The Jews say that every verse of Torah has 70 faces (70 possible interpretations) and they simply enjoy the process of wrangling and discussing whose interpretation is more plausible, simultaneously enjoying the ambiguity.

Because we are located in different life situations, cultural backgrounds, etc. our personal spiritual understandings will differ, but they will be true for us. Different people have different understandings of the Divine because they have different experiences of the Divine. This is simply because we are finite beings contemplating the Infinite, which necessarily has a different perspective than us.

Tim, definately agree with you that the onus is really on both sides.

Nic, I’ll have to address your points

You said : “But in my view heresy arises because of doctrine. Relationship is a different category of thought to doctrine-heresy, and so to mix them as you do does not make sense to me. We will in time come to understand each other, however.”

What I’m trying to imply is that heresy is not really a doctrinal issue, but merely a misunderstanding that doctrinal differences mean that we cannot build the kingdom together. While some doctrines can lead to a breaking of relationship, it’s the breaking of relationship that defines something as heresy not the doctrine directly.

You said (about my statement that the early church was quite lenient about the different ideas of hell) : “Hell was a primary focus for the early church and by the 6th Century CE the idea of Endless Punitive Separation became doctrine and the idea of Universal Restoration had been condemned as heresy.”

Personally, I don’t really consider the 6th century to be ‘early church.’ The 6th century is well into the whole catholic political/institution idea.

As far as hell is concerned, here’s a quote you can find at this link : http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46234&page=19

“The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1908) by Schaff-Herzog says in volume 12, on page 96, “In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known.”

You said : “I think that the Gnostics were there in the mix before “Christianity” emerged, alongside the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essences and Romans.”

We would have to both be more studious about it to know the facts, but even if the Gnostics merged Christian ideas with their belief the bottom line is that they were not a PART of the Christian church and therefore heretics by the definition of ‘heretic’ in my post.

Anyway, I know that I was being idealistic with the statement on Luther but my real point was to show that we don’t really need to go to such length these days to see change happen.

Lastly, you said (about me saying that the emerging church must stay clear of heresy) : “But nothing can emerge without heresy. So whether it likes it or not, it is heretical. ”

I agree with your point, but if we view ‘heresy’ by the definition of the post (uncommitment to relationship) then my point is that the emerging church must stay clear of unplugging from relationship for the sake of its own doctrine. In other words, we really don’t want another denomination or anything like it.

Thanks Nic! As always, great chat!

However there are a few points I’d like to challenge – (you knew that would happen!) :

“it would make both logical and obvious sense to say that heresy is a RELATIONAL issue, not a DOCTRINAL issue.”
We need to work out our semantics, and I don’t think there is space here. But in my view heresy arises because of doctrine. Relationship is a different category of thought to doctrine-heresy, and so to mix them as you do does not make sense to me. We will in time come to understand each other, however.

“many differing views on hell within the early church and yet no one claims any of those views to be heresy.”
I am not sure you are correct. Hell was a primary focus for the early church and by the 6th Century CE the idea of Endless Punitive Separation became doctrine and the idea of Universal Restoration had been condemned as heresy.

“Heresy is only claimed on those who wish to ‘break away’ with what those who break away call “true teachings.””
You mention the Gnostics as breaking away – I think that the Gnostics were there in the mix before “Christianity” emerged, alongside the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essences and Romans.

” it may have been more correct for Luther to have rather attempted reform WITHIN the church”
That’s mighty wishful thinking, based on a particular myth of unity. From what I can see the Catholic Church at that stage of history was an absolute power, and absolutely corrupt. Do you think Boenhoeffer, one of the most deeply committed pastors of Christian community, should have negotiated peace with Hitler? Or were the hard facts that the empire had crossed a line of corruption?

“the [Emerging Church] label is entirely unnecessary”
But I love it! I am happily emergent, for now. I’ll let you know when I start thinking it’s an insult.

“Emerging Church needs to make sure that it stays clear of heresy”
But nothing can emerge without heresy. So whether it likes it or not, it is heretical.

“simply do things its own way out of frustration (or, perhaps, even arrogance of its own”
Well that’s a wise observation, if in fact the Emergents ARE frustrated or arrogent. Have you met any such people? The emergents I have come across are excited, free, and inclusive.

Thanks for your thoughts Stray. I know that I come across as contrarian, but believe me I see the heart in this; I trust your motives, evan as I critique your thinking.

I like your emphasis on interpretation and differing interpretations and the necessity of them because we’re humans interpreting them from our perspective.

Several individuals have levelled the accusation of heresy against the “emerging church” and against individuals representative of groups who’re shifting in expression their of Christianity. There is also the subtext present in many conversations with “emergents”, the “Are you really still focused on Jesus and the same fundamentals?”

I believe the onus is on people on both sides of the fence (of Christian expression) to maintain relationship, to speak with integrity, and to love one another. On my blog I share a bit about the pain of not being received in love for doing the work of the gospel to a culture alien to the evangelical mainstream.