Testing the waters of heresy

By Arthur Paul Boers and ChristianWeek | August 18, 2010

Is it just me or was heresy once a lot easier to detect and name? Not so long ago, a lot of us suspected the theology of anyone not from our own particular tradition. That point of view suggested heaven must be a very small place indeed. In the last few decades, however, many have been bridging divides with other Christians who once would have been considered "beyond the pale."

We have come to understand that the communion of saints is wide and diverse. Having said that, it is tricky to know how to balance appropriate humility and reticence about one's own convictions with knowing how to identify which doctrines and beliefs deeply harm the living Body of Christ. This sounds like a job for Alister McGrath—historian, biochemist and theologian.

McGrath insists it is vital to honour distinctions between orthodoxy and heresy. In his book, he traces the emergence of the idea of heresy and the development of creeds and orthodoxy. I appreciated this refresher in various early century heresies. He refuses to give in to one fashionable idea that orthodoxy is merely the point-of-view that won the debates or battles.

McGrath's contentions are relevant. Our era is still fascinated with heresies. Gnosticism is "in" with many learned types and for the more popularly-inclined one can read or watch The DaVinci Code.

Heresy, as McGrath defines it, is "a form of Christian belief that, more by accident than design, ultimately ends up subverting, destabilizing or even destroying the core of Christian faith." This summarizes three major points.

First, heresy is not an outside enemy agent; it emerges within the church. Second, it develops because of real crises and confusions; it does not set out to be malicious or destructive but tries to meet pastoral concerns and needs. "Heresy," he writes, "arose through a desire to preserve not to destroy, the gospel." Yet, third, getting crucial beliefs wrong threatens Christian faith and life.

McGrath handles various problems well, including the fact that often all we know about heretics is what orthodox "victors" report, or that postmoderns are suspicious of power wielded by those who determine orthodoxy. But he also challenges those of us who consider ourselves orthodox. It's not enough to have "the most intellectually and spiritually authentic form of the Christian faith." We need to regain an "imaginative ascendancy" and come to grips with why heresy is so fascinating: "The real challenge is for the churches to demonstrate that orthodoxy is imaginatively compelling, emotionally engaging, aesthetically enhancing and personally liberating." I like that.

And I liked the book too, although there were a couple unfulfilled hopes. I would have liked closer examination of current movements within the church. It's easy to write off DaVinci or Gnosticism, but what to make of the prosperity gospel, seeker sensitive priorities, mega-churches, emergent movements, et cetera? And, as a former pastor, I wished for counsel on how to address heresy in a congregation; preaching and teaching were never enough, I always found.

While I'm still not always sure whether to label something heresy, McGrath convinces me that such questions need to be tested and explored. And he's given us great tools for doing so.