boils down to ecclesiology. What is the role of the Church in defining the faith? Obviously, if one holds to a high ecclesiology then he Church has that authority directly from Jesus Christ himself. If one happens to have a low ecclesiology, then you'll probably think that's bollocks, but then for such I would ask on what authority they accept the Creed, for instance.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Basically, as with so many of these things, it all boils down to ecclesiology. What is the role of the Church in defining the faith? Obviously, if one holds to a high ecclesiology then he Church has that authority directly from Jesus Christ himself. If one happens to have a low ecclesiology, then you'll probably think that's bollocks, but then for such I would ask on what authority they accept the Creed, for instance.

This makes sense to me, also. An invisible church would appear to have no authority to define sound theology vs. heresy. It's hard for me to see how, without a high ecclesiology, it's not "every man for himself" (or woman).

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I have been trying to think of a reference to heresy in the Old Testament. Is the idea of heresy mostly a New Testament and later development?

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
An invisible church would appear to have no authority to define sound theology vs. heresy.

An "invisible church" in your sense would not have authority to define what must be believed, but it could still be an authority on the Christian tradition and how theology has been done historically. It could become an authority on doing theology now.

No-one who likes church as it is will want that, so it's easy to dismiss the possibility because its unlikely to happen. But there's no problem in principle with creating an entirely different model of church that needs no concept of heresy.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But for the most part, I'm pretty sure it was about power and control. Just like most of the rest of human history.

Jesus warned us about the World. He warned us about the dangers of wealth and earthly power. We can't say we didn't know... [Frown]

this, too, shall pass

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Basically, as with so many of these things, it all boils down to ecclesiology. What is the role of the Church in defining the faith? Obviously, if one holds to a high ecclesiology then he Church has that authority directly from Jesus Christ himself. If one happens to have a low ecclesiology, then you'll probably think that's bollocks, but then for such I would ask on what authority they accept the Creed, for instance.
This makes sense to me, also. An invisible church would appear to have no authority to define sound theology vs. heresy. It's hard for me to see how, without a high ecclesiology, it's not "every man for himself" (or woman).

I think it's more nuanced than that. I get how it would be much easier to just be a sola church Christian, just as it would be to be a sola scriptura Christian. My conscience allows me to be neither. This does not mean that I think the church has no authority to define sound theology, nor that defining theology is a totally individualistic "every man for himself" process. It's about taking all those factors - scripture, tradition / church, experience, progressive understanding, revelation, reason, putting them in a mixing pot and seeing what comes out the other side. Some of those factors are individualistic, some are corporate - some are a mix, just as the process itself can be an individual or corporate one.

It's simply acknowledging that the church can get it wrong, just as the writers of scripture could get it wrong, just as we get it wrong. But despite that, with the Holy Spirit's guidance, it's still possible to get things right.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

To Goperryrevs:

(I'm not going to quote your whole post because it's right there and I"m responding to the whole thing rather than individual parts; no offense intended)

I'm pretty sure I understand all the points you're making (not saying I agree with all of them), but then the question remains: does the church you describe, or anybody in it or within hailing distance of it, have the authority to declare something heretical? Or is the notion of declaring things heretical not really a part of this ecclesiology?

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I have been trying to think of a reference to heresy in the Old Testament. Is the idea of heresy mostly a New Testament and later development?

Heresy was much more physical in the Old Testament. Look for prohibitions of worshiping Moloch, Asherah, or Baal. The Golden Calf in Exodus was heresy. The first commandment, "You shall have no gods before me" is a prohibition of heresy.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

MT, OFFENCE TAKEN. No wait, I mean the opposite...

quote:
does the church you describe, or anybody in it or within hailing distance of it, have the authority to declare something heretical? Or is the notion of declaring things heretical not really a part of this ecclesiology?

To unpack that question, first of all I'd say that the 'what is church?' thread is pertinent. It'd be nice to be able to give a straightforward answer to that question, but for me, it's incredibly complicated. The invisible church doesn't comprise or encompass one denomoniation or expression of christianity. The story of the church involves Orthodox, Arians, Catholics, Nestorians, Coptics, Protestants, Anabaptists, Latter Day Saints, Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses and more. We're all part of that story. That's not to say that I don't think that some of those groups have got things incredibly wrong (or better, all of those groups have got some things incredibly wrong). It's just acknowledging complexity where it exists.

So, yes, I do believe heresy exists. In terms of 'the church' declaring something heretical, I have a couple of problems with that. Firstly, which church, and on what terms? Given the complicated nature of the story of the church, this is also not an easy question to answer. Secondly, the idea of 'declaring' heresy suggests that it is the church that decides right teaching from wrong teaching. I would say that recognising, acknowledging - or better, discerning heresy would be a much better description. The church doesn't get to decide what is heretical or not, but it is right that the gathering of christians should aim to discern dangerous teaching from healing teaching. That discernment process involves all the factors I mentioned earlier.

It would be so much easier for me to do what Ad Orientem (and I presume, you) do, and say "this is the one true church, the others are all in error". For me, though, that would involve such a massive amount of cognitive dissonance that it would be impossible. So, instead, I'm left with this muddiness and complexity.

As for the word 'heresy', I'm with SCK in that I'd much prefer that we use the word 'error' these days. Heresy is such a loaded, baggage-ridden word, laden with inhumane and unchristian barbaric treatments of fellow people, christian or not, over the centuries. In the same way that I could never understand why a christian youth movement thought it was a good idea to call themselves 'crusaders' (why not 'jihadists'?), throwing the word 'heresy' around is simply counterproductive, given its history.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Discerning heresy, rather than declaring it. I like that a lot. [Smile]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This makes sense to me, also. An invisible church would appear to have no authority to define sound theology vs. heresy. It's hard for me to see how, without a high ecclesiology, it's not "every man for himself" (or woman).

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

In Orthodoxy, at least, the struggles of the Church against heresy is still relevant to us, is still before our eyes, as we celebrate the Triumph of Orthodoxy in our liturgy. This has been forgotten my most other Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_Orthodoxy

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:
Heresy was much more physical in the Old Testament. Look for prohibitions of worshiping Moloch, Asherah, or Baal. The Golden Calf in Exodus was heresy. The first commandment, "You shall have no gods before me" is a prohibition of heresy.

Surely that's a prohibition against Apostasy, not heresy? There's a fairly substantive distinction between worshipping Moloch and holding that there was a time when Christ was not.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by ;

quote:
In the same way that I could never understand why a christian youth movement thought it was a good idea to call themselves 'crusaders' (why not 'jihadists'?), throwing the word 'heresy' around is simply counterproductive, given its history.

In the early 1900s when the Crusaders Union was formed, Britain was still a pretty unquestioned 'Christian country' and the Crusades were still viewed as respectable by most Westerners. Remember that only a few years after the Crusaders were formed European powers went into a World War in which both sides were claiming to be fighting a holy cause ('Gott mit Uns' on the German side, and a variety of similar statements on the English side). Also at that time Islam was pretty weak.

It was still ultimately wrong and as a former Crusader member I now realise the name wasn't as good as it still sounded in the 1950s/60s - though the teaching I received was pretty good.

Te Crusaders Union has (quite a few years ago now) been rebranded as 'Urban Saints' - I'm somewhat out of touch on exactly what it does nowadays.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Oops! - forgot to go back and check so I could credit Goperryrevs with the original quote I was commenting on.... Sorry!

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Heresy was much more physical in the Old Testament. Look for prohibitions of worshiping Moloch, Asherah, or Baal. The Golden Calf in Exodus was heresy. The first commandment, "You shall have no gods before me" is a prohibition of heresy.

But wouldn't the word 'idolatry' best describe all these activities - the pursuit, love or worship of anything in preference to Yahweh God? I think 'apostasy', which Gildas just suggested, is another pretty loaded word. Is idolatry less so? It feels that way to me. (Not a less harsh accusation, to be clear, just perhaps a more straightforward one. Maybe...)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Heresy was much more physical in the Old Testament. Look for prohibitions of worshiping Moloch, Asherah, or Baal. The Golden Calf in Exodus was heresy. The first commandment, "You shall have no gods before me" is a prohibition of heresy.
But wouldn't the word 'idolatry' best describe all these activities - the pursuit, love or worship of anything in preference to Yahweh God?

Aaron doesn't say, "Here's another god to worship." he says, "This is your god, who brought you up out of Egypt." How do you know the golden calf isn't a representation of God? Because the invisible God cannot be depicted in images like golden calves. To think he can be is heresy.

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

That the concept of heresy is questioned shows it is more needed than ever.

To defend truth, one must call out and refute falsehood. It has been so since the earliest church fathers and before.

Certainly, we should not burn heretics. But we sure as heck should not make them bishops, either.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
That the concept of heresy is questioned shows it is more needed than ever.

To defend truth, one must call out and refute falsehood. It has been so since the earliest church fathers and before.

Certainly, we should not burn heretics. But we sure as heck should not make them bishops, either.

Indeed.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Aaron doesn't say, "Here's another god to worship." he says, "This is your god, who brought you up out of Egypt." How do you know the golden calf isn't a representation of God? Because the invisible God cannot be depicted in images like golden calves. To think he can be is heresy.

So what is the difference between heresy and idolatry? Is idolatry a subset of heresy, if you like; of all the wildly, dangerously incorrect beliefs about God (my crude definition of heresy), the act of putting something else in his place is what specifically gets called idolatry.

Then again, and as already asked, is the concept of heresy even in the Old Testament? What is the Hebrew for 'heresy', as distinct from 'idolatry'? I gather the Greek word, from which the English word is just a transliteration, is derived from the regular Greek word for 'priest'. Hmm, ironic that on one of the few occasions a 'religious' word gets used for a 'religious' purpose in the NT, it's to describe something very negative...

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
To defend truth, one must call out and refute falsehood. It has been so since the earliest church fathers and before.

But falsehood and heresy are two different things, aren't they? You wouldn't automatically describe anyone who believes something a bit off from orthodoxy as a heretic, would you? And, just as important, who gets to label beliefs and people as heretical. The people with the (religious) power, ISTM, and that makes me very nervous.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by South Coast Kevin;

quote:
So what is the difference between heresy and idolatry?

I think that among God's people 'idolatry' in the sense of creating something like the golden calf to represent the infinite God and be worshipped, is also 'heresy'.

But idolatry is also a wider word referring to the 'made-up' gods of paganism, whether those gods are represented by a physical idol or not.

On the 'what is church' thread I've recently explored the way that certain forms of 'liberal Christian' theology create a kind of 'conceptual idol' by rejecting Scripture teaching and preferring their own reasoning, creating an 'our Jesus' with little connection to any historical Jesus. That too is both idolatry and heresy.

In general, 'heresy' is a term within a religion, referring to variants within the religion rather than the views of a different religion altogether. This isn't always straightforward - arguably Christianity is a 'heresy' from a Jewish viewpoint.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'd argue that whilst heresy and idolatry can be coterminous, there is a subtle difference.

We can make idols of legitimate things too. We can idolise what we see as 'sound doctrine' for instance - and we can idolise our own 'orthodoxy' too.

We can even make an idol of the scriptures.

We have to be careful with all these things.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by SCK;

quote:
I gather the Greek word, from which the English word is just a transliteration, is derived from the regular Greek word for 'priest'.

I double- checked in case my memory was faulty; no, 'heresy' is not related to 'hieros/priest' but to a word meaning 'choose' - a heresy is in effect a belief 'chosen' over against what considers itself the standard belief.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
We can make idols of legitimate things too. We can idolise what we see as 'sound doctrine' for instance - and we can idolise our own 'orthodoxy' too. We can even make an idol of the scriptures.

Oh yes, definitely. Sorry I wasn't clear - putting anything before Yahweh God himself is idolatry, IMO; whether it be another god, a physical representation of Yahweh, personal happiness, material goods, the Bible, orthodox doctrine, your family, your job....

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I double- checked in case my memory was faulty; no, 'heresy' is not related to 'hieros/priest' but to a word meaning 'choose' - a heresy is in effect a belief 'chosen' over against what considers itself the standard belief.

Thanks for that, Mr Langton Sir. My mistake... [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Would a physical representation of Christ be idolatry, then South Coast Kevin?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Would a physical representation of Christ be idolatry, then South Coast Kevin?

Do you mean a painting, a statue or something like that? I'd say definitely not idolatry in itself. But when you get into bowing to the physical representation or directing prayers to it, then I'd start advising caution.

But that's just me - I'm sure it's perfectly possible to use a picture or what-have-you of Jesus as a focus for prayer and devotion to him, without the image itself becoming the object of our worship. Sometimes I use a candle for this purpose (which is a physical object, although obviously not a physical representation of Jesus). It's a matter of the heart of each person, ISTM.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Just wondering, SCK ...

Those who use iconography would say, of course, that their veneration is being offering 'through' the object (but not without it) to the Person or persons depicted or represented.

I don't have an issue with this, although I would have done at one time. Mind you, I'd have been against candles at one time too!

[Votive]

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

Kevin, I agree that not all error is heresy. Also, there is a difference between false teaching from a church leader/teacher (or someone who claims such a position) and mistaken thinking from a learner. I remember having some off ideas as a new Christian. That certainly did not make me a heretic (Or at least I hope not.).

Sorry to be brief. Got work to do.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Those who use iconography would say, of course, that their veneration is being offering 'through' the object (but not without it) to the Person or persons depicted or represented.

Sure, if it works for some people and helps them focus on God then, fine! It just feels dubious to me, but that reflects my own spiritual heritage and probably my character, to some extent.

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Kevin, I agree that not all error is heresy. Also, there is a difference between false teaching from a church leader/teacher (or someone who claims such a position) and mistaken thinking from a learner. I remember having some off ideas as a new Christian. That certainly did not make me a heretic (Or at least I hope not.).

So what actually is heresy, do you think? (When time permits... [Smile]

)

Posted by Valarian (# 18175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
It puts all the emphasis on right profession of doctrine (orthodoxy) rather than on right action (orthopraxy); while I think Jesus and the NT writers place far more emphasis on the latter.

This is why heresy is important - to challenge the commonly held beliefs and doctrines. In the modern church (of whichever flavour), the doctrines and beliefs of the congregation are held to be more important than their behaviours and practices.

I myself hold beliefs that are not orthodox Christian. I still consider myself Christian though, even if I don't hold with the divinity of the Christ or the virgin birth. In the eyes of an orthodox believer, this may well make me a heretic. To me, I hold these beliefs through study of early Christianity and knowledge of where the doctrines come from. They have come from independent study and research of the Bible, rather than being told what to believe when reading the texts.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Valarian:
In the modern church (of whichever flavour), the doctrines and beliefs of the congregation are held to be more important than their behaviours and practices.

I don't think so, actually. Churchgoers are rarely expected to argue for and justify official church doctrines. If they were, their churches would equip them far better for the task than they do. The majority of churches offer relatively little teaching; members are expected to listen to the sermons, and are then free to go and do their own studying if they want to. Churches with small groups are probably in the minority.

It's assumed that the people who've been attending for a while are 'believers' in a more or less orthodox way, an assumption that's reinforced if the individual is particularly useful to the church community and whose behaviour suggests decency and kindness.

[ 25. July 2014, 20:45: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think so, actually. Churchgoers are rarely expected to argue for and justify official church doctrines. If they were, their churches would equip them far better for the task than they do. ...
It's assumed that the people who've been attending for a while are 'believers' in a more or less orthodox way, an assumption that's reinforced if the individual is particularly useful to the church community and whose behaviour suggests decency and kindness.

I think this really depends on the church--the kinds of churches of the "fundamentalist" variety discussed on the Fundamentalism vs Evangelicalism thread, at least in my experience, were very firmly focused on The Critical Importance of Correct Doctrine--and on being able and willing to "witness" to anyone at a moment's notice.

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Kevin, I agree that not all error is heresy. Also, there is a difference between false teaching from a church leader/teacher (or someone who claims such a position) and mistaken thinking from a learner. I remember having some off ideas as a new Christian. That certainly did not make me a heretic (Or at least I hope not.).
So what actually is heresy, do you think? (When time permits…

I've never really thought about where the boundary is between heresy and mere error.

I would say error about the basics of the Faith committed by someone in a leadership/teaching role would most certainly be a heresy. One example: denial of the Trinity by Arians and by Jehovah's Witnesses.

An unfortunate result of the 4th Lateran Council is that it made disagreement about what exactly happens during the Eucharist "heresy." And that created great problems for centuries. But I would not characterize disagreement as to how and to what extent Christ is present in the Eucharist as heresy.

But as to the exact boundary line between heresy and lesser errors, I am not sure. Perhaps we should burn most shipmates at the stake just to be safe.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I would say error about the basics of the Faith committed by someone in a leadership/teaching role would most certainly be a heresy. One example: denial of the Trinity by Arians and by Jehovah's Witnesses.

So you would not want someone who held such beliefs to be in a leadership / responsibility position over you. Fair enough, I think I'd agree (although I would happily meet, study and pray with someone like that, such as Valarian upthread - hello, newcomer! - on an equal basis).

Again, though, who gets to say what 'the basics of the Faith' are? If we want to keep heresy as a more serious category of error, someone has to make that distinction. Or do we each draw the line for ourselves - deciding individually whether we'll accept direction from someone who holds to this or that belief?

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
But as to the exact boundary line between heresy and lesser errors, I am not sure. Perhaps we should burn most shipmates at the stake just to be safe.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

ChastMastr

Oh yes, obviously. It goes without saying that evangelicalism was traditionally very concerned with gathering around the right doctrines - that was the whole point of it. But most of the world isn't evangelical (or not of that precise type). Theological understanding of internal church teachings isn't necessarily expected of most of the world's churchgoers. And most Christians aren't regularly in church anyway, so they'd have to be highly motivated to study completely on their own. I doubt that this is very common.

Of course, if people aren't attending church because they want to cleave to 'the right doctrines' then they must be attending for some other reasons.

[ 26. July 2014, 12:53: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

Again, though, who gets to say what 'the basics of the Faith' are?

Short answer: The Holy Spirit, though Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils.

Which is in line with Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the church "into all the truth."

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

Again, though, who gets to say what 'the basics of the Faith' are?
Short answer: The Holy Spirit, though Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils.

Which is in line with Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the church "into all the truth."

Two minor points. First on what grounds the "ecumenical councils"

Secondly, since when did "lead" mean you had to follow?

Jengie

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

Again, though, who gets to say what 'the basics of the Faith' are?
Short answer: The Holy Spirit, though Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils.

Which is in line with Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the church "into all the truth."
Two minor points. First on what grounds the "ecumenical councils"

Secondly, since when did "lead" mean you had to follow?

Jengie

"Minor points"? [Smile]

To go into the grounds of the ecumenical councils would take a very long post and may be a good topic for a new thread. The church does have some authority as illustrated by the Jerusalem Council in the Book of Acts.

No one has to follow. God does not make us robots. But to willfully disobey the leading of the Holy Spirit through scripture and the ecumenical councils is not something I'd advise.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

quote:
But I would not characterize disagreement as to how and to what extent Christ is present in the Eucharist as heresy.

Surely the point about heresy is that "I" do not get to define it?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

No one has to follow. God does not make us robots. But to willfully disobey the leading of the Holy Spirit through scripture and the ecumenical councils is not something I'd advise.

I think the point being made is that if we do not have to follow then how can you be certain that the ecumenical councils followed where the Holy Spirit led?

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

quote:
But I would not characterize disagreement as to how and to what extent Christ is present in the Eucharist as heresy.
Surely the point about heresy is that "I" do not get to define it?

I think we agree on that.

Arethosemyfeet, again, that is a very good question to which I am unable to do justice at this time. I think it worthy of a thread of its own.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

No one has to follow. God does not make us robots. But to willfully disobey the leading of the Holy Spirit through scripture and the ecumenical councils is not something I'd advise.
I think the point being made is that if we do not have to follow then how can you be certain that the ecumenical councils followed where the Holy Spirit led?

Why do you need to be certain? Nothing in life is certain.

Posted by Valarian (# 18175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I would say error about the basics of the Faith committed by someone in a leadership/teaching role would most certainly be a heresy. One example: denial of the Trinity by Arians and by Jehovah's Witnesses.
So you would not want someone who held such beliefs to be in a leadership / responsibility position over you. Fair enough, I think I'd agree (although I would happily meet, study and pray with someone like that, such as Valarian upthread - hello, newcomer! - on an equal basis).

Again, though, who gets to say what 'the basics of the Faith' are? If we want to keep heresy as a more serious category of error, someone has to make that distinction. Or do we each draw the line for ourselves - deciding individually whether we'll accept direction from someone who holds to this or that belief?

Indeed, are you even sure that the basics of the faith are the basics of the faith? After all, the doctrine of the Trinity wasn't formalised until the first Council of Nicaea (325 AD). The Arians weren't the first to deny the Triune nature of God. The first sect to do so would be the Ebionites, the poor ones of Jerusalem - which could arguably, from the description in Acts, be the church led by James the Just, Jesus' brother. The trinity is not in the Bible, first formulated in the 2nd Century by Tertullian in his statement of three beings (hypostases) in one substance (homoousios). It's not consistent with the Shema, and would therefore by incompatible with Jesus' own Jewish faith. To me, the Trinity is a Greco/Roman corruption of early Christianity, which happened to be passed through the council and accepted as doctrine in the 3rd Century. But that is, perhaps, another topic.

Personally, the basics of the faith for me are to: Love God with all your heart (and soul and mind) and to treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. Then to follow the ten commandments. As Rabbi Hillel says: All else is commentary, go and learn.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Valarian:
Personally, the basics of the faith for me are to: Love God with all your heart (and soul and mind) and to treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. Then to follow the ten commandments. As Rabbi Hillel says: All else is commentary, go and learn.

Those are good things but they are not particularly Christian. If those are sufficient for Christianity, then Christianity really doesn't exist except as a historical artifact.

Posted by Valarian (# 18175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Valarian:
Personally, the basics of the faith for me are to: Love God with all your heart (and soul and mind) and to treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. Then to follow the ten commandments. As Rabbi Hillel says: All else is commentary, go and learn.
Those are good things but they are not particularly Christian. If those are sufficient for Christianity, then Christianity really doesn't exist except as a historical artifact.

That is the start. The remainder is study of the Bible and following Jesus' teachings. It is the practice and the intent of the action, rather than the belief, that is important. The faith aspect is trust in God. But, to me, Jesus is not God. He is a prophet of God and the anointed messiah.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

obviously, reading the past 20 or so comments, heresy is alive and kicking.

imo the problem is that

as soon as something is written down rather than experienced. it becomes savoir/debated and mind-picked rather than being known/connaitre. Then the next person to read it thinks that he understands, but really he only has an idea in his head rather than a living experience. Then he teaches someone else, and we have the makings of a manga comic.
then when something gets really big, it inevitably becomes the focus of interest of people in power - it becomes a politicalisable power base. It's difficult to argue that the Christian faith has not been influenced in this way.

Then we have dogma

Every now and again a mystic crops up - john of the cross, julian of norwich, faustina, etc etc (there are a lot of them, many unknown) - and they manage to transcend the years of politicised distortion and intellectual cul de sacs. Inevitably, what they say is in danger of being heretical, because it flies in the face of the dogma. Hitting the line between a free-for-all and an oppressive dogma is not so easy, and most institutions waver towards the second rather than the first. So inevitably, there will always be heresy so long as this continues.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

"Dogma" doesn't have to mean "false." Some mystics are quite in tune with theological dogmas, doctrines, etc.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why do you need to be certain? Nothing in life is certain.

If nothing is certain, then surely nothing can be declared heretical?

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Seems to me that the word "heresy" describes a belief held against the conventional wisdom of the group.

So if the consensus among dieticians is that healthy eating involves minimising the amount of fat one consumes, then the idea that people should eat more fat and less carbohydrate would be heresy. And the revolutionariness of that idea should be recognisable by both sides - those who agree with or disagree with the new idea.

Those who believe that the conventional wisdom is firmly-founded (whether on sound research, divine inspiration, or just an accumulation of empirical experience) will tend to think that the fact that an idea is heretical (in this technical value-free sense) is a good reason for not taking it seriously, for classifying it with the lunatic fringe.

But anyone who really knows their subject ( whether it's diet, philosophy or anything else) should be able to argue for the conventional wisdom rather than just assuming it.

The fact is that all communities develop culture - ways of doing things, working paradigms - beyond what is strictly necessary.

And that these ways should be challenged occasionally seems no bad thing. If we're serious about any objective value, if our structures and institutions are not completely self-serving.

compare Not Invented Here syndrome...

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

To go into the grounds of the ecumenical councils would take a very long post and may be a good topic for a new thread. The church does have some authority as illustrated by the Jerusalem Council in the Book of Acts.

Not to mention Jesus giving the Apostles the authority to bind and loose.

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

The question was "Is heresy outdated?".

I would say that in most cases it is, as most Christian groups have reached the stage at which teaching is not something to be held binding over other groups of Christians. That is to say, heresy is only applicable if one holds a) true teaching to be knowable b) true teaching to be objective c) possession of authority in discerning and defining truth.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
The question was "Is heresy outdated?".

I would say that in most cases it is, as most Christian groups have reached the stage at which teaching is not something to be held binding over other groups of Christians. That is to say, heresy is only applicable if one holds a) true teaching to be knowable b) true teaching to be objective c) possession of authority in discerning and defining truth.

In most cases it isn't then. Both the Orthodox and RC would claim all three. That's most Christians.

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that the word "heresy" describes a belief held against the conventional wisdom of the group.

So if the consensus among dieticians is that healthy eating involves minimising the amount of fat one consumes, then the idea that people should eat more fat and less carbohydrate would be heresy. And the revolutionariness of that idea should be recognisable by both sides - those who agree with or disagree with the new idea.

Those who believe that the conventional wisdom is firmly-founded (whether on sound research, divine inspiration, or just an accumulation of empirical experience) will tend to think that the fact that an idea is heretical (in this technical value-free sense) is a good reason for not taking it seriously, for classifying it with the lunatic fringe.

But anyone who really knows their subject ( whether it's diet, philosophy or anything else) should be able to argue for the conventional wisdom rather than just assuming it.

The fact is that all communities develop culture - ways of doing things, working paradigms - beyond what is strictly necessary.

And that these ways should be challenged occasionally seems no bad thing. If we're serious about any objective value, if our structures and institutions are not completely self-serving.

compare Not Invented Here syndrome...

Best wishes,

Russ

I don't think so.

You seem to be describing an "unconventional thought", whereas heresies have at times been conventional and mainstream whilst the orthodoxy has been unconventional and minority.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Heresies have at times been conventional and mainstream whilst the orthodoxy has been unconventional and minority.

You may need to unpack that a little...

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
The question was "Is heresy outdated?".

I would say that in most cases it is, as most Christian groups have reached the stage at which teaching is not something to be held binding over other groups of Christians. That is to say, heresy is only applicable if one holds a) true teaching to be knowable b) true teaching to be objective c) possession of authority in discerning and defining truth.
In most cases it isn't then. Both the Orthodox and RC would claim all three. That's most Christians.

Well! Do we cut the pie left to right or top to bottom? Our only difference is whether we take 'cases' as people or denominations. Either is OK, but I think it would be more normal to consider it by denomination than by per capita.

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Heresies have at times been conventional and mainstream whilst the orthodoxy has been unconventional and minority.
You may need to unpack that a little...

If you tell me why or in what way, I might oblige!

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Heresies have at times been conventional and mainstream whilst the orthodoxy has been unconventional and minority.
You may need to unpack that a little...
If you tell me why or in what way, I might oblige!

"We are all Pelagians" according to one RC priest of my acquaintance. I'm not sure that Pelagianism has ever been official doctrine, although I accept that it might have been.

But how has officially promulgated church doctrine ever contradicted the status quo, I guess.

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
"We are all Pelagians" according to one RC priest of my acquaintance. I'm not sure that Pelagianism has ever been official doctrine, although I accept that it might have been.

But how has officially promulgated church doctrine ever contradicted the status quo, I guess.

Simpler than that, I was considering the way in which at the very beginning of the Church the basic doctrines were heretical for the Jewish majority and unconventional for Roman system of law, and now in these more recent times certain doctrines are unconventional for a majority of Christian religious groups and for the secular legislatures.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0