It would be nice if heresy hunting were unnecessary. We would get our theology straight, and each succeeding generation would simply inherit the Truth. No more tinkering; no more heresy.
Unfortunately, theology does not work that way. Although we can learn much from previous scholarship, each generation must “mitigate the strangeness of the proclaimed Word,” as Otto Weber put it, making it possible for us to hear what God is saying in light of our unique, fallen world. The problem is, this open-ended process of relating the gospel to our age could lead us to change the message.
Why We Must Hunt
Historically, heresy has occurred more often than we would like to think. Second-century gnostics denied any true Incarnation, reducing Christianity to a sophisticated cult of wisdom. Twentieth-century liberation theologians sometimes elevate their desire for economic equality over God’s desire for our obedience, limiting Christianity to a political/sociological movement. Thousands of other errors, large and small, have dotted the church’s historical landscape.
The inevitability of such errors leads us to cast a critical eye on efforts to make the biblical message contemporary and relevant. The task of theology is not to find a new message, but to make sure the old, unchanging one is clear to a shifting, sometimes-decaying, sometimes-progressing, always-sinning world. Thus, the task of doing theology is governed by the demand for doctrinal purity.
Purity, a concept full of light and love, can only be assured by invoking a concept of confrontation: heresy hunting. We recoil from the phrase. It conjures up images of inquisitions, witch trials, and burnings at the stake. And yet, careful scholarship tempered by honest criticism prepares the church for effective ministry.
So the dilemma is this: heresy hunting is something we must do, but how can we do it without overstepping the bounds of Christian love? In short, how do we do it with both effectiveness and integrity?
Arguing for integrity in heresy hunting is a little like advocating proper arm and wrist motion in the spanking of one’s children. Discipline (of either believers or children) is already such a distasteful task, that to have to spend time talking about the right and wrong ways to do it smacks of priggishness. Yet, like it or not, technique is important to discipline.
Seductive Stalking
Two recent heresy-hunting books seem to have ignored proper technique altogether and gone straight to striking the Christian community below the belt. In 1984, Franky Schaeffer V, son of populist theologian Francis Schaeffer, published Bad News for Modern Man, a book the author admitted in an afterword is not scholarly, not theological, nor even good literature. He called it a “blunt instrument” designed to “redress evil through activist means.” More recently, Dave Hunt and T. A. McMahon wrote The Seduction of Christianity, a book that, in their words, is “not a hairsplitting theological treatise but a handbook for spiritual survival.”
Both books decry the state of the church. Schaeffer argues that the leadership of the church is guilty of accommodation and inaction in the face of a rapidly deteriorating respect for the sanctity-of-life ethic. Hunt and McMahon warn that syncretistic views from the New Age movement are creeping into the teachings of many Christian leaders and authors.
The rough formula for each book is threefold:
1. Focus on topics of genuine concern to the Christian community: abortion, cults, weak-kneed (and weak-minded) theology. Briefly paint the danger in graphic terms, a relatively easy task since the issues are already emotionally supercharged in the minds of many Christians.
2. Associate the issue with a Christian author or theologian by quoting, often out of context, statements that sound unorthodox. Pick out the easiest marks: the creative thinkers and theological pioneers who are on the front lines of doing theology, those who are stretching our thinking in the biblically mandated quest of preaching God’s revelation to a godless society.
3. Ignore the obvious noble intentions of the writers or speakers in order to make them seem as radical as possible.
The formula works. Both books have sold well. Heresy hunting has always attracted a crowd, especially when the canons of Christian fellowship and love are ignored. But popularity is not an accurate measure of truth. In these two cases, the goals of these well-intentioned writers—Christian activism and perspicacity—are consumed in the fire of rhetoric. The issues themselves are not really engaged, the people who are our best hope of dealing with the issues are enervated, and the unity of the body of Christ is endangered.
This broadsword approach is typified by the way The Seduction of Christianity refers to Dr. James Dobson, an author and speaker who has ministered to millions of Christian parents. Hunt and McMahon use a quotation from Dobson’s Hide or Seek to suggest Dobson elevates man’s innate goodness over the biblical conviction of sin and repentance. According to Hunt and McMahon, Dobson’s emphasis on self-esteem encourages pride and an unwillingness to repent of our sins. Yet their case rests solely on an isolated quotation taken out of context.
Dobson’s response makes perfect sense: “Of course, the Bible condemns self-will, self-importance, and self-aggrandizement. I have never taught people to be self-oriented. The theme of Hide or Seek is prevention of self-hatred in adolescents—not haughtiness and pride.” Yet the damage done by Hunt and McMahon’s book cannot easily be repaired.
Charges of heresy inflict harm even when they do not name personalities.
David Seamands, professor of pastoral care at Asbury Theological Seminary, wrote a theologically impeccable book, Healing of Memories. Hunt and McMahon skillfully attacked the technique of healing memories, letting the reader jump to his own conclusions. And even though Seamands was not named, his publishers reported an immediate drop in the sales of his book.
In some ways, it is ironic that we shoot our own in this way. Conservative Christianity has long been accused of anti-intellectualism. But in the past 30 years we have developed scholars and programs to address the pressing theological, cultural, and political issues of the day. Our theologians think, write, and advocate. The Christian community reads and evaluates their ideas, often resulting in revisions and restatements. The give and take of the endeavor eventually produces the fruit of the Spirit we all seek.
But for this community task to work, trust must exist on both sides—without it, the community becomes suspicious, the scholar fearful and tentative. We do not kill off our aerodynamic engineers and test pilots when their machines fail; we redesign the plane. Similarly, when we have questions about new ideas, we should not immediately charge the teacher in question with apostasy.
Speaking The Truth In Love
What, then, are the standards of ethical heresy hunting?
First, follow the normal canons of good scholarship. Although this should be obvious, heresy hunters frequently fail to verify the suspicious statements, making sure the material was not taken out of context. In the case of The Seduction of Christianity, the authors appear to have decided that uncontrolled mysticism is the problem of the day, then went looking for books and articles that included statements to prove their bias. Such “wishful scholarship” is not unique to heresy hunting, but it is most dangerous there.
Second, recognize that by its very nature, heresy contains partial truth. Heresy is truth gone wrong—that is part of its appeal. The temptation for the heresy hunter is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead of focusing on the questionable parts of an idea, the unethical heresy hunter pronounces it all untrue, thus trivializing truth and destroying otherwise valuable ministries.
The effective way to deal with heresy is to show where the truth (not the author) is twisted. The attitude must always be one of discovery, not conquest. Our task is to rediscover the fundamentals of the faith in a new day. We must rest in the knowledge that the gospel will always prevail under our serious scrutiny.
Third, get second (and third and fourth) opinions. No one is wise enough to pronounce final judgment on another person’s work. If parts of an author’s work are indeed heresy, many will soon notice.
Fourth, deal with the matter privately. Heart-to-heart conversations, liberally laced with prayer and humility, are far more enlightening than public attacks.
Fifth, if private conversation fails and public statement becomes necessary, make the correction fit the potential for harm:
- Do not be tone deaf. A good rule of thumb is to match the tone of correction to the tone of the material presented. If possible, use positive statements rather than negative statements. We thrive on encouragement and chafe under the unfair criticism of friends.
- Be sensitive to timing. For the heresy hunter, procrastination usually is a virtue. Many nights of reflection and prayer should precede any action. Sometimes, though, swift action is the only alternative. When the integrity of the gospel or the body of Christ is in immediate danger, we must have the courage to pronounce anathema, regardless of cost.
Poor models of the past must not prevent us from the serious and necessary business of guarding against heresy. Heresy hunting—the careful testing of new ideas—is one of the safeguards of our church. But to have it done so irresponsibly, so unconvincingly, so tiresomely, is a threat to us all.
By Terry C. Muck.
