On Heresy and Right Doctrine: Creeds before Deeds

 

Paul counsels Timothy, "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers" (1Tim. 4:16, NIV). In this verse, Paul makes a crucial connection applicable to all Christians. That is, the way we live our lives, our choices to be obedient to God or to go our own way, is inseparable from the doctrine we hold and teach. The implications are twofold. First, wrong living can affect our beliefs and lead us to embrace false doctrine. Second, wrong beliefs can predispose us to sin and mature in heresy. The two are inseparable. One's ministry (and all Christians engage in ministry) is not distinct from one's private life. The lives we live affect how well we hear the Holy Spirit and understand Scripture.

Working from this foundation this essay will briefly discuss the danger heresy presents to the church and individual Christian. We will also make the case that the confession of correct doctrine, as found in the historical creeds, serves to protect both the individual and the broader church from heretical thinking.

In many churches today the word "heresy" brings to mind witch-hunts and bigotry. Postmodernism, with its fondness for tolerance, views religious truth claims as subjective and equivalent. The notion of orthodox belief is unfashionable and closed-minded. Thinking like this makes increases the potential for heresy.

Contrary to these stereotypical responses, the idea of heresy rests on the belief that truth is absolute and orthodox doctrine is built on the one revealed truth. Those opinions and teachings that stray from this truth are distortions or denials of the truth. They are false teachings leading people away from God's revelation.

Historically heresy has forced Christianity to clarify and define orthodox doctrine, often in the form of creeds such as that adopted at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. These creeds protect correct doctrine, provide a basis for sound teaching, and are a common source for the public confession of the faith. Philip Turner points out that, "The creeds thus served, and I believe continue to serve, as tokens or badges of Christian identity. They provided and continue to provide a norm both for reading the Scriptures and for evangelization and instruction." They also provided a basis to rule out false teachings and heresy.

Here Turner points to the creeds as they function within the whole church. Nevertheless, it is also important to ask what role they can play in the life and thinking of the individual believer. First, we have good reason to accept the creeds as well-reasoned and well-formed expressions of right doctrine. Second, we can look to the creeds as a lens through which to view and question the opinions and teachings we encounter from the pulpit, in the Christian press, on the internet, and on the airwaves. We can and should ask, "Does this teaching match up with the faith professed in the creeds?" If we are ignorant of the truth found in the creeds or fail to ask this question, we have not taken Paul's counsel to Timothy seriously and risk falling into error.

Corporately the church needs to understand that to stray from the creeds is to invite heresy. Turner argues that today the creeds are often viewed as "outmoded restrictions on the free play of thought and imagination." John Webster adds that when the church puts aside a working definition of heresy it represents "the loss of an operative notion of truth," preparing the way for false teaching and heretical ideas. A present-day example is the resurgence of the "oneness" doctrine that denies orthodox Trinitarian teaching along with the popularity of "oneness" teachers like T.D. Jakes.

How does the church protect against this dangerous tendency? Here both Turner and Webster point us to the creeds. Turner reminds us the creeds are a repository of the basic confessions of Christians. Webster contends it is confessing the creeds in the life of the church that provides a way to prevent the growth of heresy. He writes, "… through a publically [sic] affirmed creed or confessional formula the church repudiates the falsehood by which it is threatened. In a creed the church says yes to truth, and in saying yes it thereby says no to falsehood."

Corporate confession of the creeds will serve to keep the foundational doctrines of the church in front of the congregation. However, mere recitation is not enough. In addition, there is a need for a concerted effort to teach the meaning of the creeds and their Scriptural foundation from the pulpit and in a catechetical setting. While it is the responsibility of the church to provide the teaching, it is the responsibility of each Christian to seek out and take part in the teaching so they might understand what they confess.

The threat of heresy did not disappear with the formulation of the historical creeds. If anything, in today's environment shaped by relativistic and postmodern thinking, the threat is even greater. Add to this the ease and speed at which new ideas are communicated and the need to protect against false doctrine is even more pressing. We can build a strong wall of protection by the consistent teaching and confessing of the creeds of Christianity both corporately and individually.

From Chairman Mao

Given the attacks on Fox News, Glen Beck, Senator Lieberman, Sarah Palin, Congressman Joe Wilson and others who question any of the policies of President Obama or his minions in Congress, one wonders whether the liberal playbook has a red cover. Direct from Chairman Mao, a little advice:

Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This is a question of the first importance for the revolution. The basic reasons why all previous revolutionary struggles in China [United States?] achieved so little was their failure to unite with real friends in order to attack real enemies.

Seems like someone is listening to the Chairman.

The Blessing of Children

Today I met with eight of my associates for a training session. Over lunch the conversation quickly drifted to stories about children and grandchildren. We talked about 2 year old Brad and his applause for the pastor after the sermon. I told the story of our associate pastor's young daughter bypassing Dad to hand her picture to our senior pastor and the laughter it brought to the congregation. Another story was told about taking the grandkids to Disney World without their parents and the truth that the grandparents were as excited as the grandkids or perhaps even more so.

On a cold rainy day our hearts were warmed by these brief glimpses into the actions and words of our children. Just a small reminder of joy children bring into our lives and the wonderful gift of God they are.

Now, at 60, as I look back over my life my fondest memories are of times with my own children and grandchildren. I still tell stories of my kid's antics and sometimes find myself teary-eyed when I remember something they did or said. To this day my favorite Bible book mark is one my daughter Kathee (now in her mid-30's) made when she was 8 or 9. It's worn and frayed but for years it has marked the place I am reading in the Gospels.

Thank you Lord for the gift of children, both ours and those of others. They bring sunshine to our lives on the gloomiest of days.

Liberals Just Can't Take What They Like To Give

On Saturday I had the opportunity to be the keynote speaker at an event sponsored by a pro-life organization. During my first presentation,as I was laying out the reasons we can know that human life begins at conception, I commented that "unlike our President, it is not above our pay grade to know when human life begins." The audience responded with smiles, nods, thumbs up, and sustained laughter. Later, when we were discussing transhumanism, a participant noted that she had read of mice being injected with human DNA to enhannce their brains. Not being able to resist a good opening, I commented that "it seems like some of these mice are running around the White House these days." Again the audience demonstrated approval.

Near the end of the Q&A session the pastor of the church that was hosting the meeting said that he took offense with my remarks about the President and the White House. I responded that I was simply expressing my opinion and most seemed to agree. That was not good enough and he launched another assault. I commented that I understood that in the U.S. we still had freedom of speech. He chose to escalate and because he was the pastor of the host church,and it would serve no purpose to continue our disagreement, I apologized if I had offended anyone and said I would take care to watch my remarks in the next presentation. After a few moments he softly said he accepted the apology.

Throughout the rest of the day I had numerous participants tell me they appreciated my remarks and thought the pastor was out of line. Several other pastors also said they liked what I said. Some of the locals told me that the pastor who had told me of his dislike for my remarks was known for his liberal views.

On my four hour drive home that afternoon I had time to reflect on the events of the day. Clearly I had the support of most of the participants and I was not surpised knowing the organization and the people who belong to it. On the other hand, I didn't like having offended the pastor. But I did understand what happend. Liberals can tell lies about Rush Limbaugh, make fun of Sarah Palin, tell jokes about Dick Cheney, and attack Fox News, but as a conservative I am not allowed to make a joke about the President or his minions.

As I look back on Saturday I am proud that I have joined the ranks of Limbaugh, Palin, Cheney and Bush, though on a much, much, lesser scale.

Futile Care Theory: A Threat To Life

You may never have heard of Futile Care Theory but it is real and is a potential threat to the life of every person. Futile Care Theory (FTC) is a theoretical construct proclaiming the right of doctors and healthcare authorities to refuse to provide wanted and needed care based on their subjective views of the quality of patient's lives. FTC justifies the refusal of desired medical treatment in hospitals and nursing homes to patients who are dying or disabled. It is a policy authorizing doctors to terminate wanted life-extending medical treatment over the objections of the family and patient when the doctors believe that the patient's life is not worth living.

According to the theory, when a patient reaches a certain age, stage of illness, or severity of injury any further treatment other than comfort care is futile and should be withheld or withdrawn. That the patient may want treatment because of deeply held values or a desire to live longer is neither important nor decisive. The doctors and hospitals involved have the right to refuse treatment.

So, what treatments qualify as futile? Bioethicists and the medical community continue to debate the answer to this question. However, the fact that it is debatable should raise a red flag. Not long ago medical futility was an objective medical determination that a treatment would have virtually no physiological benefit to the patient. Under FTC, this has become a value judgment and not a medical determination. We need to be aware that those who support the theory use terms like "medical futility," "inappropriate care," or "non-beneficial treatment," to cloak their subjective value judgments.

FTC brings with it numerous opportunities for abuse:

• Physician paternalism: depriving the patient of autonomy; shaming the family to listen to the "doctor who knows best."
  
• Medical decisions based on prejudices or bias against certain groups of people: racial, disabled, etc.
  
• FTC gives some of medicine's most important health care decisions to strangers.
  
• In the place of family decision-making, the trend is toward hospital medical ethics committees making life and death decisions.
  
• Proponents view FTC as a money-saving measure in these days of concern over rising health care costs.
  

Is FTC really being implemented? The short answer is yes! Some doctors and hospitals are already refusing care based on FTC. Texas has a futile care law on the books. FTC legislation has been proposed in Idaho and other states. FTC has found acceptance in the courts (but not uniformly). In addition, groups across the country continue to lobby for futile care legislation.

Is FTC theory a real threat? Decide for yourself:

• In England, where the socialized medical system is financially strained, decisions are being made to reject patients for life-extending treatment based on value judgments regarding the patient's overall quality of life.
  

 

• Recently, the State of Oregon refused to approve a person's Medicaid funded treatment for cancer, a treatment that could extend her life. Yet Medicaid would pay for her assisted suicide!
  

 

• In a recently published book, In Defiance of Death: Exposing the Real Costs of End of Life Care, the authors make a proposal to establish a system of "appropriate-care committees made up of experienced physicians who would review each case on an individual basis. Local, state and national committees would be organized hierarchically with each lower level answerable to the level above. Committees would have the authority to withhold payment for care deemed inappropriate."
  

 

Clearly, Futile Care Theory is a threat to life and must be opposed by all who recognize the sanctity of life create in the image of God.

This Blog's Focus -- To Be Unfocused

For the past several years I've been an avid blog reader and have often thought about starting my own blog. But, I was always stopped when it came to deciding what to focus my blog upon. After all, the numerous books and posts I read about successful blogging always tell us just how important it is to find your niche if you want to develop a following. With all of the varied interests I have, ranging from reading the great books of the Western Canon to watching as many NASCAR races as I can fit into my schedule, I was stumped when it came to deciding on a topic.

Just for fun, here is a list of topics I considered: Christian Apologetics, How to be a Thinking Christian; Reading the Western Canon, Ethics in Business, Bioethics, Politics, Reading in General, Worldviews, Cults, Obamaism, and the list goes on. I've been told that I am never without an opinion and I have certainly expressed opinions on all of these things. Over the years I've also written (for publication and otherwise) on a variety of issues. Lately I find myself speaking often on matters related to bioethical topics including end-of-life, stem cell research, and abortion. So, what niche do I fit into?

Rather than continue to be frustrated by a lack of direction I have made the bold decision, against the advice of the blogging gurus, to make my blogs focus -- unfocused, non-niched, topic unspecific, and wide open. In other words, I am going to blog about what is of interest to me at the moment. Sometimes I will write about topics that are specifically Christian, but not always. However, everything I write will be under-girded by a Christian worldview.

Finally, I guess I really do have a purpose in mind for this blog. I see it as an opportunity to continue to develop this Christian's mind and hopefully join with others in the journey of loving God with all of our minds.