Are the Culture Wars Real? A Case for Heresy

Culture Wars Web

Growing up, I heard things at camp and in youth group about how “the world” thought and acted one way, and how “we” were not like that. In fact the world, it seemed, was intent on unraveling everything I valued as good and true, leaving me with a smoldering pile of ideals and beliefs, all dead oat the point of a secular sword. It was our job as Christians not only to defend against this frontal attack, but also to fight back in an effort to win souls for the Kingdom.

It was an epic battle, now in its beginning stages, but that would play out as depicted in the fantastical, horrifically violent pages within the Book of Revelation. The end is near; which side will you be on?

The Christianity of my youth was much like the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a shining jewel high on a hill, beset on all sides by forces intent solely on its destruction. And our mission, as stewards of the faith, was to preserve and maintain the faith, protecting it at all costs. This, I would later learn, was the theological heart of what I now know as the Culture War. And some within the walls of the temple might argue I’ve abandoned the cause, or perhaps switched sides all together.

But all of this begs the question: does such a culture war even exist? I’m not so sure. Though there are those who would work actively to undermine the presence of organized religion anywhere it is found, it’s a relatively small but noisy group. I do believe, however, that there is a more subtle but dangerous dynamic that threatens the influence of Christianity in today’s world: the threat of pervasive indifference.

A growing number of people just don’t seem to believe that the Christian Church, in all its many forms, has much to offer them. They are not interested in becoming a part of another institution, and they certainly have no interest in engaging in some battle – much of which may be confabulated – against the rest of the world.

This is the point at which, much to the chagrin of the established church, heretics are Christianity’s greatest ally. They tend to be the ones on the fringes of the faith, who can see both the dynamics within the faith and those outside its scope. As such, they tend to be the ones who also can help forge new bridges of relationship, while giving permission to burn other “bridges to nowhere” to the ground.

It’s not as if the Catholic Church welcomed Martin Luther with open arms when he nailed his 95 Theses to the church door, challenging much about the way church and Christianity were conducted for centuries up until that point. After all, those on the inside had been given a charge, something to protect and preserve for future generations. But while some may have seen the likes of Luther as seeking the demise of the faith, he actually beckoned new life into it, forging cracks in the edifice that allowed God’s radical work to transform the old into something new.

This was, after all, at the core of Jesus’ mission too, and the prophets who preceded him. It was what drove Origen, Luther and Alexander Campbell to stand up in the face of the institutional authority and claim a greater authority – the inspired Word of God.

I use the phrase “Word of God” intentionally, but in a more heretical sense than to imply that God’s word(s) are contained simply within the pages of a book compiled by men some centuries ago in Nicea. I, like many others, believe that God still speaks, and I believe that voice, and the authority issuing it, does not wait to be mediated by any governing body. It is what pulls us out of bed in the morning; it’s what calls us out toward some impossible ideal of a better world; it’s the inspiration that is perennially restless, discontent with what is, after catching a fleeting glimpse of what might be.

Breaking God’s spirit loose from the confines of dogma, human fear, man-made institutions and conditional, mediated love is the necessary work of heretics. Does God’s spirit need such heresies to move in the world? Not necessarily, though the covenantal relationship established between Creator and creation seems to charge us with the responsibility of being God’s hands, feet, voice and heart in the world. And in as much as we use those resources to ossify and proscribe the faith to an existing system, we’re seeking to contain that spirit, to control it, and even to claim authority over it as if it is a prized possession we can choose to share or keep for ourselves if the rest of the world is undeserving.

Howls of heresy can often be confused with the birthing cries of something new coming into existence. And like a new birth, we can fight it with all we have, but the change will come anyway. In welcoming it, and in helping usher the mysterious “new thing” into being, we get to bear witness to its birth, while also hopefully not destroying ourselves in the process, trying to fight the inevitable change.

Heretics are engaged in midwifery. It’s a bloody, messy, often thankless task, keeping a steady eye on resurrection not of the Church, but rather the whole of creation.

—-
Christian Piatt is an author, editor, speaker, musician and spoken word artist. He co-founded Milagro Christian Church in Pueblo, Colorado with his wife, Rev. Amy Piatt, in 2004.He is the creator and editor of BANNED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BIBLE and BANNED QUESTIONS ABOUT JESUS. Christian has a memoir on faith, family and parenting being published in early 2012 called PREGMANCY: A Dad, a Little Dude and a Due Date. Visit www.christianpiatt.com, or find him on Twitter or Facebook.

Print Friendly

About the Author

Christian Piatt

Christian PiattChristian Piatt is an author, editor, speaker, musician and spoken word artist. He co-founded Milagro Christian Church in Pueblo, Colorado with his wife, Rev. Amy Piatt, in 2004.He is the creator and editor of BANNED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BIBLE and BANNED QUESTIONS ABOUT JESUS. Christian has a memoir on faith, family and parenting being published in early 2012 called PREGMANCY: A Dad, a Little Dude and a Due Date. Visit www.christianpiatt.com, or find him on Twitter or Facebook.View all posts by Christian Piatt →

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.kunicki David Kunicki

    From our perspective it is easy to applaud the likes of Luther, Copernicus and Wycliffe and others but it took incredible courage for them to stand up for what they believed to be true and right and not in opposition to the word of God. We have many in our day with the same calling and the church hurls stones at them as well while others listen, consider and are willing to follow.

    • 21st Century Episcopalian

      But David, that all depends on what “camp” you’re in and/or what church/denomination you affiliate with. My group hurls stones and I’m guessing they are different than your group’s stones.

      Some could say that about the progressives that are blowing up on one side of an issue…While others could say the very same thing about the historical conservatives that are blowing up on the opposite side of an issue.

      Each side feels themselves right, the other side wrong, and self-justify. But truth is NOT relative as warm and fuzzy as all that may seem in our culture. We MUST do the hard textual work, exegeting (not eisegeting) the intended message of God and, within context of fuller body of truth, interpret and apply to today.

  • Anonymous

    I understand Christian’s point, and it’s a good one. Just because someone says something that goes against official, institutional teaching doesn’t mean it’s wrong or not Godly.

    But I’d wish he’d at least acknowledged that some heresy is not of God and that we should be judicious and cautious about what we usher in. It’s almost like he’s saying “It’s new, it bucks the established order and it’s inevitable, so it must be good!” Sometimes Christians should oppose heresy and sometimes we should support it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1807332101 James Jennings

    A very interesting article, but I think his use of the word heresy is incorrect. God can use anything for good, but He never approves of heresy. He does approve of tearing down corrupt structures and rebuilding them. There is nothing more orthodox than putting new wine in old wineskins. I would argue that much of the modern American Evangelical church is, in fact, heretical. They have strained at the gnat and swallowed a camel. Our church does need to be shaken and corrected and engulfed by a genuine revival, but that change must happen in accordance with God’s teaching in scripture- the whole of scripture, not just select parts of it ( recognizing that we worship the embodiment of truth, so we can’t deny obvious truths, simply because they confound our misunderstanding of scripture ) . We must abandon our arrogant belief that the inerrancy of scripture means that our interpretation of that scripture is inerrant.

    • Anonymous

      James,
      How do you define heresy?

      I’d define it as a belief that conflicts with official church teaching. I assume that’s how Christian is defining it. Some things that have passed for official church teaching in the past have been wrong. Does that not mean that the heresy that opposed them was right? Or were they both wrong, in your mind? Or are you working from a different definition?

  • Earn

    I like the fact he uses Luther’s name with two men who opposed the view of the trinity. Campbell in fact disliked much of what the Bible said and wrote his own version, and Origen believed in universalism. So one of the three is actually a Christian.

    Of course most of what Mr. Piatt writes is not Christian – and he agrees more with the other two than Luther so it does not surprise me. I hate to think what Luther would call Mr. Piatt

    • http://twitter.com/namastechi Namaste Chi

      Is this before or after Luther went a little crazy and erred into anti-semitism?

      • Earn

        Did Luther error in his later views on Jewish people, I say yes he sinned. But he is a man like the rest of us. To infer he was not a Christian because of this sin is an error. The other two men mentioned believed in heresy – thus rejecting who God is and thus salvation through Christ. If you choose to make up your on god and reject scripture – you reject Christ. Luther would state this – the other two mentioned did make up their own god.

  • 21st Century Episcopalian

    It’s true that debate, even dissent, can sharpen the Church’s understanding, interpretation, and application of scriptural truth. To welcome heresy, however, by whatever definition, is simply unfortunate.

    At very best, if by “heresy”, the author means sharp dispute and dissent, then he’s sadly chosen an easily misunderstood word with enormous linguistic and historical baggage, and therefore won’t be taken seriously.

    And at worst, if by “heresy”, the author truly means doctrine that is counter to the long held historical interpretations of the core gospel message of the scripture, then he should be rebuked.

    To say that God “speaks” to us today in a way that’s equally authoritative and reliable as God speaking through his prophets, apostles, and other Spirit-inspired writers of scripture becomes an open door for all sorts of unfortunate theological errors. Mormonism, Health-Wealth, Neo-Repub “America is God’s Chosen”, etc. And those are just a few examples of modern versions.

    There is a gold standard for theological understanding and, though there will always be some need for discussion, investigation, and interpretation (as well as application to modern issues that weren’t as relevant then), and even if there are debates and sharp disputes (Paul and Peter; Acts 15) over incorrect thinking, there is NEVER a place for actual heresy.

    Generally speaking, we Western moderns and post-moderns need to stop lowering the bar thinking more people will be interested in joining us. Instead, we need to do the opposite. We need to raise the bar. Jesus requires our very lives, that we would be willing to give up everything, and to follow him.

    • Nate

      “We need to raise the bar. Jesus requires our very lives, that we would be willing to give up everything, and to follow him.” well said… couldn’t agree more

  • cfc

    One can see a current day version of this exact situation by looking at the Catholic church and its fight between the American Bishops and the Americans Nuns…

  • http://twitter.com/namastechi Namaste Chi

    So, back to your question: Is there such a thing as a culture war? Did Luther create one or engage one that already existed. Or, was that not a culture war at all; just a religious thing? Did any subsequent reformer or group that dissented from the establishment, such as the Quakers or Mennonites? Oh, sorry. That’s probably just church war. But wait: Didn’t the Republicans fighting to put Reagan in office hook up with Jerry Fallwell to unite the religious war with a culture war, if the latter existed, or did they just team up to expand the religious war so as to create a culture war or did they simply create the illusion of a culture war in their scheme to consolidate their voter block?

    • Anonymous

      Good points. It’s messy. I find that when people say “Don’t engage in the culture war” they’re just trying to get one side to give up or ease up so the side they sympathize with can keep advancing. But Christians should be wary about jumping into it lest it hurt our witness. We might end up being allied with people who don’t have the same values as Christians. But if Christians don’t push back against the secular culture, we will be corrupted. As I said, it’s messy.

  • Bill

    Christian, the Bible was not “compiled by men some centuries ago in Nicea.” Though I have heard this myth used on more than one occassion to support various theses, it is nevertheless a myth. Unless new evidence has been uncovered, there is no mention in primary historical sources regarding the Council of Nicea that the text of the Bible was debated or discussed. The council did, however, use the text of what they considered scripture to support both sides of the argument regarding the nature of Jesus and the incarnation, an argument that grew even more heated and retributive in the years to follow.
    Whether you agree with or are annoyed by the efforts of those known as “the early church fathers,” its essential to know what is actually recorded in historical documents about them. For those who may claim that the historical documents are themselves too corrupted or redacted to trust, there is no effective ground for discussion.
    Whether I agree with your argument or not, I will be far more inclined to follow your development of it if the support you use is accurate.

  • Bruce Karnes

    In a recent devotional by a long deceased author, a young man man became the topic of sore debate for his enthusiasm and expression in Church. On the way home from Church the father of the man in question said that the deacons had met and instructed him that his son should me more established before launching out in expression. Suddenly the horse drawing their carriage stops and refuses to move. The father then asks what has gotten into the horse? The son answers that it looks as the the horse has become established!

    The temptation for Christians challenging the apparent immovable establishment is to evidence progress by moving the target closer to man, instead of moving man closer to the target. We have received a Kingdom which cannot be moved. The Word is never changing. Jesus offered a blessing to he who keeps his garments to the end. I can not put my trust in any new wind of man. I do build. But I build on an immovable rock. I have learned not to be ashamed of the hardness of the rock and the weakness of man who must rely on an immutable covenant not only to grow, but even to survive. Man shall not live by bread alone, especially when it is leavened with heresy dressed up as
    revelation. “Hath God said?”

×

TRENDING: Christianity Means Not Knowing All the Answers >>