Pages

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Heretics and Metatics

For my first post, I thought it might be appropriate to address a basic distinction between something that is Christian and something that is not. Now there is more tied up in that discussion than you might realize. But for now I just want to talk about some people who are by definition not Christian but whom the Christian church has forgotten are not Christian.

We might call them “meta-heretics,” but I will call them “metatics” just for the fun of it. Now what’s the difference between your traditional heretic and a metatic? Or, to put it another way, what makes a metatic tick differently than a traditional heretic ticks? (Yeah, I can’t help it. You might even say I have a…No more of those, I promise.) 

A traditional heretic rejects at least one doctrine fundamental to Christianity (i.e. any doctrine contained in the “rule of faith” or the earliest creeds, particularly the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed) while calling himself Christian. It’s pretty simple. To be in group A (in this case, Christianity) you have to hold publicly a set of beliefs that distinguish those in group A from those outside group A. If you reject any of these beliefs, you are by definition outside group A. If you are outside group A because you reject any of the beliefs that distinguish those in group A from those outside group A but continue to call yourself a member of group A, I am calling you a traditional heretic. (As an aside, some people take offense at the term “heretic.” Eleonore Stump, in her article “Orthodoxy and Heresy,” opposes the use of the term, although she defends the use of the term “heresy.” I never really understood that. Heresy is simply rejecting a doctrine one must believe to be a member of group A while claiming membership in group A. If you believe heresy exists, then you believe heretics exist because a heretic is just a person who holds to some heresy. So no need to worry about “heretic.” It is not a pejorative term but merely describes one’s relationship to a group.)  

The traditional heretics are easy to spot. They say there is one God of Christianity and it isn’t Jesus. They roll their eyes at the Virgin Birth. They talk vaguely about the Divine and then say Jesus was just a friendly fellow. 

They believe in “community,” but they’re not really into the “holy catholic church” thing. They talk about the grace of God, but then deny the sin about which God was gracious. Or they talk about forgiveness, but gag the first guy in the room who mentions coming judgment.    

In short, they flatly reject at least one of the basic doctrines that defines Christianity. 

So these are the traditional heretics, and they are easy to spot. They are easy to spot because they are trying to dismember a Very-Important-Person’s soon-to-be wife…in broad daylight. Hard not to notice.    

It’s the other sort of heretics that bother me because they are becoming more widely accepted in “Christian” society. I call them metatics (“meta-heretics,” remember?) because, instead of rejecting any particular point of the creed, they reject the whole point of the creed. They may have been raised in an orthodox church. They may gladly swear that they believe the Bible. They may agree with every point of the Apostles’ Creed from “I believe” to “Amen.” 

There’s just one problem. They don’t think it is necessary for everyone else to believe in basic Christian doctrine to be saved. Or, to put it another way, they don’t think believing the basic Christian doctrines that one must believe to be a Christian is essential to being a Christian. And this was the whole point of the early creeds: to distinguish Christian belief from all other kinds of belief.  

Take, for example, love. Nowadays, some suggest that all we need to do to be Christian is to love and teach love. This can only mean one of two things. The first option is that such people really do not believe there is such a thing as being a Christian. If they deny there are dogmas that distinguish a Christian from a non-Christian, then they cannot believe there is such a thing as Christianity. They may talk of the importance of love. But if they have no way to distinguish what is Christian from what is not, then there is no justifiable reason to talk about Christianity at all. And that is not Christian.  

The other option is that they have redefined Christianity to mean “belief in love.” But this has at least one big problem. We know that historically there are essential dogmas one must believe to be a Christian, namely the “rule of faith” as it is found in the earliest creeds, such as the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. And we know that the rule of faith includes more “stances” than a stance on love. Thus, by definition, having only a stance on love and conversations about everything else is not Christian. Now, of course, this says nothing about whether Christianity is true or false. It only says the historic Christian faith is defined by belief in dogmas such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection. You may think every one of those dogmas is so much poppycock, but belief in them still defines Christianity.      

Now any church that does not explicitly teach what is fundamental to Christianity or does not require of its members belief in the fundamental truths of Christianity is by definition not Christian. If a bunch of guys, including some atheists, some modalists, some people who “just love Jesus,” and some orthodox Christians, get together and call themselves a “Christian church,” they are about as much a Christian church as the local Rotary Club. 

Here’s a simple example. No Trinity, no Christian. Get it? And for those of you who will charge me with saying Jesus alone is not enough…well, yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Incidentally, Jesus says the same thing (e.g. John 5:19, 30; 14:11, 13, 16; 15:26; 16:3, 7; 17:1, 3; cf. 2 Corinthians 13:14, Ephesians 2:18-22, 4:4-6). 

And belief in the Trinity alone isn’t enough for a church. They are not only to believe in the Trinity. They are to teach that outside Trinitarian belief (i.e. faith in the true God) there is no remission of sins. This is a fundamental doctrine that distinguishes those inside the Christian circle from those outside the Christian circle— which is why it is in the creed.   

So we could add a point to the Apostles’ Creed. More accurately, this point is not actually an addition to the creed; it is a biblical clarification of how Christians have taken the rule of faith for the past 1900 years until a sect of “Christians” in the modern West who are a special kind of stupid decided to make faith in the Christian God an optional part of being a Christian. Go figure. 

Anyway, if we "add" the clarifying point at the beginning of the creed, the creed would look something like this:

Unless the following describes your view of reality, you aren’t a Christian, and that “life everlasting” at the end doesn’t apply to you…even if you think you’re a really nice person who believes in “love,” or even if you’re a really nice person who loves someone named Jesus: 

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary. 
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty. 
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen. 

That is what it is to be Christian. 



Works Cited


Stump, Eleonore. “Orthodoxy and Heresy.” Faith and Philosophy 16.2 (1999): 147-163.