I found myself frustrated and a little disappointed by a central thesis of the book. Dr. Alister McGrath contends that heresy is not the product of "malevolent and arrogant apostates", but well-meaning "insiders" of the church. (p.175)
Let me state for the record that I have great respect for Dr. McGrath as a Christian brother and scholar. I don't argue with the fact that heresy arises from within the church. I also agree that we could hardly call the work of many heretics in such hyperbolic terms as some kind of conspiratorial Satanism. I also think I understand at least some of Dr. McGrath's intent. Let me take a stab.
A Possible Intent
Too often, when a person within the church reveals beliefs to the general Christian populace which are radical, strange or challenging to comprehend and/or just plain out of line with what Scripture teaches, the response is like a team of attack dogs going for a piece of meat. In addition to those people who actually care about the person, this attack contains elements of those who:
a) Don't really care about learning a new perspective.
b) Attack heresy for the sheer joy of destroying someone with their own virulent legalism.
c) Are only interested in destroying the heretic to make themselves look good.
d) Can't handle paradox, mystery or questions about/to their faith.
Any one or more of the above and you have an allergic reaction which overall doesn't help anyone. But there remains a problem when we suggest that heretics were "well intentioned" insiders.
The Problem
First and foremost, this appears to fly in the face of Scripture. Jesus Himself stated in Matt 7:15, "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." Or how about 2 Timothy 3, where Paul warns Timothy about those that "hold to a form of godliness but deny its power" and are "evil men" "impostors" "deceiving and being deceived" followed by his famous admonition that Scripture is "inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;". Or how about Acts 20:29, "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock." Paul clearly wasn't talking about anyone particularly well-meaning in these passages, nor was Christ. It's also clear they weren't talking about Roman soldiers, they were talking about insiders, people who would come in and rip the church apart from the inside out.
The reason for heresy may at first be simple misunderstanding; this is the point at which we come alongside a brother or sister and attempt to correct gently with instruction. But persistence in error, in contravention of what is plainly taught by the Scriptures is sin. It is the failure to take God at His Word and believe it. This is what Paul was talking about in 2 Tim 4:3, where people do not find the teaching of Scripture to be agreeable to their human reason and/or their lifestyle. This is the point at which you take your two or three witnesses and give this person the heave-ho.
Take Marcion for example. It amazes me that McGrath can maintain this thesis when he details the fact that Marcion excised large portions of Scripture because of his distaste for Judaism (p.129). Does this sound like someone who is humble and submissive to God's Word, or someone trying to revise it for his own ideological tastes? It's an absolute no-brainer.
How many heretics do you know would openly claim, "Yes, I am a false teacher attempting to change the clear teaching of the gospel to suit my own interests and destroy the church."? I doubt we will find many takers. People want to believe what they tell themselves is true. Fortune tellers, faith healers and other charlatans depend on this human habit every day. "Well-meaning" is irrelevant if it cohabits with self-deceit. Heresy is a subtle self deception; and it is also perfectly natural. Nobody, except for an avowed opponent of the church would wake up and plot its destruction. There is always a back story; a mitigating compromise of mind in sin which leads the heretic to deny the orthodox. Our recent encounters with the universalist heresy for example, I believe are motivated by a genuine interest in loving people and getting along combined with a willful ignorance of what the bible actually teaches.
McGrath's efforts appear to be an attempt to find some neutral ground from which to dialogue with past and present "heretics"; but I don't think this presentation of the "friendly wolf" lines up with Scripture. People deny the orthodox because they are sinners or are genuinely uneducated in Scripture. Heretics are those who have been told but still rebel anyways. They may not have some malevolent desire to dismantle the church, but failing to "token" this explicit desire in the head does not absolve the heretic from an ultimately evil motivation. Believing, "I'm right" in the head can be far more destructive than possessing the intent, "I'm out to dismantle the church".
The Challenge
As believers we are all "heretics" at various points in our lives in varying degrees. Many "Christians" have never confronted many of the "hard" sayings of Scripture. This makes it easy to pronounce many as "Christians" before they have ever wrestled with and assented to the life-altering implications of the gospel.
We do not work from a faith of "deductive proofs"; but neither are the Scriptures an unintelligible mass of socially constructed metaphors. Preach the gospel and be patient with the unlearned; but boldly throw out the deceived. The day we have no more heretics is the day we have no more courage for faith.
"If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Maranatha." -1 Cor 16:22
"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerors and idolators and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." -Rev 21:8
No comments:
Post a Comment