Heresy hunters beware


It is essential, and shall remain so while the world stands, to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." The church world is, though, full of contentious arguments that do not rise to that level. We sometimes say we are attacking heresy when what we are really doing is defending our tribal prejudices.

We fuel division and maintain it when we attack one another over matters that are not really essential. To be sure, there are real heresies abroad in today's church world, and heretics who need to be called out for what they are, but let us ground our contending on bedrock.

And what is the faith once delivered? I think Jesus tells us. We are to teach others to obey all the things he commanded. That is what he said in the Great Commission; I do not see where we have a warrant beyond that one.

What, then, of the doctrines in the New Testament epistles? If I am reading the epistles aright, they are the apostolic community's guidance on how to do Jesus' teachings, how to understand and implement them. They do not supersede the gospels on any point, and do not meaningfully extend them, but clarify them situationally. It is apparent that they are written to people and communities that already had Jesus' teachings and were trying (at times greatly failing) to implement them. Try reading them in that light, as a first century Christian would, and I think you will see why I say the gospel is the core and the epistles are explanatory. It is a mistake to take some doctrinal position from an epistle and treat it as if it existed in isolation from the precepts of the gospel.

If you are attacking other Christians be very careful of your grounds and warrant to do so! As you judge others... (Matt 7:2-3)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reality, fantasy and ecumenism

By Charles Marsh Recent conversations online and off have shown me something very curious. Some of what I believe to be Christian verity some other Christians take to be mere fantasy. They are cessationists and I am not . According to them, the things that I believe about tongues and prophecy and words of wisdom and of knowledge are sheer moonshine. So while in some churches I am thought orthodox enough, in others I am regarded as delusional or something rather like it. There are other matters in which, in like manner, some Christians view certain beliefs of other Christians as no better than free imagination, runaway fantasy or perhaps something worse: damaging falsehoods not harmless nuttiness. I admit to being somewhat dismayed by other Christians' newspaper novenas and Facebook prayer schemes. I do not think that is how prayer works. Their idea seems to be that if you repeat such and such a prayer x times, or republish it or "like" it or retweet it, then you w...
Read more

Science versus religion is a phony issue

By Charles Marsh The problem is that science, well suited to look at repeatable events, is at a loss about singular ones.  Some people suppose that science trumps religion, that a modern understanding of the world through science renders religious understandings obsolete. Some others suppose that religious understanding can be used to refute science. Both views are wrong. Science is rooted in philosophical naturalism. That is the stance that says we will explain what we see without reference to supernatural agencies. Science describes what happens without recourse to explanations involving angels, demons, gods, fairy godmothers, humors, vapors or ghosts. Acting on this basis, science has done a great deal of good. It has gotten rid of superstitions about what causes disease, where insects come from and a good many other misunderstandings. Notice that science is morally neutral. The same disciplines that give us vaccines and disease prevention can as...
Read more

What is a "Francisism"?

The first time I used the word I used it in attempting to explain some of Pope Francis's headline-grabbing remarks. This is what I said: This strikes me as another one of those Francisisms that generates lots of good press for Francis and then is walked back via more careful statements by others in the Church. I have remarked before on his tendency to do things like this. But it was not the first time I had encountered the concept. My remarks on this habit of Francis's go back a couple of years, to the early days of his pontificate. Francis tends to make sweeping-sounding statements that sound nearly un-Catholic in their generosity, toward gays, socialists, atheists, Lutherans and others. But when the statements are unpacked in light of Catholic faith and practice, they do not mean all that they seem to suggest. The statements are narrowly and logically true in some sense but really say less than they seem at first to say. Before I coined the word I wrote Pope Franc...
Read more