Over the weekend I participated in an online dialogue for my online class Global Impact. For the class we’re required to post two posts each week in response to a forum question. This weeks questions was: What is the role of the Western Church in 21st Century mission? I already posted a fairly extensive paper on my overall view, but in one of my posts I said we the Western Church need to make way for Other voices. Here is what I said:
As the Western Church seeks to “do missions” in our 21st Century context, it must do so post-colonially. To do so, She must start by giving way to other voices, especially theologically. While our version of Christianity is decidedly Western, mainly because the theological discourse has passed through the West and out to other parts of the world, a post-colonial worldview of missions must make way for African Christological categories or Asian undersandings of pneumatology. Are we so threatened and fearful of that these voices might just be better and replace our own understandings that we will try and stifle them with the great ‘H’ word (heresy)? I hope not!
This response generated a fair amount of dialogue on the forum. One of my virtual classmates took some issue with my assertion that we should not be so quick to break out the ‘H’ word when Africans give us different Christological categories, for instance, saying: “However, if we go so far as to say that there is no such thing as heresy (which I am not sure if you are saying or not) than haven’t we just claimed that all roads lead to God? What-ta-ya say?”
What-ta-I-say? Here’s what I said:
but then the question remains: WHO decides what is heresy? Is it the West, the East, the South…all ‘voices’ as one other student said? And please dont tell me the Scriptures decide heresy because that’s pretty lame…when we all know real humans (mostly Western White Men) are the ones who make decisions about what Scriptures say, thus what is orthodox and what is heresy.
So thats the real question: WHO decides what is orthodox and heresy…in addition to probably more important one: HOW do we decide. The question of WHAT is orthodox and heresy simply has lost any credibility as a viable quesiton…for the time being at least.
Given the volatile nature of what is happening within American Evangelicalism right now with the emerging church movement and confusion regarding what theology/doctrine/dogma from History do we keep and toss, I see these two questions being central to contemporary theological and ecclesiological discourse.
Who decides what is orthodox and what is heresy?
How do we decide what is orthodox and what is heresy?
I’ve been tossing the same questions around in my head for a while now. Those last to questions on orthodoxy all to often yield oversimplified answers like “read your history.” I get that a lot from fundies who, for instance, aren’t aware that church fathers couldn’t even agree for sure whether or not there was an afterlife for the unrighteous (annihilationsists), much less whether or not there was a hell awaiting them.
This isn’t much of an answer, but I often back myself up to asking “Is believing ‘X’ beneficial or harmful?” For instance, if some believe the earth ends in fiery apocalypse, this has obvious implications for how important it is to care for the earth. This understanding could be yielded from Peter, but is harder to reconcile with Paul. So essentially, I get to wondering, “if believing something leads to action that seems contrary to God’s direction (i.e. creation care), then this likely sheds light on what should be considered orthodoxy.”
Just my (highly unfinished) thoughts…
Many right-wing evangelical conservatives have an itchy trigger finger on the word “heresy.” It appears that “mistaken” and “wrong” have been replaced with “heresy” and “heretic.” You can be mistaken and even wrong and not be heretical. But the self-appointed heresy-hunters blast people with loaded terms which merely mean “You don’t think like me” or “You don’t talk like me” or “You don’t like the (Reformed) writers that I like.”
as for how we determine what is orthodox i think using the wesleyan quadrilateral is still wise: scripture, reason, tradition and experience. one thing i always find interesting is that so many people are quick to assert that we can’t rely on experience despite my suspicion that it is our experiences that probably shape our faith the most. i think this is because in our experiences we are encountering Yeshua in a holistic way (mind, emotions, & will) and not just intellectually or doctrinally. because we realize in this postmodern age that “scripture” largely means our interpretation of scripture that leaves me wondering what our final arbiter of truth is, or if there is one. i think the answer is Truth (God) but it is not always so easily discerned. the holy spirit must always be leading us into all truth as we utilize the tools (the wesleyan quad) God has given us to determine his will.
Has anyone considered that the apostolic orthodox church decided what was heresy and what was orthodox? What if these early church leaders were just making these decisions to control the masses or for political or power purposes? Our current organized christian religion is based on an orthodox church that used torture, murder and power to establish itself through time. Is this the organization that we want to take our direction from?
I think the introduction of new scriptures and historical documentation should be considered to re- evaluate our past, present and future.