Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Heresy
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: Die heretic
I still think the history of killing heretics should be subjected to closer examination before accepting the assumption that the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy inevitably leads to killing. Otherwise, ISTM that we should just take the next logical step and accept that all religious distinctions inexorably lead to violence, as many atheists assert. Doesn't the logic of 'inclusivity' entail that we should abolish the church?
-------------------- Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Us and them always leads to violence. Inclusion means I include you, as you are, from my strong benevolent faith position.
Jesus´.
Abolishing the church is weak benevolence, more useless than hostility strong or weak.
-------------------- Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: Abolishing the church is weak benevolence
The church wouldn't be abolished as a philanthropic institution, but as a worshiping community.
-------------------- Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: Us and them always leads to violence. Inclusion means I include you, as you are, from my strong benevolent faith position.
Yes, you and I can be different, as long as the difference is not the defining factor of our interactions.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Isaac David: quote: Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: Die heretic
I still think the history of killing heretics should be subjected to closer examination before accepting the assumption that the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy inevitably leads to killing. Otherwise, ISTM that we should just take the next logical step and accept that all religious distinctions inexorably lead to violence, as many atheists assert. Doesn't the logic of 'inclusivity' entail that we should abolish the church?
Afraid I haven't had time to read the rest of the thread yet, so this may have been already covered. 'Heresy' is a religious term for something that can happen to any group when a view contrary to orthodoxy appears.
The problem arises when the dissent is seen as a threat. A group threatened from without is likely to demand conformity (disobeying an officer in battle, questioning a ship's captain are dangerous heresies). Or the threat may be to the group's leadership and control of the group (the Cathars? Luther etc), finally an heresy can be used to create scapegoats with the side effect of unifying the rest of the group (the Jews in Nazi Germany).
None of these are necessarily religious issues. Religious heresy differs in what may be seen as at stake (no pun intended!). If I refuse to join a Trade Union I might be cold shouldered, ostracised or even assaulted - what is at stake is the reduced power employees would have without unanimity. But churches may argue that what is at stake are things of inestimable value - e.g. the souls of believers who are 'corrupted' by heresiachs. For extreme danger, extreme sanction is allowed. It's a sort of reverse Pascal's wager. And totalitarian regimes may accuse dissidents of crimes against the state or corrupting the glorious revolution - for which any sanction may be applied.
As an atheist I'm grateful that churches no longer have the power to force me to claim I believe things that I don't or can't. But I don't doubt that other forces might try to impose their views upon me. The greatest fear should always be those who think they know your soul/nature/character better than you do and believe they can re-make you in their image. As, I think, Isaiah Berlin said, "There are few more chilling phrases than, One day you will thank us for this".
Without the power to coerce, groups just break into ever smaller parts. Which weakens them, somewhat justifying the leadership's fear of the effects of heresy.
"I could never divide my self from any man upon the difference of an opinion, or be angry with his judgement for not agreeing with me in which perhaps within a few days I should dissent from my self." Thomas Browne again. So sometimes I just keep my thoughts to myself, and as Browne says, I later find I was wrong.
-------------------- "controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by que sais-je: 'Heresy' is a religious term for something that can happen to any group when a view contrary to orthodoxy appears...
...churches may argue that what is at stake are things of inestimable value - e.g. the souls of believers who are 'corrupted' by heresiachs. For extreme danger, extreme sanction is allowed. It's a sort of reverse Pascal's wager.
Seems to me that the other difference in the religious context is the lack of observable evidence to justify any sanction.
Doctors have professional bodies, and can be struck off for misconduct. Like other professions, these bodies can be very conservative. But I'd suggest that in most cases there's a fairly clear difference between malpractice and holding ideas which go against the conventional wisdom.
There's a wide measure of agreement that the public should be protected against maverick doctors who - however well-meaningly - continue to prescribe worthless remedies. But a doctor who successfully cures patients with an unorthodox approach is rightly tolerated, however much tut-tutting he provokes from his more traditionally-schooled colleagues.
(when the system works, that is - there may be individual cases where it doesn')
My point is that there doesn't seem to be a comparable distinction in the religious sphere. Theology is not a science - conformity with tradition in one way or another seems to be the only yardstick. The only way to justify a change from the received tradition is with reference to an earlier tradition. Fallen conservative human fear of change and genuine protection from quackery look exactly the same.
Unless of course someone here knows different....
Best wishes,
Russ
-------------------- Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Russ quote: Theology is not a science - conformity with tradition in one way or another seems to be the only yardstick. The only way to justify a change from the received tradition is with reference to an earlier tradition.
While one would agree that theology mostly seems constrained by parameters established in the past, especially for European Christians in the determinations of Nicaea and Chalcedon, even at the time those boundaries were not universally accepted. Furthermore, although theology may not now be regarded as a science, (at one time it was regarded as the queen of the sciences), it might be regarded as a social science to the extent its ideas reflect a human interaction between revelation and tradition on the one hand with reason and knowledge on the other, not to mention changing cultural understandings in the meaning of words and phrases. So, while accepting a conservative bias in mainstream theology, it is, perhaps, more malleable and open to development than might seem apparent. Theological findings are less set in stone and more contested than it might appear. In that context “heresy” is a product of finding a balance between revelation and tradition with reason and knowledge.
The problem with heresy is perhaps less its relation to theology than its relation to organised religion. Anathemas, excommunications, losses of membership etc., for holding wrong ideas are undertaken by organisations seeking to protect their cohesion and power, rather than theologians in (often heated) debate. One cannot, for example, not be amused by Popes and Constantinople Patriarchs excommunicating each other. I would not, however, wish to dismiss these actions as “merely” cynical, even if at times they are risible and harmful, because different churches have done much to preserve important doctrines. The danger arises when a single church claims a monopoly of theological insight and is in a position of power to impose its view and close down contrary opinions not simply on its own adherents but on other Christians and even non-believers. Religious pluralism is vital, enabling dissidents in one denomination to join one in which their views are regarded, shall we say, as orthodox.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Kwesi: [theology] might be regarded as a social science to the extent its ideas reflect a human interaction between revelation and tradition on the one hand with reason and knowledge on the other, not to mention changing cultural understandings in the meaning of words and phrases.
In the 4th century, Evagrius of Pontus wrote, "If you are a theologian, you will pray truly. And if you pray truly, you are a theologian."
I wonder when it was we began to abandon the notion that theology was the work of the Holy Spirit? How did it, instead, become the work of interpreting texts? And how was tradition turned into a kind of institutional memory? Whatever the answer, it doesn't really surprise me that we have become agnostic about the possibility of knowing any truth.
-------------------- Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Isaac David quote: I wonder when it was we began to abandon the notion that theology was the work of the Holy Spirit? How did it, instead, become the work of interpreting texts? And how was tradition turned into a kind of institutional memory?
I’m not sure your assertion is correct. Is it not the case there have been theologians throughout the Christian era who have been and continue to be inspired by the Holy Spirit? You have, however identified a problem, namely, the reluctance of established church authorities to recognise that fact, because for their hierarchies to admit that the Holy Spirit continues to reveals truths about God in this manner questions their own claims to be the custodians and arbiters in matters of faith and discipline. It is much safer for the theologian to add footnotes than to run the risk of creative thinking, of being dismissed as heretic.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Kwesi: Is it not the case there have been theologians throughout the Christian era who have been and continue to be inspired by the Holy Spirit? You have, however identified a problem, namely, the reluctance of established church authorities to recognise that fact, because for their hierarchies to admit that the Holy Spirit continues to reveals truths about God in this manner questions their own claims to be the custodians and arbiters in matters of faith and discipline.
I’m sure your assertion is not correct. You have identified a problem I was not talking about and couched it in words I would not have used. I was simply objecting to the implication in your previous post that theology is chiefly an intellectual activity involving the study and interpretation of texts using scientific methods.
-------------------- Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Isaac David quote: I was simply objecting to the implication in your previous post that theology is chiefly an intellectual activity involving the study and interpretation of texts using scientific methods.
That is not the impression I intended to give and find it difficult to see why I gave that impression. I intended to suggest that theological formulations are the product of four elements: revelation, tradition, reason and knowledge.
My misunderstanding of your remarks would seem to be that your reference to "we" * was to my singular self, which admittedly changes the meaning of your observation. * I wonder when it was we began to abandon the notion that theology was the work of the Holy Spirit? How did it, instead, become the work of interpreting texts? And how was tradition turned into a kind of institutional memory?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Kwesi: My misunderstanding of your remarks would seem to be that your reference to "we" was to my singular self, which admittedly changes the meaning of your observation.
The "we" was a reference to Christians collectively. Some may be more guilty than others of turning theology into a human construction. quote: I intended to suggest that theological formulations are the product of four elements: revelation, tradition, reason and knowledge.
But this is problematic. Is revelation ongoing, or is it embodied in some body of texts (e.g. Scripture)? Whose tradition? And if multiple traditions are meant, what do we do when they disagree? What is the relationship between reason and the first two elements? By knowledge do you mean science? Again, how does this relate to the other elements? If reason or knowledge predominate in the relationship, then we may have the emergence of precisely the notion of theology as a 'scientific' academic pursuit I mentioned, even if that was not your intention.
Worse, the very idea that 'theological formulations are the product of four elements', itself implies the construction of a 'scientific' theological method. The problem isn't the elements per se; academic theology may be useful for applying existing theological formulations to new problems, which is one reason why academic theologians in all church traditions study Scripture and tradition, and use insights from other disciplines, such as history, philosophy, linguistics, etc, in their work. The problem is that dogmatic theology, as found in Scripture, or in the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, doesn't always seem to work in that way. For example, take Peter's declaration of who Jesus is in Matthew's Gospel, which I mentioned earlier: quote: [Jesus] said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." Matthew 16:15-17 (NKJV)
Similarly, St Paul writes the following in his letter to the Galatians: quote: I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 (NKJV)
While these two quotations, by themselves, prove very little about the work of later theologians, I suggest they are indicative of how revelation is the essential element of real theology, and that the attempt to construct a systematic theological method is really the construction of a Procustean bed. The theological insights of Saints and Church Fathers can be surprising and counter-intuitive, and even seemingly irrational and hard to understand, not because God is capricious and chaotic, but because the underlying 'logic' of revelation can be inscrutable. (See Isaiah 55:8-9; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25).
-------------------- Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Isaac David, I entirely agree with you that my take on what constitutes theology is problematic, and that it is difficult to judge what weight be given to the different elements, which might vary depending on the question being considered. We are not given certainty: one person’s dogmatic belief might be another’s heresy. Even the more conservative approaches of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism disagree on a number of important matters, do they not? Regarding the revelation of the gospels I suspect you and I would be largely in agreement, but we might find ourselves in conflict with Rome over control of the keys. I agree with you that Paul had things directly revealed to him, but is not the same true of all who “pray truly” and receive guidance from the Holy Spirit? What concerns me is that we should respect the integrity of searches for God, and in the Christian context to recognise that our differences of background, personality and experiences are likely to lead to nuances of understanding of the faith that affirm St Paul’s conclusion that “we see through a glass darkly”.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I am not sure there is a real difference here; either revelation or the quadrilateral.
Theology may be "built up" via the quadrilateral. On the other hand that which comes via revelation needs to be tested against the quadrilateral.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Kwesi, I think we have to distinguish the theological response from the pastoral one. Speaking from an Orthodox perspective, I would say that the Church has to be able to defend the truth (orthodoxy) and oppose falsehood (heresy). Dialogue with Arianism (pace goperryrevs) is not an option. Dialogue with false teachers within the Church is not an option (though I am all well too aware of disagreements within Orthodoxy about who some of the contemporary false teachers are!). Relations with the non-Orthodox and people with other beliefs should be different. Sometimes it is a question of respectfully pointing out error and sometimes accepting that words will not help. It requires discernment; for many in a pastoral role this is a matter of experience, for Saints and Elders it is a rare charism, but such people are hard to identify and find while they are alive!
While it is a good principle that each person should be absolutely free and that no-one should be compelled, we should not forget that St Paul was ambushed by Jesus on the road to Damascus, and that some Saints have lived among pagans and destroyed their idols. That is, while I should abide by the principle in my dealings with other, the Holy Spirit, acting alone or through God's chosen servants, is also free and may act in the best interests of a person (C.S. Lewis was right to say that Aslan was not a tame lion).
-------------------- Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Isaac David: I think we have to distinguish the theological response from the pastoral one.
It occurs to me that I should qualify this by saying that an appropriate theological response is a pastoral response.
-------------------- Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Seems to me that "false teachers" come in three varieties.
There are the bad, the ones claiming "The Lord says this" while knowing perfectly well that what they're saying is their own idea to further their own agenda.
There are the mad, who know not what they do.
And there are the simply misguided, honest Christians like you and me who make sense of their experience and the tradition they've received as best they can, and sometimes get it wrong from sheer human fallibility.
Seems to me that condemnation and coercion should be reserved for the first category, and that patiently reasoning them out of it is the appropriate approach for the third category.
Otherwise "false teachers" is just an all-too-human way of trying to weasel out of our obligation to treat others as we would like to be treated.
Best wishes,
Russ
-------------------- Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|