The Close-minded Christian: A Serious Spiritual Problem?

[Deadworm]

The 2nd century physician, Galen, was the greatest medical researcher in late antiquity. He was very frustrated with the intellectual inflexibility of the medical and philosophical schools of his day and he lampoons them by comparing them to Jews and Christians who were evidently famous for their intellectual close-mindedness:
"One might more easily teach new ideas to the followers of Moses and Christ than to the physicians and philosophers who cling fast to their schools (On the Pulse 3:3)."

1. Do you think Galen's stereotype applies to most members of this site?
"A fool take no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing personal opinion (Proverbs 18:2)."

2. Do you like to be challenged by thoughtful books written by very bright authors with whom you disagree on key points?

3. When was the last time you developed a new theological or ethical perspective?
For example, Paul urges us to "strive for the greater spiritual charisms (1 Corinthians
12:31)" and to "strive for the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy (14:1)." What is the state of your "striving?" Or do you marginalize the importance of what the Spirit has to offer by pointing to the abuses of others?

4. How open-minded does Christ expect us to be?
a. Jesus evidently believes that spirituality is better caught than taught. Thus, He expects His audience to await insight through deep reflection on His parables and so He refuses to explain His them to outsiders (Mark 4:11-12). In His view, spoonfed learning would be grasped at too low a level of consciousness:

"You will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so they might not look with their eyes and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn--and I would heal them (Matthew 13:15; quoting Isaiah 6:9-10)."

b. Jesus is equally exasperated with His own disciples' inability to gain new insights:
"Do you still not perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes and fail to see? Do you have ears and fail to hear (Mark 8:11)?
"O how foolish you are and slow of heart to believe (Luke 24:25)!"

c. The risen Lord is exasperated by the close-mindedness that prevents the Laodiceans from seeing their lukewarm spiritual condition as He sees it:
"Buy salve to anoint you eyes, that you may see (Revelation 3:18)."

d. By contrast, the open-minded receptivity of the Beroeans draws Luke's praise:
"These Jews were more receptive than those in Thessalonica; for they welcomed the message very eagerly and examined the scriptures every day to see if these things were so (Acts 17:11)."

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

d. By contrast, the open-minded receptivity of the Beroeans draws Luke's praise:
"These Jews were more receptive than those in Thessalonica; for they welcomed the message very eagerly and examined the scriptures every day to see if these things were so (Acts 17:11)."

"Examine the Scriptures EVERY DAY .....

to see if these things were so."
That's what to do BEFORE believing anything anyone says, even an angel of light, or Paul....

 

[SkyWriting]

1. Do you think Galen's stereotype applies to most members of this site?

No. Very few. And even those can be seem to be following the path of Paul/ Saul.

 

[timewerx]

"Examine the Scriptures EVERY DAY .....

to see if these things were so."
That's what to do BEFORE believing anything anyone says, even an angel of light, or Paul....

When I did this, I saw the Bible in a different light.

It would seem God used Paul to test the disciples and punish Paul at the same time. Instead, many Christians take Paul's words as unworthy of scrutiny because in plain sight, what Paul offers is an easier way to salvation.

God chose the straightest and wisest man to demonstrate the deceitfulness of wealth - Solomon. Many Christians fail to see this and prefer to see the Proverbs as a guide to material prosperity (out of their love of material wealth).

The popular interpretation/context makes it possible to be worldly and be Godly at the same time. But Christ and some of the disciples made it clear as daylight it will never be the case.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yhwh called and chose Paul, and Jesus taught Paul personally. (He's not the only one taught personally).
As Yhwh says, everyone who rejects Paul rejects Jesus. No exception, ever. When , as is the case, someone has strange conclusions about Paul, Jesus corrects them, if they belong to Jesus. Same as everyone who rejects Peter or John or James or Stephen ........ anyone who Yhwh called and chose and sent.

 

[Deadworm]

oI once read a witty post that posed the question, "What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of evangelicals?" I expected the answer, "judgmental." But the poster's answer was "just!" E. g. "Come to Jesus JUST as you are." "JUST trust Him to meet your needs." "Lord, we JUST want to know you." LOL!

Based on this site and others like it, my word would be "rigid." In my view, Winston Churchill's definition of "fanatic" applies to the rigid conservatives here: "A fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject." Witness the mindless series of threads freaking out over the suggestion that feminine imagery is just as valid revelation about God as masculine imagery.

I'm amused by the expected deafening silence in response to my probing questions in this thread. As expected, no evangelical has posted to express important new lessons learned from books on spirituality with which they have major disagreements. No evangelical has posted about how their theology has changed in significant ways in the past couple of years. I created this thread because of a PM in which a mod confirmed my perception that posters here are far too rigid to actually change their mind in important ways.

A recent thread (now closed) on homosexuality is a case in point. Evangelicals are rarely willing to do the hard work of careful consideration of both sides of the question. Would any of you be willing to embark on a thorough reading of this balanced website on the "texts of terror for gays?"

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

Let me pose the simple question that best illustrates evangelical bias, closed-mindedness, and illiteracy on the gay question: Who can identify the one Gospel text which addresses the homosexuality question?

 

[Greg J.]

Regarding the original post, who's opinions should I give serious consideration to?

If I had Ph.D.s in theology, apologetics, philosophy, and world religion and 40 years of experience, should I give serious consideration to the opinions of the same people? Would you respect my opinion? If I were uneducated, would you respect my opinion? If my Ph.D. was instead in Eastern Religions, specifically Islam and Buddhism, would you respect my opinion on Jesus Christ?

You're talking about an attitude and/or a social behavior that you don't like (neither do I), but that needn't be connected to how correct a person is.

I've lost my keys before, but eventually found them. Would you consider me closed-minded if I didn't continue to listen to opinions on where to find my keys?

If you think finding keys are different than finding God, then how are they different? Is it because you can see one and not the other? Is it because you were raised to not believe in things that can't be seen or detected? Or perhaps because you were raised not to trust what people say? None of these have to do with the correctness of the person, either. How long would you study the opinion of someone about living safely after they tell you that people are deceived and it is actually safe to cross the street on a red light without looking both ways?

Your original post was written with a judgmental attitude, probably fueled by frustration at your opinions not being taken as seriously as you would like. Should I listen to your opinion? If I had the knowledge and understanding of the first Ph.D. mentioned at the top, but without the credentials, would you take my opinion as seriously as the one with credentials?

If there is any overall theme to this post, it might be: How seriously you take someone's opinion is a quality in you that is not necessarily logical, not something about the other person. i.e., Galen was the one with "a problem."

 

[Deadworm]

Greg J.: "Regarding the original post, who's opinions should I give serious consideration to?"

Greg J.: "You're talking about an attitude and/or a social behavior that you don't like (neither do I), but that needn't be connected to how correct a person is."

Greg J.: "Your original post was written with a judgmental attitude..."

I am an evangelical who is sadly ashamed of the prevailing shallowness that dominates my movement and is on full display on this site. A mod sadly confirmed my perception that most posters here are closed-minded. So this thread was created to give posters a chance to correct that perception. But so far my preconception has instead been confirmed that evangelicals rarely consider the possibility that they might be fundamentally wrong in their spiritual self-image and in important aspects of their theology. As expected, no one has protested that their reflection has prompted them to alter their perspective on important spiritual issues in the last few years. More damning is the deafening silence in response to the question of what books they have recently read that have given them new spiritual insights, even though they have basic disagreements with the author.


Greg J.: "...probably fueled by frustration at your opinions not being taken as seriously as you would like."

There are a few posters here who are actually humble enough to consider the possibility that their theology is somewhat flawed in important ways. By far, the majority of the readers have not registered for the site. I post for their benefit and for the few posters who have expressed gratitude for the blessing my posts have provided.

Greg J.: "You're talking about an attitude and/or a social behavior that you don't like, ..., but that needn't be connected to how correct a person is."

This irrelevant comment ignores the fact that closed-minded evangelicals have a chance to test their mettle by posting reasoned rebuttals. In my experience, they instead preach and mindlessly pontificate on the basis of their perception of orthodoxy. The most effective response to this flaw is blunt refutation. That is why I inject some of my posts with a justifiable judgmental tone.

But I do care about the opinions and questions of 3 classes of people:
(1) uneducated honest seekers who actually know what they don't know and who have embarked on an authentic spiritual quest;
(2) qualified professionals who have honestly and thoroughly studied the issues, informed by knowledge of the original languages of Scripture and an awareness of the cultural background;
(3) intellectually curious skeptics and adherents of non-Christian religions traditions.

Beyond that, why would you imagine I would care about the approval of the closed-minded, theologically unwashed herd? As Anglican scholar, B. F. Westcott eloquently put it, "The simple Gospel is not as simple as the simple would have you suppose."
As for you, readers should note that you obviously are not intellectually curious enough to read the web articles I posted.

 

[Greg J.]

I am an evangelical who is sadly ashamed of the prevailing shallowness that dominates my movement and is on full display on this site. A mod sadly confirmed my perception that most posters here are closed-minded. So this thread was created to give posters a chance to correct that perception. But so far my preconception has instead been confirmed that evangelicals rarely consider the possibility that they might be fundamentally wrong in their spiritual self-image and in important aspects of their theology. As expected, no one has protested that their reflection has prompted them to alter their perspective on important spiritual issues in the last few years. More damning is the deafening silence in response to the question of what books they have recently read that have given them new spiritual insights, even though they have basic disagreements with the author.

You are passing judgment on people who only have to answer to God, including those who are more spiritually mature than you. You're even doing it to those who haven't posted anything. The attitude you present in the original post is probably why more people have not responded. You are implying you won't accept what people write if it doesn't meet your personal criteria.

There are a few posters here who are actually humble enough to consider the possibility that their theology is somewhat flawed in important ways. By far, the majority of the readers have not registered for the site. I post for their benefit and for the few posters who have expressed gratitude for the blessing my posts have provided.

Are you qualified to determine whose theology is flawed? What qualifications does it require? I have found everyone to be humble as well as unyielding, depending on what the topic is. Perhaps there is a lack of humility in posts because people don't post about matters they don't feel qualified to comment on. On the other hand when God reveals truth to someone, they are driven to stand firm on it, especially if they've subsequently studied the matter. We only have one Teacher and genuine revelation and understanding is only through the Holy Spirit.

This irrelevant comment ignores the fact that closed-minded evangelicals have a chance to test their mettle by posting reasoned rebuttals. In my experience, they instead preach and mindlessly pontificate on the basis of their perception of orthodoxy. The most effective response to this flaw is blunt refutation. That is why I inject some of my posts with a justifiable judgmental tone.

God doesn't gift everyone to be able to write rebuttals of their faith. Blessed are those who stay within the confines of their gifts, because they will be greater witnesses for Christ than those that don't. There is no moral obligation for anyone to justify themselves, except to those God has placed in authority over them. There is no such thing as a justifiable judgmental tone. No one has to conform to any stranger's expectations. The least effective response is blunt refutation, because it reveals the writer's self-righteousness and closes people's minds to what the writer has to say.

Beyond that, why would you imagine I would care about the approval of the closed-minded, theologically unwashed herd? ...

Because they are your brothers and sisters in Christ and you love them?

As for you, readers should note that you obviously are not intellectually curious enough to read the web articles I posted.

It's obvious to you what my reason is for not reading your web articles?

The pattern to your statements is that you are venting frustration. That means you are not trusting God with things outside of your control. Brother Lawrence had a great perspective as shown in The Practice of the Presence of God. I'm guessing that you would benefit from focusing more on Jesus Christ's love for you and less on intellectual understanding and assent of the truth.

 

[Deadworm]

It's obvious to you what my reason is for not reading your web articles?

Thank you, and please don't. You bring nothing worthwhile to the debate. In a debate format, judgment is an essential part of the process and my verdict is partly based on my reading of many threads on which I have not chosen to post. I also post on other sites. So I don't really care if you or others don't read me. I just check the "views" and see that many others do, not to mention the large number of visitors who choose not to join the site.

I consider it a serious character flaw that so many evangelicals can't honestly address the questions I pose in my OP and I feel a prophetic burden to confront this. As a lifelong evangelical, I have found very few evangelicals who pursue a passionate quest to expand their horizons and correct their misconceptions. I seek out the company of creative souls who are intellectually curious.

 

[Open Heart]

1. I think that the Christians on CF are too closeminded. By that I mean that they are interested in WINNING, rather than listening, understanding, and ultimately coming to a deeper understanding of the truth through iron sharpening iron. In far, far too many cases, Christianity is what THEY personally believe, and too many other Christian groups get branded as "not REAL Christians." They don't feel they can even trust non-Christians to honestly relay their own thoughts and feelings. It goes from closeminded to paranoid.

I think that Christianity in general has both closeminded and loopy openminded individuals. By loopy I mean that we also have Christians who accept the silliest things just because their friends do. It is sick how much of post-modernism is found in evangelical churches. Some say that post-modern attitudes are the death knell of fundamentalism.

2. Personally I long to be challenged. I never by books by people I agree with -- I can't imagine anything more boring. It would be like talking to myself in the mirror.

3. Two and a half years ago, in response to plagues of doubts I was having, I came to the new perspective that "believing" wasn't what went through your mind or what you thought, but rather what you chose in response to those thoughts. "Lord I believe; help me my unbelief."

4. Both open-mindedness and close-mindedness have their pluses and minuses. The trick is to find what works best, which is usually somewhere in the middle. Being open to possibilities is great, but if you are so open-minded that you let in a lot of damaging ideas, and can never come to a decision, that's pretty awful. Being decisive can be a healthy trait, but if you are so close-minded that you cut yourself off from needed change and a fuller understanding of the truth, that's also pretty awful.

a. The reason parables and fiction are higher forms of teaching than lectures and prose is because they are able to sneak past the biases in our minds. IOW a story can teach a moral lesson to someone who is close minded where a didactic sermon will simply be shut out.

b. I'd go a lot easier on the disciples. For one thing, I do NOT think it's all that clear in the scriptures LOL. I think the scriptures tend to support a Davidic King messiah primarily -- and that will be Christ's second coming. Furthermore, I never cease to be surprised by the lack of understanding of the average Joe, who tends to have problems with figurative speech. As a former teacher, it felt like pulling teeth sometimes. In these rooms, it can feel like hitting my head against a wall.

c. I think denial is not the same thing as close-mindedness.

d. YES. The very trait that made the Bereans accept Paul was their open-mindedness. It actually was not their surveying of scripture as this is what ALL Jews did. Although it's not mentioned of the Thesselonians, we can simply assume it because it is Jewish culture to check it out with Torah. But the Thesselonians were basically brutes who threw Paul out and the Bereans welcomed him and really listened.

 

[Shempster]

Closed mindedness to me is someone who is settled in their beliefs at any given time. They fight hard to hold fast but in the end end up changing. It happens to most everyone during a lifetime. That tells me that what you believe is likely to be incorrect to varying degrees. So what happens if you die just before a potential epiphany? Straight to hell with ya? Really?

In a way it almost doesn't matter what you believe. How can you say your beliefs are correct over thousands of teachers and scholars say otherwise? What about the morphing of church thoughts and of course, the wide array of beliefs among all of the denominations? Think really hard about this and you'll have to agree.
Trust me, BELIEF is just the key that starts the engine of eternal life. The key is nice in your pocket but actually does nothing for your life. You must use it to obtain eternal life...and it starts when you take the key and actively pursue Christ in you.

 

[Freedom Now]

Good thread!!!

Many decades ago, when God came into my life,
I had to forsake all scriptural understanding, as I grew up very religious and we'll trained in theology,
but to understand the new , the old what was understood by the carnal mind had to go.

To this day, if I see and hear things, I bring it before God and search it out, whether it could be true.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump...

A little bit of teaching of man's understanding, can completely distort and delude the Truth.


Let us seek God with our whole heart and let HIM give us understanding.



May God bless you.

 

[Deadworm]

It is well recognized in epistemology that scientific, philosophical, and theological arguments are meaningless if they are in principle unverifiable. That means they must be falsifiable, at least in principle. So suppose the intellectual integrity of your faith is challenged by a questions like this, testing your open-mindedness and the meaningfulness of your spiritual perspectives: What would it take to convince you that you are wrong about the inerrancy or authority of Scripture, your views on the afterlife, NDEs, the scope of salvation, or the ecstatic gifts of the Spirit? How would you reply?

 

[Lazarus Short]

[puts on asbestos suit]

I don't expect this post to be particularly popular here. My experiences on most Christian www sites, including this one, have led me to come up with this: The reason there aren't more Christians...is Christians.

I think the agnostic/atheist members here (and why are they here?) will understand that better than the Christian members. I have been made to feel like a second-class Christian here, simply because I would not subscribe to the Nicene Creed. Don't get me wrong, as I have no problem with that Creed. However, it puts God in a box and it puts the Christian's belief in a box, beyond which learning is more difficult than for the boxless. The Nicene Creed, and other Creeds like it, is for settlers, and I am a seeker. I see the members here divided into the same classes, so I try to speak to fellow seekers and minimize discussion with settlers, which are almost invariably unproductive. It is comparable to the distinction between people who can see what they are looking at, and those who can't. The "can't" camp will always refuse to accept that the little that they can see is not the whole picture.

Regarding the OP's four questions:
1. Some, for sure. Most...don't know. If I can make a few think, I am doing my job.

2. Yes, and I am here for much the same reason.

3. I spent the fall of 2014 to the spring of 2016 in a survey of the KJV, to test the existence of Hell, treating it as a theory.

4. I think He wants us open-minded enough to receive the Seven Spirits of God, usually rolled up as the Holy Spirit. Understanding follows...

 

[Freedom Now]

It is well recognized in epistemology that scientific, philosophical, and theological arguments are meaningless if they are in principle unverifiable. That means they must be falsifiable, at least in principle. So suppose the intellectual integrity of your faith is challenged by a questions like this, testing your open-mindedness and the meaningfulness of your spiritual perspectives: What would it take to convince you that you are wrong about the inerrancy or authority of Scripture, your views on the afterlife, NDEs, the scope of salvation, or the ecstatic gifts of the Spirit? How would you reply?

Too many big words in your post, English not my first language.

If we were to use simple understandable speech, there would not be as much confusion.

That is my reply

 

[nick notes]

I think it is a great asset if one is willing to change their mind.
I used to be a traditional Christian. I defended the status quo against all comers. But then I was chosen to lead a Bible Study at my church. I wanted to do a good job so I literally spent several hour each week studying and preparing for each week's topics. As I studied I began to notice problems with the Bible. At first I just mentally dismissed them and ignored them. Later I tried to invent scenarios, though far fetched, but it could have happened this way, to explain away problems. But eventually my conscience bothered me that I wasn't telling the truth about what I knew about the Bible and I was doing a disservice to those attending my Bible studies. So one day I decided to tell people the truth. People complained to the Pastor that I wasn't following "the party line." I was called to a meeting with the Pastor and the Elders to explain and they kicked me and my wife out of the church. The next Sunday they even hired two security guards to block me from entering the church.

 

[Deadworm]

As a theology professor turned pastor, I tried to keep my sermons practical. Then one day a parishioner asked me, if I would conduct a seminary grade, in depth Bible study that explored the relevance of the original languages, the use of sources (e. g. Mark as a source for both Matthew and Luke), and how the cultural background was essential to understanding biblical texts. I was reluctant because of the wide gap between modern scholarship and popular Christian understanding and because of the threats class members might perceive to their faith. 4 men joined: a janitor, a retired architect in his 50s, a Russian male nurse (age 23), and a retired engineer.

I initially demonstrated how no modern Bible translations can adequately substitute for some knowledge of Greek and limited my teaching of Greek to how it was essential to grasping specific important texts. I stressed academic methodology rather than doctrine and urged them to forget about what they had always believed and to just play with interpretive possibilities. Instead of lecturing, I raised open-ended questions about texts in a way that allowed them to have breakthrough insights, unguided.

The result? (1) I got the janitor a free full ride to Princeton, where he got his MDiv and currently pastors a UMC church in Florida. While in seminary, he became a member of the new Dead Sea Scroll editorial board (using high-powered computers to fill in smudged or damaged texts) and is now cited in an academic book on this subject. He was also given a scholarship to work at the archaeological dig at Bethsaida, a village where Jesus recruited up to 5 disciples.

(2) The retired architect was inspired to get his MA in Theology and, by sheer chutzpah, has become a regular and published player at the Bethsaida dig, more so than the janitor who preferred to become a pastor.

(3) The young Russian male nurse got a BA in Theology and has a free full ride to do an MA in Theology at Emory. Even before his MA studies, he had read more academic theology books than most seminary graduates!

(4) The retired engineer is too old to go back to school, but is a voracious student of the Bible and apologetics. 3 days a week, he and I use card games as a way to minister to the elderly and shut-ins and this ministry has led to the conversion of a lawyer and his Jewish wife.

Why am I sharing all this? To illustrate just how creative and brilliant ordinary Joes can become (a) if they are encouraged to always ask themselves, "If I'm fundamentally wrong about important issues, how might I ever find that out?" and (b) if they are urged to play with theological and historical ideas, without any fear of theological thought police.

If I sometimes seem too confrontational here, it is because I've decided to respond to blunt pontifications with blunt retorts. I'd love to befriend and dialogue with any posters that are just here to explore and learn and don't take themselves too seriously.

 

[nick notes]

As a theology professor turned pastor, I tried to keep my sermons practical. Then one day a parishioner asked me, if I would conduct a seminary grade, in depth Bible study that explored the relevance of the original languages, the use of sources (e. g. Mark as a source for both Matthew and Luke), and how the cultural background was essential to understanding biblical texts. I was reluctant because of the wide gap between modern scholarship and popular Christian understanding and because of the threats class members might perceive to their faith. 4 men joined: a janitor, a retired architect in his 50s, a Russian male nurse (age 23), and a retired engineer.

I initially demonstrated how no modern Bible translations can adequately substitute for some knowledge of Greek and limited my teaching of Greek to how it was essential to grasping specific important texts. I stressed academic methodology rather than doctrine and urged them to forget about what they had always believed and to just play with interpretive possibilities. Instead of lecturing, I raised open-ended questions about texts in a way that allowed them to have breakthrough insights, unguided.

The result? (1) I got the janitor a free full ride to Princeton, where he got his MDiv and currently pastors a UMC church in Florida. While in seminary, he became a member of the new Dead Sea Scroll editorial board (using high-powered computers to fill in smudged or damaged texts) and is now cited in an academic book on this subject. He was also given a scholarship to work at the archaeological dig at Bethsaida, a village where Jesus recruited up to 5 disciples.

(2) The retired architect was inspired to get his MA in Theology and, by sheer chutzpah, has become a regular and published player at the Bethsaida dig, more so than the janitor who preferred to become a pastor.

(3) The young Russian male nurse got a BA in Theology and has a free full ride to do an MA in Theology at Emory. Even before his MA studies, he had read more academic theology books than most seminary graduates!

(4) The retired engineer is too old to go back to school, but is a voracious student of the Bible and apologetics. 3 days a week, he and I use card games as a way to minister to the elderly and shut-ins and this ministry has led to the conversion of a lawyer and his Jewish wife.

Why am I sharing all this? To illustrate just how creative and brilliant ordinary Joes can become (a) if they are encouraged to always ask themselves, "If I'm fundamentally wrong about important issues, how might I ever find that out?" and (b) if they are urged to play with theological and historical ideas, without any fear of theological thought police.

If I sometimes seem too confrontational here, it is because I've decided to respond to blunt pontifications with blunt retorts. I'd love to befriend and dialogue with any posters that are just here to explore and learn and don't take themselves too seriously.

I think you have the right to be proud of your accomplishments in motivating others to succeed.
I don't think you are being confrontational. Besides isn't this forum supposed to be about controversial topics?
Go for it.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

@Deadworm

There is something that seems lacking from your question, which causes me to take a dim view of your conception of open-minded, and that is the fact that you have not engaged with Patristics or with forms of Christianity outside of the mainline-Protestant-evangelical continuum, where there is a great deal of higher criticism and textual criticism of the Bible (but, it should be noted, higher criticism is unprovable and amounts to pure philosophy, whereas textual criticism's utility is uncertain given that with many of the manuscripts, like the rather overrated Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, we have no information about their origin and provenance). What is lacking is a study of Patristics.

Were you more familiar with this subject, you would see that in fact, even among the Orthodox-Catholic Christians, many were very open minded and creative. The Alexandrian catechetical school in particular was reknowned, under the leadership of figures such as Origen, St. Athanasius (who gave us our present scriptural canon of 27 New Testament books one of his Paschal Encyclicals), and others, promoted an allegorical/typological approach to Biblical interpretation which is at complete odds with the prevailing Antiochene literalism one sees among evangelicals of today.

Yet even among the Antiochene school, there was some innovation; see, for instance, Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Now, some people who had bold ideas were anathematized, following the instructions of St. Paul in Galatians 1:8; there is a Gospel, and we cannot teach a different Gospel. However, within that Gospel, we have great freedom of expression; the burden of our Lord is a light one. Among visionary Patristic figures who used creative solutions and presented dynamic new explanations of the Gospel which preserved the faith and helped Christians to understand the truth, I would cite St. Athanasius of Alexandria, the Cappadocians (St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzus and St. Gregpry of Nyassa), St. Ephrem the Syrian, pseudo-St. Dionysius the Aeropagite (whose apophatic theology provides us with our only means of perceiving glimpses of the infinite and incomprehensible Divine Nature, in a manner which can lead one to contemplative ecstasy; I feel a certain bliss when I iterate over everything that God is not: changing, evil, unloving, passable, visible, and so on, except to the extent He has revealed Himself as pure love by becoming incarnate as a man and dying for our sins in the prosopon of the Logos, Jesus Christ.

I would also mention St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory of Palamas and St. John of Kronstadt as figures who shocked the lukewarm portions of the theological establishment of their era, but went on to be glorified as saints. In the Orthodox Church, no less, a place not exactly known for being receptive to change (I am proud of the fact that the worship of my church dates from the 6th century and our liturgical books in their present form were last revised sometime in the late 1400s). We also, uniquely in our recension of the West Syriac Rite (the Maronites AFAIK do not do this) sing a beautiful hymn centered upon Galatians 1:8 before the reading of the Pauline epistle in every liturgy.

I am very open minded, but our Lord and His apostles make it quite clear that there is one Gospel and there will be many false teachers, and that our salvation occurs as part of the congregation of Christians who receive the true Gospel into which we are baptized and with whom we share the Eucharist.