A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

In Defense of Heresy

Well, what I think Ralph Luker means is to defend the concept of heresy – i.e. that there are some opinions that are beyond the pale. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t mean “In Defense of Arianism” or “In Defense of Monophysitism” or what have you.

Anyway, good stuff here:

I’m not defending heresy here. I’m defending the idea that there are some claims that are just so wrong that they ought not be tolerated in the community of faith. I long ago gave up on my own particular sect, the United Methodists, who have grown so mushy in matters of doctrine that we have no principle of exclusion. You believe in re-incarnation? Welcome to the fellowship of the United Methodist Church. You think Jesus was one of many little pixies who periodically come from outer space to sprinkle fairy dust on human history? Fine. Welcome to our fellowship.

But there are some things that are just so wrong that they ought not be uttered or tolerated in the community of faith. The latest blasphemy heard in my community came from Representative Sam Johnson (R, Texas) who spoke at a veterans’ celebration at Suncreek United Methodist Church in Allen, Texas. According to the Carpetbagger, Brother Johnson was bragging about a recent conversation he’d had with George Bush on the porch at the White House.

Johnson said he told the president that night, “Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on ’em and I’ll make one pass. We won’t have to worry about Syria anymore.”The crowd roared with applause. Brother Carpetbagger asks:

Which of these is the most outrageous part of this story?
* That a sitting member of Congress is bragging about his desire to drop nuclear weapons?
* That Johnson has shared this idea with the president?
* That Johnson’s favored approach to non-proliferation is an unprovoked nuclear attack?
* That this speech was delivered in a church?
* That Johnson’s audience “roared with applause”?

All those questions bother me. Why am I not re-assured that he was speaking to another United Methodist when Johnson delivered this wisdom to President Bush? If we Methodists had a principle of rejection, neither Brother Bush nor Brother Johnson would be among us. The cross would have fallen on poor Brother Johnson right there on the spot at Suncreek United Methodist Church in Allen, Texas, and delivered him unto his eternal reward.

So, is advocating mass murder heresy? Should it at least call forth a stern pastoral rebuke?

3 responses to “In Defense of Heresy”

  1. Joshie

    I find Luker’s idea almost as disturbing as the statements made by Johnson. Ok maybe a lot less disturbing but still disturbing.

    Ignoring his gross exaggeration of the situation in the UMC, what Johnson seems to want to is to make communities of faith unified blocks of similarly thinking people, and that anyone that has a contrary opinion needs to be kicked out. This is not a good way to create a fellowship of integrity. It is a great way to create a small, isolated, useless fellowship of inbred naval gazers who do little but pat each other on the back and talk about how right they are while the world goes to hell.

    The church is a “big tent” and it always has been. Witness the vast range of opinions in the New Testament on issues like eating food given to idols, the meaning of the church’s Jewish heritage, the giving of the Holy Spirit, eschatology, the name under which one is baptised etc. The church is strongest when it is home to a wide range of opinions and people.

    The beauty of the councils and statements of Nicea and Chalcedon is in their INCLUSIVITY. They are really compromises. Language about the trinity of the Godhead included in the creed of Nicea/Constantinople was painted as broadly as possible to include moderate Arians concerned about collapsing the Son into the father. Chalcedon similarly rejected the extremes of both the Nestorian and Monophysite factions and the extremist Council of Ephesus in favor of the compromises of Nicea.

    But the debates continued in the East and the more lines that were drawn, the more chaotic and fragmented the church, particularly in Syria and Egypt.

    And then we all know what happened the in the 7th and 8th centuries. Islam rode in and the rest is history. The twin heartlands of early Christianity, Egypt and Syria are now almost entirely Muslim.

    Drawing firm lines never leads to real intergrity, only to schism and fragmentation, as the box of correct belief is drawn smaller and smaller until it comes down to just the person drawing the lines. That is the worst heresy of all, denying the unity of the Holy Spirit which is the life of the church, and defying Jesus’ prayer “that we all might be one” (John 17.20-24).

    Wow, I’m gonna have to use that for my own blog

    Reply
  2. Lee

    I guess the question then is: how do you balance the quest for holiness (which, as a Methodist you should appreciate!) with diversity? Is there some pattern of the moral life that can act as a norm?

    I definitely agree that the church should be a big tent, and I instinctively rebel against the notion that any one set of politics can be identified as the Christian option (maybe that’s in part because my own politics are so confused!).

    However, are there times when the church needs to speak with a unified voice? How should it go about doing that?

    Reply
  3. Joshie

    Sorry for the tardy response, giving birth to my most recent post over at AT has been a long labor.

    The UMC has a pamphlet of social principles that state its position on most politcal and social issues, usually taking and yes/yes approach.

    I think a public rebuke or a censure of some sort would have been appropriate but kicking the him and President Bush out seems petty and mean.

    Reply

Leave a comment