from a possible duke heretic
Hi Everyone,
Thanks Tom A for inviting me to participate. I have been reading your blog on the topic of Duke Theology/Heresy
I am wondering, what do people think metaphysically happens to a heretic, or what are the consequences?
Also, I have been informed that groups like the women's center and sacred worth are duke heretics. So I am wondering in very specific terms, why?
In other words, what does it mean to be a heretic in detail?
In some of your posts you all have been throwing out names and using "code words" that I am not familiar with because I am more interested in folks like Dr. McClintock Fulkerson... Does that make me a heretic, and if so why?
So I ask you to be aware of your language and explain discipline specific terms.
Also one of you threw out Fulkerson's name. I get the notion that she stands for a certain idea or set of ideas but I have no idea what they are....
Thanks Tom A for inviting me to participate. I have been reading your blog on the topic of Duke Theology/Heresy
I am wondering, what do people think metaphysically happens to a heretic, or what are the consequences?
Also, I have been informed that groups like the women's center and sacred worth are duke heretics. So I am wondering in very specific terms, why?
In other words, what does it mean to be a heretic in detail?
In some of your posts you all have been throwing out names and using "code words" that I am not familiar with because I am more interested in folks like Dr. McClintock Fulkerson... Does that make me a heretic, and if so why?
So I ask you to be aware of your language and explain discipline specific terms.
Also one of you threw out Fulkerson's name. I get the notion that she stands for a certain idea or set of ideas but I have no idea what they are....
posted by Jenny at 7:52 PM
9 Comments:
Thank you very much, Jenny, for posting here and reading through some of the stuff that has been said. The particular issue of Duke Heresy was not so much concerned with heresy qua heresy but with certain topics which are not discussed at Duke or could be looked down upon and does not mark any conciliar injunction but a noted absence (by some, disputed by others) among the issues commonly discussed. I hope that was clear.
Personally, as the M.B.A. (Master of Blogs, Awesome) I have cannot remember anyone claiming the women's center or sacred worth to be heretical in any sense. I do not know much about the women's center, but I know the president of sacred worth and would not call her a heretic. She actually is a member of Socratic Club and posts on here every once and a while.
Heresy itself is a dangerous word (kind of like fundamentalism) which is often only used in a pejorative manner without any depth. If you are interested in further discussions about the word, its historic usages and its contemporary applications, I (and I am sure others) would be happy to continue this thread.
Concerning MMF, I do not think she represents a set of ideas anymore than any other faculty member. Each contributes to the field in a unique way and MMF's training at Vanderbilt and work in contextual and locational theology has its own contribution.
Wilson, some thoughts on your thoughts...
While I cannot speak for her, I think Jenny did catch what y'all were saying about heresy, and I think the question at hand is, in fact, those certain topics that are absent from discussion or looked down upon. As I read Jenny's post, that is what I sense her referring to.
And with that in mind you mention not remembering anyone claiming the Women's Center or Sacred Worth heretical.... I have only been at Duke Div. for a few months now, but under this assumption that "duke heresy" is that which is not discussed or looked down upon, I feel like these groups are seen as "heretical".
Yes, you may know the president of Sacred Worth, and may not think of her as heretical, but how many times are issues regarding LGBT people on campus discussed? Does the general student body "look down upon" the discussion of LGBT issues?
I think so. I can only speak from my experience, but as a lesbian at Duke, I OFTEN feel looked down upon. Do I face a overtly hostile environment? No. Do I get outwardly condemned? Not often (though it has happened a few times already).
But, when I think of 'heresy' in the way I sensed Jenny explain it, I think of not having (or feeling like not having) a place at the table.
I went to grad school at Wheaton for awhile, and was actually asked to leave the program I was in because of my sexuality and acceptance of it. At Wheaton, they did not have a place for me at the table, and they told me so.
But here, I am 'allowed' a place at the table... I am not going to be asked to leave because I am gay. I will not be overtly deemed 'a heretic'. But do I really have a place at the table? Is my voice really heard? Or are my ideas dismissed because they are not viewed as "orthodox"?
I think that I feel like i am percieved as a 'heretic' here just as much as I was at wheaton, despite the fact that I am 'invited to the table'. It is one thing to be invited, it is another thing to be welcomed. Welcomed doesnt mean there is no dissent, but it means that my views and positions and voice is valued and respected.
And from what I have experienced here at Duke thus far, this has not been the case. "Duke heresy" i think, is when you are not equally welcomed at the table, which I think means anytime your opinion or perspective or conviction falls outside of the classic Christian/predominant/'Orthodox' position.
Sorry for my rambling, just some thoughts.
Dear Jenny,
Good question about our own conversation on heresy. I would concur with Wilson, that when we spoke of "heresy" we spoke of it as "Duke heresy" all with a small "h". We have been, I think, clear that this heresy (small h) is different than Heresy (big H), in our discussion. Duke heresy, is simply what you're not encouraged, or can't say here at Duke. A couple of quick examples of what you're encouraged not to say here Duke: the invisible church is a viable ecclesiology, denominational splintering is healthy, the creeds aren't helpful, liturgy is meaningless, Paul Tillich is a good theologian etc.
As for the Women's Center and Fulkerson. I'd say that generally, both of these are minor voices at Duke. I'm still learning about what the Women's Center is about, but I would say that Fulkerson assigning Tillich, seemingly approvingly, would put that decision with the Duke heresy column (small h).
Brandy, I'd agree with you that support of Sacred worth and LGBT issues are generally Duke heresy (small h). I was saddened to hear of your experience at Wheaton (my alma mater) and a bit more encouraged by your experience here at Duke while seeing room for improvement (I appreciate your own room for dissent amidst respect).
Jenny, back to your question of anxiety about Duke heresy (small h). I think the anxiety comes primarily from issues that stem from questions of church authority. Who in the church gets to decide these things. Anxiety about this within the church trickles down (or maybe starts?) at seminary as we argue over these issues abstractly. But when we all get out of Duke and meet each other on the Annual or General Conference floors, the "game" of theology all of a sudden has skin in the game. Thus our anxiety at Duke about Duke heresy finds its roots in our anxiety about church Heresy (big H) in our churches.
As to your question of metaphysics: I'd prefer to keep soteriology (the question of justification) separate from eccelsiology (who decides and has the authority to decide what is Heresy). Thus, someone may be (emphasis on may), in my opinion, a heretic, but still justified. I don't know how far that goes. But if there is not some mercy from God with reference to my own theology, then I am toast (and so are most of the rest of you). Or putting it another way, God still works in spite of our bad theology.
Thanks for the comments here. Good discussion.
To warm up with a few minor jabs at my wise leader, da King:
1. As someone who was formed theologically first by Tillich and continues to appreciate his wonderful contributions, I think that the notion that Tillich is not appreciated here at Duke is a common notion among seminarians (that I joke about a lot) that is not really an accurate assessment of the feelings of our theological faculty. I spoke to Stanley about this ages ago and was surprised at how warmly he spoke of Tillich and how much he said he owes to Tillich. As my time at Duke draws to an end, I think I appreciate the faculty position much better now. They make a legitimate critique of Tillich on the basis of how his method of "correlation" contributes to the excesses of liberalism against which our faculty have fought for most of their careers. And he embraces the ontology of violence from Nietzche that seems to me to be totally contrary to our received story. But they don't tend to dismiss his entire body of work the way seminarians are prone to do. Reading Tillich once again under Mary was a delight for me, reminding me of how helpful his analysis of power, love, and justice is in conceiving of prophetic ministry.
2. Brandy: I don't know you, but my heart goes out to you. I hate the isolation you have felt and no doubt will continue to feel because of the confusion our culture has right now over issues of our sexuality. I don't think you are living in a period in which there is much hope that you will be free of such alienation. This is a very confusing issue for the church and thus the encounter generates fear.
I have posted below an excerpt of the official position of the Anglican church which I embrace. I'd be interested in your reactions to it. I think the Methodist position is similar. That may have something to do with why you experience that homosexuality is treated as a 'heresy' here: the official positions of much of the global church echoes what I have pasted below.
Anglicans have established a "listening process" which is ongoing in which the church is to listen to the voices of the LGBT community and engage in a conversation that seeks the path of faithfulness. For some, that path is clear; for others of us, it is a process that may well take 15-20 years of hermeneutical discernment but may result in movement from the current position over time.
2. in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;
3. recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;
4. while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex;
5. cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;
6. requests the Primates ... to establish a means of monitoring the work done on the subject of human sexuality in the Communion and to share statements and resources among us;
First, I'll add my affirmation to those points made thus far, and especially the distinction between Heresy and Duke heresy. And, regrettably, I have to agree that MMF, Women's Center, and Sacred Worth are peripheral to the Duke orthodoxy. My own take on this is as follows.
There are two reasons for this marginalization. First, given Duke's ecclesial ties to UMC, SW cannot be brought into the main for crassly political reasons. That is not to say that it shouldn't be, just that is not, and is not likely to be. And second, given the Duke orthodoxy, there are reasons why it will perennially be viewed as mistaken, if not heterodox, though not fully heretical. Interestingly enough, Hauerwas's position on LGBT issues is not what most would expect, though it is not (yet) a central part of his project.
But beyond this, as someone largely in agreement with the stated ends of WC and SW, I think there is a more interesting discussion to be undertaken here. That is the question of means and methodology. I think there is a conversation to be had between the Duke orthodox (Hauerwas, Hays, etc.) and the marginal heterodox (MMF, Carder) as to HOW to best achieve those ends and concerns integral to WC and SW.
While in large measure I am convinced that traditional Protestant Liberalism a la Tillich and others remains confined to and constrained by secular Liberalism, there is something to be said for "rights talk." And that rejoinder is one that Yoderian ecclesial politics ought to (re)consider. And to some extent, the ongoing dialogue between Stout/Coles and Hauerwas has done this.
I hope this doesn't seem like a gang up and that anybody is avoiding the question or concern. I would be interested in further reflections upon the conversations at Duke concerning LGBT issues, women's center, margins, etc.
I recently learned that only one faculty member has done safety training (there might be a better term for this, but it shows my ignorance) and that is a tragedy. There is no theological reason why any faculty member should not be safe. I don't exactly know what the training is or the requirements are, but maybe someone could help me out on that.
Similarly, what is the purpose of the women's center? All I know is that a friend of mine who graduated last year used to have meetings there for people who had suffered sexual abuse, and it is always open.
I’m glad this conversation is continuing… …I guess I will start my response with replying to
Craig and the Anglican position on this…
On the basis of the points that Craig listed, without drawing on my other knowledge of the stance on and actions of the Anglican church, I have a lot of concerns with the Anglican position on homosexuality…
Basically, I think that this Anglican (and the UMC) position excludes and is hurtful to LGBT people….
“in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman…” – the teaching of Scripture. Im ok if people concede that such a position is their interpretation of the teaching of Scripture, but suggesting with no acknowledgement of interpretational issues is worrisome to me.
Point three, seems incompatible to me with point 4 and 5. While I recognize that I can be ministered and counseled by those who disagree with my relationships, I think there is some limits to this… the talk of listening to the experience of lgbt people and assuring them that they are loved and full members of the body of Christ, and than rejecting homosexual practice and discounting LGBT unions seems ironic and not entirely fitting. Which brings me to my next point…
One stance on LGBT people/isues that I am grappling with is the sort of “stance” my church takes, which is essentially no stance at all. There is a recent post on Theolog (www.theolog.org): “Love=Love” where the blogger suggests that her church has a good response to LGBT people and issues. They have LGBT people in the community and at the same time have people in the community that disapprove of same-sex relationships.
I commented on her blog and I am just going to copy/past my comments here:
“First, Sarah, I appreciate your post, and your thought on these issues. I appreciate your willingness to wear the shirts and appreciate your honesty about 'being on the fence'.
I also think that your thoughts and comments about the church and the variety of opinions in your church are wise. I think there is something to be said about a church embracing a variety of opinions and thoughts... about, in Yoderian terms, open meeting.
With that being said, I do think Jeff and Amy have a point and I do get nervous about the result of this variety of opinions.
I think that there may be a danger in this variety of opinions, of a church holding that some people in the congregation view homosexual relationships as sinful whereas others are in homosexual relationships...
I don't want to be extreme or polemical, but just speak from my own experiences...
I am a lesbian, and I go to a school and am part of a church where there are a variety of opinions, within the people in leadership and in the students and congregation. (I actually go to Duke Div :-)).
I dont really want to talk about the divinity schol, as I think a variety of opinions are necessary in an academic environment (though I would say that there is not equal weight given to those who affirm LGBT people/relationships.... but that is another conversation). But, church...
Like I said, open meeting is important. However, as a lesbian who does not plan on being celibate my entire life, the view by some in my congregation results in me often feeling like a second-class citizen.
Love the sinner, hate the sin is tricky, because part of 'hating the sin' means helping the person out of the sin/not supporting the sin. Look at Matthew 18-if a person is living in sin, there is a way that a congregation should respond. Or, even with some of the details of that aside, our hopes for people 'living in sin' is that they work their way out of it... the process of sanctification, right?
So, if we hold this view, then logic would suggest that a lesbian in a relationship is problematic because they are willingly 'living in sin' and 'not trying to break free from it'.
To be honest, I dont know what to do with this issue. I want to be open and patient with those who think differently than me, and want to affirm the idea of open meeting, but, at the same time, it is difficult for me to feel welcome and safe and 'equal' in a place where people think that my relationships are sinful.
Just my thoughts, in the form of rambling due to time constraints, sorry.
Thanks again for your blog. :-)”
So, that is pretty much where I stand. I do not know what that means, and I would rather have a church that can deal with a variety of positions than a church overall that takes a stance that says that they love me but than limits what I can do or how I can be involved in the church. I guess it is easier (not by much, but easier) for me to deal with individuals that view my reality as sin as opposed to the leadership of a congregation….
Tom A…
I am trying to understand what you are saying about heresy and the anxiety about duke heresy finding its root in our anxiety about church Heresy…. Can you unpack that for me a little?
DWL….
I found your comments interesting, mostly because I do not think that there is something to be said for “rights language”. I do think there is something to be said about conversation between the orthodox and the heterodox at duke div, but you lost me at the rights language stuff, for a variety of reasons. I would love to entertain that conversation more…
And Wilson…
I am sure Jenny can speak about the Women’s center and its purpose much better than I can, but, this is just what I copy/pasted from the women’s center website:
“The Women’s Center serves as a resource and support center for the entire Divinity School community, responding to the needs of the community as they relate to issues of gender. It serves as a clearinghouse for information on a variety of issues affecting women and provides opportunities for interaction, networking, challenge, and growth for students and faculty interested in gender issues. It also serves as a sacred space for those in the community who experience struggles in their lives and/or ministries.
The center is committed to creating opportunities to meet for fellowship, worship, and study. As a touchstone within the Duke Divinity community, the Women’s Center seeks to provide a space that affirms the Imago Dei in women and that views their participation in all aspects the body of Christ as essential. “
Sorry for such a long post!!!! I had lots to say…. I would love to keep this dialogue going. ☺
Happy Thanksgiving.
Dear Brandy,
What a wide-ranging post! You have responded to everyone! :)
Here's what I mean. heresy (small h) isn't Heresy (big H) until its made so by the church. Now how one defines "church" is a slippery issue. But for the sake of this conversation, I will define church as those who are in a covenantal relationship as described by the disciplines in the Book of Disipline of the United Methodist Church. Thus, Duke is not a "church." So anything that Duke says is heresy can only be a heresy (small h). Only a church can define Heresy (big H). But at the same time, Duke is a training ground for the church. So what Duke says is heresy (small h) eventually infulences what the church says is Heresy (big H). So if LGBT "issues" are heresy at Duke (and other training grounds for the church), its likely that they will be Heresy in the UMC. And vice versa. We can be open all we want at Socratic club to entertaining ideas contrary to our own (heresies, small h), but when we meet one another on the annual conference floor debating whether to change such and such policy or doctrine or teaching, we're talking about Heresies (big H). I hope that makes my statement clearer.
On another note, you say:
"I would rather have a church that can deal with a variety of positions than a church overall that takes a stance that says that they love me but then limits what I can do or how I can be involved in the church."
Don't all churches do this with a variety of issues? For example, as a UMC pastor, I'm not supposed to gamble, or trash the environment, or solict prostitutes, etc. Shouldn't the UMC take a stance on these issues and limit what I am allowed to do as a pastor (or member) of the UMC?
Thanks for the lively conversation!
Peace,
Tom
Post a Comment
<< Home