Two ways to ruin a word...

I'm reading an advance copy of Spencer Burke's Heretic's Guide to Eternity, and though I'm not very far into it, I wanted to make a point about language...

There are two great ways to ruin a useful word.

One way is to overuse it.

The other way is to "antonym" it, that is, to begin giving it a meaning opposite to its original (see "stupid" in current colloquial usage...).

Spencer is a bit guilty of both of these in terms of the word "heretic", but mostly the second...
Some guy named Brian McLaren (anyone know who that is???) wrote the forward to the book, and in it, he tries to anticipate (and disarm) any objections to the title: "I imagine that the blogs and maybe even religious broadcasting airwaves will soon be buzzing with scandalous outrage that Spencer and Barry have used the word 'heretic' in their title"

Buzz, buzz, buzz!

In the introduction Spencer says: "But I believe we need heretics today. What's more, I believe heresy can be a positive rather than a negative force in our spiritual journey."

Okay...

He goes on:"I believe that every age, and partcularly an age like ours, needs heretics- people who will push past and beyond the accepted conventional wisdom of the dominant group and pull us across sacred fences and keep us tied to percieved orthodoxies."

See, I understand what Spencer is trying to say, I think.
I just think there are better ways to say it.

He's talking about being creative with theology, about new formulations and understandings, and to a certain extent, what he says is right on the money.

The problem is, that's not heresy.

It's good theological thinking. It's constantly pursuing the knowledge of God in the understanding that we don't yet know it all, we don't yet "see clearly", we don't yet have perfect knowledge.

And if the danger of defining heresy as good, creative theological thinking isn't apparent to Spencer and others...

The word "heretic" is useful, in the same way any superlative is useful. It stands as the end of the road in doctrinal discussions and descriptions and should be seen as that dead end, that word-of-last-resort that it is.

Scot McKnight in his write-up of Spencer's book defined it this way: "A heretic, in theological discussion, refers to someone who denies the central creeds of orthodoxy."

See, that's heresy- not good, nor creative and not (in any actual sense) theological, because heresy, by definition, leads us away from the God-who-is and towards an altar set with a big mirror right in the center.

Again, I know what Spencer is trying to say- great "heretics" like Galileo pushed us toward new and better understandings... but they weren't really heretics, were they (at least not for the reasons the medieval church defined them as such)?

When the schismatics toss the word heretic around like beads at the theological Mardi Gras to anyone dumb enough to show them their Statements of Belief, it ceases to have meaning. For them, a heretic is anyone whose theology I disagree with and particularly anyone whose theology makes me uncomfortable. Needless to say, this is not a biblical definition of the word, nor a helpful use of the word.

Because when everyone is a heretic, no one's a heretic, if you know what I mean.
By lobbing the word out so casually, they've completely devalued it.

And when someone comes along and (I think for effect) redefines a word like heretic to mean someone who challenges the conventional wisdom, someone who brings new ideas to the table, they do us a dis-service by taking a word which we need, a word like "heresy" and giving it a hip new spin.

See, there are heretics. There are people who come preaching other-than the real Jesus and other-than the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus preached. They want to tie people up with legalism or set them adrift with a Jesus who is less than God. They bring something that sounds creative and innovative and new (or old and erudite and compelling) and they lead people down a path that ends no where good.

And if the word we use to refer to them has now been co-opted to mean "creative theological thinkers" we're in a world of hurt.

So- right off the bat, before even getting into Spencer's book, I'm a bit perturbed at him for continuing the ruination of a useful, a needed word.

Comments

[Adam]

Scot McKnight also says that Spencer is actually a heretic (from what he proposes in the book). So, in actuality, maybe Spencer is using the term correctly.

I have read the book and was not bothered by the use of the word. I understand where you are coming from but I tend to agree with McLaren's defense in the Forward. Sometimes people need a little jolt.

And I disagree with you that the word 'heretic' is a needed word. I think it is a word that has been abused forever (as much as any word has ever been abused perhaps). As a result, I think it should be retired. It is no longer useful.

[bob]

Yeah- I'm witholding judgment until I read the whol ething on the content. I just hate that certain people overuse and thus devalue the word and now to try to actually make it into a positive...

People do need a jolt- but there are plenty of other ways to do it, as McLaren himself has worked out.

And yeah- it's been abused. But retiring it probably means not redefining it into a positive as well, right? Especially in terms of what that does for those who grow up with the new "positive" definition of the word and how they look at church history...

[Makeesha]

except that according to Scot McKnight's review of the book and quotes from it (I would have loved to get an advanced copy but alas, I shall have to wait), Burke's views would actually constitute heresy in the truest sense. I'm looking forward to hearing your pov.

[Adam]

Bob, I think it's interesting that you think "heretic" is a necessary word. I seem to remember a number of weeks ago when someone comment on McLaren and his new book with the word "heretic" and you were reluctant to use it.

You may not agree that McLaren is a heretic, but philosophically, what's the point of keeping it in your vocabularly if you're not willing to draw the line and actually use it? I understand, that politically, you may alienate those you wish to reach if you label someone a heretic. But if they are, aren't we obligated to name them as such?

It's not just McLaren or Pagit, there are probably people who would like to call Driscoll a heretic (Steve Camp has gotten close). But it seems like the we're all intitutionally intimiated away from using the word. If we're never going to call someone out because we feel it might be too extreme, are you sure we truly need the word? And if you still maintain that we need it, why not use it when it applies?

[bob]

Of course... Use it as it actually applies. But I don't think it applies to McLaren, and I resist those who call him such, especially when they do it in a knee-jerk, uninformed manner.

Like I said- it's a word-of-last resort. It's a word that draws a line with someone on the outside- of salvation, of the Body of Christ, of forgiveness.

So, yeah- I HATE it when people devalue it with half-assed usage and sloppy declarations.

The word is serious like cancer and deserves to be treated as such.

[ScottB]

Bob - excellent comments. You beat me to the punch on this one - I'm beginning my review of the book this weekend. I'm about halfway through it and I have to say that I find it really quite frustrating. I think Spencer does the same thing with the word "religion". It makes it hard to track what he's really saying because I can't be sure if I'm disagreeing with what he actually means or if I'm not catching his twist on the meaning of the word.

So far, to say that I'm not enthusiastic about this book would be an understatement. I was concerned after reading Scot's post on it - I think he understated the extent to which it's troubling. Put bluntly, after nearly 100 pages I really don't think Spencer is doing a good job of engaging anything that scripture actually says - I think he's seriously misunderstanding, or misappropriating perhaps, the biblical narrative, and I'm not optimistic about it turning around anytime soon.

Looking forward to your continued thoughts on this.

[knsheppard]

Bob, I'd have to say I'd agree with you if the book is written the way it is. For me there is a big difference between heterodoxy and orthodoxy, and the words associated with them. One can be a fairly sophisticated postmodern and still retain meaning and limits to our concepts, as Miroslav Volf has argued quite potently in his book *Exclusion and Embrace*.

[spencer burke]

Great dialogue.

I can actually see many of the points being made here (even if they seem to contradict each other).

The title was as much a preemptive strike as it was a call to stand up against those who would use the word loosely to dismiss anyone who disagreed with their dogma (as I see it, the way it has been used almost exclusively in our history). But then I was actually sadden when Scot McKnight said I was a "Heretic". I called him and we had a great talk and we were able to clear up many of the points that had been seen as contradictions.

I would be interested in your takes (after you finish the book)on how you might respond to some of these contradictions causing so much buzz...

1) Can God be spirit AND person or is that denying the person-hood of God?

2) Can you embrace both a Trinitarian AND a panentheists' view of God, (Father, Son Holy Spirit AND God in which we live and have our being)?

3) Can the gospel include a view of Grace that holds an "opt-out" view (a universalist that believes in hell)?

4) Can Jesus still be the way, truth and life - no one gets to the Father apart from Him - even if we can't humanly comprehend it?

My answer in my heart and in the book is yes, but these are the major points of contention that have lead to labeling me a heretic... Have they used the word fairly or have they used it the way we predicted they would - historically?

Thanks again for taking the time to read the book for yourselves and then post your insights. Please email if you want to talk off-line...

[Toby]

In the circles I run with (fundy baptists) a lot of them would even find discussing this in an unapologetic way "heretical"...so I think Spencer's title is dead on. I have discussed these things publically, from the pulpit, in our men's group, and in people's homes and have been asked, "do you still love the truth?"

In other words, some of us need "a heretics guide to the universe" (perhaps not the book, although I haven't finished it would recommend it, but the concept...).

Looking forward to comparing notes...

[Makeesha]

Spencer - I look forward to reading your book and hopefully blogging about it. I think it sounds fascinating and I'm glad you were able to talk productively with Scot about his concerns. I think it's great that you're making yourself available for that.

I'm trying to withold judgement in my own mind about your views because I think judging them based on what someone says they are based on a book they read is not a very fair way to go. I love the examination and re-examination of the status quo that's going on in Christianity today and it seems like your book does that. At the outset, I think I agree with a lot of your lines of thinking more than I disagree but as I said, I'm trying not to get anything in my head about it yet.

Love the ooze by the way :)

[chuckk gerwig]

I'm reading and reviewing the pre-release too. I'm withholding judgement till I finish.

I hate words that have come unteathered to clear definitions - words like heretic, discpleship, christian, evangelism, church, missions.