Comments on: Heretics–part one http://blog.fuller.edu/churchthenandnow/2008/12/26/heretics-part-one/ A Blog by Kurt Fredrickson & Eddie Gibbs Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:05:54 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: John Smulo http://blog.fuller.edu/churchthenandnow/2008/12/26/heretics-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-383 John Smulo Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:40:28 +0000 http://blog.fuller.edu/churchthenandnow/?p=227#comment-383 I really appreciate your thoughts. There have been many "heretics", such as Martin Luther, as you mention, Rosa Parks, and most significantly, Jesus, who have changed the world for good because they didn't accept the status quo was good enough. It seems to me that the church today celebrates many who were thought of as "heretics" earlier in church history. Sadly, those who try to make a difference today often get responses like this post did in the comment above. I really appreciate your thoughts. There have been many “heretics”, such as Martin Luther, as you mention, Rosa Parks, and most significantly, Jesus, who have changed the world for good because they didn’t accept the status quo was good enough.

It seems to me that the church today celebrates many who were thought of as “heretics” earlier in church history. Sadly, those who try to make a difference today often get responses like this post did in the comment above.

]]> By: Chuckles http://blog.fuller.edu/churchthenandnow/2008/12/26/heretics-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-379 Chuckles Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:06:25 +0000 http://blog.fuller.edu/churchthenandnow/?p=227#comment-379 I can't help but see this post as an attempt to romanticise the idea or status of the heretic. Maybe there is some semantic argument that there is a certain character to heretics that we should aspire, or we can label people like Rosa Parks who’s bold action challenged the status quo and claim them as heretical exemplars, but perhaps it also blinds us to the reason why the idea of heresy bears such a malevolent sense in the first place, and also provides false worldly pictures of how we are to form our own theology. You argue for the virtue of heretics as bold visionaries looking past the status quo to embrace the future of ideas, but what future do they look to? The beauty of the Christian message is it's proleptic nature as proposed by Moltmann. While the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ are events rooted in history, it is by looking backwards we also look onwards to the future, his return that ends our suffering and resurrecting everyone. And so any true design for the future is centred upon reflection upon this past event. If we look forward without this anchor the only reference point we bring forward are our own preconceptions or desires. We will begin to argue for the future we desire, rather than the future that is immanently approaching. So I feel that your point here is heavily flawed as it draws solely upon secular (I might even argue faulty) examples. Perhaps for a better vision of the future of the Church and Christianity, we need a spirit of prophecy and not one of heresy! I can’t help but see this post as an attempt to romanticise the idea or status of the heretic. Maybe there is some semantic argument that there is a certain character to heretics that we should aspire, or we can label people like Rosa Parks who’s bold action challenged the status quo and claim them as heretical exemplars, but perhaps it also blinds us to the reason why the idea of heresy bears such a malevolent sense in the first place, and also provides false worldly pictures of how we are to form our own theology.

You argue for the virtue of heretics as bold visionaries looking past the status quo to embrace the future of ideas, but what future do they look to? The beauty of the Christian message is it’s proleptic nature as proposed by Moltmann. While the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ are events rooted in history, it is by looking backwards we also look onwards to the future, his return that ends our suffering and resurrecting everyone. And so any true design for the future is centred upon reflection upon this past event. If we look forward without this anchor the only reference point we bring forward are our own preconceptions or desires. We will begin to argue for the future we desire, rather than the future that is immanently approaching. So I feel that your point here is heavily flawed as it draws solely upon secular (I might even argue faulty) examples. Perhaps for a better vision of the future of the Church and Christianity, we need a spirit of prophecy and not one of heresy!

]]>