'Love thy neighbour as thyself', say the petty bourgeois, and by this those well-raised children and now useful members of the state - who are very prone to any passing emotional influenza - mean partly that if someone asks one for a pair of snuffers, even though they are sitting quite far away, one is to say 'by all means', get up 'with the greatest pleasure' and hand the snuffers to the person, and partly that one must remember to pay the obligatory condolatory calls. But they have never felt what it means for the whole world to turn its back on them, since of course the whole shoal of socializing herring in which they live will never let such a circumstance arise, and should serious help ever be required, sound sense will tell them that the person in sore need of their help, yet not at all likely to have any opportunity to help them in return, is not their 'neighbour'.
S. Kierkegaard
I wonder: is 'heresy' not the word that Christianity invented to be able to turn its back on some people with a clear conscience? Are words like that not the only way that a christian can justify with a smile in their face that the people who has left the church are 'not of God', or 'not spiritual enough'?
I recently heard of someone in a church who said: 'those who left our church were just not good enough, they were not walking with God; but we are very happy now'. This shows the importance of a clear conscience to the Christianity of our day, even when that clear conscience might be based on lies, lies, lies...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I generally agree, but I feel the picture you paint is slightly simplistic. Yes, I’ve experienced remarks similar to the one you quoted, but I’ve also heard of (and, yes, personally experienced) compassion and understanding.
ReplyDeleteIt comes across quite clearly that you see the offending quote as ‘wrong’ – or at some level, you reject the sentiment expressed. In voicing your frustration, are you not levelling the charge of ‘heretic’ as well (albeit, more subtly and reasonably expressed). Here is a question that has been on my mind lately: does being excluded justify exclusion in return? For example, I’ve come across communities of ‘hurt’ Christians who essentially exclude anybody who has not had a negative experience in a mainstream church. The message conveyed was this: if you’ve had a positive experience, you must be closed minded, ignorant, and/or trapped in modernistic norms. To me, they were generalising in the same manner as those they attempted to free themselves from; in other words, simply replicating an existing problem while using the rhetoric of inclusion.
While I believe the word ‘heresy’ is thrown around with too little thought, I’m not sure the concept can be abandoned outright. If a church is to be community prior to an eschatological state of pure openness and hospitality, it will require some form of boundaries in the meantime. This does not necessarily negate openness to differring approaches to biblical interpretation, creative theological ideas, alternative worship, etc. However, there are surely some theo/ideologies that need to be challenged by a Christian community – for one example, a jingoistic vision of Jesus that is employed to justify (or even, give credence to) racial exclusion (or worse, slavery and murder)?
I hope this doesn’t come across as critical... just some ideas I had after reading the post. Apologies if I’ve missed the point!
- P
No need to apologize – many thanks for your thoughts…
ReplyDeleteI’m sorry if I didn’t explain myself properly, but I agree with the quote. I think Kierkegaard is writing against the hypocrisy he’s found in his own experience of some Christians. I was trying to do the same: although I have experienced compassion and love from Christians (as from non-Christians), however I have to confess I’ve personally found rather shocking the capacity for hypocrisy in some Christian groups who preach love and compassion but manage to convince themselves to use God’s name in order to demonize and marginalize others through very cleverly put together excuses. Even though you may think that this is exactly what I am doing when saying this about them, I would argue that there is one fundamental difference: I am not proclaiming that God is on my side. I’m aware that this is my own perception and interpretation of what they are doing, perhaps too simplistic to reflect reality. Perhaps I am wrong and they are just good people trying to protect their communities from evil, and this is only an expression of my own bitterness against those perceived attitudes (which might well be). I think it is precisely the ability to put God on your side what provides the boldness to put others out of the community instead of just trying to justify your position from a human and fallible point of view. It seems to me that by trying to ‘defend God’s honour’ what some people do is also affirming that God wants to be defended by them (meaning that God is on their side). And yes, this applies to all groups (‘rejected Christians’ or whatever) who feel they have the right to exclude ‘in God’s name’.
This is why I am not so sure I share your view about our need of the word ‘heresy’. I think what annoys me about the word ‘heresy’ is the ‘in your face’-kind-of-quality it has (or I understand it has). Although I certainly would want to keep out of my community racist (or equally evil) attitudes, I am not so sure the best way to do this is to declare the people who hold those views as ‘heretics’ and put them out the community (or into the fire). I remember some strongly expressed homophobic attitudes in a community I happened to attend to some time ago: assuming the pastor didn’t agree with such views, should he have expelled the homophobe heretic from the church, or should he have tried to talk to the person and decide whether God loves everyone or not? Should he have declared those views as ‘heresy’ from the start or should he have spent some time with the homophobe person trying to allow for fallible conversation and sharing of their respective points of view? Or, if the pastor happened to agree with those views (although in a less strongly expressed manner), should he affirm this person’s understanding of the Bible but encourage the use of less strong words against gays? I know these questions only show, as you said, that the issues involved are not so simple. However I am not sure that words such as ‘heresy’ really help at all to find a way forward.
To go one point further, I understand the very human need to define ourselves as a community against others and to protect such definitions by all means (with some limitations, of course). However I don’t really think that God shares that need. I remember a story by Jorge Luis Borges, called ‘The Theologians’, where two theologians spend their lives arguing against each other and trying to show why the other is a heretic (until one of them wins). It turns out at the end that God doesn’t see things the way they do, and that what seems to them a matter of life and death isn’t really that important. I definitely think, as you do, that the word heresy is used too much and for too many things. But I wonder whether we really need it at all in order to define ourselves as Christians or to protect such definitions from others’. What do you think: Do we really need today words such as ‘heresy’ in order to protect our Christianity? Even more: Is there really any set of characteristics that define a Christian beyond interpretation? If there are, I’d like to know what they are, and if there are not, what interpretation is the one that should define ‘orthodoxy’ and which should be sent to the fire?
Point taken.
ReplyDeleteAs for the actual word ‘heresy’, it is archaic and too laden with connotations of witch-hunts and fire to be useful in a post-Christendom context. I wasn’t arguing for the continued use of that particular word, but that some elements of the idea cannot be fully abandoned. Here I’m not thinking of an exclusionary label that assumes God is on ‘my side’, but in a very simple sense of saying ‘no’ to potentially harmful practices.
I believe it would be inappropriate claim that God is on ‘my side’ – there is a terrible arrogance in that; however, I don’t want to rule out the possibility that some of my hopes, fears, even frustrations, are God-inspired. Part of my discomfort with a certain type of American Evangelicalism (that epitomised by the Christian Coalition) came as began to think more seriously about my faith and (even) reading the Bible afresh. If such ideas are dangerous, there must be some way of saying ‘no’. Levelling the charge of ‘heretic’ may not be the best way to do it, but I feel compelled to say no nevertheless...
On another subject, have you heard the song ‘Jesus Are You Real’ by Mason Jennings? Think you might enjoy it. I sympathised with a lot of the lyrics.
- P
I definitely agree with both your comments.
ReplyDeleteI would certainly want to speak against some evils that surround us although I have serious doubts about the need of certain religious traditions and terminology in order to do it. Perhaps that's one of the points of the parable of the good samaritan: we don't need the 'religious classes' anymore (we don't need religion) in order to practice good and speak against evil.
However, as you say, it just sounds different (and much better) when we say 'God is in my side', meaning that God is helping me in my suffering, giving me hope in my doubts, etc... I suppose the line between those two ways of saying it seems quite thin and hard to find sometimes.
Really nice song. You were right: I like the lyrics.
ReplyDelete