On Easter Sunday, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) — pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, the same church Martin Luther King, Jr. pastored — tweeted a message that subverted the gospel of Christianity and preached utter heresy, rejected by Christian churches for more than a millennium.“The meaning of Easter is more transcendent than the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Whether you are Christian or not, through a commitment to helping others we are able to save ourselves,” Warnock tweeted.
In the year 1326, Meister Eckhart was called before the Inquisition -- the "only theologian of the first rank to be tried for heresy in the Middle Ages" -- beginning a prosecution that would outlast his life. Several of his teachings were deemed heretical, but he was not himself deemed a heretic. There is an ongoing process about rehabilitating those doctrines that you can read about at the link; but the Church has held that he, himself, needs no rehabilitation because he was never condemned.
Eckhart avoided condemnation as a heretic through the simple defense that heresy is an act of the will, and he did not will to be a heretic. Rather, he had taught the truth to the best of his understanding; if he was wrong, he was open to correction, and would recant anything found to be in error. Pope John XXII issued a bull after Eckhart's death noting that defense and his recantation, and condemning the doctrines but not the man.
It is easy enough to say, then, that Warnock is probably a heretic by the Eckhart standard, i.e., that he has been informed of his error but continues to teach it. So, however, are all Protestant churches by the Eckhart standard, e.g. on the question of transubstantiation; and as far as I know, accusations of heresy are not regularly floated.
Within the Protestant context, which Warnock occupies, it's not clear to me what even would be a standard for heresy. By what authority does one Protestant tell another that they are a heretic, and what is the standard for such an accusation to be justified? Who judges such a case, and by what standard?
As with other theological questions, the contemporary age seems to have drifted away from the old answers. Sometimes this is for the good, and sometimes not, but I'm not sure how anyone besides the Church would even consider (let alone adjudicate) an accusation like this one today; and even the Church appears to have let the matter slide for the great majority of cases.
I think each Protestant denomination judges for itself what heresy is. Here, what I think would be the heresy is denial of sola fide, or the idea that we are saved by grace through faith alone. But it would depend on what his denomination's dogmas are.
ReplyDeleteIt has become an elastic word, used to express the idea "I think this deviates from central Christian teachings." CS Lewis covered the difficulty with that in the Introduction to Mere Christianity. Who defines which doctrines are central and which are peripheral. Who decides what is important and what is not? For me, what is found in Lewis's book seems quite close to the consensus, as he draws on the Creeds, historical affirmations, close definitions of words.
ReplyDeleteI have used the word "heresy" seldom, and I don't think I could give you a general rule that would hold up. However, when I have used it I have mentally prepared to defend the claim in terms of Christian documents, not just my feelings or cool ideas I have had about how things work. I think I could do that pretty easily in this case, asking "What did Jesus die for, then? And what is valuable about the Resurrection?" I think Warnock could only answer by digging himself in deeper.
“Within the Protestant context, which Warnock occupies, it's not clear to me what even would be a standard for heresy. By what authority does one Protestant tell another that they are a heretic, and what is the standard for such an accusation to be justified? Who judges such a case, and by what standard?”
ReplyDeleteSeriously??
The standard would be the denomination’s doctrinal interpretation of the Bible. Since Protestants accept the priesthood of all believers we recognize the authority, even the duty, to identify, call out, and avoid false teaching when we encounter it. There are any numbers of verses in the Bible that require the individual believer to do exactly that. See Romans 16:17, Mathew 24:4-5, 1 John 4:1-3. Simply because we do not require a theological bureaucracy to do this for us does not mean that we lack a standard or the authority to call out heresy when we see it.
All Christian churches, to my knowledge, including the Catholic and Orthodox churches, teach that faith in Jesus is the sole condition for salvation. The Catholic and Orthodox churches also teach that good works (which do not suffice for salvation) are evidence of inner faith, and that claimed faith without the evidence of good works is empty.
ReplyDeletefaith in Jesus is the sole condition for salvation
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church teaches that that is the beginning, but hardly all that's required for salvation. The sacraments, e.g., play a very large role in achieving salvation; some of them are sine qua non for Catholics over the age of reason.
What’s the current position on heresy, Dad? My understanding of this is literally medieval.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Catholic Church's definitions of heresy have not changed, but since Vatican II, effectively, Protestants are considered material heretics not formal heretics.
ReplyDeleteFig leaf.
The definition from Fr. John Hardon's Pocket Catholic Dictionary:
ReplyDelete"In the RC.....very specific.......anyone who, after receiving Baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly, four elements......previous valid Baptism (not necessarily in the RC church), external profession of still being a Christian, outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth the RC church [holds as] revealed by God, and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows as a doctrinal imperative. ...If acting in good faith [and] brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against the Faith."
Eric's take is correct. By the way, BUY Hardon's work. Worth every dime you put into it.