Heresy is the New Orthodoxy
In A Heretic's Guide to Eternity, Spencer Burke and Barry Taylor say that heretics are "people who will push past and beyond the accepted wisdom of the dominant group and pull us across sacred fences that hold us back and keep us tied to perceived orthodoxies." (xxv) One of the examples they give is Copernicus, who believed that the earth was not the center of the universe:
Not surprisingly, Copernicus had many detractors. Although he was not personally committed to God and saw his work as a way of glorifying God, the powers that be were quick to tell him he was threatening the faith. Tolosani, a Dominican monk, wrote that Copernicus "seems to be unfamiliar with the Holy Scriptures since he contradicts some of its principles, not without risk to himself and to the readers of his book of straying from the faith. (18)
The first chapter of the book is called "Jesus Beyond Christianity." The question is asked: "Is it possible to encounter God's loving goodness outside the confines of religious patterns and practices?" (6) The main thesis of the book is that we need to move beyond religion on a worldwide level.
Unlike Luther, I'm for Protestant transformation, not reformation. Actually, my desire for change runs deeper. I'm not just in favor of Protestant transformation. I'm for the transformation of all institutional faiths into something new and different. (97-98)
I'm not entirely sure what this "new and different" something is yet, but I'm only halfway through the book! As the authors point out, Jesus never suggested that his followers should start a new religion. (19) They seem to be saying that if Jesus' message is followed in a radical way, we should be able to circumvent the need for religion altogether. The authors make the following comment on fundamentalism:
The rise of fundamentalism is evidence of the desire for reassurance—for ways of fitting a complex world into manageable categories. But religions don't function at their highest and best when they attempt to provide simple answers to life's biggest questions. (20)
Do you think we need the kind of heretic's that Burke and Taylor talk about? Is it possible that we need to get beyond Christianity in order to truly get to Christ?
"Is it possible that we need to get beyond Christianity in order to truly get to Christ?"
If you mean Christianity the institution, I'll entertain that idea. If you mean Christianity the devotion of your life to following Christ I'd say hell no. Or something to that effect.
I'm personally uncomfortable with the remark about "the transformation of all institutional faiths into something new and different." What does that actually mean? The dreaded "one-world religion" that some believe will usher in the end-times? I would love to see all religions cease to exist because everyone acknowledged Christ as Lord. Is that what they mean?
(the last question is rhetorical since you haven't finished the book yet)
Posted by: Tom | September 01, 2006 at 12:50 AM
Wow Bill. When I did a word study on "heresy" and "heretic" after being called one by a guy in our church, the basic translation we came up with was "rebellion". Kind of similar to "apostacy". But since I'm on vacation I won't be thinking of these matters too much only to say, I guess some people see North American Christianity really broken if they're willing and promoting a term like heretic. I've seen others using it. I imagine it's in the same context as "rebel with a casue" and hopefully not like Saul whose rebellion was like witchcraft.. I'm sure some would be proud to fight against what they deem a corrupt system.. It seems unneccessary to me.. I wonder at what point does the angry deconstuctionist attitude (if that is what it is) subside and people just concentrate on building what they are going to build. but that was said with little thought or brain power because my brain is on vacation..
Posted by: Jason_Hughlett | September 01, 2006 at 12:58 AM
I'm with Tom. Well, I mean I'm not WITH him...he's in NJ after all... but I agree with his post entirely.
Posted by: Lauraconk | September 01, 2006 at 06:21 AM
The authors are right when they say that Jesus did'nt want a "religion" for us, He wants a relationship.
"Get" to Christ? Did'nt He come for us? is'nt He standing at our hearts door knocking to come in? I think when we make it seem like we have to "get" to Him it lessons the work on the cross and because Christ is so easily available.
Posted by: r | September 01, 2006 at 07:50 AM
I'm wondering if by throwing out "religion" the authors want us to throw out "tradition." Despite my obvious desire for change among Christians, I still think tradition is important. I want to be able to look back as I look forward. I think the church has made a ton of mistakes, but there are also achievements and important lessons we can learn from our forebears.
Perhaps we can say that "religion" is an expression of devotion to Christ. I like the idea of joining in on the expression of those who have gone before us. The danger is when that expression becomes a rule. People start to get the idea that the expression of the faith is what's saving them.
Posted by: Bill | September 01, 2006 at 09:17 AM
"Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the @#&* that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, but especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant."
-from the movie Dogma
(talking about God's view of religion)
Now, I don't believe all that is said above but I do think that we have taken "a good idea" and twisted it until it isn't necessarily what it was supposed to be.
Posted by: ken | September 01, 2006 at 09:32 AM
Ken, great quotation. I found that movie to be somewhat offensive, and yet FULL of good "ideas" about how we often get things wrong.
R, I would say that you and Bill are probably using the phrase "get to Christ" in different ways. It is true that we don't have to "do" anything other than let him in to our lives. But, we still must strive to "get to him" in the sense of understanding just who it is that we are letting in. While it is true that he stands there knocking and we are just supposed to let him in, it is the foolish man who opens his door without making sure he is letting in the right person. I remember one day when there was a knock at the door and I just yelled "Come in", because I assumed it was one of my friends. It wasn't. It was some mexican guy looking to buy my brother's car, and he just came right in. It was rather an awkward moment.
Posted by: Adam | September 01, 2006 at 11:31 AM
LOL...that's a great story Adam! (and a great way to clarify what we're talking about)
Posted by: Bill | September 01, 2006 at 12:08 PM
Adam,
You only found it somewhat offensive?! lol. It is a great commentary on the follies of organized religion (in general).
Posted by: ken | September 01, 2006 at 02:33 PM
Bill asks "Do you think we need the kind of heretic's that Burke and Taylor talk about? Is it possible that we need to get beyond Christianity in order to truly get to Christ?"
Let me ask you somethings.
First what evidence is there that we have not "truly gotten to Christ"? but if that's true that we haven't...
Does all this reading of books that criticize 'fundamentalists" and "the church" bring you closer to Jesus or take you farther away?
Does it edify and unify or does it divide and cause conflict?
Does it stimulate "itching ears" or does it cause you to "Do" your faith?
Does it make you more loving to those around you both in and out of the "church" (including fundamentalists) or does it just make you feel that you are a bit smarter, a bit superior to those poor dumb fundamentalists?
Does it make you read your Bible more, with a deeper respect for God's living eternal WORD or does it make you go "hmmm if Noah's flood isn't literally true I wonder if the "do not commit adultery" part is literally true"?
Does it make you more like the world or more "in this world but not of it*?
*to quote a brilliant song writer I know ;-)
Posted by: george | September 01, 2006 at 06:37 PM
Bill,
Thanks for the thoughtful post. The comments are very insightful.
The use of "heretic" can be seen as metaphorical in terms of how most people would use it - the "institution" of church trying to hold power, dominance or control over people, ideas or progress that they feel is threatening - but in reality end up exposed for the motives they had.
Perhaps just like the movie Dogma, Barry and I have painted the religious landscape with big, broad brush strokes. Moving from "religion" to "spirituality" may give us the chance to leave a world of "catholic vs protestant, sunni vs shiite, red state christians vs blue state christians", to a new place where we find what brings us together rather than what makes us different and still hold our own personal beliefs - replacing dominance with love.
It is interesting to see people equate dissent with opposition. When I talk to most christians they don't believe the church or religion are working. Many have pointed out how they disagree with the book, I respect their insights and have learned from their remarks. But then I hope we can have the conversation about how the book has sparked their imagination, stretched their point of view or challenged their understanding of the world and spirituality.
Posted by: spencer burke | September 01, 2006 at 09:12 PM