Tuesday, September 20, 2022

According To Xianity Today, I’m A Heretic

"Orthodox" is carrying a lot of baggage there. Neither of those opinions are unorthodox outside fundamentalist/evangelical Christian churches. The second one is a little more widely accepted, but it’s becoming more orthodox by the day.

But according to this article I’m both a heretic and a bad theologian. However, I’m in good company.
Overall, adults in the US are moving away from orthodox understandings of God and his Word year after year. More than half of the country (53%) now believes Scripture “is not literally true,” up from 41 percent when the biannual survey began in 2014.

I’m surprised it’s that low, actually. The article argues this is a sign Christians, even fun/evs, are conforming too much to the world. I think those numbers indicate they still have too much influence on American culture. The idea that scripture is “literally true” is theirs alone, and only 100 years old. “Orthodox” is usually a millenia or so older than that.

At any rate it’s not a doctrine that’s widely accepted as orthodoxy in Christianity at large.

Now there is a question of the Arian heresy: that Jesus was created by God but was not of God. Jesus was not, in other words, God. This touches on the nature of the Trinity. In christological terms,, was Jesus of the same substance as God, or was he of similar substance? The Council of Nicea couldn’t settle the question, so they accepted both: Christ was “homoousias” AND “homoiousias.” Same AND similar. Giving rise to the old adage “not an iota’s worth of difference between them.” (The “iota” being the Greek letter “i”.)  73% of evangelicals believe Jesus was created by God, while 43% think Jesus was just a great teacher. Which is, frankly, problematic; but not surprising. Both positions are considered heresies (the Arian heresy) in “orthodox” Xianity.

Another “heresy”, the article says, is that “the Holy Spirit is not a personal being.” Now, orthodox Xianity holds that Jesus is the only “personal being” of the Trinity. But what I literally don’t understand is this argument:

To be fair, the Spirit of God is often described as an impersonal force throughout the Bible (sometimes as a dove, a cloud, fire, wind, or water), but these are all just metaphors for the Spirit’s personal presence.

Isn’t the Bible literally true? But metaphors are not literal. So doesn’t that “make[] it easy for individuals to accept biblical teaching that they resonate with while simultaneously rejecting any biblical teaching that is out of step with their own personal views or broader cultural values"?

Seems like pretty bad theology to me (I’ve always had this problem with Biblical literalism). But this is where it gets interesting, starting with the definition of evangelicals:

It’s clear that US evangelicals (defined by belief and church affiliation) share some core faith convictions. Well over 90 percent agree that God is perfect, God exists in three persons, Jesus’ bodily resurrection is real, and people are made righteous not through works but through faith in him.

I’ll give them the first three as Biblically grounded (although the concept of the Trinity is from the early church, based largely on Luke’s references to the Holy Spirit). And the bodily resurrection is really only attested to in John. Mark ends without Jesus being seen; Matthew ends with Jesus seeing Mary and Mary Magdalene, and a rather odd story about guards being bribed to say the disciples stole the body from the tomb; and Luke ends with Jesus on the road to Emmaus, but somehow unknown until he’s revealed, at which point he disappears; and later he ascends into heaven. John even has Jesus tells the women not to touch him at the tomb, and then enters a crowded, locked room without using the door or a window. So he has a body (he shows the wounds to "Doubting" Thomas), but he walks through walls? The only truly bodily resurrection story is when he serves fish to his friends.

But the fourth one, justification by faith, while widely accepted by Christianity, comes solely from Martin Luther. Then again, a lot of Xian orthodoxy comes from doctrine, not Biblical interpretation. So these Biblical fundamentalists are rather loose with just how fundamental Scripture is.

I’m not saying this article is wrong; but their view of orthodox Christianity is a very skewed one. And their theology isn’t all that good, either.

The argument in the article pulls a verse from Psalm 51 which I was confronted with in my first church by a member who wasn’t all that comfortable with children being born damned. Here's the King James version, more or less in context:

Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

2Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

3For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.

4Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

5Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

6Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.

7Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

8Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.

9Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.

10Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

The verse the article relies on is verse 5.  What I’d say now is that the Psalmist clearly meant (in her/his context) to express her/his humility before God.  Verse 6 is the key: the "inward parts" where God will make the Psalmist know wisdom. If anything, the Psalmist is confessing a natural state (from birth) of not knowing wisdom, and so needing to know learn it from God, learn it so deeply it erases the innate, or born to, state.

Or you could go full Calvinist and insist it means humans are born damned and can't escapse that fate, except that some are born "saved."  Or quasi-Calvinist, and insist anyone can be "saved" if they just "get right with God."  But I find my analysis to be a far more Biblical view, identifiable from Genesis through Paul, of the human condition and humanity's relationship with the Creator than the idea we are all damned to hell without God’s divine intervention, one we must earn if only by faith alone. When you think about it, the latter is a pretty screwy idea of existence. God says the creation is good in Genesis 1. Do we arrogate to humanity the god-like power to make it (and us) bad by one act of defiance by one person long, long ago?

And in the original social context of this Psalm, it is a confession of selfishness to the community.  Sung by the assembled worshippers (one presumes; or just heard by them) it is a confession of self-centeredness and an expression of a desire to return to right relationship with the children of Abraham.  We do these words a great injustice to interpret them as if they were post-19th century lyrics or even mid-20th century confessional poems.  The concepts of self we take for granted now simply didn't exist when these psalms were written and first used in worship.

Which is the problem of anachronism and literalism and doctrine.  Most of what the CT article describes as "Biblical" is actually just doctrinal (like the doctrine of "original sin").  Accept it if you like, but don't assume it is handed down from God and you stand at God's right hand with a full understanding of the will of God Almighty.  That is arrogant in the extreme, the very opposite of the humility Psalm 51 prays for.  I have no problem with rejecting the Arian heresy (and amazing how persistent these "heresies" are, isn't it?), but that's because accepting them rather destroys the central tenets of Christianity. Then again, a "heretic" is no longer put beyond the reach of God and King, and Christianity itself has never resolved the issue of the nature of the Christ.  It just papers over it with the label "holy mystery," so the issue is really just down to one of argument.  And on all matters involving disagreement I tend to look at the story from Luke:

Now an argument broke out among them over which of them was greatest. But Jesus, knowing what us on their minds, took a child and had her stand next to him.  He said to them, "Whoever accepts this child in my name is accepting me. And whoever accepts me, accepts the one who sent me. Don't forget, the one who has a lower rank among you is the one who is great."

John said in response, "Master, we say someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he isn't one of us."

But he said to them, "Don't stop him; in fact, whoever is not against you is on your side."

Luke 9:46-50, SV

"Because he isn't one of us..."  Takes me back to Psalm 51; which is a good place to end this. 

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)