In response to one of my posts about the mistaken identity of the church, I got an interesting comment from a guy named Michael who expressed some concerns because he felt I was using too broad of a brush stroke when I spoke of pastors and others getting fearful over people finding alternative methods of expressing their faith. I felt it was significant enough to devote a post to it. Let me quote him here:
“This nervousness is not all about holding on to institutionalism nor all about fear. Some are striving to hold the line doctrinally. I have seen alternative ways to express faith include things like house churches(which can be great correctives to the institution) but also things like saying that incorporating Buddhist beliefs and adding a bit of Hindu beliefs and mixing in some Native American mysticism is good for us. This is not an institution vs. organism issue; it is orthodoxy vs. heresy. You can have my building, my Sunday morning structure, and my programs, but I will stand up (and not out of fear) when the death of my Lord is said to be unnecessary and the resurrection is spiritualized away.”
First of all, I agree with Michael, and appreciate the remarks he’s added to the discussion, because it’s going to lend clarity. At the same time, I find it interesting that he felt compelled to bring this up in the first place. It intrigues me, for two reasons:
First–I have never challenged sound Christian doctrine anywhere on this blog. If anything, I have upheld it. All I have ever questioned or critiqued are the methods and practices of the institutional church, some of which are actually contrary to the very doctrine they teach. So my brother’s concerns of heresy were not even included in what I was talking about.
Second–it is not the first time that questions of heresy have come up when I have discussed alternate church methods in the presence of others, especially church leaders. In fact, it often seems to be the first card played on the table, and honestly, I find that a bit telling.
Consider the following examples:
- A “church planter” was eavesdropping on a conversation I was having with someone in a local bookstore. He felt compelled to interject when I mentioned how pastors get nervous about organic forms of doing church. He immediately warned of the threat of heresy and boasted how he retains central “control” of all his church plants to make sure they stay doctrinally sound. (He withdrew sheepishly when I told him I was also a pastor.)
- While sharing with a local pastor friend about what I was learning about missional models of church, he felt compelled to ask me to recount how a person is saved. It was a not-so-subtle way of asking if I had fallen into heresy.
Why is it that when we are talking about alternative methods (NOT alternative doctrines), the issue of heresy regularly seems to come up? Does that seem a bit odd to you?
To Michael’s credit, he was not accusing me of heresy–only suggesting that some people compromise sound doctrine in their attempts to find “alternate” expressions of faith. But in case anyone was wondering…I have no intention of compromising the essential beliefs of the Christian faith. There are principles of Scripture, and there are methods to fulfill those principles. The principles do not change; the methods can, and should change. When my ramblings here critique the institutional church models, I am talking about methods, not principles.
Wayward Son
Musician. Composer. Recovering perfectionist. Minister-in-transition. Lover of puns. Hijacker of rock song references. Questioner of the status quo.
I'm not really a rebel. Just a sincere Christ-follower with a thirst for significance that gets me into trouble. My quest has taken me over the fence of institutional Christianity. Here are some of my random thoughts along the way. Read along, join in the conversation. Just be nice.
View all posts by Wayward Son →
Great posts, both this one and the one that sparked the comment.
I happened to read Michael’s comment pretty quickly after it became available, and my first thought was to post a “I know Jeff and I know he believes in sound doctrine” comment.
But I stopped myself. I knew that you would respond and would do a good job of it.
Now on to my real comment…
Seems to me, house church, institutional church, this church, that church, red church, blue church, old church, new church. Doesn’t matter. Heresy has always been a problem.
Many times people will believe an easy lie instead of a hard truth.
Anyway, ’nuff said.
I blame it on Brian D. McLaren.
In many people’s minds, “alternative methods” equals “emergent church” equals “generous othodoxy” equals heresy.
Hmm… I think it actually does come back to fear. A fear of getting it wrong. A fear of being ‘out of the lines.’ The thing is, I don’t think, if you are honestly pursuing a relationship with God, He will let you go too far wrong without a little nudge back in the right direction. I have seen any form of questioning the status quo labeled, well, not ‘heresy,’ but its near cousin, ‘error.’ Which we all know leads to heresy if not nipped in the bud (Hmm.. it felt more like being nipped in the butt).
I agree with StevenS on this one. Usually when someone starts talking about “alternative forms of church” they are referring to emergent village and associated forms. Those guys are not JUST talking about methods, but also digging back into foundational doctrines that all of us hold to and modifying them to fit the culture in ways that I think constitutes heresy.
Unfortunately, you are probably getting lumped into that crowd in a subtle way.
Katherine hits on a good point too. The Pharisees were so afraid of breaking the law that they created new ones to keep them safe. It’s kind of like putting a fence withing a fence.
So, for example, the law said to obey the sabbath. In order to ensure that no one even came close to breaking that law they created all these additional laws that God never intended.
The problem is that as soon as we leave the scripture behind and make up our own rules, we don’t know when to stop. We just keep adding more and more until we are so chained down and paranoid that we can’t breathe without praying about it first and checking with our pastor.
I think when people react this way it is often a pharisee reaction that is intensified by some of the wingnuts in the emergent stream of churches that are monkeying with the foundations.
I like that – alternative methods and not alternative doctrines.
When I got saved – the Pastor who lead me in the way was my Paul, at Bible College the things I learned and was told were a little contary to what I had been taught – I ended up defending what I had been taught (in essence the person who led me in the way) rather than grow in what I was discovering.
I think we defend our faith traditions a little like this. I defend for example, why I am a Baptist rather than why I am a Christian. Why do people defend their faith traditions? – I’m not sure.
Maybe what Kathrine says, fear. Fear in discovering after all these years there are indeed more exciting things outside our faith tradition.
jeff – i always like to remember that jesus himself was most certainly labeled a heretic! rocking the boat, messing with the status quo will get us all into so much trouble and it does usually all come down to “you are not saying it in the way that i feel comfortable with. it’s a slippery slope and if we budge on this line we are sure to fall off the cliff in no time. no healing on the sabbath for goodness sake!” and probably, when it comes to the institution of church: “hey, you are messing with something i have given my whole life to, it’s my bread and butter, and if you start threatening it, what does that mean for me?” (same thought that i’m pretty sure was at the top of the pharisee’s list). i agree, it’s fear that’s at the root of it. i think there’s room for all kinds of expressions of our christian faith. what works for some doesn’t work for others. even though i don’t agree anymore with a lot of the stuff in the traditional evangelical suburban church i respect that people are still part of that system and love it and meet jesus there. why, when we are asking questions and beginning to explore alternative METHODS to worship and connect and life out our relationship with jesus there’s no room for us? i think it’s because it is a threat to power & tradition and when you start messing with “the man” you get called a heretic!
Aaroneous,
Thanks, bro, for, um, WANTING to post that comment. 🙂 And you’re right…heresy has always been a problem for the church. It was the reason for the existence of several N.T. epistles, and there is just as much risk of heresy in institutional forms as there are organic forms of church. Apparently we’ve put too much trust in the “safeguards” we put in place, and we need to take another tack in dealing with this issue.
Steven & Ben,
Both of you mentioned emergent, and Steven mentioned McLaren. 18 months ago was the first I ever heard of “emergent church”. In my quest to know what was happening outside the typical structures, I have read some emergent material, but McLaren is one I’ve never read. I know this sounds purely subjective, but I had a “check” about reading him, at least while I was formulating new ideas. But I have heard of his “generous orthodoxy”, and of some of the mixture some emergent groups are messing with, and I don’t buy in to that part of this change. However, in that light it would make perfect sense that some of my remarks would stir Michael to comment as he did. Thanks for bringing that up.
Katherine, I was hoping someone would touch on this. I think *sometimes* (not all the time) people use the heresy word as a reflex word, sort of scare word to try and keep themselves and others well inside the lines. Not unlike the way an insurance salesman sells insurance (“What if….?”) There may be no heresy going on at all, but just the hint that *maybe* it could happen…. I understand this dynamic, but I think taken to the extreme it supplants God as the protector of our souls. Like Ben said–building fences within fences. There should be a healthy fear of anything that’s potentially dangerous, but ultimately our fear of heresy is not the best safeguard against it. Jesus is able to take care of us, if we will let Him.
Mork,
Thanks for the good (and honest) point about how we tend to defend our traditions without really knowing why. A lot of the fear we’re talking about is, I think, fear of the unknown. Even as I process this stuff here, I still deal with that fear in areas of my own life. It’s easier to write something off as bad (better safe than sorry) because of what *might* be wrong with it, rather than search out the matter and *know* if something is wrong with it.
Hmm… I heard someone once talk about how the building of fences within fences not only boxes the believer in, it builds a wall between the searcher and God…
Jeff,
Thank you for the fair and honest treatment of my remarks. It is clear to me now that I should have 1) persued your blog a little longer before commenting and 2) been more clear myself.
I would say that Stevens assessment of my commment is right on, a reaction to someone other than you who might use a similar term or phrase. And I should know better. I have learned (though apparently still learning) that defining terms is critical to understanding and good dialogue.
I apologize for jumping the gun, and again, thank you for dealing with me and the issue in a way that honors Christ.
Kathy,
Thanks for the remarks. I think there are levels of fear about this issue, and not everyone will react at the same level (or even recognize the fear in themselves); but I do think that to some extent you have described the nature of the fear pretty well.
Katherine,
Well said. 🙂
Michael,
I greatly appreciate not only this comment but the one before…because even though you may feel you jumped the gun, your input sparked a much-needed dialogue on this matter, and went a long way toward helping me clarify the differences between my own position and those who may be compromising the essentials. You have actually added some much needed wisdom to the conversation.
God has used this event, my brother, and I thank you for your candor. Thanks for reading, and feel free to chime in anytime.
Jeff… I’ve been meaning to comment for awhile, but things got crazy here. I’m glad to hear you aren’t a heretic. 🙂 Not that I thought for a second that you were.
I have written a bit about heresy… I see it ofen used as a big club that can be pulled out to keep people under control. We should save the word heresy for true heresy… not for challenges and questions about traditions and methods.
Nobody wants to be in error… but sometimes the fear of it causes us to be stuck. That is where I’ve been. I’m so afraid of getting “outside of sound Christian Doctrine” that I’m stuck from moving forward. I’m not a theologian, or a scholar… and I was raised in a church where you had to have gone to seminary or bible college in order to be a pastor. Not to mention… a man. 🙂
I find myself somewhere in the gap between institutional church and the emerging people. My belief system as far as doctrine hasn’t changed… but my ‘desired style’ of church would look more relaxed and relational/missional (and we would have to start something to have that around here… back to the fear of error).
But so far I think I’ve only managed to make both sides mad at me.
And I’m very impressed with Michael, I must say! 🙂
I am with you on this one.
Additionally, “central” control does not eliminate the potential for corrupt doctrine.