This post was written by Adam Ellis.
I originally thought I might write a response to all of the “controversy” surrounding Rob Bell and his forthcoming new book. I have appreciated Rob’s work over the years, and certainly feel the sudden, passionate outrage was both premature and unfair. With that being said, I fully expect most neo-Calvinists to not agree with what Rob says in his book, whether it’s what they thought he was going to say or not. None of this is exactly surprising information. Rob isn’t a Calvinist. When I get my hands on a copy of the book (advance or otherwise…HarperOne, are you listening?), I intend on writing a review. However, the related Twitter/Blog/Facebook spectacle from this weekend got me thinking about the concepts of orthodoxy and heresy in general. Here, for better or worse, are my random thoughts on the subject (which are sure to get me in trouble with someone).
-The word Orthodoxy comes from two greek roots (stay with me…): “Ortho”, meaning “Right” or “Correct,” and “Doxa” meaning “Opinion”. Did you get that? It literally means “the right/correct opinion”, and over the years this has been used to denote that an opinion/interpretation agreed with the opinion held by the majority, or sometimes by those in power. Heterodoxy literally means a different or other opinion, with the implication being that it is different or other than the commonly held view. Heresy simply comes from a root word meaning “choice”, denoting a conscious decision. Usage of this term would seem to indicate that it implies that someone has made a conscious decision to deviate from or consciously question the opinion held by the majority.
-This being the case, Jesus was technically a heretic.
-This being the case, all reformers of any kind were heretics, including Luther and Calvin.
-It strikes me that Orthodoxy and Heresy have come to essentially be a sort of “power game” whereby a “motivation by exclusion” social pressure is employed to create a “no-fly zone” for questions. It also strikes me that truth is never afraid of questions, and when questions are rendered off limits, it at least creates the impression that it is not truth that is being sought, but rather a maintaining of the status-quo.
Since when does one’s belief about the afterlife call their salvation into question? Grace covers a multitude of sins, but not misunderstanding? Such a “cognitive salvation” seems difficult to support Biblically given the accounts of Christians recorded in the New Testament.
-Since when are the terms “Orthodoxy” and “Calvinism” synonyms? Since when are the terms “Calvinist” and “Christian” interchangeable? It seems that charges of heresy abound when people like Rob Bell, Greg Boyd, or Brian McLaren articulate anything other than Calvinist doctrine.)
-What do the “orthodoxy police” do with the early church fathers, many of who, to one degree or another, advocated something other than the “traditional” Exclusive view of salvation? (Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, etc.?
-What do the “orthodoxy police” do with more contemporary, but widely respected Christian authors and thinkers who questioned or advocated something different than the “traditional” Exclusivist view of salvation? (John Wesley, C.S. Lewis, John Stott, Clark Pinnock, F.F. Bruce, Lesslie Newbigin, Dallas Willard, Billy Graham, and J.I. Packer, just to name a few).
-Whenever I see heresy hunts, I ask myself who this behavior resembles in the Gospels. It isn’t Jesus. It’s the people who crucified him. Character is a powerful apologetic. Always ask yourself who displays the most Christ-like character in these situations. If that suggestion bothers you, ask yourself why.
Read Previous Post
