Heretic!!!
So this guy is walking on a bridge, and he sees this man about to jump. He runs up to him and asks him why he wants to kill himself.
‘Well, I just don’t think there’s any meaning to life.’ The first man responds,
‘What are your religious beliefs? Do you believe in God?’
‘Why yes, I do.’
‘No way, me too! Are you a Muslim, Christian, Jew…?’
‘I’m a Christian’
‘Are you Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant?’
‘I’m Protestant’
‘No way, me too! What denomination are you part of?’
‘I’m Presbyterian”
‘No way, me too! What confession do you adhere to?’
‘The Westminster Confession’
‘No way, me too! Do you believe in supralapsarianism or infralapsarianism?’
‘I’m an infralapsarianist.’
‘Well go ahead and jump you damn heretic’
Is a heretic really anyone who diverges with a given set of beliefs at any point? Perhaps a better definition of a heretic would be one who diverges in belief in a fundamental or essential area.
Even within Christianity differences of belief exists. There are about 38,000 denominations claiming to be Christian in the world. What amazes me is how we Christians sometimes allow tiny issues to become insurmountable if disagreement arises.
Belief that is consistent with the Bible is important. There must be a basis, an authoritative guide, for Christianity. “Ideas have consequences” to cite the truism. Issues such as the authority of the Bible, the deity and humanity of Jesus, and understanding the reality of sin are defining issues of Christianity. But at what point do we draw the line? When is someone’s belief about an aspect of Christianity considered a non-essential issue of Christianity?
In 1529, a group of theologians gathered to attempt to unite German and Swiss reformers of the church. At this gathering (called the Marburg Colloquy), Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli found common ground. In fact, they devised 14 points and hoped they could agree on all of them. They agreed on 13 ½ of the points, but they could not come to terms on that last little bit.
The issue regarded Communion (also called the Lord’s Supper, or the Eucharist). Both rejected the notion of Transubstantiation (which said that the bread and wine actually turn to Christ’s body and blood). Zwingli interpreted Jesus’ words “this is my body…this is my blood” as metaphorical. Luther believed Christ’s body was “with, in, and under” the bread and wine. Luther is said to have pounded his fist and written, “This is my body…” in the dust on the table. However, neither party would move. The result was that the two reformation movements remained separated, even adversarial at times.
Unity and unanimity are not the same thing. Unity is found in common ground. For Christians it is found in that we love God and serve Him. The difficulty is that we often want everyone to agree on every issue before we can have fellowship.
Isn’t there supposed to be unity among God’s people? Isn’t the church made up of individuals that God loves and has saved? Should such issues really keep us from worshiping together? At the same time, how do we keep from watering down our theology if we do come together?
Posts
That is the question, isn’t it? Josh, this article is stellar. I knew of Luther and Zwingli’s feud, but didn’t realize it was based on that one exception… fascinating.
interesting how Ego plays into our sense of the divine. have we made God a bit too human for our own good? Have we saddled God with our own prejudices?
God is boundless, humans are boundless only in their eagerness to take offense. it’s usually the weirdest, smallest detail that we go to war over. we tend to look at our differences before we we notice our similarities.
humans are weird.
I think some might argue that the “Watering down” bit is a slippery slope, and soon we’re saying, “Well, we’re all humans.” I see this as the exact reason why we SHOULD water down. It would be very nice if we could ultimately say, “Well, person A is human, and I am human, and so I’m not going to pretend I have a leg-up on them.”
And I think holding to 1/2 a point is also a slippery slope. First it’s transubstantiation, then what? they believe in an actual trinity while we don’t? They like salt and we don’t? (the last one is something I actually heard once…)
Nice post. Gives me many thoughts to ponder.
SIDENOTE: the author of the posts does not appear after the jump. Any way that might change? Nothing big. Just curious.
“Belief that is consistent with the Bible is important. There must be a basis, an authoritative guide, for Christianity. “Ideas have consequences” to cite the truism” (Josh)
This is where the ‘hot water’ all begins in this faith - following an authoritative guide - some will cite more than just the guide (which I am thinking is the bible) - but some confessionals, statements of faith, history, etc. Until we get to the point where faith is all but ‘too defined’ for us…and then all we need to do is defend it’s ‘truths’ (supposed truths I would say).
“Should such issues really keep us from worshiping together? At the same time, how do we keep from watering down our theology if we do come together?” (Josh)
Great point Josh. Now to share a great story with a great ending.
I actually attended my ‘old church’ this Sunday - where I attended for 6 years and then ‘up and left’. The church has not changed in the last 7 years - but I have. However, I felt at home in the community I actually admire - and amongst a group of people that want to ’serve God’ (I am so there with them). I can appreciate the differences - but I focus on the unity…and this week I saw that we all can work together as a community - regardless of what we believe differently about - as long as want community and and I would throw in faith. (That being said I would invite an athiest into the community if they so wanted to be there).
Unity is possible amongst our dis-agreeances - heck - anything is possible (isn’t that a teaching?). I know on this blog Luke, myself, Mike, and Brad have it out from post to post - but do our differences cut so deep they disconnect us from fellowship? No. There is something extremely endearing in the fact we all can make statements about our faith in those posts - showing our real intents - we each love our faith (God). I can see that quite clearly - and I saw that this Sunday in church - different yet the same.
” I know on this blog Luke, myself, Mike, and Brad have it out from post to post - but do our differences cut so deep they disconnect us from fellowship? No.” SocietyVS
preach it! we can disagree but we don’t have to be disagreable when we do. dialogue is the MOST important thing i think.. as when two or three are gathered in Jesus’ name.. Jesus didn’t say “y’all gotta agree first and then gather” the sacred is in the gathering in itself.
thanks to Confessions for allowing a heretic like me to speak and to enter into dialogue with y’all without getting pissy.
Is it unity of purpose rather than unanimity we are called to? Kevin Kelly of WIRED believes that at current rates of splitting we are heading not for 36,000 denominations, but 210,000 over the next hundred years. What do denominations mean? I wonder how we can hold to truth that we believe in, and yet still love and practice this unity.
Kyle,
“I see this as the exact reason why we SHOULD water down. It would be very nice if we could ultimately say, “Well, person A is human, and I am human, and so I’m not going to pretend I have a leg-up on them.””
I think it is entirely possible to avoid watering down and still have some semblance of humility (not pretending to have a leg-up). The orthodox belief of sin (we are ALL sinners) and grace (not by our merit or effort, but by God’s) balance this well. A true understanding of our depravity and the amazing love of God leads one to a “humble confidence,” where you know that you are no better than anyone else, and any blessing or merit gained is given purely by grace. Because you are not the one who “earned it,” there’s nothing to be arrogant about. This emphasis is one of the biggest differences between reformed Christianity and legalistic streams like fundamentalism. (Also, we’ll look into the author-signing you mentioned… never noticed that before)
Society,
Great stuff, concerning secondary “guides” like confessional statements, I would say that they can still be very helpful (at least the ones that are biblically based), but the instant we start holding them higher than the actual Scriptures, we absolutely have a problem. Great point.
Your story=AWESOME. That is great news, bro! Life is tough on it’s own, much less outside the context of community. I’m stoked to hear you were able to reconnect despite the differences. That’s beautiful.
Luke,
Dude! I hope you don’t think we view you as a heretic! LOL, I know it was tongue in cheek, and while we may disagree (vehemently at times!), we’re definitely on the same team. It’s good to have you, and I echo your appreciation of Society’s statement. Amen.
Duncan,
Again, I think you hit the nail on the head. We absolutely need to be unified in purpose, despite the disagreements. I think many of the denominational splits you mention stem from a misunderstanding of exactly that (especially when essentials and non-essentials to the faith are confused/fused). As a small beacon of hope though, biblically we see a commonality among the global church that transcends geography, culture, and ethnicity. It is my hope and prayer that this is renewed and strengthened despite denominational divides.
Kyle-
“It would be very nice if we could ultimately say, ‘Well, person A is human, and I am human, and so I’m not going to pretend I have a leg-up on them.’”
I think this concept is true. All people are created in the image of God, and nothing we do or believe can discount this. This is why man has dignity- the intelligent, the idiotic, the athletic, and the disabled. This is also why the Bible can call people to love their neighbor as themselves.
At the same time, this does not mandate that we water down our belief system (at least for the Christian). Someone can be a white supremacist and Nazi, but I still must say he is made in the image of God.
Duncan-
I would not worry about there being 210,000 denominations given the “current rate” of division. In fact, there have been a number of ecumenical councils in the last few years bringing various denominations back together. Unfortunately, they often involve the abandonment of content in teaching to do so.
In order to understand why there are so many denominations, one must study each split within its historical context. Understanding the various dogmas is not enough. Some splits were over extremely trivial things, and it was these I wanted to call attention to in this post. However, some have been over varying issues of importance. In the mid 1800s some denominations split over the issue of slavery. J. G. Machen formed a new Presbyterian Church because the old denomination had quit teaching Christianity (see his book Christianity and Liberalism).