Paul comes down pretty hard on those who would distort the theology of the church:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!
Good doctrine is of utmost importance. I find myself torn between two poles: i sometimes talk with people who are so certain of what they believe that any disagreement with them constitutes heresy. Are all of these people hard-core calvinists? Probably not, but sometimes it feels that way to me. The other group of people with which I talk seems to make the opposite mistake: Theology doesn’t really matter. In an effort to “maintain unity,” some people avoid theological issues to the extent that theology becomes a non-issue. Admittedly, because of the circles I travel in, I see this more often.
Both groups make be very uncomfortable. I want to affirm that theology really does matter, that any amount of time invested in searching out the scriptures and evaluating the conclusions drawn from them is worthwhile. On the other hand, to call someone a “heretic” requires me to first presume that I have the “right answer.” I am uncomfortable making that claim also.
And yet, the force of Paul’s denouncement echoes in my ears.
So, how do I reconcile these two tendencies?
For now:
1. First, I look to the Apostles Creed as a set of boundaries, outside of which lay unorthodoxy. Is the Creed biblical? Well, it may not have been lifted directly from the bible, but - here’s the key - the church’s consensus has been for millennia that the Apostles creed reflects the core beliefs of the Christian church. When I say “church’s consensus” I mean the whole thing - Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox: groups of Christians that barely speak to each other all affirm the Apostles creed. For this reason, I don’t think that my selection of the Apostles Creed is arbitrary.
The Apostles Creed sets the outside boundaries of orthodoxy: If I ever found myself not being able to affirm the creed, I would have to wonder if it was fair to consider myself a Christian. (This is the reason that when we recite it at church, I recite from memory — I always have it nearby).
2. The Bible is Scripture. Which is to say that it is the norm. There are thousands of interpretations of the Bible - I have thousands of pounds worth of commentary on shelves in my office. We may not be able to say of any of them that, “this is the right interpretation,” but we can say of many interpretations that they are wrong. For the reason detailed below, we may find ourselves with a couple or several interpretations of the text that seem to be equally supported by it, but the text also resists some interpretations. When the text resists my interpretation, I must revise that interpretation - not the other way round.
3. Finally (at least, for now), We are Fallen. That is, our perspective and knowing capacity is limited. To claim that we know the “right interpretation” seems to require us to embody a perspective that is unaffected by culture, tradition, or limited mental capacity: it is to require us to be God. And we’re Not. Ever. God.
Entries (RSS)