NT Reflecting Pool - Feb 23

Diversity of NT Beliefs & Practices
The focus of reflecting on the nature of theological unity & diversity, of heresy & orthodoxy, in the New Testament, brought a quick challenge in the observation that no one in the New Testament was labeled a heretic. This was particularly striking to me in light of the great debates that existed throughout the Gospels between Jesus and the religious leaders, throughout Acts as the early church developed, and throughout the corpus of letters by Paul, Peter, John or James with oppositional teachers or teachings. The “Patristic period” – the centuries that followed the development of the 1st century church – addressed these conflicts with the creeds and confessions that we are familiar with today.

It raised the question – does disagreement of thinking equal unorthodoxy or heresy? It is not as though there wasn’t a strong communication about what the gospel clearly was or wasn’t about. But within that, we see leaders like Paul engage in discussion and debate with those he opposes, without simply resorting to quick labels about heresy. I wonder if labels are more a result of our desire to simplify, rather than engage, in the hard work of doing theology.

Ironically, in the early church, it was not belief, ie. creed, but behavior that was the foundation for the distinction about who was “in” and who was “out” in the early church. Equally interesting in this discussion was the criteria by which the cannon of Scripture was established. Theological content did not factor into the debates; rather, it was questions of historicity, ie. the origin of the texts, and authorship that determined the canon. The early church placed a high premium on the teaching of the apostles as a primary basis for determining canon.

These questions about cannon, about orthodoxy and heresy, continue to have modern relevance for Christians, for example, in responding to a popular novel like The Da Vinci Code. Dan Brown, the Code’s author, lays claim to a wide diversity of what was included in early Christian teaching. He falsely purports that the cannon of scripture was a much later control devise of “the man” to eliminate divergent theological perspectives. Through the voice of the novel’s characters, Brown claims that the cannon of Scripture was determined in the 4th century at the behest of Empire Constantine, in order to correct those in the church that represented unpopular teaching.

While this is historically inaccurate, it finds wide appeal in the novel. Which is why I’ve encountered many students who’ve read Brown’s book – even though they don’t read most of their books for class – and walked about convinced that they’ve been lied to through their Christian education experience in the church. Is it possible that, while they’ve not been lied to, they haven’t been taught how to discover the truth about the faith? Have we settled for quick labels of heresy, like “liberal” or “conservative”, or “fundamentalist,” instead of equipping people in the church to be judicious and discerning learners?

I’ve recently jumped on the bandwagon of The Da Vinci Code – which isn’t going away, regardless of its fallacious writing – because of this challenge. As the church in America, we need to be more unwavering in pursuing theological unity, which is biblically critical, while at the same time training people to be theologically discerning, judicious, and reflective instead of merely spoon-fed of simple answers and quick labels.