Oct
6
When Heresy Creeps into the Christian Cultural Worldview
“Final authority resides only with the Author of all creation, who places human beings in His creation, made in His image, and subject to His Law-Word for all things. This is no less true in biology and history than in political science or theology.” — Joe Boot, Ruler of Kings
I finished a book a couple weeks ago that was written by Rev. Dr. Joseph Boot. Boot is a Christian apologist, pastor, cultural theologian, and founder of the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity (EICC). The book in question — the first one I have read by Boot — is his recent Ruler of Kings: Toward a Christian Vision of Government. Testimonials include those from John Cooper (co-founder, lead singer, and bassist for Skillet) and James R. White (apologist, author, and director of Alpha and Omega Ministries).
As is typical in my reading, I identified two or three sections that I thought would make educational, thought-provoking blogposts. The one below delves into the root meaning of “heresy” in the Bible and how it can manifest — even unconsciously — in the socio-political views and stands taken on cultural issues by well-meaning, possibly even otherwise-orthodox Christians. Please check it out…
— — —
The word ‘heresy’ comes from a Greek word (hairesis), the essential meaning of which is a taking or choosing for oneself. So the heretic is one who, in their belief, confession or teaching, has placed their personal, eccentric choice or opinion above that of accepted and received authority — ultimately the authority of God and His Word.
That is why a person engaged even in the science of theology (a discipline with as many metaphysical pitfalls as anthropology) must take great care not to confuse their novel opinion — even if it is a thoughtful and popular opinion — with ultimate authority or primary knowledge. Which is to say, theological concepts and systems are not identical with Scripture. They must be weighed against Scripture and the testimony of the church down the centuries from the time of the apostles. When theologians have conflated their novel ideas with the Word of God itself — with biblical authority — the propagation of heresy is the end result.
The faith knowledge of the heart variously given with creation, manifest in Christ, inscripturated in the Bible, confirmed by the Holy Spirit and acknowledged and concretized by the confessing orthodox church down the centuries is primary knowledge, while theological systems and conceptual models, though vital and helpful in deepening our understanding, are secondary forms of scientific knowledge, provisional, and always in reform.
It is important to note in passing that the early church leaders did not ‘choose,’ in terms of eccentric opinion, what would be included in the canon of Scripture. Rather they simply acknowledged and formally recognized those texts which had already been received by the churches as carrying apostolic authority. Heresy, then, is essentially false teaching which clearly contravenes the biblical Word and orthodox deposit of faith, denying their binding authority. The early church found itself almost immediately battling heretical ideas, arising from creative theologies that sought to fuse Christianity with various forms of paganism. Several of the most important creeds of the church were the product of that battle for a faithful reception of legitimate authority, rooted in Christ and His Word.
Obviously, without a received authority as the basis of orthodoxy, there can be no heresy — the concept would be meaningless! This means that in a culture which rejects, scorns, or makes light of the authority of Scripture, the orthodox creeds and confessions of the historic church, as well as church discipline, the Christian concept of heresy will not be tolerated. In fact, such heresy will be viewed as unimportant, irrelevant or, as the view of some apostate churches, impossible to define.
At the same time however, a new source of authority will subtly replace Scripture (and biblical confessions) within that culture — for authority never disappears but is simply transferred. This new authority will be taken very seriously, and a novel orthodoxy enforced with the tools of discipline adhering to that new sphere of authority — typically the state. So the basic idea of heresy is not dispensed with, rather the form of heresy is redefined.
From the Christian standpoint, all true authority begins with and resides in the sovereign God and His infallible Word. The Lord Jesus Christ declared, ‘All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth’ (Matt. 28:18). The apostle Paul makes the same point crystal clear:
“He demonstrated His power in the Messiah by raising Him from the dead and seating Him at His right hand in the heavens — far above every rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title given, not only in this age but also the one to come (Eph. 1:20-21).””He demonstrated His power in the Messiah by raising Him from the dead and seating Him at His right hand in the heavens — far above every rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title given, not only in this age but also the one to come (Eph. 1:20-21).”
To be seated at the ‘right hand’ is a symbol of absolute and total authority. Thus the sovereignty and authority of the triune God, as creator of all things, in this age and the one to come, is a foundational article of faith for orthodox Christianity. It is therefore no surprise to find that the Apostles’ Creed declares:
“I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord…He will come to judge the living and the dead”
In a similar fashion the Nicene Creed begins:
“We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
Maker of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God… through Him all things were made…”
Notice that these two foundational ecumenical creeds, which summarize the basic teaching of Scripture, affirm that the triune God is almighty and the Creator of all things; that Jesus Christ is Lord and God and the judge of all. In short, they affirm the absolute sovereignty and Lordship of Jesus Christ. To deny Christ this Lordship and sovereignty is therefore heretical.
Typically, when Christians consider the subject of heresy, we think of church councils, ecclesiastical tribunals and church order — we regard the import of these matters of doctrine as essentially confined to the church institute. After all, what relevance could a person’s rejection of Christ’s absolute sovereign authority or atoning death for sin have in the workplace or political life, for example? Without doubt, these church-oriented considerations are vitally important for understanding and addressing heresy. The church must confront heretical teaching, refute it, and discipline members.
But what we frequently fail to recognize are the implications of heretical ideas and teaching as they impinge upon life outside the institutional church. This oversight is serious because if we ecclesiasticize the concept of heresy and regard false belief and teaching as having relevance only for the life of the church, we will fail to see how heretical thought profoundly affects other vitally important spheres of life — including the political. In fact, what we believe about Christ’s authority and sovereignty actually has far-reaching implications for political life and thought.
In reality, there are times when heretical thinking is only clearly brought to light outside the ecclesiastical sphere where religion is externalized in the rest of life. Because of the tendency among Christians today to acquiesce to secularism’s radical dualistic assumptions, one foundational truth about reality is thought to bear authority in the private sphere of the church institute, while a contrary commitment can hold, at the same time, for the public sphere of cultural and political life. Because of this latent dualism, it is possible for fundamental contradictions to persist without the Christian ever clearly recognizing a basic incoherence.
This means that sincere Christians within a confessing church community may believe themselves to be essentially orthodox as far as the essential tenets of the faith are concerned, while at the same time holding to a radical progressive, liberal-democratic or even Marxist view of cultural and political life for the public space — frequently without ever recognizing a basic contradiction with their confession. In short, their ecclesiastical confession of faith has not been mediated or contextualized to cultural and political life through a scriptural worldview in a systematic, coherent way.
Consequently, on social issues, such believers will frequently suggest to fellow Christians that the state is merely a neutral apparatus to uphold a vague common good, or that things like abortion, the redefinition of marriage or euthanasia are matters of indifference. Worse, they may even suggest that these developments are a good thing for ‘society out there.’ In these instances, arising either from ignorance or an arrogant setting aside of Scripture, heretical views of God which deny His total sovereignty in all of life have manifested themselves in areas outside the church institute. In the modern church, these cultural matters are left largely unaddressed and so false and incoherent beliefs can remain quietly hidden.
This pervasive influence of heresy is inevitable. Because religious presuppositions are the point of departure for every area of life and thought, not just in the church or the science of theology, heresy never confines its impact or effect within the ecclesiastical sphere. As a result, well-meaning Christians who are inconsistent in their thinking and lack a comprehensive biblical worldview can unwittingly adopt views and practices in other areas of life that are rooted in heretical assumptions. In short, Christians frequently embrace and ‘baptize’ heretical political theologies and cultural ideologies as suitable for the life of supposedly secular society, often for want of any clearly Christian alternative, and without ever realizing they are in denial of fundamental confessional truths of Scripture and the creeds.
— — —
I may not agree 100% with every assumption or conclusion Boot draws in the book, but I see much insight and wisdom in the above citation. When we aren’t careful about Who and What we give authority in all areas of our lives, it is that much easier for false ideas and understandings to creep into our views on “non-church” issues — or even regarding what, if anything, is a “non-church” issue. And we will be held accountable. “Lord, please grant us discernment, understanding, and wisdom!”
P.S. Before going to press, I remembered that I had cited from this book back in August, too. So, my apologies if the opening comments and introduction to Dr. Boot sound somewhat familiar.
