The Heresy Line

As I write this, the Episcopal Presiding Bishop is still delivering her keynote speech. Evidently it has something about the great Western Heresy and it concerns individual versus communal salvation.  There is already some blow-back.  Until I hear more about it, I don’t have much to say on that particular issue.

But it does raise a question that has been bothering me lately.  Right now we’re seeing certain ideas becoming very popular and while many have been floating around for a while, people are becoming more vocal about them – whether we’re talking about particular interpretations of atonement, what the Kingdom is or isn’t, heaven, hell, the reality of the devil, etc.  And so as more well known people speak about such ideas, others are quick to call them down for heresy charges (this is hardly new, Tillich’s name is still a bad word in some churches).  I should point out, that I don’t think the PB is working with that attitude in mind as she seems to be speaking in a more rhetorical way and is not aiming at individuals, though her critics seem to be.  So we’re seeing an explosion of old viewpoints coming again, new viewpoints arising, and a lack of social controls to keep such people ‘in check.’  So what is really is beyond the Pale?  I don’t personally think there is a salvation litmus test, but many do and if they do – where is it?  “Accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior” is that all?  What’s ‘Lord’ mean?  What’s “Savior” mean?  What does “accept” mean?  Does this mean you can still be gay or enjoy wine or eat shellfish?

Personally, I find such things distasteful… but as this trend continues (and it likely will) we will be under more and more pressure to work this question out within the various Christian traditions: What does one have to believe?  What can one not?

The general responses seem to be “the Bible,” “tradition (i.e. the early church)”, “the institution” or “the Creeds.”  Of course, the difficulty is that almost anyone making a claim may use all or some of these sources of authority to establish their claims. This is essentially the postmodern injecting itself into the conversation – we cannot say “this means that” with a straight face if we have any concept of the history of modernist hubris.  So, if the Bible can support all manner of things (and it does), and the tradition and institutions shows themselves to be rift with both ambiguity and corruption to the Powers, and the Creeds can be interpreted in various ways as well… where do we go?

The problem, of course, is this is just one view of the matter.  And the other side would usually claim that these ambiguities do not exist, or at least are minimal or unimportant.  Which, of course, just complicates the problem as we cannot even agree on the nature of the problem.

I’m not sure there is any way to resolve this, and I imagine I’d be resistant to someone trying just because of my basic orientation towards theology is thoroughly distrustful (as much as I also enjoy it). It seems that the assumptions and judgments we would have to make to say “you are out of the church,” “you are not a Christian,” “that belief is heretical,” “you are not saved,” are far more damning and damaging than any opinion we might have.  Personally, I cannot imagine a God that is not generous in his patience with human frailties given what he must know about us.  I think we need to focus on being a community, praying together, working together to feed the hungry and heal the sick and then be able to be gracious to one another where we disagree.

But what do you think?  Should there be a litmus test?  What would it be?  How would you get around ambiguity?

This post originally appeared on Gideon Addington’s Ground of Being blog.