In recent weeks, I have been troubled by the casual use of this word by Christians toward other follower’s of Jesus. It seems like any time someone says something that is personally disagreeable or “out there” the offender is pistol-whipped by the “H” word with nary a thought given to its meaning and weight.

Here’s an example: a professor of mine feels the need to paint those with whom he disagrees or finds troublesome with this 7-letter word, as well as uses it as a tongue-in-cheek, questioning jab in class with students. I’m not going to name that professor, because that’s not the way I role. But those from the seminary will know whom I’m talking about. In one instance, he uses it as a joke towards students when they raise issues or personal convicions that “stray from historic orthodoxy” (as he defines it). Now this is harmless enough, but lends to a casual, flippant use of a pretty significant word, while stiffling class dialogue over what is “right thinking.” On the other hand, this professor uses it against different Emerging Church voices, like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt, when he disagrees with their thoughts and theology. This use is much more harmful and inevitably shuts down the class dialogue, because how can you argue against heresy?

Another recent example was in a reaction post by the Internet Monk blogger, Michael Spencer. A few weeks ago he wrote a piece in reaction to the 60 Minute interview with Joel. He responded with 9 great thoughts, but here was the one that bothered me:

2. As much as I would like to join those who say that Osteen is a simpleton who doesn’t know what he’s doing, a close examination will show that at every point where there is a choice between being part of the church or departing into heresy, Osteen sticks with the church where there is money to be had and departs from the church where there is a faith to be confessed. He’s (sic) could be called a heretic by some, even if he is a believer, and he communicates a purposefully false trivialization of the person and work of Jesus Christ in favor of a man-centered motivational message of self-improvement.

Now, I like Michael and find great value in his honest, punchy prose. I even largely agree with past assessments of Joel Osteen and the danger of his teachings (a more thorough explanation is for another post!). But what I do not get is, why the use of this word? Is it to make a point on the dangers of what he’s saying? If that’s the case, why not just say “dangerous” or “troubling”? I know he flat-out disagrees with Joel and he certainly says so, several times in previous pieces (which is fine), but if that’s the case why let the disagreement devolve into the use of a very weighty word? Or is it that Joel has deliberately rejected “orthodox Christianity”? Is Joel really leading people into..heresy and heretical living? What’s interesting is Michael says this of Joel, “the historic orthodox Christian message (sic) are of no interest to him,” even though he has not given adequate defense for even this statement (i.e. Joel’s rejection of the Trinity, Deity of Christ, etc…).

So instead of providing a constructive conversation on the inadequacy of Joel’s teachings and general thrust of his messages or even the points of disagreement with Mr. Osteen, this very fine and thoughtful writer devolves into very unhelpful jingoism. It’s too bad that he feels the need to bust out the “H” word, which represents a dangerous trend throughout evangelicalism, in general.

In both instances, the casual use of “heretic” is both uncharitable and conversation stopping. It assumes the marked man is deliberately rejecting Christian orthodoxy and moving into false teaching, while in the same breath stopping (and downright preventing) the dialogue over what is orthodoxological. While I would certainly say there is heresy and are heretics, we should be much, much more cautious in our use of that word towards follower’s of Jesus who are working out their salvation and living in the tension of an emerging faith and postmodern culture.