Sensationalist “Heretics”
I haven’t done this in a while, this is a reply of sorts to Spencer Burke’s article “The Illusion of the ‘Emerging Church’” which can be found at: http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=2407.
I find commenting on these kinds of articles difficult, not because I don’t know what to say (often times, I have too many things to say and don’t know where to begin), but because I don’t so much disagree (though I do disagree) as find a few of the things being said to be unwise. Spencer Burke is an author, and in my mind that makes him a teacher, a leader, and someone who other people look up to and follow. One of the things Burke says that bothers me is, “I know I have had my fair share of heretical moments and I live by the motto ‘If I am not a little embarrassed about what I said yesterday, then I probably didn’t learn anything today’”. Truthfully, I do not understand the light-hearted attitude taken here towards heresy, or being “heretical” (sensationalism?). I can understand that one is always learning, and that as such one’s theology is always changing, some times substantially so. But if that’s the case, then shouldn’t we be really — I mean, extremely — careful with what we write (read: teach), especially if we are writing towards an audience? (James 3:1) Burke has used the word heretic in a different context before, so in what way is he using heretic now?
In an interview with Next-Wave, Burke explains his use of the word heretic as it relates to his book A Heretics Guide to Eternity:
Ultimately, if you are outside the church and you are critiquing the church you are either a “pagan” or a “heathen.” A heretic is somebody inside the system asking the really tough questions, questions that are so tough that sometimes people are ready to grab a box of matches and say no, that’s heresy. So these are not easy questions, my co-author Barry Taylor and I are asking, but I think they are pertinent questions that the church needs to ask. Hopefully, we are doing it in a friendly way from an insider’s viewpoint.
Whereas Burke has “historically” used the word ‘heretic’ to denote someone who asks “really tough questions,” it would seem that in this article he uses ‘heretic’ to denote someone who has expressed some sort of incorrect teaching (hence the embarrassment and learning). I feel the need to ask–does being called a heretic actually make someone a heretic? And in any case, should we call ourselves heretics? I think it fair to say that Jesus was probably considered a heretic (He called Himself God!), the Apostles were probably considered heretics (by their neighboring Jews), and Martin Luther was quite assuredly considered a heretic (according to the Catholic church). Yet did these people go around calling themselves heretics? They did much more than “ask tough questions”–they changed the world. And as people who believed they had the truth, they went out and presented themselves as people with the truth, not merely people asking “tough questions”. I could not imagine if in the course of their teaching they said, “Forget what I taught to you previously, it was heretical, how embarrassing!” I find this sort of attitude makes “heresy” seem humble and neutral, neither here nor there, something which isn’t consequential… After all, it’s only asking “tough questions”. If we’ve taught heresy, intentionally or not, then I think there is a need for a humble heart and repentance–much more than just a feeling of embarrassment; “I’m only human”, after all.
Ironically, I like the way St. Irenaeus phrased it in the beginning of his Against Heresies (1.2):
Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself. One far superior to me has well said, in reference to this point, “A clever imitation in glass casts contempt, as it were, on that precious jewel the emerald (which is most highly esteemed by some), unless it come under the eye of one able to test and expose the counterfeit. Or, again, what inexperienced person can with ease detect the presence of brass when it has been mixed up with silver?”
One thing that (I think) really influences Burke’s view of what it means to be a heretic, is his view of Grace, which he calls “opt-out grace”. Along this view, people do not “opt-in” to God’s grace (i.e. accepting Jesus), they “opt-out” of it. He writes:
We are already in unless we want to be out. This is the real scandal of Jesus. His message eradicated the need for religion. It may come as a surprise, but Jesus has never been in the religion business. He’s in the business of grace, and grace tells us there is nothing we need to do to find relationship with the divine. The relationship is already there; we only need to nurture it. Of course, growing up, I had a much different concept of grace. I grew up in an environment where grace was described as ‘unmerited favor.’ The only problem was that getting this ‘unmerited favor’ still required doing something – namely, ‘asking Jesus in your heart’ or praying a prayer.1
You can either believe that heaven will be filled exclusively with people of your particular faith (a sentiment heard time and again on television), or you can find a way to reconcile your belief in a good and loving God who works things out in ways beyond our understanding.2
The result is that so long as one does not “opt-out” (however one opts out), one can do almost as one pleases. At another place in his article, Burke writes, “Rather than looking for what we disagree on — perhaps we can find ways to hear each other, learn from each other, challenge each other, and join each other in the way of Jesus.” The “problem” is that what we disagree on (and we should look for those things) is potentially significant, it may even dictate the “Jesus” being discussed. The truth is that if you’re going to ask “really tough questions”, call yourself a “heretic” and attempt to change the way others view God, then I think the reality is that you’re going to be challenged and disagreed with, and in putting yourself in that position, you have no right to ask others to not focus on disagreements. Because the truth is that at this point, you’ve moved past simply asking tough questions, to teaching.
Contrary to what Burke suggests, those “defending the church today” will not realize they are grieving the loss of modernity. What they are defending (and what they will in some way grieve) is the loss of a God that can be known, truth that can be discovered, and scriptures and doctrine that can be built upon. At least, they will grieve for those people who accept a lie that says that these things can’t be known, nor should they be known.
The “emerging church” is not an illusion, and it is not a marketing game. It is a serious alteration (in some forms, aberration) in the direction of the “Western” Church which if not corrected, will have serious consequences, especially for it’s leaders and teachers. We may do well to hear the words of Arthur Schopenhauer (“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident”), but we would do equally well to keep in mind that not everything that is presented as truth, ridiculed, violently opposed and accepted as self-evident is actually truth.
Related posts:
