Post One: After much griping and gnashing of teeth….

… I am starting my own “put the Church back in the Episcopal Church” effort, aka blog.

I will begin with some framework:

Heresy -

• An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.

• Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.

• A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science.

• Adherence to such controversial or unorthodox opinion.

From a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character. Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks “heresies” with crimes and seditions (Gal. 5:20). This word also denotes divisions or schisms in the church (1 Cor. 11:19). In Titus 3:10 a “heretical person” is one who follows his own self-willed “questions,” and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Pet. 2:1).

Heretical – Characterized by, revealing, or approaching departure from established beliefs or standards.

Apostasy – Abandonment of one’s religious faith, a political party, one’s principles, or a cause.

AND…

1) Pelagianism – The British monk Pelagius (354-420? AD) rejected the doctrine of Original Sin, insisting that the created order remained unmarred by Adam’s Fall. Asserting the pristine nature of humanity, he denied the necessity of divine grace. Humans naturally know and do the good.

2) Marcionism: Marcion (excommunicated 144 AD) imagined a god whose character was wholly love and grace. This god, revealed primarily in the New Testament, stood opposed to the god of law revealed primarily in the Old Testament. Using the concepts of “love” and “grace” as normative criteria Marcion argued that the Church must systematically remove those books and passages from the canon that do not fit. The true canon, in other words, would be determined by Marcion’s re-imaged conceptualization of the divine.

3) Pluralism (John Hick): The Rev. Dr. Alister McGrath in his introductory text “Christian Theology” (pp 534-537) summarizes three distinct ways of understanding the mediatorial role of Christ in salvation:

A. Particularism: The idea that subjective appropriation (knowledge, assent and surrender) or “faith” in the Person and Work of Christ is necessary for salvation.

B. Inclusivism: Articulated by theologian Karl Rahner and codified in the Roman document “Dominus Jesus,” the Inclusivist asserts that individuals who, though without access to the gospel, sincerely seek the Truth, follow the Truth they find, and obey the witness of their own conscience, may be saved by the merciful and vicarious application of the benefits of Christ.

These first two positions (Particularism and Inclusivism) maintain the classic orthodox claim that Christ is the sole mediator of salvation. The third position, Pluralism, articulated by John Hick in the early 20^th century, has been rejected by every major branch of the Church.

C. Pluralism: Christ is one among many valid pathways to God, but not the only pathway. Faithful Buddhists, for example, are saved through Buddha (not Christ vicariously mediated through Buddhism).

4) Universalism: The assertion that there is no eternal judgment or hell; that all, by virtue of natural birth, receive eternal life with God. Universalism is the logically consistent position for those who reject the concept of Original Sin and who believe that all faiths are equally valid “vehicles” to the Father. It is, therefore, the stated position of the Unitarian Universalist Church.

5) Gnosticism: The influx and influence of Gnostic thought during the second, third, and fourth centuries provoked the Christological controversies that ultimately produced of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. These authoritatively defined Trinitarian dogma and affirmed the dual natures of Christ over and against Gnostic assertions of a radical antithesis between body and soul, flesh and spirit. Gnostic “Christians” de-emphasized, allegorized, and/or denied the biblical witness to the Incarnation, Virgin Birth, and bodily Resurrection, considering the idea that God would take on human nature, human flesh, utterly repugnant. Modern day radical New Testament critics like Marcus Borg, John D. Crossan and John Spong take up the Gnostic flesh/spirit antithesis, asserting a dichotomy between the “Risen Christ” and the “historical Jesus” and denying the historicity of the Incarnation, Virgin Birth, and bodily Resurrection. New Testament accounts are reinterpreted as literary metaphor and allegory or reduced to mystical experience. This permits modern-day Gnostics to employ the language of the Creeds while denying their content.*

* 1-5 sourced from Matt Kennedy, “The Presiding Bishop’s Top Five”, Stand Firm In Faith website.