Is the concept of "heresy" still appropriate in our age and time?

[DetlefK]

What if somebody claims to follow a religion, but does so in name only and instead follows a different set of beliefs?
Would it be appropriate to denounce them as heretics and as people practicing the religion in an incorrect fashion?

For example, one of the most famous heretics was Giordano Bruno. He considered himself a Christian but believed in a version of christianity full of magic and occult rituals and sought to convert Christianity at large to his version to usher in a cosmic rebirth and a new golden era of mankind.





I'm asking because of the Evangelicals and the prosperity-gospel. Their teachings have next to nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ, and yet they are allowed to claim that they are followers of Jesus Christ.

I do remember reading an article written by a pastor about the prosperity-gospel. In the first half of her article she was outraged at the un-christian perversion that is the prosperity-gospel. And in the second half she made it clear to her readers that we are not allowed to attack the prosperity-gospel, because doing so would doubt the faith of fellow Christians.





So...
The believers cannot agree among each other the correct teachings are.
The believers refuse to sort out among each other what the correct teachings are.
The believers attack the non-believers for not following the correct teachings.

Why are the believers so concerned about what the heathens believe in but don't care about what their supposed fellows believe in?

[unblock]

1. no, it's a sexist concept. consider alternating "heresy" with "hisesy".

[MineralMan]

2. The problem is that Christianity has splintered into so many

denominations and sects that there's no longer any central authority to accuse any of them of heresy. That used to be the job of the Vatican, but they're busy dealing with problems of their own with regard to following Jesus' teachings.

Perhaps so many sects of Christianity are heretical that there's no way to pin the charge of heresy down any longer.

[TexasProgresive]

3. Heresy derives from the Greek word to choose- as in pick and choose. So fUNDIES are heretics.

Middle English: from Old French heresie, based on Latin haeresis, from Greek hairesis ‘choice’ (in ecclesiastical Greek‘heretical sect’), from haireisthai ‘choose.’

[Shemp Howard]

4. I prefer "fraud" to "heretic".

I have no problem with the Evangelicals, even though I don't agree with everything they say. To each his own.

But the prosperity-gospel preachers are frauds and con artists. They have stumbled upon a way to make easy money. The Gospel is just a means to an end. Those "preachers" would instead quote Shakespeare if it would bring them in more money. And their followers are victims of the fraud.

I won't even dignify those prosperity-gospel frauds by calling them heretics. At least a heretic has a faith-based belief system, as misguided as it may be.

[Voltaire2]

6. Its actually evangelical preachers who

set up the televangelism model. They’ve been fleecing the flock for a long time, way before neo-Calvinist prosperity gospel evangelicals got in on the action.

Then again, fleecing the flock is what organized religion does. It is how they pay the bills. See Vatican City.

[Shemp Howard]

7. Some are good. Some are not.

The prosperity preachers, by and large, call themselves evangelical. But the reverse does not apply. I know you didn't imply it, but not all evangelical preachers are prosperity preachers. There are many solid and ethical evangelical preachers.

As for televangelism model, there is nothing wrong with that, in and of itself. It allows many people who can't get to church to participate in a service.

But as we all know, con artists have taken the televangelism model and turned it into a money machine. So how can you separate the wheat from the chaff? For me, the key is the word "seed".

The frauds use that word all the time. "Sow your seed (sent us money) and you will be blessed many times over."

[Voltaire2]

8. Sure. And actually it goes back to at least Oral Roberts.

So this faction of the fundies was part of the rise of televangelism.

But - declaring them "not christians" is nonsense. Their bullshit is just as christian as any other sect. There is no arbiter of TRUE CHRISTIANITY.

[Voltaire2]

5. Prosperity Gospel has roots that go back

500 years to Calvinism. Calling it heretical is odd. In fact the whole concept of heresy is pretty ludicrous. It is one steaming pile of bullshit complaining that another steaming pile of bullshit stinks.

[Igel]

9. Yes. But it's not often used.

First, you have to put limits around a group. "Xianity" is too broad a term. There's no unifying set of doctrines, practices, traditions, or beliefs for them all. We've defined 1000 groups under that umbrella term, and adding another group attracts no attention.

Within a denomination, a group with some sort of fairly common beliefs and practices, you get heresies. So Bruno could be a heretic(k) because there was a set of beliefs and doctrines that he could be at odds with. However, heresies are "party factions" so a single heretic is like a partisan supporting a party of one. Again, "apostate" is the proper term for that. You need to preach and attract supporters or at least like-minded folk to form a heresy. When you see different groups forming in a church it's a heresy.

We have heresies all the time, we just don't want to call them that. Most of the time, these days, heresies come from the top. The church I was in resulted from heresies. Go back 10 years before I joined it and it was part of a larger church. "My" church freely used doctrinal materials from 10 years before, to the extent copyright allowed. It had no quibble with pretty much anything said as of that date. But the church it broke away from had carefully collected older materials and confiscated what it could. It was the church leadership that led the heresy. It had to denounce what it had formerly preached. Now, granted, it was newer leaders who came in with this idea of revising the church, taking an organization and repurposing it in their own images. It was still a heresy.

My sister-in-law's church was riven by heresy. There was a socially progressive doctrine change that the leadership argued for. In the end, the membership had to choose up sides--who would adopt the changed doctrine and who wouldn't? My sister was on the losing side and wound up being, in her congregation, an unhoused majority while the building they'd just built was home to a congregation that numbered less than 20 and whose contributions couldn't afford the electric bill. Granted, this was in Arizona so the AC bill was large, but still ... Twenty had the large building, and the other 400-500 needed to find new digs, because nationally they were the minority and the central authority didn't want to give up land or money, even if the land and money were entirely from the local congregation's contributions and efforts. (As she put it, "They want to serve the people, and we apparently aren't people.&quot

So church leaders don't use the term "heresy" because, doctrinal change these days mostly coming from authority, they don't want to indict themselves.

[Mariana]

10. The concept of heresy is alive and well.

Every time some Christian, for example, says some other Christian isn't really a Christian, or is a fake Christian, or they put the word Christian in quotes, they're essentially calling that person a heretic. They just aren't using the word.