33 Comments »

The most compelling argument, imo, against the use of that word is that because the church doesn’t really convene “councils” anymore, we don’t really have the infrastructure to “declare” anything “heresy”.

I think a practical truth today is that many people throw out the word “heresy” as if it were the word “liberal” — meaning they label things a certain way to dismiss the idea. That doesn’t help anybody with anything.

The problem, of course, is that some things are already declared heresy — modalism, arianism, marcionism, antinomianism, pelagianism, etc. — and it’s right to say that people who go there are, frankly, out of bounds. It’s just that people who don’t understand these terms label the NIV, drums in church, women who wear jeans, calvinism, beer and tobacco (among other things) “heresy” when in fact they are not.

I think we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes, Frank, what has already been declared heresy, shall remain heretical.

But, like you say, the word is now most regularly used to refer to whatever someone disagrees with.

That change in ordinary usage makes it almost useless now in courteous debate. (”That’s heresy,” whether true or not, comes across more as an insult than an attempt to get at the truth.)

On the flip side, there tends to be a pattern of avoiding words that tell it like it is. Maybe if the word heresy was used more often, we’d have less of it in our churches. We see the same thing happening with the word “sin”. No one wants to use it. It is called everything but what it really is….sin. Heresy is any doctrine that is completely opposed to the Word of God and I think there are times when it is appropriate to use the term. I also agree that it’s usage can be abused.

I tend to agree with you and Frank; heresy is a useful term if someone is saying something a Donatist or Arian would have, but it’s really meaningless in modern discourse; we should instead talk about wrongness. However, there is the category of false teacher/gospel, which is more biblical. It should definitely be used cautiously and not over-applied, as it often is, but it is something closer to what some people mean by heresy than simply disagreement. Any thoughts?

What if we looked at this from a pastoral perspective — meaning that it’s a pastoral problem that people (maybe especially pastors) don’t know the difference between “heresy” and “denominational distinctives”?

And what do we do, then, with someone who comes up with a new brand of error — for example, the health and prosperity gospel? Is it right to call that “heresy”, or do we settle for the colloquial “that’s just wrong, dude”?

Sometimes I’m too simple-minded for your posts; I thought this was more tongue-in-cheek…I pop over to comments and there’s real conversation.

Go figure…

What if we found new language to substitute for heresy that didn’t water down the meaning (at least too much)?

What if instead of “that’s just wrong, dude” which is unsettlingly okay with people today in a pluralistic and individualistic society…

What if we used terms and phrases like “out of bounds” or “unacceptably outside what Christians believe”?

Certainly, by itself, the label accomplishes nothing. But it does give us a way to begin to address the issues without conceding their acceptability.

I don’t think “Heresy” should be thrown away as a word. It should be used correctly, just like other intense terms. What’s wrong is wrong regardless of how nice we speak about it, especially in regard to truth. Thinking of the post-modern culture, though, speakers of truth should always recognize that ours is a generation always anxious to put people in boxes and always anxious to be offended by what they think is close-mindedness. If the term is to be used, it must be laced with gentleness - however in the world that would work its way out.

Abraham, is there a word you would prefer?

I find your suggestion to do away with the word to be heretical.

Oh come on, what’s the use of condemning people and feeling superior if you can’t call them heretics? It takes all the fun out of it.

Matt,

I don’t think there is any perfect synonym for the old use of heresy, but I like the suggestions Frank and Dylan made.

Also, “unorthodox” might work in some context. But there’s some ambiguity there, too, since sometimes “unorthodox” is a complimentary way of saying “odd.”

In a situation where harshness is called for, “blasphemous” might fit the bill.

I’d settle for unorthodoxy, but still prefer heresy for etymological and historical reasons. Heresiarch, on the other hand, is a bit awkward.

i agree with the heresy/ancient councils connection. for a modern term, how about extra-orthodox? supra-orthodox? anti-orthodox? ex-orthodox?

oh, this is a fun game, give me another.

Heresy could probably still do a service as a technical term for when you defend contumaciously a view found from scripture to be callously unorthodox, rather than just holding an unorthodox opinion. Most people hold weird views, which it doesn’t take a lot of digging to unearth, but they are largely unimportant. Lies and myths which tend to controversy are perhaps more serious. I don’t much care for the definition highlighted in whatever dictionary you lifted that from. The more technical sense I propose is more or less what it meant in the late 12th and early 13th century, when society began persecuting it in a systematic way. If you wish to study the subject, I recommend Wakefield and Evans, and R.I. Moore.

—
SINCERE IGNORANCE AND CONSCIENTIOUS STUPIDITY
http://blog.myspace.com/CAUGHTNOTTAUGHT

what ED said.

lol

Hmmm. This seem exactly the kind of suggestion a heretic might make. It’s some kind of a trick.

Think people. How can you tell a heretic? “If… she… weighs… the same as a duck,… she’s made of wood.”

Heresy is very useful as a historical term, but not all of the “heresies” of the early church are considered heretical today. Many very orthodox historians believe groups such as the Donatists, Montanists, and Novationists were “divergent schismatics,” but not necessarily heretical in their theology. Also, some of Origin’s teachings were declared heretical after his death, but he wasn’t necessarily a heretic, was he? And Tertullian was a Montanist for much of his writing career, but he’s the “father” of Latin theology (to use Cyprian’s term); how often is he referred to as a heretic?

More precise terminology is needed, because the early church did use the term as a label for those with whom they disagreed.

SO, “heretical” used in opposition to the “orthodox” position of the early church is great, but the terminology gets shaky when historians start discussing whether the declared heretics were really heretics.

You probably don’t want to hear this from an “emergent” Christian, but Amen, Abraham! I agree the word “heresy” needs to be scuttled.

Then again, I’m also open to rethinking past “heresies” as well, for many of the reasons Jim has just outlined. “Orthodoxy” is a fuzzy thing. I quite like Tony Jones’ analogy of the strike zone in baseball. I realize not everyone is comfortable with that, and that’s OK. I just thank God we have the Bible, the great cloud of witnesses (past and present), and the Holy Spirit to guide us.

I think the term heresy should be retained, but only used in instances of doctrine that clearly attacks the nature of God, of Christ, or of Salvation, or otherwise directly contradicts plain Scripture. (Note the terms “directly” and “clearly”, meaning you should not have to enter into a 30-minute diatribe to prove why such-and-such is heresy. All you should have to do is quote a verse or two.)

Thus, the number of ideas we label as heresy should be incredibly small. I think it’s important to keep the word around, though, because there is such a rise in confusion regarding who Jesus is that we need to be able to strongly say that something is unbiblical to the point of having salvation hinge on it. I.e. The idea that Jesus was nothing more than a cool teacher is heresy.

here’s another curve: do you think it possible to posit heretical teaching and not be, per se, a heretic?

I like what Nathan said: the word shouldn’t be thrown out, but rather used correctly (even if it is most commonly used incorrectly).

The word, “bad,” can somehow mean both “bad” and “good” these days, so it’s often better to use a clearer, more descriptive adjective. “Bad” is a pretty vague word anyway, so it’s rarely the best choice to describe something, but there are still times when it IS. I think there are still times when “heresy” is the best, most accurate word to characterize certain beliefs/opinions/ideas, and thus should not be removed from our vocabularies.

However, when using this word or any word that packs a lot of punch, it should be defined through context. “Dude, that’s just wrong” may be less abrasive (though not necessarily), but even then, we wouldn’t leave it just at that. Rather, we’d expound what we mean by that and what exactly we believe is “just wrong.” For me personally, I’ve found that most arguments/discussions go much more smoothly and with far less quarrel when key words are defined at the outset, even if the words are common and relatively agreed upon.

So… all that to say: I think the word, “heresy,” should be used cautiously and with full reliance upon God’s grace to use it lovingly (and accurately), but the word shouldn’t be abolished altogether. The parlance of the times should not necessitate the dissolution of otherwise good vocabulary.

I know! I know!

Let’s burn at the stake anyone who uses the word heresy incorrectly!

Problem. Solved.

I’m in with the vote for “blasphemy”. The strength here is that (I think) “blasphemy” still has the feeling of “in God’s face; against God; demeaning to God”, and that is what heresy (in the original understanding) ends up doing anyway.

But I’m again reminded: sin is blasphemy is heresy: I’m often a practicing heretic…

Amanda (and other, prior posts): The title of “heresy” can only be assigned by a person who has the authority to declare a teaching wrong. No single, respected-by-all authority figure exists (except God himself, and that sounds a little too “Sunday School” for this present dialogue) in our society’s plethora of “Christian” groups. Each group would have it’s own qualifications on what constituted “heretical” teachings.

Therefore, I find Abraham’s initial sentiment to be mine as well–let’s be a little more precise when confronting biblical error than tossing around the term “heretic.”

Karen: Thus the confusion, especially historically with Origen, once boundaries for what is “heretical” have been set. I think the relationship between the adjective and the noun are pretty clear, so that if you are going to say a person holds to heretical doctrine, he’s/she’s a heretic. I never bought the argument from some Origen apologists who stated since his teachings were condemned postmortem (and he therefore couldn’t defend his thoughts), he “couldn’t” be declared a heretic. To me, that’s like saying since you weren’t present when a crime was discovered, you’re guilty of the crime, but we won’t call you a criminal.

FAO KAREN:
Sure it is. It’s only once you obstinately defend that teaching against biblical warrant that you yourself become a heretic. The issue is defiance of scriptural authority.

I agree that the word “heresy” has lost much of its meaning over the centuries. While attending a fundamentalist Christian college I was labeled the “flaming heretic”, a term which was neither true nor helpful.
Yet, as with any word that carries a rich tradition, we should explore and discuss it (rather than simply discard it); but we must thoughtfully use it.
I would say that the only way in which we might constructively and appropriately use it today is regarding doctrinal errors dealt with in the early church councils. Today we have so many denominations and splintered nuances of the church, that what is “heresy” to one church is certainly not to another.
Consequently, it would not be right to throw around a word associated with “excommunication”, burning at the stake, etc… while discussing music styles, dress, etc…

We must always use caution when we utilize terms dripping with historical meaning.

@ Jim: That’s why I said heresy should refer to a very small number of things that clearly and directly contradict the biblical witness. By this I mean things that aren’t a matter of interpretation or historical context, but rather of whether you even try to believe the Bible. I’ve seen the term “heresy” abused a lot by people who claim to have more authority in doctrinal issues than they really do, and so I absolutely agree that it is not a word that can be reassigned to different subjects at will.

The things I think of as heresy are the things that were soundly and uniformly condemned as such by the church fathers, or by the Bible itself (i.e. the idea of salvation by works was really strongly refuted in Galatians).

Heresy is a wonderfully useful word - but only because of its power. It cannot be replaced by “unorthodox” or “dude: that’s wrong” because neither captures the urgency, the gravity or the soul-crippling danger of “heresy”.

(There is also a distinction between using heresy to describe an idea and using heretic to describe a person - which is a term that I would use very sparingly. I would be particularly hesitant to use it about someone who is still alive.)

Or, to approach it another way, “heresy” is like sex. It’s powerful, it’s serious, it’s useful and it’s part of God’s gift for the protection and edification of his church. But it shouldn’t be used lightly or carelessly; when used inappropriately, it corodes the testimony of the gospel, destroys relationships, damages our loved ones and crushes our joy.

Perhaps we should start a campaign for dictionary publishers to include a health warning alongside the word?

Alphabetically speaking, I believe the next redacted word should be “Hershey.” We could replace it with “corporate branded chocolate” or just “dude, you’re fat.” Maybe it’s my own struggles with both chocolate and kisses, but the word makes me feel judged.

Where there is the orthodox there will be the heretical. They compliment each other - most of today’s orthodoxies started out as heresies - heresies often end up as orthodoxies. The interplay between the two can be creative but both can crush humanity.

For the atheist, blasphemy, heresy and sacrilege are integral to progress and the business of freeing ourselves from faith.

Sissofo: While “freeing ourselves from faith” isn’t my goal–I’m not even sure that absence of a belief in god would “free” one from faith in something–you’re right in saying they play off of one another. Bauer thought this Hegelian dynamic was where orthodoxy arose originally.

Your comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (Required, not published )

Website

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>