That was one of Mark Driscoll’s observations during his message at GCNC last week: “heresy” is a big word, a loaded word, that should only be used carefully, when necessary. That’s not to say that we should never use it—sometimes it’s necessary, when people are claiming the name of Jesus to teach things that are significantly at odds with the gospel—but we must be very sure of our ground before we use that word, and equally sure of the spirit in which we use it. That must never be an accusation hurled in anger, but must only be spoken gently, in a gracious spirit of loving correction.
S. M. Hutchens addresses this in an editorial in the latest issue of Touchstone called “The War on Error: The Business of Confronting Heresy”; it is in general a careful and thoughtful piece that takes note both of the need to name heresy for what it is and of the dangers in doing so overaggressively.
If an accusation is made, it must be made clearly, forcefully, and memorably, so that it is understood by those one is trying to protect from false doctrine: “This is untrue; it is heresy; avoid these people who teach it.”
This must be done judiciously and in the line of duty. If I have any quarrel with certain fathers, it is not that they identified false teaching for what it was, but that they sometimes did it so frequently that it may have become difficult to hear. There is besides a certain pathological temperament that enjoys hunting down and denouncing error and subjecting those who commit it to terror and humiliation that hardens them against truth. The heresy-hunting inquisitor is not a divine office, whereas pastor and teacher are. To the former mentality, exposing error is not a painful task cast in one’s path by the duties of office, but a form of pleasure—a dungeoner’s pleasure of which no good man would be proud.
However, I think there’s a point, named in the editorial, where Hutchens himself goes over the line. Heretical doctrine is not merely doctrine which is in error, but doctrine which is in error on the core matters of the Christian faith, in such a way that the doctrine fundamentally threatens the integrity of the gospel message; it’s a significant departure from what C. S. Lewis called “mere Christianity,” nothing else, and nothing less. Only those things which lead people away from the very means of salvation, then, deserve this label. As such, I cannot agree when Hutchens writes,
These considerations have weighed heavily on me because of my concern with egalitarianism, which I have identified as a heresy. Although the identification was not difficult from a theological point of view—and our opponents are now in many places returning the compliment, accusing us of subordinationism: but surely one of us is heretical—its publication was very difficult indeed.
This is not just a matter of my being an egalitarian, though I will confess that being labeled a heretic is mildly irritating; it’s a matter of Hutchens using a word that’s far too big for the subject. Is egalitarianism wrong? Perhaps, though I don’t believe so; we can debate it. But when he says “surely one of us is heretical,” he puts that out of possibility: he says that those with whom he disagrees are not merely wrong, but grievously wrong, to such an extent that it threatens our salvation—and thus that if he were in fact wrong, the same would be true of him.
This is where I think Hutchens is seriously wrong. I don’t see any support for his conclusion, and I don’t believe he can support it; scripturally, there is clearly an argument for his complementarian position, but not for the case that that position is essential for salvation. Indeed, at this point it seems to me that he’s guilty of what Ray Ortlund dubbed “Galatian sociology”: he’s added belief in something extrinsic to the gospel to belief in Jesus. He may well be correct that belief in Jesus ought to lead to his position on male/female roles and relations, but that in and of itself is not enough to justify his conclusion that any other position is heretical.
If anything, in asserting that one must believe in Jesus and in complementarianism, he’s made himself vulnerable to a charge of heresy on the grounds that he has made salvation dependent not on Jesus but on right doctrine. This is what the late Stan Grenz (if I recall correctly) called “the evangelical heresy,” that of putting our faith not in Jesus but in our creeds. This is not to say that creeds don’t matter and right doctrine doesn’t matter, because the truth of what we believe matters immensely; but it is to say that it’s even more important to put the locus of salvation in the right place, not in the truth of what we believe, but in the truth of the one in whom we believe—or perhaps we might say, in the Truth in whom we believe. The truth of our beliefs is important, because where we get things wrong, it obscures and distorts our understanding of the one in whom we put our faith—but it’s still he and he alone who saves us, not the correctness of our understanding of him.
As such, I believe Hutchens has shown himself guilty of a grave error in pronouncing gender egalitarians guilty of heresy, because he has elevated a particular belief about how God wants us to order our lives to a position of equality with belief in God himself; this is, I believe, a displacement of the proper centrality of the gospel of Jesus Christ for salvation, and that is a serious matter indeed. I hesitate to declare that his error rises to the level of imperiling his eternal soul; as I said at the beginning, heresy is a very big word indeed, and I don’t consider that I have the right to make that judgment. But I think that Hutchens would do very well to reconsider, if not his complementarian view of gender, at least the theological absolutism with which he holds that position, and whether he’s really in line with the gospel of Jesus Christ to declare all countervailing positions not merely wrong but fully heretical. That way, it seems to me, lies nothing good.
“Only those things which lead people away from the very means of salvation, then, deserve this label.”#1. The argument assumes a hierarchy of doctrines.
#2. Assuming a hierarchy, there is no consensus as to what are the “1st-order” doctrines which merit what you say deserves the rightful label of heresy.
#3. What Scriptural support do you offer for your argument that only aberrant teaching which negatively impacts salvation rightfully deserves the label of heresy?
#4. What support from Church history do you offer for your argument that only aberrant teaching which negatively impacts salvation rightfully deserves the label of heresy?
Pax.
Say I wished to destroy my neighbor’s house. I could steal a tank from the local armory, roll up in front of it, and blow it to bits. But another, more subtle but equally effective way to do the job, would be to dig beneath it and cause its collapse by undermining the foundation. No doubt my neighbor would be less than pleased by having his adjuster tell him the insurance company was of the conviction that “destruction” was too big a word for the results of the sapper’s art.
I have been thinking and writing on this subject for years now, and it was clear to me early on that the “anthropological heresy” of egalitarianism necessitated alterations in trnitarian doctrine–that one could not misconstrue the relation between the sexes created in the divine image without also attacking its theological root in the doctrine of God.
If one will examine the current literature on the subject, he will see that now, indeed, that is just the place where the debate has moved. Egalitarian theologians are now insisting that the doctrine of the Church is, and always has been, that there is perfect equality in the Trinity, not just in regard to the divine essence, but the relations between the persons, and they are accusing theologians, both ancient and modern, who point to this ordering in the Godhead of the heresy of subordinationism.
The battleground has now moved to where it inevitably had to–to the place egalitarian anthropology must take us: the very center of the Christian doctrine of God. As a combatant on one side of the contest, I do not think it proper to mince words. We are dealing with matters in which the word “heresy” comes into play in its full and historical sense, and of which both sides are now accusing the other.
This is the principal struggle in our day between false doctrine and true. That is how it is now being framed on both sides, and it has just begun. Just as the provincial skirmishes in which great wars begin are considered to be battles of those wars, so anthropological egalitarianism was the Bull Run of the larger conflict in which we are now engaged. I suggest that the end of the issue will not be determination of who was making a serious mistake, but who must join the company of anyone who, like Arius, has attacked Christian doctrine at its root.
“That must never be an accusation hurled in anger, but must only be spoken gently, in a gracious spirit of loving correction.”
That’s a textbook example of what many have called the feminication of discourse. Oh yesssss above all we must be nisssssse! You know no less the then Fathers, St. Paul and even Christ himself left us examples wuite to the contrary of a word “spoken gently”. on the contrary – heresy, it that is whatit is, must be quashed without hesitation. Firmly, forcefully and leaving the listener in no doub as to the proper judgment of the heresy being taught.
As I have said before, religious feminists are not the kind of folk ou can play tootsie with and come away with all of your toes still intact.
Kamilla
LOL, yes, whatever WE disagree with becomes heresy. Unfortunately, we have insufficient humility (more often than not) to see that there is a difference between what we disagree with and what God disagrees with. How dangerous indeed it is to come to the belief that our mind is one with God’s mind — far more dangerous than any heresy. To pray that our mind becomes as Christ’s, yes, to yearn for it and submit ourselves to the process — but the grave error of reaching the conclusion that it can ever happen 100% in this lifetime is lethal, both to ourselves and others.
And welcome to the heretic’s club Rob 😉 I have a key to the executive washroom if you ever need it lol
Since my private comments by e-mail to a circle of friends are apparently taking on a life of their own in cyberspace, I will break my usual fast from posting on blogs to register them here.
The chief fallacies in the argument by Rob Harrison against Steve Hutchens lie in the following statement:
“Heretical doctrine is not merely doctrine which is in error, but doctrine which is in error on the core matters of the Christian faith, in such a way that the doctrine fundamentally threatens the integrity of the gospel message; it’s a significant departure from what C. S. Lewis called ‘mere Christianity,’ nothing else, and nothing less.”
First, this substantially subscribes to the infamous PECUSA Bp. Righter trial assertion of “core doctrine” — which was, of course, a category invented precisely to provide a green light to all sorts of heresies, as the sequel has shown. No orthodox thinker denies that certain doctrines are more critical to faith (in the doctrinal sense) that others. But Rob Harrison’s “core doctrines” assertion effectively commits two fallacies:
a) It implicitly presumes that some doctrines are not inter-related but independent, and therefore that an erroneous or heretical doctrine can be quarantined from its effects on other doctrines. Thus, a lower-level error or heresy does not necessarily imply a high (or deeper) level error, or else cannot spread more deeply and lethally. But heresy is like gangrene — it spreads, and penetrates more deeply, so that one goes from losing some flesh, to losing appendages, to losing limbs, and finally to losing life itself.
b) It implicitly presumes that traditionalists believe (contrary to I Cor. 13) that doctrinal accuracy alone suffices for salvation apart from charity. Or, to put it a bit differently, that they hold faith to be fundamentally doctrinal, rather than primarily a matter of trust [pistis]. In fact, traditionalists actually hold instead that adherence to orthodoxy is properly an act of willing submission, obedience, and humility, which is a sign of such trust.
Second, this fails to distinguish between heresy and theological error. Heresy is knowing and intentional rejection of orthodoxy; theological error is unknowing or unintentional rejection. Hence, while all theological error may imperil salvation to a greater or lesser degree, it is heresy that ensures it — not due to the magnitude or centrality of the error, but rather due to the sin of pride involved in the very manner in which the heresy is held and asserted.
Third, a heretical view of divine anthropology indeed “fundamentally threatens the integrity of the gospel message” because it does imperil salvation. Mr. Harrison speciously tries here to invoke the support of C. S. Lewis. He should go back and read Lewis’ essay, “Priestesses in the Church?”, in which Lewis made it as evident as possible that he did regard women’s ordination as being, to use Mr. Harrison’s own term, one of the “core matters of the Christian faith,” the adoption of which would have as its inevitable and necessary end a reversion to paganism. Here, as in so many other places, Lewis was genuinely prophetic.
Once again, the fundamental division reflected here is that which I have termed essentialism vs. functionalism. For those who may wish to brave it, a lengthy essay I wrote upon the topic was posted several months ago at the following web site:
http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/08/wiisdid.html
Much thanks James for a very well-reasoned, well-written comment.
Dear Pastor Harrison, I hope that you prayerfully re-consider your position on egalitarianism.
Pax.
James, your post really disturbed me. Not for content, but because you have walked into a man’s cyber house, as it were, and have not addressed him. You spoke to his houseguests while ignoring the owner of the house. I can’t help but feel defiled by such a lack of simple courtesy. It is as though you came to preach, and not to connect with another human being. Such is one of the great fallacies of Churchianity. It gives us a pulpit from which we can ignore the humanity of others.
Rob and I disagree on a lot of things, but I would never dream of coming into his house, ignoring him as though he were a dog, and start preaching. I should think that if I were to do that, his houseguests could rightfully conclude that I am utterly lacking in Christ’s love and affection for him.
As such, I will not visit your website. It would seem like a violation of my host to do so. And as much as we disagree on things, but certainly not on the important things, I do love him and Christ who indeed dwells in him.
BTW Rob, finally looked up the definition of egalitarianism and I give it two big thumbs up. God is definitely no respecter of persons, it is only in our arrogance that we say the one who prophesies is a “greater person” than the one who dispenses the gift of mercy. Perhaps Prophecy is a greater gift, but that is a reflection on the giver, not the recipient.
When I was in the church system, I was revered as either “the most gifted and annointed singer,” or “the mighty prophetess of the Lord.” And people really flocked to me and for a while I figured it was me, that I was special. But when the Lord removed me from the system, and taught that Love is the greatest thing, I began to see that I was no greater in His eyes than any other human. That perhaps my gift was more “useful” in certain situations, but it was the gift, and not me, that was greater.
The courier who delivers a box of diamonds to the jeweler is not above the peasant delivering food to a starving widow. It’s just our perception that takes the worldly value of the gift and elevates it.
So yes, egalitarianism, I like it — I may not know the in depth stuff people have attached to it, but yes, God is no respecter of persons. None are beneath His love or His notice, and therefore none should be beneath mine as well.
I must congratulate Tyler Dawn on finding a new variation on the “lack of niceness” theme, at least one I haven’t seen before: Mr. Altena did not greet the owner of the site, but just walked in uninvited and started preaching, ignoring the former as though he were a dog.
You know, that really is an excellent point, which I think we need to consider at Mere Comments. No longer will we require only reasonable length, adherence to the subject, and civility. I will ask the senior editors to take this up at our next meeting and will suggest we require the formula, “Peace be on this house, upon Kushiner, its Publisher, and upon its contributors, in particular X, who I am now about to agree with or dismantle in whole or in part, as the case may be.” Quite in the spirit of the prophet Elijah.
ROFL, nice sidestep, too bad I never mentioned anything about niceness…… good try though, to make this about something it isn’t, or perhaps to quiet me down in an attempt to marginalise what I wrote.
My, oh my, as Dave Niehaus would say . . . I definitely picked the wrong week to have a crazy week. I will have a post up responding to the arguments raised here–I hope tomorrow, but since the post seems to keep getting longer, we’ll see. 🙂
The first part of my response is now up.
And the second part is up.
I must say, Dr. Hutchens, I think you demeaned yourself with your snarky misinterpretation of Tyler Dawn’s comment. As it happens, I don’t think Altena was guilty of anything other than failing to edit his e-mail, but still, it was in fact a breach of netiquette.