So, the corner of the blogosphere I wander through has been bemoaning Pat Robertson Prophesying again and the furor over Kieth Elison desire to swear his oath of office on the Koran. Follow the links here and here, over at A Conservative Blog for Peace.(he's linked to most people I'd link to anyway and it's always good to poke around his blog) I have stopped worrying about Pat Robertson along time ago, I can only agree with Huw Raphael, he doesn't seem to worship and know the God I know, despite the fact that he deceptively uses the same names as I do. And the same can be said for Don Wildman of the American Family Association: clearly according to him the Christian God is American and the only true American is a Christian (or is it the only true Christian is an American, it gets a little fuzzy at times.)
I put these two items together because it seems that in the consciousness of both Christians and non-Christians alike Robertson and Wildmon represent figures that somehow represent Christianity to ourselves. I really am unclear how this is possible. Why is it that these are the figures that are "typical" of Christianity and why some perhaps many walk away from the Church and Christianity. Are we so afraid of the word heresy that we cannot speak it about these abuses of the Christian faith? I am beginning to wonder if our tolerance is biting us in the collective ass when a group called the religious right supposedly represents to the American public the Christian faith, and we who do not agree with these folk must wring our hands and exclaim these don't represent me or traditional Christianity. And this fact should be blatantly obvious to anyone who actually knows the tenants of the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Let's all say it loud and clear that is not the faith once delivered to the saints, if enough of us start saying it perhaps it will register in the popular consciousness and Spong will have less ground to stand on. (oh sorry, but that is another post!)
It is truly unfortunate that Christianity is often referred to alongside the names of those who, in reality, represent a skewed image of what it should be. I can't judge those men and their hearts, but I'd have to admit that it's sometimes embarrassing to hear their claims.
ReplyDelete~Joel -- aside_the_line
Joel,
ReplyDeleteI hope I haven't given the impression of a judgement of these men's hearts. That is only for God to judge. But it does seem that we should speak to the externals and appearances.
Although I think people like Wildmon and Robertson do not teach or live the authentic Christian faith, is it fair to call them heretics?
ReplyDeleteI say this because I am not sure what particular doctrinal or dogmatic error they have committed, and also because some of the things I believe and practice could be labeled heretical as well.
Is it possible that Christians who lean more to the left do not lob the word of heresy because the same accusation can be leveled at them?
If Robertson's particular brand of "I can tell the future" Christianity of fear is heresy, what prevents my belief that women should be allowed to become pastors, priests, and bishops from being heretical too?
This is an honest question, and I think it might be the root of why some of the folks on our side are less willing to say, "Pat, you're not a Christian, or at least you're heretical."
Jorge,
ReplyDeleteEcellent point and the one I had hoped someone would make when I asked the question about heresy. I think you are right and it is why I asked the question.
Given that thought there are somethings about your responce that intreague me and they hit upon some things I have been thinking:
"leaning left" and on "our side", I am becoming more and more troubled by these sorts of identifiers for people who claim Christ as thier Lord. It's not that I have trouble with Christians joining either leftist or rightist politics when they can justify it in terms of Christian theology and tradition, but to simply identify ourselves as left or right or left leaning or right leaning I am coming to believe betrays our faith.
The problem I am coming to is around the very issue of fearing that my opinion may be heretical or labled so. It seems to me thought that heresy is larger than simple propositional satetments jsut as faith is more than that. Is Pat Robertson in grave error? Is he a false prophet? If these two are true than it seems fair to say he is a heretic. Otherwise it seems to me we are left with Christianity as merely a matter of taste and opinion.
If that is all we have, then I can't really object to Robetson or Wildmon, except to say that I don't have a taste for their flavor of Christianity, and that their opinion diverges from mine on what Christianity is. Two problems I have with this: 1) Christianity is not art nor Baskin Robins. I reject the consumerist and artistic modles for concieving of the Christian faith. 2) Christianity is not about forming opinions it is about Truth, not necesairly formulaic truth of the fundamentalist but its still about truth, and opinions can be true or false. If an opiinion is not a true Christian one then it is false. Now not all false opinions are necesarily heresy, but if you teach to millions of people false teaching, it seems to me you might be a heretic.
If one reads some of the old works on heresy starting with Ireneas there is a sense that Heresy, is an ilness within, the body of Christ. Robetson and Wildmon seem to show Christian faith taken in untrue and thus unhealthy directions. When talking about womena as priest and bishops or other inovations I suppose we can't escape the possibility that those things may not be naturaly of the body of Christ but sign of ilness or ilness itself.
Of course having a conern for how something like women priests and bishops (women deacons traditionaly speaking is not an issue really, its more about practice than theology)can be shown to grow out of the genuine tradition would at least begin to ease the accusation of heresy. However, I have come to see that few people who advocate for such and other things realy care for continuity and the faith once delivered to the saints, nor do I contend to Robetson or Wildmon and thier ilk.
However I will admit I can talk about this but I don't think I will be swinging the term around to freely. though I think it is a good Idea for us to at least contemplate how using the word can be helpful and also desconect it from the stake, which I'd say was heresy as well.
Well put. Thanks for the kind words and links.
ReplyDelete