Bite-Sized: Can We Call It Heresy?

Forgive me for having a number of posts in a row that don't have to do with the wisdom literature stuff that I was talking about before. I'll get back to it...eventually. 

Is there such thing as “right Christian belief”? Is there such a thing as “reliable Scripture”? Can you discern between right and wrong in a sea of purportedly Christian beliefs that all seem plausible?

Many of my fellow biblical scholars (and probably church historians as well) would say no. I'm personally in favor of the dichotomy between orthodoxy and heresy. Of course, I acknowledge why some call the term, “orthodoxy”, fluid. It is possible to find evidence within the early church of many different people claiming to be Christian but claiming very different things. For example, hypothetical adherents to Sethian Gnosticism[1] believed that the God of the Old Testament was not the Father of Christ. But there is also evidence that a number of seemingly disconnected early Christian communities from the first and 2^nd century accepting the four gospels and a number of Paul’s letters along with other texts as authoritative writings.

I am not willing to throw out the term, orthodoxy. Orthodoxy, (literally, “right belief”), was a consideration from the writing of the New Testament. There are constant admonitions and warnings against deception and false teaching[2], which suggest that true teaching exists and should be adhered to. So while I (perhaps a bit morbidly) enjoy learning about false teaching, it is not because I view them as “alternate Christianities.” Pastorally, I have to view them as false teachings to be guarded against and I see that mindset in the early Church fathers. Heresy’s unintended purpose in those first few centuries was an impetus for orthodox (or proto-orthodox) thinkers and church leaders to articulate the faith as it was truly revealed through Christ and the Jewish Bible. My first responsibility is to the people of God and thus I must (eventually) represent, preach, and teach the Word of God as presented and as received by the Church, denouncing false teaching as just that.

Obviously, there are some that this approach doesn’t sit well with. Some will argue that I should accept diversity of belief as part of the beautiful mosaic of Christian belief. I would argue that saying that Christ was a created being or that the God of the Old Testament is an evil or ambivalent demiurge[3] is not a view to be celebrated or entertained but rather, if it is to be acknowledged at all, it is to be soundly refuted (in a pastoral setting). I, in my life in the academy, will continue to ask questions of these beliefs and where they are rooted and the myths behind them. But I will not teach them as truth. The Christology that I eventually look to espouse will be rooted first and foremost in Scripture. Period. Whether I like it or not. Got an issue with what I say about Christ? Show me where the Scripture says otherwise. As usual, I'm not saying anything new. That would be cause for alarm. Jesus handled all the "new" stuff. I'm just trying to follow Him. 

Note: A tendency that I will attempt to avoid is the demonization of certain false teachers in looking at the early Church (and today's church). Surely, the devil is still working in subtle ways and I do think false teaching is one of those ways. So while I don't think that every false teacher does so with intended malice, we must acknowledge that the damage they do to the lives of the people of God is still extensive. So be on guard. Sift every teaching that you receive, that you might know that it is indeed from the Triune God we serve.

3:30 PM Update: Here's the root of heresy: focusing on one aspect of the person of Christ or the character of God and building your system of thought around it. The biblical account doesn't allow this and neither should logic. If we are faced with an incomprehensible God (meaning a God that no one can fully comprehend, or get their mind completely around, but still a God who had made himself knowable), how can we focus on one aspect of him (e.g. his transcendence, his goodness, his love) and make that His entirety? It's much more complicated than that...and that's the weird thing about heresy. It, at the same time, makes the easy things complicated and makes the complicated issues easy. It's weird stuff. Hence why the New Testament is adamant that you not entertain it.

---

[1] Sethian Gnosticism probably didn’t really exist. Scholars use the word to describe a group of early “Christians” who used a few related texts that create a super complicated creation myth and offer such ideas as the Creator of the world being a lesser, evil god and teaching that Eve had sex with the devil and gave birth to Cain as a result.

[2]Romans 16:17, 1 John 4:1-3, 2 Peter 2:1-3, Matthew 7:15-20, 1 Timothy 6:20-21…The list goes on. It’s kind of a big deal.

[3] Demiurge comes from a Greek word that means creator or craftsmen. In Gnostic texts from the 2^nd and 3^rd century, this is the god who created the world in rebellion towards the One, transcendent, perfect, Monad. Monad’s the name because “god”, in the mind of these writings, doesn’t adequately capture what he is. As a matter of fact, language can’t capture what he is. Fun stuff.