Purging my soul…one blog at a time.

Heresy, Cults, And Crazy People: What’s all the Fuss?

I was watching a documentary on the History International Channel, which after watching it, should be renamed the Stylized Historiography Channel. The documentary was on cults and their destructive influence on society. Popular examples of religious freaks took up most of the documentary’s time – like Jim Jones and David Koresh. One phrase captured my attention though, simply due to its overt bias. In the conclusion, the narrator said, “In a world littered with cultic tragedy, others loom upon the horizon.” Wow. Now that’s some nice fear-tinged rhetoric there. As the narrator spoke these words, an image of a large group of Christian charismatics lifting their hands during worship appeared. Of course, that made me angry simply due to the implication. It’s hard to call a global movement of 500 million believers a cult. But what really irritated me in those words and images is the narrow understanding of the sociology of cults and heresy.

Contrary to popular views of religious history, “cults” or sectarianism has been the norm for religious belief, including Christianity. ”Cult” simply means a fringe alternative movement standing for something outside mainstream values. Globally speaking, that means that in Hindu or Buddhist nations, Christianity is the “cult” there. The values may even be the same – just a more intense desire for, say, holiness. Paul Tillich said that sectarianism is “the criticism of the church for the gap between its claim and its reality.” Usually the horror stories (like Jones or Koresh) come from sectarian groups that don’t develop a large following (a few hundred people). They normally pass into history unnoticed. However, all Western and Eastern religions that exist today started as fringe religious movements. Everyone has been a “cult” at sometime or another. That includes all major Christian denominations. Even Christianity began as a radical, marginalized sect of Judaism.

Sects/cults become credible over time as new members are added and others begin to accept their existence. As sects turn into more accepted denominations, they often breed spiritual complacency among their members who begin to desire to return to the “good old days” when the movement was smaller and more radical.  In turn, this produces more sect formation by dissatisfied members. These “renewal movements” only  become independent sects when the existing church rejects their overtures for spiritual renewal. They merely want to renew the spiritual life of the church. If they are accepted, we call them “revivals” and talk about how great they are. Pejorative labels such as “cult” are given by the mainstream body after rejecting the movement’s overtures for change. Often times, sects require strict adherence to beliefs and high levels of commitment – essentially an  ”all or nothing” approach. Conversely, sectarians believe that the stress of asceticism is rewarded with spiritual power – something the group that rejected them did not possess.

And that’s when all the heresy talk starts. Our understanding of heresy now (which is applied to all types of religious “infractions”) is not the same as the early church. Initially, it only dealt with foundational truths of the Christian faith – namely the divinity of Jesus. In the fifth and sixth centuries, it became associated with other aspects of Christianity - for example Origen’s musings about universalism. But honestly the modern term most commonly derives its nastiness from the writers of church history. Hopefully everyone knows by now that only the “winners” in history write the books. :) And the same is true of church history. Cult critics initially only disapproved of a group’s method of worship, not the doctrines themselves. But over time, as accusations are repeated in church histories, the doctrine was often deemed heretical as well. For example, the Montanists (initially apart of the church) were a rigorous and devout group of Christians – orthodox in their foundational beliefs. However, by choosing to recognize their own leaders and holding a place for women in leadership, they came under ecclesiastical fire. Along with that came the critic’s rejection of the Montanist’s use of spiritual gifts. It’s not that the gifts were wrong – but that women were allowed to practice them. Eusebius quotes Apollonius: “Does a prophet paint his eyelids?” The issue was not with prophecy but rather who was prophesying: someone the church had not sanctioned. Throughout church history, heresy had little to do with doctrine and much to do with issues of recognized authority.

As such, cults aren’t usually heretics in the authentic sense of the word. What cults oftentimes are is heterodox. Now that doesn’t mean “wrong.” It means outside of mainstream acceptance. Any evangelical historian worth their salt will tell you that “orthodox” simply means the “majority opinion” – it doesn’t necessarily mean that the majority opinion is “correct,” though many times it does. So, many of the “orthodox” opinions we hold today were at one time heterodox, until enough people accepted them. To step away from religion for a minute, we all hold gravity to be an “orthodox” part of science. But Newton developed the “heterodox” idea of gravity from occult beliefs in Paracelsian correspondences, Neoplatonism, and alchemy. That may surprise you. But that’s a perfect example of something “heterodox” evolving into an accepted mainstream and orthodox belief. If the origins of gravity embarrass you, then you’re missing the point. All things are heterodox at their inception - including religious belief systems.

So, what should you glean from all of this? First, stop throwing around the term “heresy” for every little religious belief that doesn’t match your preconceived ideas. Secondly, no matter what mainstream religious group you belong to, you can thank your original “cult” leaders for being persistent in the face of opposition from the mainstrean religion of the time. What people called “crazy” then, we call “normal” now. And, third, be kind to the people “beneath” you on the religious food chain – they will be were you are within a couple of centuries… :)

June 20, 2008 - Posted by Sam | Christianity, God, Jesus Christ, New Age, atheism, occultism, religion, science, spirituality, theology | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

8 Comments »

  1. [...] Purging my soul…one blog at a time. « Heresy, Cults, And Crazy People: What’s all the Fuss? [...]

    Pingback by With Christianity, Less Is More « Purging my soul…one blog at a time. | June 20, 2008 | Reply

  2. Sam, I go to a Oneness Pentecostal church (have all my life) and I’m very curious as to how you feel about the Oneness movement… mainly because I’m trying to figure out exactly how I feel about it.

    If there’s any movement within Christianity that qualifies as “fringe,” it’s Oneness Pentecostalism–and that scares the heck out of me. I’m not afraid to disagree with the majority, but I mean… this is the Godhead we’re talking about. The fact that essentially all Christian denominations outside of mine are Trinitarian is unsettling, to say the least. To be honest, I’m perpetually overwhelmed with the issue. If I stay where I’m at, I’m a heretic to the majority of Christendom. If I change my views, I’m a heretic to my friends, family, girlfriend, etc. So, as you can see it’s not something that I can afford to take lightly either way.

    Anyways, it would really mean a lot to hear your opinion on the matter. Thanks.

    Comment by Blake | August 4, 2008 | Reply

  3. Blake –

    Thanks for your willingness to trust me with something so significant in your life.

    My doctoral studies are not in “theology” proper (though I’ve done my time there) but in the history of theological developments – in other words, I approach the issue of Oneness Pentecostalism not from theological congruency but from historical perspective. I’ve found that if you uncover the historical background of a movement it will tell you why they came to the doctrinal conclusions we may take for granted today. I’d like to treat your question the same way.

    The “Jesus only” or Oneness Pentecostal movement has its roots in Los Angeles at a Pentecostal camp meeting in 1913. During a baptismal service, the main speaker, R. E. McAlister casually mentioned one time (!) that the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus only and that the use of Trinitarian language did not develop for another few centuries. Most (Assembly of God attendees) disreagarded McAlister’s comments but one attendee, Frank Ewart, was deeply impressed and began to talk with McAlister on a regular basis. Ewart became the founder of the Oneness movement.

    What concerns me about McAlister’s initial coments and Ewart’s adoption of them is this: Luke (the gospel I think is most cited by these guys) does in fact mention baptism only in the name of Jesus. However, the other gospels mention all three parts of the Trinity. Most scholars believe that Luke in his gospel (and Acts), since writing to a gentile population, basically chose to emphasize the role of Jesus for brevity’s sake. In other words, when Luke wrote that they baptized in the name of Jesus, he was using “shorthand” for all three members of the Trinity.

    So, McAlister (and subsequently Ewart) turned a linguistical (and in early Judaism) cultural tool into a theological pillar of the faith. That would be the same as finding theological meaning in cutting someone’s eyes out since Jesus said that we should not have an “evil/bad eye.” In Jewish culture, to have a “evil eye” meant that they were stingy with money. That would be taking the quote out of it’s original context and making something around it that was never there to begin with. Ewart essentially did the same: he took someone’s writing style and made it theology.

    I understand your concern about your family and church friends. And I’m not going to tell you what to do either way. I will tell you this: I’m not someone to split hairs and if you name Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, then I don’t consider you a heretic. Like I said in the above post, people throw that term around way too much. Is the Oneness model the best view of God? I don’t think so. But you’re not gonna burn in hell or anything if you continue to believe it. Hopefully I won’t burn in hell for being a Trinitarian. :) And that’s the issue – if salvation is not at stake, then it’s worth your time to investigate why the majority of the church believes in the Trinity.

    I have had contact with a number of Oneness Christians who when separating towards a more maintream view of the Trinity have come under tremendous persecution from those that used to call them friends. Sometimes it’s “safer” for us to believe what we’ve have always known and attack those who may question those beliefs. Though you may see your questions as theological inquiry, those around you may see it as a personal rejection of them. My question is: does that type of pressure really reflect the grace-oriented love of God found in Christ’s example on the cross? John wrote in his epistle that if we don’t love each other, we really don’t know God for God is love. That should be the deciding characteristic that defines your view of God. It’s also the characteristic that tells you if people are acting in your best interest or merely in their own.

    I’m praying for you, bro! There are a lot of good resources on this topic. Whatever your decision, know that, to me, you seem like a kind, conscientious, and passionate lover of Jesus. And certainly I can agree with you and admire your courage for asking questions that others are not as comfortable with. Feel free to respond if I can help more.

    God bless,

    Sam

    Comment by Sam | August 4, 2008 | Reply

  4. Thanks a lot, man. I really can’t tell you how much I appreciate your prayers and concern. I’ve got so much invested in the Oneness community that it would be incredibly hard to walk away, but it’s not just fear of rejection from those close to me that keeps me from doing so. I honestly don’t know what I believe. At this point I would probably say I lean more towards the Trinitarian viewpoint (fingers crossed that no one I know is reading this), but to say I’m fully convinced would be a stretch–and I don’t want to leave behind everything I know for something I’m not totally sure of, or that isn’t pertinent to my salvation. I’m getting ready to start my senior year of high school, so it’s kind of a stressful time in general. Lots of decisions to make, and I don’t want to spend all my time mulling over them… I want to decide what I believe and just run with it, ya know? Anyways, thanks for listening and actually putting effort into a response–it means a lot, man.

    Comment by Blake | August 5, 2008 | Reply

  5. Blake –

    I think you’re doing things the right way – slowly absorbing all the info and deliberately making a conscious, educated, and, above all, a Spirit-led choice. Let me know what you decide, whenever that time comes – I’ll be interested in your decision.

    Sam

    Comment by Sam | August 5, 2008 | Reply

  6. The definition for “heresy” is not “every religious belief that doesn’t match my preconceived ideas”, but every religious belief that departs from God’s Word.

    Comment by Emi | August 12, 2008 | Reply

  7. Emi –

    You hae some strong beliefs based on your comments here and elsewhere. Why don’t you tell me of what church/denomination you are a member and I’ll tell you what sectarian movement spawned your denomination.

    Sam

    Comment by Sam | August 12, 2008 | Reply

  8. Sam, I don’t think the denomination I come from will change the fact that heresy is a departure from the fundamental truths of the written Word of God. And the number of people that hold to a belief is not what makes it heresy or sound doctrine.

    2 Peter 2:1 warns: “But there were false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies”.
    And just a chapter later he gives an excellent definition of heretics, speaking of those who “twist [Paul's epistles] to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (3:16).

    Some heresies (twisting of Scripture, departure from “sound doctrine”) are:
    - Denying the total, verbal inspiration of the Word of God
    - Denying the Trinity
    - Denying the deity of Christ
    - Denying His virgin birth
    - Denying His death as the sinner’s Substitute
    - Denying corporal resurrection
    - Denying eternal punishment
    - Teaching salvation by anything else but by faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ.

    While it may be true that some “call every little religious belief that doesn’t agree with their preconceived ideas” heresy, there is definitely a place (an ESSENTIAL place) for discerning heresy from truth. Contending earnestly for the faith includes this.

    “Crazy” or “normal”, “few” or “many” … none of these matter. What matters is believing, obeying and upholding the eternal Word of God.

    Comment by Emi | August 14, 2008 | Reply


Leave a comment