Love this perspective. Thank you for holding space for the difference. It strikes me that this also is connected to the political dimension of the early church, a time where they did not have much political power within Rome. Could heresy have been like prophecy in the OT? False prophets were stoned in the OT for getting the word wrong because Israel was so frail. Heretics perhaps were castigated and excommunicated in the early church because the church was so frail. By contrast, what is the means of heresy post-constantine? And is heresy principally a move of Whiteness? I don't hear Black Christians emerging from Black Christian space concerned about heresy. Notably, I don't hear that amongst most musicians of faith either. What does doctrinal rigidity due for the ossification of Whiteness and of creativity?
These are great questions! Peter Berger has two books that've given some helpful context in my thinking on this--"The Sacred Canopy" and "The Heretical Imperative." In the first, he defines this sacred canopy as that uniting of church and state (or, in pre-Modern Europe's language, Pope and Emperor/King) that governs the culture and politics of Western Europe. In the latter book, Berger argues that in pre-modern Europe heresy was the act of choosing one's identity/choice in defiance of the church and social authorities (the sacred canopy). Someone like Martin Luther, then, is a heretic not only by theological standards but by political one as well (hence, his refugee among German princes). There is a self-reflexive element here to hold agency in identifying oneself apart from an assumed order.
All of this, though, fits under a Christendom project that is deeply tied to Whiteness. That is, the project of Christendom and modern appeals to heresy primarily both concern a particular form of Christianity attempting to attain a once-lost position of power that allowed such practice to function as that sacred canopy. (My friend David Chao has been really formative in my thinking around this -- https://caac.ptsem.edu/david-chao-the-1517-project-and-the-spirit-of-post-christendom-christianity/)
For those who are outside this Christendom project (ie. those who've never held positions of power in the first place), the heresy that Whiteness invokes is of no concern because they can identify that Whiteness itself is heresy - it is one of the most severe distortions of the gospel in our world today.
I don't think this answers all your questions but I always appreciate your thoughts!
Hey this is quite helpful, and makes perfect sense. Thank you for explaining that. There's a kind of freedom of being locked out of the halls of Christian power. The temptation for BIPOC folk who touch White space, though, is to ensure we don't get deployed as regulators of Whiteness ourselves. This is virtually impossible given our milieu, but it is a diagnostic worth running anyhow. We now see through a glass dimly...
Love this perspective. Thank you for holding space for the difference. It strikes me that this also is connected to the political dimension of the early church, a time where they did not have much political power within Rome. Could heresy have been like prophecy in the OT? False prophets were stoned in the OT for getting the word wrong because Israel was so frail. Heretics perhaps were castigated and excommunicated in the early church because the church was so frail. By contrast, what is the means of heresy post-constantine? And is heresy principally a move of Whiteness? I don't hear Black Christians emerging from Black Christian space concerned about heresy. Notably, I don't hear that amongst most musicians of faith either. What does doctrinal rigidity due for the ossification of Whiteness and of creativity?
These are great questions! Peter Berger has two books that've given some helpful context in my thinking on this--"The Sacred Canopy" and "The Heretical Imperative." In the first, he defines this sacred canopy as that uniting of church and state (or, in pre-Modern Europe's language, Pope and Emperor/King) that governs the culture and politics of Western Europe. In the latter book, Berger argues that in pre-modern Europe heresy was the act of choosing one's identity/choice in defiance of the church and social authorities (the sacred canopy). Someone like Martin Luther, then, is a heretic not only by theological standards but by political one as well (hence, his refugee among German princes). There is a self-reflexive element here to hold agency in identifying oneself apart from an assumed order.
All of this, though, fits under a Christendom project that is deeply tied to Whiteness. That is, the project of Christendom and modern appeals to heresy primarily both concern a particular form of Christianity attempting to attain a once-lost position of power that allowed such practice to function as that sacred canopy. (My friend David Chao has been really formative in my thinking around this -- https://caac.ptsem.edu/david-chao-the-1517-project-and-the-spirit-of-post-christendom-christianity/)
For those who are outside this Christendom project (ie. those who've never held positions of power in the first place), the heresy that Whiteness invokes is of no concern because they can identify that Whiteness itself is heresy - it is one of the most severe distortions of the gospel in our world today.
I don't think this answers all your questions but I always appreciate your thoughts!
Hey this is quite helpful, and makes perfect sense. Thank you for explaining that. There's a kind of freedom of being locked out of the halls of Christian power. The temptation for BIPOC folk who touch White space, though, is to ensure we don't get deployed as regulators of Whiteness ourselves. This is virtually impossible given our milieu, but it is a diagnostic worth running anyhow. We now see through a glass dimly...
Good point. This attitude has led to the ridiculous number of denominations/churches in today's America.