That is the dictionary definition. I guess it is up to each person if heresies are taboo. Even in modern times there have been new sects that are considered Christian heresies, but the members of those sects don’t seem to mind. They carry on anyway. At some point, we would have to ask why we are seeking the approval of others and if we should just be confident in our own judgment.
Sects or things like Arianism are the extreme end of the spectrum. The more relevant end is whether we allow for any diversity at all. Even within the so called Orthodox or main stream denomnations there is still a wide diversity in specific areas. There has been long debates on what might be termed the core beliefs or where we draw the line in diversity.
The point here, though, was about how the bible is understood. There are some (here et al) who would claim that there is little room for personal belief.
Looking at the diversity in Christian denominations in the world now, it sure looks like diversity is allowed. I’m not seeing any major movement to kick Baptists, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, or Methodists out of Christendom. In fact, I would say acceptance of diversity of opinion within Christianity has improved greatly over the last 100 years. Using my own country of the US as an example, JFK being a Roman Catholic was considered problematic by a lot of Christians at the time, but almost nothing was said about Biden being Catholic when he was running for the same office.
Does this mean no one can disagree with one another? I would hope not.
My first reaction was to note that Christianity pretty much defined itself in opposition to Arianism. But reading through the history of the conflict shows this was a complex back and forth fight.
I like the Trinitarian teaching (largely for ironic reasons) but I have to admit the Arian teaching makes sense. In the end, I think it was always a lot of to do about nothing. On the other hand, I think the JWs demonstrate how repressive the Arians can be. Perhaps Trinitarianism is a saving flaw of sorts – a bit of nonsense which keeps Christianity more lively. Certainly the ironic reasons for which I like the Trinitarian teaching bears this up: not in the Bible, not a God made in our image, a discordant note in the opposition to polytheism, a God who is more than personal rather than merely personal or even less.
I see the diversity of opinions as a sign of life and real harmony is found in an acceptance of diversity rather than uniformity (which suggests repression).
I support the basic principle:
“In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.”
If we could accept that principle, there would be more diversity within churches.
Unfortunately, as you noted, there are some disagreements about what is essential and this has caused hostile attitudes towards those that disagree and led to splitting of denominations.
There are also many traditionalists that do not accept changes in their dear traditions and that may cause disagreements and hostile attitudes.
Sometimes the cause of disagreements and division is personal or authority conflicts, rather than differences in essential beliefs.
Luckily (or not), there is a wider diversity of churches than acceptance of diversity within a church. If someone is smoked out of a church, there are other churches that may serve as a new home for the person.
Two of the major Lutheran groups in the U.S. have abandoned that, which is sad since adiaphora (“makes no difference”) was a major item to the Wittenberg Reformers – things not necessary to the faith but useful or at least not harmful.
There seems to be a wide diversity of reasons why the basic principle has not been adopted in many (most?) churches. The reasons may be related to disagreements about doctrines (what is essential?) but the true reason may often be unwillingness to tolerate members that do not support unconditionally the opinions of the leader/leaders. Maybe there is a fear that the acceptance of differing interpretations in non-essential matters increases the risk of splits within the church and weakens the authority of the leaders.
It is claimed that the fear of divisions within the church of Antioch was a key reason why Ignatius (episcopos of Antioch, one of the early Apostolic fathers) stressed the role of the church leader (episcopos, later called ‘bishop’) in his letters to the extreme. Ignatius claimed that where the leader is, there is the church. If you do not agree with and follow the leader, you are not part of the true church. Letters of Ignatius were widespread in the early church and reinforced the leading position of bishops in matters of interpretation. I guess this heritage has prevailed through millennia.
I think you are right about power and authority. I think most leaders also think that for the vitality of the local church, there has to be unity of thought in doctrines and direction if it is to grow and thrive, so is not entirely a selfish motivation.
Our local church sort has a concentric circles model, where some are in the outer circle as attenders who may not be committed to all the the goals of the local church, and an inner circle of those who are voting members who do. Of course, that is what Baptists do, in general.
Sure, that kind of thinking is familiar and I understand it. Yet, there is an alternative.
Currently, I am in a church that has taken the basic principle (In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love) to its’ ‘spiritual DNA’. It demands a humble attitude and some amount of wisdom from leaders, readiness to explain why we teach as we teach, an ability to tolerate incompleteness and tensions, and lots of heavenly love. With these, it can form a healthy basis for church life.
It is liberating to be in a church where you are encouraged to use your brains, and where having a minority interpretation in a non-essential matter does not push you to the outer circle or out.
The perhaps most demanding feature of such a church is that there is only a very compact and narrow confession. Biblical scriptures are the doctrinal basis, the oldest ecumenical Creeds (especially Apostles’ and Nicene) are accepted and used, but otherwise there are no detailed written confessions or statements of beliefs. All generations need to dig deep into the Biblical scriptures and form the answers themselves, not just rely on what our fathers have decided to write in a confession.
It would be much easier to just throw simple answers and demand that all swallow these but simple answers seldom tell the whole truth.
A sociology study once (1980s, I think) showed that when the leader of a congregation changes members shift elsewhere. The effect is dramatic when there is a single leader, not so much when there are two and the remaining one becomes head, and very little when there is multiple leadership (three or more).
Just one more reason that churches that are a “one man show” are not a good idea.
In grad school I attended a Lutheran church where the pastor had two Ph.D.s and half the elders had advanced degrees as well – and he encouraged them to dispute with him in the morning “pastor’s class” (not “Bible class” because the subject matter came from scripture, the Fathers, great theologians, even archaeology). In order to be an altar attendant (not necessarily serving in the worship service, working to care for the altar and all its accoutrements counted) one had to read three assigned books that focused on the centrality of the Gospel and the Sacraments. People weren’t just encouraged to use their brains, anyone involved in ministry was required to do so.
I miss that.
Not in any Christianity I have been (or ever would be) a part of.
Back in the middle ages I suppose I would probably just stick to the science and lack interest in theology. I might have to think up positive theological suggestions and simply bow to authorities out of disinterest in any discussion with a group of people lacking intellectual flexibility.
I may be wrong but have the impression that these “one man shows” are more common in USA than in the other parts of the world, and that the increase of such congregations/churches elsewhere is partly copying of models coming from US. Media programs ‘made in USA’ spread this kind of model.
Maybe it is a reflection of an individualistic culture that favors entrepreneurship. New churches may be seen as ‘companies’ of the founding pastor. Sometimes people talk about such churches as ‘the church of [xxxx]’ where [xxxx] is the name of the leading pastor.
That is a poor basis for the building of a healthy church society because too much power in the hands of one person is a fundamentally risky structure. It tends to build a toxic atmosphere. This kind of concentration of power to one person affects how the members of that church behave (usually in a negative way), even when the leader himself does nothing wrong.
Edit:
I know that in some parts of the world (for example, some parts of South America), there are more people willing to become pastors than there are opportunities to hire such. In such situations, wanna-be pastor candidates have been told that the only way to become an officially recognized pastor within the denomination is to establish a local church/congregation that can support the pastor financially. Such new local churches/congregations are necessarily first “one man shows” but should turn to local churches lead by a group of elders and pastor(s) if everything progresses in a healthy manner.
I am sorry, but you have shown that your experience of church is less than conventional and that will / has taint your views
The point is that, when it comes to Scripture at least, there are acceptable and. apparently non accptable interpretations. and individuaism is not encouraged. To a greater or lesser extent, you can be as dogmatic as anyone ove what can or cannot be taken from Scripture,yet your own theology is not exaclty othodox.
It would appeaer that cessationism does not only aplly to “miracles” but also to Scriptural interpretation. The Old ways are still the better ones. so God is no longer speaking either.
Indeed! I started (was raised) with the completely hostile view of Christianity as nothing but a political tool for the control of those duped by it.
I reject cessationism quite loudly. For me cessationism with regards to miracles would frankly reduce the Bible to a fictional fantasy. And cessationism with regards to communication with God would reduce God to a fictional fantasy or more to the point a mere ideological prop.
I can only believe in Christianity as something real if the miracles and communication with God in the Bible is the same as what we see in Christian life today.
dogmatic: inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.
I don’t see how that applies to me even in the tiniest degree. Religious truths are subjective choices with no objective basis – providing no reasonable basis for expecting other people to agree with you. Defending my own opinions on what it all means isn’t the same as dogmatism.
I certainly seek complete honesty with regards to the definition of the words “Christian” and “Christianity” recognizing the simple fact that this covers a wide spectrum of belief (and I am well within that spectrum). And it is my observation that the variations in belief are even greater between individuals in a church than the the differences between churches.
Considering I have made all my choices on each doctrinal issue separately, I find the degree to which I am orthodox is quite surprising. On the other hand my reasons, being completely my own are often very far from anything which can be called orthodox. Let’s summarize… 5 solas protestant (with protestant canon), trinitarian, not universalist but only believe in a hell created not by God but by ourselves, rejecting all of TULIP Calvinism, incompatibilist libertarian open theist, rational non-magical compatibility with science, more eastern orthodox on atonement and original sin, rejecting meglomaniac, purist, hard hearted, controlling wrathful, and sadistic notions of God, believing only in the loving humble God who sees greatness only in being a servant of servants.
I am neither criticising your theology or how you reached it, i am merely pointing out to others, as much as you that theology is personal and based on your own thinking, rather than being conformative. As far as I am concerend your faith is one of the most genuine I see here.
Most likely so. I recall a research study (Pew, I think) that pointed to “one man shows” as particularly common in two ‘places’: U.S. and Roman Catholic. That was over thirty years ago, and I suspect it has only gotten worse.
I highly respected a Presbyterian pastor who was the sole pastor at a congregation of over eight hundred when he arrived, and when told there was no one available to be an assistant pastor he decided that elders could only be elected from among men with substantial theological education and pastoral training. When told there weren’t enough in the congregation to qualify, his response was basically, “Fine – then we will have a school for elders”. What he set up qualified those who graduated his school for an A.Div. degree, (Associate, Divinity). When he called for people to enroll, he’d planned on twelve to eighteen students; he got eighty applicants!
I have encountered pastors who regarded having “planted” a daughter church as a matter for bragging rights. On the other end of the spectrum, a friend who is a Lutheran pastor is head of a church which partnered with two others to establish a new congregation, and the only entities given credit are the three congregations – none of the eight clergy involved are even listed anywhere in founding documents.
That’s true of Roman Catholics in Latin America. But no one is turned down; instead those who graduate seminary are sent as priests to parts of the world where not many wish to become priests. The three closest Catholic churches to me have priests from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Venezuela!
My information came from an evangelical missionary working in South America. It seems there are such candidates on both the evangelical (sensu lato) and Catholic branches.
One difference between these branches is that in the Catholic branch, the candidates are shown a place where they can work. On the evangelical side, the candidates may need to go to an area that has no evangelical congregations and start a local church by themselves, without financial support (unless they can get some support from other continents). It demands some amount of gift that could be called ‘apostolic’.
In some places, the potential support needs to come from outside of Americas because there is considerable mistrust on missionaries coming from USA.
There is also the question of life style and values. Many missionaries from USA demand that their families get similar benefits as church workers in USA when they are in the missionary field - good school for kids, car, decent apartment, healthcare, etc. That means they distance themselves from the life of the people they should serve. It is difficult to gain trust if the missionary worker just makes short day visits rather than shares the life with the people. That person does not understand the problems of daily life, does not become ‘one of us’.
In some cases, the subconscious values of the missionaries are not what they would consciously claim. Some may value comforts and personal security more than the people they should serve. Some even support some form of prosperity theology, thinking subconsciously that their costly comforts are signs that they are better servants of God than the poor people in the jungle, that God loves them more than the poor.