Another conversation. Over lunch this time (usually it doesn't get to that).
Another argument founded on the (unquestioned) timelessness and unchangingness of God.
Another suggestion by yours truly that this view may not be the best, let alone only, reading of Scripture to consider.
Another dialogue on the relation between alternate understandings of God and the issue of crossing the heresy line.
There no overt hostilities and insinuations this time for which I'm glad (the conversation partner is a dear friend). Still, the occasion was a good reminder that it'll be long while before heresy (the issue, the paradox, the tension) leaves the church completely.
Nevertheless, heresy simply isn't the same thing as it was in the past. People today are excluded for a variety of reasons, some of which could seem alien to the early church.
Heresy and Expulsion in Paul's Time (AD55-70?):
-
metaphysics of Christology NOT a main/key issue ("mission and suffering, not metaphysics and speculation, were the norm," NT Wright)
-
one can be CAST OUT for serious character deviance and refusal to repent of wickedness and lack of love
-
heretics (because they were not always "part of the church") were simply asked to leave but it's likely they NEVER wanted to stay in the first place (1 John)
-
the defenders of orthodoxy (the apostles!) were mainly guardians of a new community, wanting to maintain cruciformed unity in Christ...political power was NOT an issue - a Christ-formed life was.
-
-
the church was subversively undermined by people for whom a change in doctrine entailed change in lifestyle, a transfer of allegiance as per the Galatians issue (i.e. it was never MERELY conceptual or theological)
-
ethics sidelined, debates are more philosophical and VERY abstract/speculative (I kid you not)
-
key doctines:
-
defenders of orthodoxy were at least as much political as they were theological
-
at least some champions of orthodoxy had serious attitude issues and disputes were very 'personal' and political (e.g. Cyrus vs Nestorious), but to be fair people like Athanasius, whilst deeply philosophical, had strong model characters
-
former bishops and pastors (e.g. Apollonarius) can have entire ministries ruined because of a philosophical and highly speculative issue, no matter how sacrificial or community-loving their flocks or they themselves were i.e. a Christ-formed life became virtually irrelevant when it came to declaring people heretics
-
heretics were 'hunted', exiled, their lives and ministries destroyed
Heresy & Expulsion/Exclusion Today?
[fill in the blanks? someone? anyone?]
Heresy has changed and the reasons, criteria and priorities for the 'hunt' have shifted since the time of the apostles. Today there is a myriad of views about heresy but maybe it'll help to 'recover' the perspectives of the apostolic view and the early church as a supercedent and balance to the Chalcedonian/Nicean view.
I think McClendon posed the right question:
Is it not worth considering, finally, how different might have been the history of Christianity if after the accession of the Emperor Constantine the church's leaders had met at Nicaea, not to anathematize others inadequate Christological metaphysics, but to devise a strategy by which the church might remain the church in the light of the fateful political shift to secure Christian social ethics before refining Christian dogma? (emphasis mine)
(B. James William McClendon, Jr. Ethics)
My friend asked me how I would know if I've "crossed the line". I told her I'd cling on to the Cross, no matter what. Where the sin of erroneous doctrine abounds, the grace of Calvary abounds even more.
Thank God.
Posted at 08:05 pm by alwynlau
