Frontier Heretics

If the body of Christ is to move boldly into the frontier, we must have more heretics who will lead the way. That sounds, well, heretical, doesn’t it? But I’m serious in an edgewise sort of way. We really need “heretics” to step up in a day when the church is lying down. Please hear me out.

I’ve been on the receiving end of the accusation of “heretic.” The experience puts into one a whole bevy of thoughts and emotions.

When the smoke cleared, I had an opportunity to sit, think and pray about this new moniker. And I repeat, in this day of spiritual decline in America, we need more heretics. To begin, you might want to read Roger Lange’s excellent article on our web site entitled “Who’s the Real Heretic?” He studies the word in its New Testament contexts and draws conclusions from that.

Roger brings up the point that a good many men and women in the past who were labeled “heretic” by their contemporaries (and some put to death for it), were exonerated by future generations and lauded as defenders of the faith. To paraphrase I-can’t-remember-who, “The heretic of this generation may be the saint of the next.”

The church has not been the only arena to be infested with heretics. Let’s not forget some of the greatest scientific minds of the past who were threatened with early extinction because of what are considered today as self-evident truths (“Hey, Galileo; rewrite that malarkey about the sun being the center of the solar system or it’s the rack for you!”)

Don’t get me wrong. Church history shows that there were a lot of folks called “heretic” who really were weirdos. Their doctrines and practices were way outside the bounds of sound Christianity (as are some today). But that reasoning works both ways. There were some whose screwy doctrines and practices were perceived as normal in the eyes of the established church then, but are regarded as aberrant today. Nothing new under the sun?

So why, Timothy, do we need “heretics” today? I love some of the introductory comments in “Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics” by Chas S. Clifton (Barnes & Noble, New York, 1992; no, you won’t find me listed in it). Here he lays the groundwork for a better understanding of the place of heretics in the history of Christianity.

Beginning with a more secular example, Mr. Clifton says “. . . A ‘medical heretic’ . . . might be a doctor who questions his peers’ assumptions, but only after his death is he recognized as having identified one of the profession’s weaknesses or blind spots” (p. xi). Today, we might compare such folks in any profession to a corporate “whistle-blower.”

He quotes Robert Ingersoll, “Religion is like a palm tree; it grows at the top. The dead leaves are all orthodox while the new ones are all heretics” (p. xi). Obviously, we accept this statement within some borders. I take the spirit of the statement to mean that there are times in the life of the slumbering, dying or dead church of God when there it is necessary for some to rise up and sound the alarm for life to return.

“Heretics,” as I am defining them, step on to the stage of the church and begin to challenge believers who have become stunted in growth and drugged to a living relationship to Yahweh and to their fellow-believers. Some heretics, says Mr. Clifton, “. . . are seen through modern eyes as reformers and enemies of a wealthy and complacent church” (p. xi).

Wait; doesn’t the Old Testament call these “prophets.” Yes, it does. Need I remind you of how hated these men and women were for the most part? Go back and read how despised and hated they were. Their rewards were to be mocked, thrown down holes, imprisoned, sawn in two, and stoned to death as if they were no more than . . . well, heretics.

Mr. Clifton again: “. . . after the fourth and fifth centuries, when Christianity dominated the former Roman empire, a heretic was often that person who criticized the established church (whether Eastern Orthodox or Western Catholic) on any grounds whatsoever, even if he or she proceeded from an earnest desire to see the church purified or returned to its true ideals” (p. xii).

I hope by now that you understand that I’m not saying that we need men and women with the attitude that “anything goes,” whether doctrinally or practically. Certainly the healthy diet of the church is sound doctrine and conduct. I am saying that the modern, institutional church has fallen into a habit of crying “heretic” when anyone challenges the status quo, whether of doctrine of practice.

Just because a person gets called a “heretic” doesn’t mean that what they are saying isn’t from God. They may be the voice of Jesus calling the church to repentance and restoration. Of course, they may not. But unless the church is willing to at least listen to “heretics” and examine their message with a humble heart — as opposed to burning them outright — she is doomed to remain a sleeping beauty. To put it another way, the church has to be willing to listen to those whose message differs from the established orthodoxy.

Mr. Clifton reminds us that, “At the beginning, all Christians were heretics as far as broad-minded Roman Paganism was concerned” (p. xii). That is, the early Christians were the renegades standing against the establishment. They rocked their world with a message that contradicted the secular and religious orthodoxy of the day.


	Restoration Ministries \| home by Timothy King ______________________________________________ If the body of Christ is to move boldly into the frontier, we must have more heretics who will lead the way. That sounds, well, heretical, doesn’t it? But I’m serious in an edgewise sort of way. We really need “heretics” to step up in a day when the church is lying down. Please hear me out. I’ve been on the receiving end of the accusation of “heretic.” The experience puts into one a whole bevy of thoughts and emotions. “I’m not a heretic; my beliefs are based on the Bible!” “This could ruin my reputation if it spreads.” “It’s a good thing certain folks don’t have the authority to burn at the stake.” When the smoke cleared, I had an opportunity to sit, think and pray about this new moniker. And I repeat, in this day of spiritual decline in America, we need more heretics. To begin, you might want to read Roger Lange’s excellent article on our web site entitled “Who’s the Real Heretic?” He studies the word in its New Testament contexts and draws conclusions from that. Roger brings up the point that a good many men and women in the past who were labeled “heretic” by their contemporaries (and some put to death for it), were exonerated by future generations and lauded as defenders of the faith. To paraphrase I-can’t-remember-who, “The heretic of this generation may be the saint of the next.” The church has not been the only arena to be infested with heretics. Let’s not forget some of the greatest scientific minds of the past who were threatened with early extinction because of what are considered today as self-evident truths (“Hey, Galileo; rewrite that malarkey about the sun being the center of the solar system or it’s the rack for you!”) Don’t get me wrong. Church history shows that there were a lot of folks called “heretic” who really were weirdos. Their doctrines and practices were way outside the bounds of sound Christianity (as are some today). But that reasoning works both ways. There were some whose screwy doctrines and practices were perceived as normal in the eyes of the established church then, but are regarded as aberrant today. Nothing new under the sun? So why, Timothy, do we need “heretics” today? I love some of the introductory comments in “Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics” by Chas S. Clifton (Barnes & Noble, New York, 1992; no, you won’t find me listed in it). Here he lays the groundwork for a better understanding of the place of heretics in the history of Christianity. Beginning with a more secular example, Mr. Clifton says “. . . A ‘medical heretic’ . . . might be a doctor who questions his peers’ assumptions, but only after his death is he recognized as having identified one of the profession’s weaknesses or blind spots” (p. xi). Today, we might compare such folks in any profession to a corporate “whistle-blower.” He quotes Robert Ingersoll, “Religion is like a palm tree; it grows at the top. The dead leaves are all orthodox while the new ones are all heretics” (p. xi). Obviously, we accept this statement within some borders. I take the spirit of the statement to mean that there are times in the life of the slumbering, dying or dead church of God when there it is necessary for some to rise up and sound the alarm for life to return. “Heretics,” as I am defining them, step on to the stage of the church and begin to challenge believers who have become stunted in growth and drugged to a living relationship to Yahweh and to their fellow-believers. Some heretics, says Mr. Clifton, “. . . are seen through modern eyes as reformers and enemies of a wealthy and complacent church” (p. xi). Wait; doesn’t the Old Testament call these “prophets.” Yes, it does. Need I remind you of how hated these men and women were for the most part? Go back and read how despised and hated they were. Their rewards were to be mocked, thrown down holes, imprisoned, sawn in two, and stoned to death as if they were no more than . . . well, heretics. Mr. Clifton again: “. . . after the fourth and fifth centuries, when Christianity dominated the former Roman empire, a heretic was often that person who criticized the established church (whether Eastern Orthodox or Western Catholic) on any grounds whatsoever, even if he or she proceeded from an earnest desire to see the church purified or returned to its true ideals” (p. xii). I hope by now that you understand that I’m not saying that we need men and women with the attitude that “anything goes,” whether doctrinally or practically. Certainly the healthy diet of the church is sound doctrine and conduct. I am saying that the modern, institutional church has fallen into a habit of crying “heretic” when anyone challenges the status quo, whether of doctrine of practice. Just because a person gets called a “heretic” doesn’t mean that what they are saying isn’t from God. They may be the voice of Jesus calling the church to repentance and restoration. Of course, they may not. But unless the church is willing to at least listen to “heretics” and examine their message with a humble heart — as opposed to burning them outright — she is doomed to remain a sleeping beauty. To put it another way, the church has to be willing to listen to those whose message differs from the established orthodoxy. Mr. Clifton reminds us that, “At the beginning, all Christians were heretics as far as broad-minded Roman Paganism was concerned” (p. xii). That is, the early Christians were the renegades standing against the establishment. They rocked their world with a message that contradicted the secular and religious orthodoxy of the day. Where are the heretics who will step up today and do the same?