“Why does the church not spend time examining the reasoning behind heresy? Why is it cast as straying from God and towards the devil, and that’s all that needs to be said?”
I receive these questions with gratitude in the spirit of genuine inquiry. As I begin to consider a response, I am mindful that in the gospel accounts Jesus seemed to take two different approaches when it came to questions and questioners. One tactic Jesus employed was to answer a question with another question, turning the question back onto the questioner. He often took this approach with people like Scribes and Pharisees who, usually, were posing questions for the purpose of entrapment. The motive of their questions was to gain leverage against Jesus. With others, however, Jesus engaged in helpful conversation, even if his responses were challenging. Such questioners were people like Nicodemus (John 3), the unnamed Samaritan woman (John 4), or very often his own disciples. It is this second approach that I take here, trusting that the questions are posed from a genuine desire to understand.
First, it will be helpful to notice the presence of the word heresy. Without further clarification of what is meant here by heresy, I take it in a broad sense as beliefs that contradict orthodox teachings of the church. As such, it can be said that the church indeed has spent time examining competing beliefs. Such work was a major component of the early church councils. Debates were fervently engaged by leaders with competing views on topics such as the divinity of Jesus. Out of these debates rose decisions on how the church answered some key questions of theology and doctrine. Beliefs that fell outside the bounds of those decisions were considered erroneous teaching, i.e. heresy. While other issues have been wrestled out in subsequent generations, the modern church can respond to a number of proposed ideas about the Bible, about God, about Jesus by saying, “We’ve already addressed those ideas and have satisfactorily settled the question in our minds.”
In reference to our questions here, it is possible the word heresy is used in reference to debates regarding Christianity as compared to other religions, or even as Christianity compared to agnosticism or atheism. If this is the heart of the question, a response can still be offered by saying that the church has examined competing beliefs from opposing worldviews or religions. This not to say that every professing Christian has made an earnest endeavor to study these matters. Nevertheless, the rigorous Christian discipline known as apologetics applies itself to this very thing. A wide range of thoughtful, educated Christians have engaged in public conversations with those of opposing views. Among them are people like William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Norman Geisler, Gary Habermas, and Stephen C. Meyer. Going back through the centuries we would find people like C.S. Lewis, continuing all the way to St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Through their public platforms and written works, such people have offered sound reasons why Christian belief stands up to intelligent criticism.
A helpful thought moving forward is to observe that when it comes to Christianity versus atheism, both are chosen as matters of faith. Often in our dialogue you may hear people say, “I can prove” that God exists, or doesn’t exist. In my opinion, there is unfounded confidence in such language. The modern apologist who makes this case in a clear fashion is the late Timothy Keller, who reasonably establishes that when it comes to the existence of God, belief or disbelief are both positions of faith. This proposition is not to suggest that such faith is “blind faith,” as in believing in something in the complete absence of evidence. Rather, it is to establish that neither position can be proven with absolute certainty. Faith is required. Regarding Christianity, we should note that faith is actually the response that is sought by God. God is not described in the Bible as one who says, “I’m going to show up and prove to you my existence.” In our minds, that would be nice, but it is not what God offers. In The Screwtape Letters, C.S, Lewis writes that “the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of (God’s) scheme forbids Him to use.” God is not seeking our response to proof, but our response to evidence. This is the nature of Christian faith.
There is also the question, as I understand it, of why in our churches there is not more time spent on considering objections or competing views to the faith. There are probably a few different responses that could be formed to this question. I would begin by saying that the church is a body of people who have consented to the teachings of the Christian faith and are pursuing a relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ. When the church gathers (worship, small groups, etc.), these are times when we seek to respond to God’s goodness, to have our hearts and minds formed by God’s message for us, and thus prepare ourselves to live in a way that is faithful to God. To spend considerable time weighing the value of competing ideas is not productive to those ends. This is not because questions should never be raised, nor that people on inquiring journeys are not welcome guests. But for those who already are convinced of the existence of God, the truth of scripture, and the lordship of Jesus, these matters are already settled.
It is suggested in the question that a competing thought to Christian teaching is written off simply as the work of the devil rather than something to be seriously considered. The Bible tells us quite plainly that the strategy of the devil is to lie, confuse, and cast doubt. All of this serves the ultimate purpose of keeping people from the relationship with and knowledge of God He wants us to have. For this reason, one might at least understand why a Christian would appear to be guarded against competing thoughts. The Christian faith makes claims to truth. It seems reasonable to say that truth, by definition, excludes anything that contradicts it. As stated previously, a Christian is one who largely has settled the truth claims of Christianity in her or his mind. When a question is posed that offers a contrasting idea, that question can certainly be received in a spirit of genuine inquiry. Even so, the central truth claims of the Christian faith are to be held inviolable. A person can certainly choose whether or not to consent to those claims. What a person cannot do is to deny those truth claims and still profess to be a Christian.
I once heard the political commentator Glenn Beck speak of his faith journey, specifically how he eventually became a Mormon because it was, in his words, the only place he went to church that allowed him to ask questions. (This was many years ago, and I have no idea what has happened in his life since.) When I heard that, I felt saddened and, admittedly, a bit skeptical of the claim. It was sad for me to think there could be churches where questions are discouraged. I will concede that Beck is speaking the truth as to his own experience. However, I think it is a stretch to say that no place other than the Mormon church would allow people to pose questions. Obviously there are times that are more appropriate than others for questions to be considered. But as a general statement, the church is definitely a place where people should be able to process their questions and respond to God’s tug on their hearts. In my opinion, the most effective way for this to happen is by direct fellowship and conversation between a Christ-follower and a seeker.
My prayer for this response is that it at least touches something that is intended in the questions. I am sure there are better, more intelligent responses that others could offer. May God give us grace for clarity and understanding.
Pastor Dave
The Winding Path 