Haeresis Apologetica: The Dangers of Response-Driven Theology and Overreaction

No theology is developed in isolation. Throughout the history of the Church universal, the theological discourses that have developed our most beloved (and most contentious) doctrines, confessions, and dogma were embedded deep in controversy. It seems that no theological musings can be traced back to a bubble, untouched by prior or co-terminus views that fostered the climate or context for the development of doctrine in the Church.  This is one of the many reasons why the history of the Church, especially in the development of theology and doctrine, is a vital and important aspect of theological education.  “There is nothing new under the sun”, as the Qohelet claims in Ecclesiastes 1:9, and therefore, any serious dedication to theological education should involve immersing oneself in theological history.  As we dive into this history, it becomes clear that many of our theological formulations, both those held seemingly without contention amongst the Church universal (the deity of Christ, the resurrection as a bodily event, etc) and those held in contention (soteriological disagreements, mode and timing of baptism, etc) are steeped in disagreement and reaction.Surely, this has bred some vital and important doctrines that clarify and illuminate the intended meaning of the Scriptures.  However, it also seems to bring with it a dangerous possibility that can be witnessed throughout the history of theological formulation within the body of Christ.  Reaction can easily become overreaction, and a response to theological error can easily breed an opposing yet just as problematic theological error.

Pelagius, Augustine, and the Death of Liturgy

The issue of

haeresis apologetica

is presented well in Joshua McNall’s work,

Perhaps: Reclaiming the Space between Doubt and Dogmatism. 

In discussing potential pitfalls in speculative theology, or “perhapsing”, McNall recognizes the common historical temptation of overreaction when responding to an errant theological claim.  Nailing down which responses are overreactions and which are proper course corrections is difficult, however, due to the sheer reality of theological disagreement present in the Church universal.  One man’s overreaction may be another man’s course correction.  What we can do is consider some

possible

instances of

haeresis apologetica

so as to introduce the concept and build a foundation for how we can avoid overreaction when responding to errant views that demand engagement. Let us consider the Pelagian controversy.  Though much of Pelagius’ work can only be gleaned from outside sources who may or may not be representing him well, there is a clear picture in the historical record of both Pelagius and Augustine developing their theological stances

in reaction

to each other and the surrounding theological and ecclesial climates of their day.  Roger Olson, in

The Story of Christian Theology

recounts what brings Pelagius to write on free will, inherited guilt, and original sin:

“When the British monk Pelagius arrived in Rome sometime around 405, he noticed that many Christians were living morally indecent lives and many others seemed unconcerned about growing indifference to moral purity and obedience in the church.  He began about the possible causes of this, and when he heard or read Augustine’s prayer quoted above, he was horrified and immediately convinced that this was the root cause of the problem.”(267)

The prayer of Augustine mentioned by Olson in this recounting makes the argument that “no one could be continent unless God gave it to him” (267). Attempting to connect the dots, Pelagius reacts to the teaching of Augustine and the debauchery present in the local churches by responding with theological formulations concerning free will, the sinful nature of individuals, and the effects of baptism on infants. Though little of Pelagius’ work exists to reference, it seems that though he may not have held to all of the views with which he was charged, Pelagius’ response to the theological situation was to champion the freedom of man to live holy and reject any notion of original sin or sin nature.  In attempting to combat what he felt was a theological error that was hurting the Church, Pelagius seemingly

overreacts

and develops a doctrinal stance that not only denies imputed guilt but implies that all men can live without sin and therefore merit their salvation.  Whether it was explicit or not, this is tantamount to a rejection of Romans 3:23. Though the dating of many of Augustine’s later works are contested (due to revisions, primarily), it seems that much of Augustine’s engagement with Pelagius drove his theological views towards a more holistically deterministic framework and interpretation of Scripture.  Recognizing that, as stated before, one man’s overreaction is another’s course correction, it may be better suited to recognize a less hotly contested view of Augustine’s that could have been an

overreaction. 

It seems that in an attempt to explain how original sin was passed down to all humanity, Augustine may have speculated, aided by a poor translation of Romans 5, that all of humanity was physically present in Adam seminally, and therefore all people born of a man through procreation are born inherently guilty of Adam’s sin and in need of regeneration, through infant baptism.  Was this speculation a result of seeking to provide an apologetic for Adamic headship and inherited guilt, and therefore an

overreaction

in the same vein as Pelagius? I think this case can be made, and more importantly, this interaction can serve as a learning experience as we strive for theological clarity in the midst of the possibility of

haeresis apologetica.

Fast forward to a more practical and relevant example of possible overreaction.  The general response of the Protestant Reformation is vast and multi-faceted, so I will not attempt to dive deep into a holistic broaching of what results were overreaction and which were course correction. I will, however, point out a seeming overreaction in the extended history of the Protestant landscape that can be attributed as such.  In many Protestant circles, the concept of liturgy seems overtly

Catholic

, and therefore it is shoved aside as something to not be engaged.  In response, many Protestant congregations have developed a low view of the Lord’s Supper (both in how they engage in it and how often), baptism, and any other liturgical practices such as the congregational recitation of creeds.  In an attempt to shy away from anything related to Rome, liturgical practice was placed on the chopping block.  In many ways, it seems that the baby was thrown out with the bathwater as Protestant congregations pivoted away from anything that seemed to reflect Catholic practice.  Thankfully, there is a seeming resurgence in liturgical involvement in some Protestant circles, spurred on by a desire to bring the experience of gathering together back into the realm of “otherness”.  A strong argument can be made, however, that the spurning of liturgy by many Protestants was an overreaction, not a course correction, in engaging the issues present in Catholic doctrine and practice. These are just a few examples of how “reactionary overreach” may have caused issues in theological formulation and practice historically.  The question then, is this:

How can we learn from this history and develop strategy to both engage and respond to theological error and protect ourselves from the possibility of overreach? 

Strategies for Discourse and Disagreement

1).  Engaging historical resources, creeds and multiple orthodox viewpoints

First and foremost, we must be reminded that there is nothing new under the sun.  The theological issue that you are engaging is not totally novel.  In fact, it is most likely nearly identical to an issue faced in the history of the Church.  For example, most unorthodox off-shoots of the Christian faith make the same mistakes in Christology and Trinitarian theology as those opposed by the Early Church Fathers.  One need not overreact to a Jehovah’s Witness who believes that Jesus was a created being by accidentally falling into the opposite but equally dangerous notion that Jesus only seemed to be a man, when there is a wealth of resources through church history answering those same objections without overreach. One should also engage other orthodox viewpoints on the issue as well, to ensure that there is a full grasp of the “breadth of orthodoxy”.  Oftentimes, especially if the sermons, books, and content we take in are more narrowly focused on our traditions and views specifically, differing orthodox views can

seem

totally foreign, fostering within us the possibility for overreaction.  One need only look to how those with differing orthodox viewpoints on election and predestination respond to each other in our current climate to see the importance of engaging and understanding theologically orthodox believers with whom we disagree.  Developing a more holistic understanding of the bounds of orthodoxy can only aid us in guarding against the pitfalls of overreaction.

2).  Consider the implications of your reactionary takes

This is the most needed and lacking aspect of theological reflection alive in today’s climate.  Oftentimes, we react and respond to those we disagree with, yet we do not take the time to reflect on the implications of those statements and views.  In the moment, it seems like a solid haymaker to defeat our opponent, yet upon reflection it causes more issues than it solves. In today’s climate, many will then double down instead of admitting that their reaction caused a myriad of problems through overreach. This doubling-down necessitates more overreach, and the vicious cycle continues.  McNall references the overreaction to “anti-intellectual fundamentalism” which has caused many to reject the authority of Scripture and traditional orthodoxy as an example that serves to highlight these failures well (84).  We must be slow to speak, not because some things are not important to respond to, but because we need to take the time to reflect on our thoughts and arguments, to ensure that they are biblical and consistent, not overreaching and simply reactionary.  One practical tip for ensuring you take your reflection seriously is sharing your thoughts privately with trusted believers who can hold you accountable for your theological developments.  They may be able to illuminate for you some issue or inconsistency that you have missed as you sought to engage theological error.  This, however, takes patience and humility; traits that would serve our current reactionary landscape well.

Being Faithful in a Reactionary Climate

As we consider the current climate of social media and content creation, full of hot takes and the need to react to the newest conflict, what could be more important than providing measured, thoughtful responses to important theological issues? This is the age of reaction, which means there is an ever-present danger of overreach and

haeresis apologetica. 

One need only look to the popularity of discernment ministries that respond first and think later, often-times doubling down on their takes even if shown to be in error in their judgment, to see why this call to reflection,

slowness to speak,

and engagement with theological history is vital for the theological landscape and for our personal theological and apologetic development!  We have over 2,000 years of history to learn from when considering theological engagement and truth-seeking, and only a fool refuses to learn from the past. Keep Seeking Truth! Dustin Harris ________________________________________________________________________________

Referenced in this article are Joshua McNall's 

Perhaps: Reclaiming the Space between Doubt and Dogmatism

, read on Scribd, and Roger Olson's 

The Story of Christian Theology, 

IVP Academic, 1999.