Heaven, Hell & Heretics, Oh My!

It always astounds me how as a society we remove ourselves from the history of certain words we throw around when engaging in "fierce debate."  Consider the image above:  This is what was done to those labeled heretics.  They were burned at the stake.  Or they were drowned because of their views on baptism.  Or worse.  And yet while we obviously don't condone that in today's society, several Christian leaders feel it appropriate to dub the label "heretic" on those that hold different views than they do on certain "Biblical topics" (cough, Rob Bell, cough).  This is done in the name of "defending the faith," and this is justified because we must point out the "false prophets" in today's society.  Do you think we might be taking things a little out of context here?
Let's flesh out false prophets according to the account given in 2 Peter 2:  They deny the Lord (v. 1), they bring the way of truth (could be defined as Jesus or following Jesus) into disrepute (v. 2), they are greedy and exploit people with false stories (v. 3), they are impulsive and hate authority as well as being arrogant (v. 10), they claim to know things that they have no knowledge of (v. 12), and they never stop sinning (v. 14).  It is also good to note that throughout chapter 2 these false prophets and teachers will be judged harshly by God.  I say this to emphasize who isn't the judge: human beings.
Is it fair to label anyone a false prophet given the scriptural definition?  The issue with these prophets seems to be with the core of Christian faith: the identity of Jesus Christ.  And looking at some of the other descriptions, shouldn't I be worried about myself more than others?  Do I ever deny the Lord?  Do I ever get the truth way wrong?  Have I ever been arrogant?  Have I ever claimed knowledge or expertise where I had little or no knowledge?  Do I ever stop sinning?  It would be easy for me to say that the definition lines up more with a cult leader than anyone else I could think of, but then I think that perhaps one of the key motives of this piece of scripture and most scripture is for the reader/listener to examine themselves and to be wary of those who are focused more on transforming others without letting God be the transformer.
Calvin and Luther changed the way the church thought, but they also stood aside and even aided the torturous murders of heretics and others that they deemed outside of the faith.  I'm glad we can discuss things and have different opinions without resorting to violence (although this obviously depends on where you are in the world), but can we disassociate ourselves from inflammatory language in our disagreements?  I'm not saying you have to agree with Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, or the Emergent conversation/church/movement, but does the scriptural definition of heresy and false teacher match?  I'm obviously biased, but the disagreement doesn't even have to do with the identity of Christ, which disqualifies 99% of the people that seem to get the heretic label these days.
To conclude, I'm not saying we have to "throw the baby out with the bath water," that is: we don't have to dismiss all of reformation theology because of some of the reformers' actions (which should be condemned in my opinion).  If you take anything from this post at all, I would ask that we put to death labels like "heretic," especially when the shoe might fit our own foot more than the person we think it fits.  How do Christians look when we keep building straw men of each other?  How do we look when we are busier excluding people from God's grace than welcoming people into it?  Perhaps the harder we try not to be something, the closer we resemble something much different...  Let's tone the rhetoric down.....PLEASE!

Grace and peace,

Jason