From time to time, people post quotations on Facebook (etc.) without attribution, as a psychological experiment. I find that my responses when this occurs are curious. If I dislike what the quote says, but then google and discover it was said by someone I admire, I immediately begin to make mental adjustments to read the quote more charitably. If I like (not “like”) what the quotation says, but find that it was uttered by someone I dislike, I experience a kind of aporia, and may begin to make the opposite sort of adjustments. This is, as Donald Trump would say, sad! Bad system. I wonder how many others have experienced the same thing.
Indeed, it is my hypothesis that much (not all) theological “controversy” in the Reformed world is more a result of party spirit and personal animosity than of theological discipline. To test this hypothesis, I propose the following as a heuristic:
Imagine that you are Reformed and consider yourself on the right side of history, and imagine yourself having come across the following (unattributed) quotation on Facebook or Twitter. Without googling the quotation first, what would be your reaction? Would you say “Amen” and enthusiastically assent to it? Or would you immediately begin hurling accusations of “heresy” and Pelagianism, and proffering dark warnings about “works righteousness,” “denying the gospel,” and so on?
[T]he very thing which Christ offers us is salvation from sin not only salvation from the guilt of sin, but also salvation from the power of sin. The very first thing that the Christian does, therefore, is to keep the law of God: he keeps it no longer as a way of earning his salvation–for salvation has been given him freely by God–but he keeps it joyously as a central part of salvation itself. The faith of which Paul speaks is, as Paul himself says, a faith that works through love; and love is the fulfilling of the whole law. Paul would have agreed fully with James that the faith of which James speaks in our passage is quite insufficient for salvation. The faith that Paul means when he speaks of justification by faith alone is a faith that works.
Would you agree to the formulation as it stands (again, without googling) as orthodox, or could you in charity make the qualifications you deem necessary to assent to it as orthodox? Or would you dismiss it as a dangerous instance of mixing faith and works and warn people away from its author? Consider these questions particularly with reference to the claim that keeping the law is “a central part of salvation itself” and also with reference to the final sentence.
The answers to these questions, I think, tell us something important about the ways in which we engage in theological controversy (for better or worse), and perhaps also some important things about the ways in which we should.
7 replies on “Heresy Hunting and Self-Knowledge”
Important point.
That said, I think part of the problem here is the dangerously decontextualizing tendencies of Facebook, which allows a great deal of ambiguity through and leaves quotations much more at the mercy of the reader. It is very hard to handle or assess quotations like the one above apart from an apprehension of a broader textual and practical context that clarifies how it is functioning. Authors’ names provide some genuine context and our attention to them needn’t merely be regarded as a mobilization of prejudices.
Alastair,
What you say about context is true, however, we can still notice that precisely since context is the decider, that certain quotes or key phrases do *not* actually answer a controversy. We learn that the argument is about more than a thesis or two.
Agreed! Separating content from context lays bare our trust relationships. ‘I “know” I can trust x (theologian, perspective, denomination, etc.), but I’m skeptical about y.’ Peacemaking is indispensable to unity. I appreciate the perspective of Reformed Irenicism, thank you.
Alastair: This is of course an excellent and important point. I realize that there is much more to say here than I have said, and I only intended to deal with one particular aspect of the way in which an ignorance of the source of a quotation can be disorienting. You are absolutely right that misreadings can be alleviated by context; but I also believe that there are instances in which they can be alleviated by charity. Part of my question is: can we in charity supply an adequate context, at least as a first attempt before looking into the matter further (or tossing around accusations), without knowing whether someone is “on the team”? Or And, as Steven says, throwing around a sentence or two, especially in a “gotcha” kind of way, doesn’t prove anything about anyone (I know you don’t disagree).
I think this is a good challenge. My ‘Rorschach’: the anonymous writer presents opinions as though they were established doctrine and as though what the writer has stated is not debatable, whereas I think it is debatable. For instance I would query the sentence beginning ‘Paul would have agreed fully with James…’ and ask the writer to expand on and attempt to validate this assertion.
Alastair: This is of course an excellent and important point. I realize that there is much more to say here than I have said, and I only intended to deal with one particular aspect of the way in which an ignorance of the source of a quotation can be disorienting. You are absolutely right that misreadings can be alleviated by context; but I also believe that there are instances in which they can be alleviated by charity. Part of my question is: can we in charity supply an adequate context, at least as a first attempt before looking into the matter further (or tossing around accusations), without knowing whether someone is “on the team”? Or And, as Steven says, throwing around a sentence or two, especially in a “gotcha” kind of way, doesn’t prove anything about anyone (I know you don’t disagree).
[…] Hutchinson has an interesting post up at The Calvinist International: Heresy Hunting and Self-Knowledge. He gives a kind of test of whether reactions to certain theological texts result from […]