So I'm a Heretic

Thanks for this post Julie. I'm with you on most of this. I agree that we need to create more fertile ground for discussion and debate. I would argue that evangelicals (and other Christians) need to learn how to play with their theology a bit more--to really dig into another perspective and to wrestle with it. Boxes and labels can be restrictive, I've lost a book contract because I was eventually deemed outside of a publisher's theological box. However, I'm not sure the answer is to drain the word heretic of meaning or punch.

You wrote, ""orthodoxy," "historic Christianity," "biblical Christianity" - all it is is the box that you feel comfortable in and pledge allegiance to. People who look, think, and act like you are in, and everyone else is out." I wonder if there's a way to get beyond this impasse by holding to our boxes and even perhaps recognizing when others are outside of them, while remaining charitable and even maintaining fellowship to a degree? Franke speaks of "interdependent particularity" and I wonder if we could apply that here.

I find it notable that even in the midst of all the hoopla over Bill Kinnon's skewering of McLaren's book Bill still recognizes him as a brother in Christ. Whatever we all think of Brian or Bill, I'm hopeful that even in the midst of deep disagreements there is room to recognize God at work in others. Perhaps I hope for too much here, but I think we need the tension of these boxes, labels and camps. It's just that we need to learn how to play nicer from within them and to take some long walks outside of them sometimes.

I write all of this with the firm belief that we'll one day learn that God is far more gracious and understanding than we could have imagined, and that is where I find my hope in the midst of all this.

"Call it what you will - "orthodoxy," "historic Christianity," "biblical Christianity" - all it is is the box that you feel comfortable in and pledge allegiance to."

Not necessarily. People cling to those "traditions" because they think they are true, not because they are comfortable with them. You can claim that no truth exists, but that doesn't make it so.

BTW, I didn't read the book, but I loved the movie of Brown's book. Very entertaining!

An interesting and valuable book to read is underground graphics novelist Robert Crumb's "Genesis" - in which he faithfully illustrates all 50 chapters, without a single verse left out. Yes, normally, in the so-called "Christian" consciousness, there's a whole lot left out - which having Crumb illustrate it all, forces one to take in verses and think about them, that were always glossed over or ignored before in favor of long-sclerotic (and essentially unbiblical) theological bowdlerizations.

God's sense of humor is ironic - but it is also iconoclastic and revelatory - and corrective

Robert Crumb has been used in just this way.

Did Julie make the claim that no truth exists? I missed that somewhere!

Great post, Julie! Fight or flight is sooo common. The evangelical box is set in stone, for the most part, and stepping outside is dangerous at best and heretical at worst. The Shack was originally rejected by traditional evangelical publishers, and even still, when published, some of the stronger "universalist" statements were struck.

I wrote an article that lists nine lessons that are typically considered heresies. You can find them at "I Survived the Christian Right: Ten Lessons I Learned on My Journey Home" at http://homebrewedchristianity.com (Says ten, really nine).

Glad you don't mind the "heretic" label. I'm thinking it might be a badge of honor. How do we create more fertile ground for discussion? Like Ed, I'd say it has to do with being willing to step outside the box and drop labels that become exclusive. We must drop the notion that all traditional doctrines are necessary for acceptance as genuine believers AND the notion that traditional doctrines are beyond dispute. If we want the "truth," conservatives and progressives should be willing to go where the evidence leads.

Check out my article to see where we may be co-heretics and my blog: http://deepthoughtpub.blogspot.com

Thanks again the thoughtful post!

That was a generic you. I couldn't tell whether she thinks truth exists or not from the article.

In the western world, I think we have overcome 90% of the problem already simply by removing the ability for an ambitious king/queen/bishop/priest to ruin your life by excommunicating you and making you a pariah at the same time. Unfortunately, at least in the US, if you live in the red states, or in the south, you will still find yourself in a very lonely position, searching for good churches where you can feel comfortable with these views. You either find really liberal churches where they have almost completely written off their spirituality, or really conservative churches where the pressure to conform to a preset mold, believe 'correct' beliefs, and refuse to expose yourself to 'heretical' works is extremely high.

Michael, just to clarify your comment, "Like Ed, I'd say it has to do with being willing to step outside the box and drop labels that become exclusive."

Actually, I was saying we should keep the boxes and the labels, but learn how to talk to one another without mutual-excommunication. So in other words, I think it's really OK for Brian to ask his questions and come to his conclusions, but it's also OK for Scot McKnight to say that McLaren's answers don't fit into the box of Christian orthodoxy. Brian thinks Scot misses the point and Scot thinks Brian misses the point. OK, where do we go from there?

We have our labels and our boxes. We can't deny that. I'm not sure we can just toss our labels and boxes to the wind. They'll catch up with us no matter how much we deconstruct. My hope is that we can dialogue from box to box with charity and understanding giving one another the benefit of a doubt even if we disagree.

So to give an example, I'm not satisfied with satisfied where Brian landed in his book. I'm probably closer to Scot on this one. However, I will continue to read Brian's works, watch his videos, and interact with his ideas. I think I can live with being in a different box but still calling him a fellow seeker of truth and disciple of Christ.

Ed,
I think we agree. I'm not saying don't have any boxes, just be willing to step outside of yours, if the evidence warrants it. And, don't write off people who have stepped outside one's own box. I'm not saying don't give up labels, but don't have exclusive labels, where one is considered in or out by their label. Yes, agree, we can dialogue box to box with charity. I like your attitude re: McClaren. That's the point, we must drop the notion that one must be "orthodox" (the way some group defines it) to regard another a fellow seeker or disciple.

Michael, I'm tracking with ya. Blessings!

I wonder how many people actually do any kind of fact checking on anything that they read or learn. I'm not afraid of a piece of fiction produced for the purpose of entertaining. I am afraid of people, who are willing to read and discuss Dan Brown as if he's holding out some new form of truth. Theories, philosophies, literary discussions, maybe, but he isn't even a good historian...or is he?

Fact checking from more than one source, including those without anything to prove, is a good start for honest discussions.

The problem is, whose truth is it? And that's the problem with post-modernism: everyone has the ability to create his or own version of the truth. Julie Clawson's post really reveals a Western, middle-class, largely White person phenomenon. (And dare I say -- Liberal theological overtones ). As Christianity is taking off around in Asia, Africa and Latin American, the unifying factor for the great majority is the great love that Jesus has as our Lord and Savior. The movement of the Spirit in those areas of the World are most likely reminiscent of Acts, when thousands became believers in one day. Not based on political persuasion or theological "wishi-washiness" but on a great desire to know Christ and to bring others to His saving grace.

BTW: God's Politics is one of the last places I'd look for a deep discussion on theological issues. A great blog for that would be Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed.

I share Julie's frustration with the way words such as "heretic" are thrown around. Often times it's used to shut down discussion, similar to how words like "racist" or "communist" are used to shut off debate. It's a way of making someone's ideas you disagree with seem beyond the pale and not worth even contemplating. Or, the word is used for matters that I think good Christians can disagree on - whether pacifism or pro-life views are a requirement of being a faithful Christian, for example.

But I hope Julie isn't suggesting that there is no such thing as a heretical view. While I don't like it when people toss around terms like "racist" or "communist", there are racists, there are people who believe that communism is the proper way of ordering our economic system and there are Christians whose theological views are heretical. Just as there is nothing wrong with calling a racist a racist there is nothing wrong with calling a heretic a heretic. We just need to be very careful when doing so and make sure we've got our facts straight.

Like Ed, I don't see anything inherently wrong with boxes, and we should be willing to engage each other with open minds. In the end however, in order to maintain some sort of working definition of what it means to be a Christian some views simply have to be labeled heretical. Otherwise the term "Christian" will become meaningless.

There's a difference. In much of the rest of the world being a Christian actually means something; in some situations you wouldn't dare profess Christ unless you were prepared to give even your very life. Christians in China, for example, pray that the American church undergo persecution for the purposes of purification (which I can appreciate). And let's keep in mind that the only time we've ever had major theological debates is when the church isn't running for its life and has some cultural power; the "fundamentalist/modernist" split took place in the 1920s, at a time of economic prosperity.

That said, this is a political blog after all; while theology is discussed it's in the context of "what should we do and how should we think?"

"the unifying factor for the great majority is the great love that Jesus has as our Lord and Savior."

..A truly liberal theology championed in it's early stages by that notable heretic Henry Ward Beecher in reaction to his father, Lyman Beecher's, judgmental Puritan preacher ways.

let's see: if I had to guess I'd say United Church of Christ pastor?

Wrong. He was the forerunner to today's non-denominational mega church a la Rick Warren/Joel Osteen

As I said before on another thread, technically, all Protestants are heretics. For that matter, Jesus was a heretical leader of a sect, as far as the Jews were concerned. Fortunately today we don't torture heretics.

I think Rick Warren is a Southern Baptist.

Amen and amen!

Well, Joel Osteen's father, John, was a Southern Baptist before he became a Charismatic evangelist. I saw John Osteen a few times when Charistamatic evangelists were popular in the latter 1950s.

In a lot fewer words, "I am going to believe in what I want to believe in." Where something fits those beliefs, great.

The term has nothing to do with truth ... It has everything to do with toeing the line of a particular

TRIBE [apologies to the author].

Christianity has become tribal. If you do not think as I (or my tribe) do then the knives come out. Not just historical orthodoxy. Try asking a Rapture enamoured believer to justify their position with the Bible and not a DVD/movie. Homygosh!

We are living in an age of rabid tribalism - the death of rational thought and thinking in general. The loss of introspection and critical thinking about what a belief system is. I'm embarassed.

Thanks for writing this.

There is no way to have a personal experience with God if we are not willing to engage directly with Him. Adopting the thoughts/doctrines of a church body wholesale just so that you can "belong" will always put you in fear of being "thrown out of the synagogue". Ask ask examine and act. God will deal with you as you deal with Him. There will be union even when there is freedom.

At Mark 9 the disciples tried to "prevent" a man who was casting out demons in Jesus' name--because he was not following with THEM! Jesus told them not to prevent the man--"for he who is not against us is for us. And no one can do a powerful work on the basis of my name and quickly revile me." Jesus discouraged their tribal mentality. "Have salt in yourselves and be at peace with one another."

Peace be with you.