I love how Dave uses the word “humility” to describe his response to people with differing beliefs. How refreshing!
Do your beliefs reflect that kind of humility?
Updating…
Dave Rowe is the Dean of Spiritual Life at Salt Lake Theological Seminary and has written a book called I [heart] Mormons.
I had just finished watching John Piper speak out about “the emergent church” and found it to be so arrogant and critical, without taking any reflective moment for potential error on his own.
Watching this video of Dave sets well with my spirit. It isn’t that we won’t experience fallacy along The Way, but how we respond to it will probably dictate what opportunity we have to speak into it.
God knows my head knowledge had grown and shifted during the years. I’m glad that I’m still on the journey and don’t have to be judged as having already arrived yet.
Chad, is this the clip you are referring to?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkGq5A4QEjg
That’s the one, Craig.
As I look around at the wide spectrum of beliefs held within the church at large (many of them very much at odds with each other), I wonder why God doesn’t do something to set us all straight? I can only see two alternatives: Either God is trying to tell us and we aren’t listening, or He isn’t nearly as worried about our differing ideas as we think He should be.
Although many people might like to think they are God’s voice of truth in the world, even they don’t stand in agreement on very much. So, I have come to the conclusion that God can’t be nailed down regarding truth/heresy like we expect.
Add that to Jesus’ constant command to love each other, and our position should be clear–Don’t be so sure that you have any right to call someone else a heretic.
I like Dave Rowe =)
Doesn’t the concept behind the word “heresy” require the existence of the concept behind the word “dogma”?
“I certainly don’t intend to hold heresy–I’d like to get rid of it.”
My immediate question in response to this statement is “why?”
“I want to be compliant to what his word says–I want to believe it and hold it.”
My question in response to this is “What do you mean by ‘what his word says’” or “When you say ‘what his word says’, do you mean that you believe that his word clearly says something expositional, or by ‘what his word says’, do you rather mean the *story* that constitutes his word? And can you talk a bit about your response to that question?”
Hoping Dave is hanging around to answer questions =)
The word “heresy” makes me think of Joan of Arc being burned on the cross. The word speaks so much of absolutism. The only thing I know absolutely is that I will never have the capacity to understand the mind of God.
For me a new word I’ve been exploring – fallibilism is what heresy is not – doesn’t leave space for. I even asked Phyllis Tickle what she thought of the philosophy of fallibilism as it seems to fit with emergence in Christianity. Her response, “Yes, I know a bit about fallibalism and, in truth, there is a strong strand of it running through emergence thought in general and, as a result, through some portions of emergence Christianity as well.”
I found this lovely definition – Fallibilism is a fervent and passionate conviction in what one believes to be true with the available information, while simultaneously holding that that information is likely incomplete and will be expanded at some point in the future, thus rendering past passionately held opinions and positions outdated and invalid, thus fallible.
This then requires the willingness to abandon the former position in light of new information, evidence and knowledge.
This requires open-mindedness.
Growing up a Christian in Idaho I heard a lot about the evils of the Mormon doctrine. But since my life was pretty sheltered in a Christian home, private school, and church environment, i was pretty sheltered from the LDS people. (There was this one cute Mormon girl named Corky that I danced with a couple of times, but that is a different story.)
My children are now in public school now and are becoming friends with Mormon kids. These kids and teenagers are coming over to my house to eat, play, share their dreams, open their hearts and tell us about their brokenness- well, I don’t see them as cult members to save anymore; they are kids with names and faces that I have come to love.
More than anything I’ve seen what the Mormon church has provided for a couple of these kids whose lives are so out of whack that they need a spiritual family and stability. I’m glad for what the LDS church has given them. Who knows where they would be without it?
Trying to convince them that their belief system is heresy would probably just cause them to go away, feeling that they were a project rather than a person. Are they at their final destination yet? No, but then neither am I. I think I’ll just choose to love them along this journey.
Thanks for this great testimony, David.
Chad–I love it.
After I stopped being a Christian, I gradually realized that the Christian story was just as strange, in one sense, as the Mormon story (or most other compelling stories, for that matter). When I realized this, I also realized I’d never properly heard the Mormon story. So I decided the next time some mormons came by, I’d invite them in and get them to tell me the story.
Eventually, they came, and I did as I planned. I must confess it was a bit disappointing. They were two young guys, and honestly they weren’t very good storytellers. They were more interested in my conversion than in telling me the story, despite my repeated attempts to make them understand I wanted to hear the story with some detail and verve and delight. Ah well.
Ben you’re priceless.. i do the same with street peeps… if i’m to give some money.. they can give from what they have.. and so many have so much character.. maybe that’s cruel of me.. but i want to hear a story.. even if it’s made up.. have some verve..
although i agree of course with Dave.. about humility.. he’s talking about that stuff i saw up in Alberta, Canada in the 90′s.. a good friend of mine’s hub was a lutheran pastor.. and thought it would pretty spectacular if after church the congregation seperated from their respective male and female sides and ate..
it also reminded me of this emergent pastor out near LA.. who when approached by a couple of wiccans in a comic book shop.. they felt sorry for him. .. my point is.. why do we xians feel so rogue when really we’re just being kinda lame.. i’m not judging.. because i’ve been there.. out of touch.. creepy.. why isn’t the mystical elements of our divine relation more apparent..
i
Sangat,
“Why do we xians feel so rogue when really we’re just being kinda lame.. i’m not judging.. because i’ve been there.. out of touch.. creepy.. why isn’t the mystical elements of our divine relation more apparent..”
This touches on a similar question I have–what’s up with many Christians and the persecution complex? In the world in general, and in America specifically, Christian have most of the money and most of the power (although admittedly perhaps not most of the sex, but I’ll leave that alone). But how often do we hear Christians complaining, about this, that or t’other? I mean Christians have more financial and cultural capital to change whatever they are complaining about than anyone else. You nailed it exactly–Christians are not rogue. They are the opposite of rogue. They are mainstream, and …thus potentially are the ones responsible for banal evil, which is arguably the worst kind.
Wow–how did I get off on a rant like that?
Jesus was obviously a heretic. That’s why I don’t understand why any Christian would ever not want to hold heresy.
Later =)
Of course, today’s orthodoxy is just yesterday’s heresy. Sadly we’d rather hide from the things we once did – such as the persecution of the Lollards (people who thought it’d be kinda nice to read a version of the bible they could actually understand), whom we burnt at the stake a few miles away from where I type.
It strikes me that the answer to this is not to shy away from believing in orthodoxies, but to stand firmer on them. The problem is that if our metanarrative involves the Christian gospels, we are very likely to be focusing on things that are not priorities of the one we claim to follow. So we focus on things like homosexuality rather than wealth. The reality, it seems to me, is that if we took most of the gospels on face value, we would have to conclude that our lives suggest we walk on the ‘wide way’ rather than the’narrowway’. It might make us feel more confortable to refuse to think in any kind of exclusivity (except, of course, being against anyone who thinks in exclusive terms, which is obviously an oxymoron), but I’m not sure the gospels give us much choice than to continually remind us of how far we are from where we should be.
I am always struck by these words:
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
It’s incredible, but it seems as if it’s saying that, more important than what we believe and look forward to is really how we love God and one another. Beautiful.
Great video, great comments and thoughts!
this made me uncomfortable initially .. because I am one of those Liberal Christians.
I have been labeled all sorts of nasty .. just because I have a different worldview.
so .. I wondered where this guy was going at first ..
then this quote hit me hard in the face:
.:.
how much herecy does God tolerate?
for our sakes, I hope its a lot
.. AMEN! ..
.
.
head-knowledge (as Chad put it) changes and evolves ..
it grows .. and we each have a unique perspective.
.:.
imagine .. is there anything even remotely similar to someone like Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, or Paul .. in my day-to-day thoughts about priorities .. in my understanding of how the world works .. in my life style .. in the way I communicate .. or even in the food that I eat?
.. no ..
the why would I suspect that MY perspective is the ONLY correct one?? ..
..
Christ has been around since the beginning
Everything was created in, for, and thru Him
He is SO much bigger than the man that manifested His spirit in 1st century Palestine
indeed .. He is God
He is alive in me
and I believe that He reveals Himself to ALL that seek Him
.:.
God,
Thank You for Your Awesomeness
Thank You for Your Colorfulness
To tolerate heresy is to tolerate lies. You can, as a fallible human being, tolerate heresy but to attribute tolerance of heresy to God is paramount to heresy in itself.
Thou art a God Who hatest all the workers of iniquity: Thou wilt destroy all who speak a lie. (Psalm 124:5; 5:7)
Tertullian said, “[The christian] hates heresy because God hates it, but he has only compassion for those who are caught in its snare.
And to tolerate a heretic is not the same as tolerating heresy. You can have compassion for a murdered but you can not tolerate murder.
Yet how light you make of it! when you said “How much heresy does God tolerate? for our sakes, I hope its a lot”
You might just have well said: “How much injustice does God tolerate? For our sake, I hope it is a lot”
Very interesting, Mikael, thanks for commenting.
Since it appears that you’d consider Dave Rowe a heretic (“to attribute tolerance of heresy to God is paramount to heresy in itself.”), I wonder what it looks like in this case for you to “tolerate a heretic is not the same as tolerating heresy”. What does it look like to tolerate Dave, but not his heresy?
I’m also interested in what the word tolerance means to you?
I will tolerate mr. Rowe the same way a doctor would care for a cancer patient. If he loved the patient he would have to hate the cancer, and thus, with all his might, rid the patient of the cancer, he would not tolerate it but seek to destroy it.
[heresy] spreadeth like a cancer” (II. Tim. ii, 17)
Tolerance to me is indifference towards that which we believe (or know) to be false. We tolerate different opinions but never objective truth (heresy not being an opinion but called heresy because it goes against that which is considered objective truth. If I hold an objective opinion and you another one I could not label you a heretic).
you also ask:
“What does it look like to tolerate Dave, but not his heresy?
I do so by seeing a distinctione between his being and his heresy. He is not defined by his heresy, people are not defined by their sins.
Allow me to go back to the cancer analogy, if the doctor made no distinction between the afflicted and the affliction it would lead him to one of these positions:
a. Tolerate the patient and the cancer.
b. Hate the patient and the cancer.
c. Love the patient and the cancer.
All of these go against proper charity .
Sadly – one of these options, namely (a) mr. Rowe seems to advocate.
If we care for the well-being of our fellow man we can not tolerate evil and I do hope no christian here disagrees that heresy is a great evil – because it is.
So let me change my stance on Dave Rowe. If he believes God tolerates evil I won’t label him a heretic. I will label him a heathen. Because a god that tolerates(!) heresy is not the same God christians believe in.
Line: If I hold an objective opinion and you another one I could not label you a heretic)
Should read: If I hold a subjective opinion and you another one I could not label you a heretic).