2 of 3

To take just one example, think of Arius. This was the guy whose teaching that Jesus Christ is less than fully divine (for a modern version, talk to a Jehovah's Witness) rocked the early church and led to the convening of the first ecumenical council. He and his followers were far from a weak, oppressed minority beset by power-hungry orthodox leaders. As Tom Oden puts it in his Rebirth of Orthodoxy, they "lived by collusion with political oppressors. They had plenty of intellectuals and power manipulators on their side, while orthodoxy had to be defended largely by nonscholars and laypeople, by modest men and women of no means, by lowly persons who had no training or special expertise but understood their lives in Christ."

On the other hand, Arius's opponent Athanasius, the bold Christian thinker whose leadership helped move the Council of Nicea to its condemnation of Arius, was no triumphant political manipulator. He was "exiled a half-dozen times and chased all over the Mediterranean world during the Arian times." The example can be multiplied on both sides.

The consistent advocacy of heretics over against supposedly prideful, power-hungry ecclesiastical hierarchies is like the consistent advocacy of pacifism. It is founded on an admirable ideal, but it is one-sided—and thus fatally flawed.

The sad fact is this: consistent defense of heretics leads to the same result as consistent pacifism—the slaughter and enslavement of innocents. Unsuspecting people enter the churches or denominations of leaders committed to a theological openness that leads them to teach things we used to call "heresies." Those people—to use Jesus' language, those sheep—find there just what the guardians of the apostolic faith have always said they would find: wolves in shepherds' clothing, whose teachings turn them away from, rather than towards, salvation.

And this is the nub. As another teacher of mine once put it, if Jack the Ripper is abroad in your town, killing people and mutilating their bodies, the city's leaders must track him down and render him unable to inflict further harm. And if, as the historic church has always—until today—agreed, a person insists on teaching beliefs that threaten the eternal lives of all who hear, that person must be disciplined and their harmful teaching rendered null within the church.

It is easy for a comfortable and presumptively (but often emptily) "Christian" society to demonize the mechanisms the historic church has developed to deal with heresy. But to wink at heresy is to suck the life from faith. Can we imagine a graffitist even bothering to get out his spray can to write, not "Jesus Saves," but "Jesus, by his example, draws from us the emergent good our bad habits have suppressed within us"? Or a person holding up a sign at a sports event reading "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son that he might be for them one example—among many—of what really, really good people can do, given the right moral teaching"?

Such teachings are worth fighting against, through the same kinds of mechanisms that the church has always used. Yes, these mechanisms are tainted by politics and pride. But somehow still, we must believe, they have been used and will continue to be used by the Holy Spirit for the health of His church. In Appleby's words, "what we hold devoutly to be true, what we identify as the very core of our Christian identity, has come to us through the imperfect channel of human history."

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

February (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47