A Centered Set approach to church tries not to restrict anyone from participating. Sure, there are rules about how to participate, but in a Centered Set, since there are not boundaries, everybody by definition is “in.”
But what about the heretics? The really bad hell-bound heretics? The apostates and wicked men who lead people astray by lies and deceit? Cannot we at least restrict them?
Heretics Don’t Exist
Well, it may come as a surprise to learn that there is no such thing as a heretic. They are fictional creatures invented by religious leaders who want to scare people into strict compliance to everything the leader says. Like parents who try to scare their children into obedience by telling tales of the bogeyman, some church leaders try to scare their congregation with tales of fire-breathing heretics whose ideas originate in the pit of hell.
Scripture on Heresy
But doesn’t Scripture warn us about heresies? Yes, it does. More frequently than we realize.
The word heresy comes from the Greek word airesis, which is pronounced “heresies.” So the English word “heresy” is not a translation from the Greek, but is a transliteration, just like baptism (baptizō) and evangelism (euangelizō). Translators will often transliterate a Greek word when they are not fully sure how to translate it. They just take the Greek letters and change them into English letters, and call it good.
But it’s not so good for English readers who don’t know what’s going on behind the English. In the case of airesis, the translators knew what it meant, and most of the time, in most translations, it appears as “sect,” “division,” or “faction.”
Heresy in Acts
This is seen most prominently in Acts where Luke writes about the “sect (airesis) of the Sadducees” (5:17), the “sect (airesis) of the Pharisees” (15:5), and the “sect (airesis) of the Nazarenes” (24:5). We are generally familiar with the Pharisees and the Sadducees, but what was the “sect of the Nazarenes”? They were the followers of Jesus. They were Christians (cf. Acts 24:14; 26:5; 28:22).
So, according to Scripture itself, Christianity was one of the “heresies” at the time of the early church. This isn’t a bad thing. It is not a condemnation of Christianity. It is just a way of describing a group of people within the broader religion of Judaism. It refers to a group who had some different beliefs and practices than other groups within the big religious tent of Judaism.
Heresy in Paul
Outside of Acts, there are only three more uses of the word airesis. The first two are found in 1 Corinthians 11:19 and Galatians 5:20, and both refer to “divisions” and “factions” that occur within Christianity, and both teach that such divisions are destructive and damaging. Rather than divide over doctrine, we are to be unified in the Spirit. Neither use refers to some sort of pit-of-hell false teaching that must be condemned by the true spiritual leaders. To the contrary, both passages condemn the practice of forming divisions and splits (airesis) within the Body of Christ. Paul recognizes that genuine Christians can become divided, but he instructs that such practices are works of the flesh, and not a result of life lived in the Spirit.
If this understanding of these two passages is correct, the danger of airesis is not bad theology, but divisions within the Body of Christ. A fight against “heresy” is not a fight against bad doctrine, but against disunity in the church. Certainly, disagreements over doctrine can create division, but the proper response is not to separate from each other over our differences, but to love each other despite our differences.
We will will look at the final passage tomorrow, 2 Peter 2:1. But for now, what do you think of this idea of heresy? Maybe you think that the idea itself is heresy. If so, why? But if you disagree, be careful how you respond, for according to Scripture, divisiveness is the true heresy.
How would you deal with Acts 15:1-2 and Paul’s and Barnabas’ sharp debate with the Judaizers? Is this not heresy that Paul and Barnabas attacked? We are not to have dissent over minor things, such as church carpet, or songs sung, or debatable theologies. But, to accept all as correct for the sake of harmony falls into the pitfall of the Jews in Old Testament (and others) where syncretism was common. The divisions you speak of are due to heretical teachings, not despite them. Paul did not welcome all theologies and denigrate theological discourse and debate. On the contrary, Paul was very outspoken about right theology, when it came to the central concepts of Christianity. To negate any debate or division between those who adhere to the central dogmas of Christianity and heresies is to fall into the pit of the Emergent Church that is full of syncretism.
Later in the verse, the apostles discussed how there was a natural division in the way Jewish and Gentile believers could worship. The Jews could follow their rituals, but should not place the yoke of them on the Gentiles. This caused a difference in the form of worship, which was acceptable.
The key is that there IS such a thing as heretical teaching, and it should be avoided. Scripture bears that out repeatedly in Paul’s letters (and in the above reference in Acts) that incorrect theology must be dealt with strongly. But, we must not extend that to minor theologies, such as forms of worship. Jesus’s words to the Pharisees throughout the gospels further supports this. If there was no such thing as heresy, then why does Jesus call the Pharisees a “brood of vipers?”
There is offense in the Cross, and we must not work to negate that offense. It is exclusive, and instead of watering down the message, we must approach people where they are with love, patience and kindness to present the true message, which is offensive and does have boundaries. To fall outside those boundaries are heretical. That is why the path is narrow.
Heresy is not a myth. It does exist. A gospel without offense is the true myth.
Dave,
[This is an edited version from my previous, more hastily written comment, which ended up sounding mean. I apologize for that. It was not my intention. Here is the new comment:]
You are right that in Acts 15 there is strong disagreement between two groups. I think this is okay. We can and we should have disagreements with others about what the Scriptures say and how to apply them to our lives. We can and must stand up for truth. Jesus, Paul, John, Peter, and pretty much every other New Testament book points out strong areas of disagreement with others and made those disagreements clear.
However, I guess what I was trying to say is that these areas of disagreement (though valid) are not equivalent to what we think of as “heresy” today. Usually when people think of “heresy” today, they think of damnable doctrines, where if you believe it, it proves that you are not saved and are headed for hell.
All I am trying to point out is that the word “heresy” (Gk., airesis) is not used this way in Scripture. Instead, the word means “division” or “sect.” In fact, the word is used in Acts 15:5 for the “the sect of the Pharisees.” This was a division, or a group within Judaism that had different ideas and interpretations of Scripture. Some of them had apparently become Christians and were not debating with some of the other Christians about what the requirements were for Gentiles who became Christians. The rest of the account of Acts 15 explains what the church did to maintain unity.
Actually, not even Jews were to continue to follow their rituals. The whole point of the Gospel is: once the SUBSTANCE, the real thing, came (Jesus) – the SHADOW becomes obsolete. James is telling to the Jews about the YOKE that “nor we nor our fathers could carry.” It was plain thatJudaizers were wrong, yes. Everything that contradicts the basis, not minor stuff, should be addressed. Holy Spirit leads into Truth not illusion or lie 🙂
I do need to further say that there is no need to cast those out of the church that hold heretical teaching. We are to love them, care for them, and a major part of loving and caring for them is to clear up their heretical beliefs. These are not concepts such as the struggle between free will and predestination, or debates about how the end times will be fulfilled. Heretical teachings come from disagreement with Paul’s definition of the gospel in 1 Cor 15, and the assume concepts behind this passage (right concepts on God, Jesus, Faith, Judgment and Sin.) These central concepts are what make a church orthodox. Heresies creep in, and cause division. Our goal is to follow Paul’s example in Acts 15 (and other passages throughout his letters) to teach, rebuke, correct and train in righteousness. We must do so with great patience and understanding. Division is due to heresy, and we must not divorce these concepts. But, we must not carry them too far, either. We cannot tolerate heresy in the church, which has crept into so many Christian churches today. And, part of the love we are to have for others is to correct that heresy.
When the Christian church begins allowing in teachings contrary to the central teachings of God’s Word, then that church ceases to be a Christian church.
Most of the division I have seen has been over who is in control. Who is in charge here, who says what we do, who says how we spend the money, who says who we hire or fire. This often extends to whose interpretation of something in the Bible must be accepted. It may be presented as division over theology, but the deeper level is really who is in charge.
The “theology”of the person who calls another a heretic is often inconsistent and at odds with the Bible itself. I’m thinking of one current situation with this issue, and yeah, it’s all about the heretic hunter wanting to be right, in charge, have the last word in all situations. Theology is just battlefield among many on which this person tries to find opponents, then denigrate, smash and destroy
Sam,
Yes, often it is presented as a theological disagreement, but in reality, the real issue is often about control and power consolidation.
Having said that, I do think that there are frequently both theological and behavioral disagreements among people, and sometimes, the issues need to be dealt with. The way to deal with them, however, is not going on a heretic hunt, as you have pointed out.
I would agree with you Dave, although oftentimes an overly-authoritarian leadership can insist on doctrinal purity in areas where there are legitimate differences of opinion, and this in itself can cause division – Paul spoke of this when speaking about “arguments over debatable doctrines” and that such a chosen elder should excuse himself from them and rather prevent the divisions by showing himself to be above them.
But I agree with you wholehearted that there are some doctrines that are, quite literally, “doctrines of devils” and should be properly burnt away.
Also, Jeremy, I understand where you are coming from, but are you not falling into the trap of “debates over words”? Whatever the word “heresy” really means, we are clearly warned to avoid false teachers and false prophets for they are simply there to deceive. Deceit is present in the visible Church and it has no place in Christ or in His hidden Church.
I shall look forward to reading your next few posts! 🙂
Mark,
Good questions. I wondered about this myself. As I wrote these posts, it seemed I was starting to focus excessively on the meaning of words and getting into the Greek. There is a time and place for this, but it can be abused.
There definitely are false prophets and false teachers, and we must warn and protect. But as I point out in the next few posts, sometimes, we ourselves are the false teachers, and so need to input and corrective voice of those who disagree with us. If we boot all dissidents out of our fellowship, we may never get that correction.
Thanks for your reply Jeremy.
Yes, we can all fall into error, and if we were all chucked out for such the Church would quickly disappear I think. I remember a curate at my church saying that “there is a difference between a teacher teaching falsely, and a false teacher”. We all need correction.
And I think I understand your gist, that it is wrong to think that if we have differences of doctrinal belief then we must therefore have a schism and become separate churches out of fellowship with one another.
Mark,
You nailed it. Sometimes separation might be necessary, but only as a last resort. I still need to think through a lot of the ramifications of this, and talk to people who are experiencing it firsthand, as right now, some of this is theoretical for me (although… a large portion of it is not theoretical at all, but way, way too familiar…)
‘Heresy is in the eye of the beholder… no one thinks that their beliefs are heretical, so denouncing another’s theology as “heretical” is meaningless and purposeless, for what one judges to be “heresy” is dependant upon one’s accepted church’s dogma. Such denunciations might have been effective when “The Church” wielded absolute authority and could stamp out anything or anyone that strayed from their accepted dogma; but such denunciations today are totally useless. I believe it’s much better to focus on discussing and sharing what one believes to be true, let others decide for themselves what to believe, and ultimately let God be the judge of what is “heresy”. Declarations of heresy only serve to inflame others, squelch discussion, and tend to move others to dismiss anything that you might share though it be true and valuable. Such declarations of heresy certainly do not help anyone who is caught in error to “see the light” (assuming they are in error and your beliefs are true).
Suzanna,
That is a good point. Nobody thinks they believe heresy. There is nobody out there who laughs evilly to themselves while wringing their hands, saying, “Ha ha ha ha! I have some heresy I am going spread upon the world! I wonder how many people I can get to believe it?”
And as you point out, the usual response of someone getting labeled a heretic is that they and their group turn right around and say, “We’re not the heretics! You are!”
And then where does that leave us?
My simple response from 2 Kings 4:41 is that when death finds its way into the pot then the servant of God
can peacefully and humbly say these three words , “ Then bring flour “ .
So, heresy hunters are heretics?
😆
You’re funny, Anthony! I know several heresy hunters. It just so happens that their own wives and families won’t put up with their behavior, so they try it at church and if that doesn’t work, hunt heresy online, to what end I do not know. Gives them something to do I suppose.
Looking for power, I suspect….someone to control.
Very witty. But yes, in a way, I suppose so.
It’s interesting… tonight an amazing thing happened. The small fellowship I meet with was invited to another church to join with them in praying. Doctrinal history is being laid aside and (what a concept) we’re praying together as though we all follow the same Jesus. 😀
Wow. That is something.
I would love to see more of this sort of thing!
Um, a play on words, while I agree with the analasis of the word heresy, I must go back to what I mentioned previously, that God Himself asked the Jews to not fall out with Him but come together and discuss their ideas. Why would God do that?. Because He loved them and wanted none to be lost.
I don’t feel Dave was having a go at you Jeremy but joining in the debate. I just felt you were trying to put Dave in his place, which was not very loving. I’m probably reacting in this way as my opinions have been rubbished i’n the past and still are, but now I know why because the other person wants to be in control all the time.
What do I do I love the other person by keeping my own council or asking him to elaborate on his answer until he agrees with me.
Dave, Jeremy and I and I would say the majority on this blog love you to bits and want to thank you for your very considered input. I love disagreements as they challenge what I say and do and allow me to change my mindwithout feeling judged.
Jeremy I love this blog I have learnt so much, I have never been so affirmed or encouraged in my 30 years as a Christian. Dave, welcome to the blog, don’t give up on us and label us as heretics, we need you to keep us from getting complacent.
Your brother in Christ, Clive
Clive,
You have made a good point. I went back and read that comment and it does sound harder than I intended it.
That is the primary problem with blog comments. They don’t carry tone of voice.
Dave, I apologize for the tone in that comment. If you are still around, I will try to edit my comment so it is softer.
I do agree with what you say Jeremy and also what Sam said about the way Church accuses people to maintain there satanic control, as we know accusation comes from the accuser himself. As a player on words he can win most arguments, as he quite often did when we read the Holy Bible.
I just reminded myself, we only have one enemy and he is already doomed. Clive.
Clive,
Great, great point.
Thats better, now the air has ben cleared, glad to have you back Dave. Now we know we love each other we are free to make mistakes without feeling we will upset someone.
I do hate the word heretic as much as I hate the word stupid as both of them speak of judgement which I believe is Gods territory not ours. Even to think about someone in these terms will cause our attitude toward others to be effected, including how we speak.
Jesus said “it is written, do not commit adultery, I say do not harbor such thoughts as it’s no different than doing it”. Goodnight, Clive
Yep… and of course, Dave wasn’t making the mistake. I was, in the way I responded to him.
Jeremy,
Just stumbled across this post after many weeks and saw the responses since I visited last. I did not take your written words as offensive in any way. I hope my lack of response did not discourage you, as it was more of a lack of time than a hurt feeling that caused me not to return. I really saw nothing wrong with the way you responded. I am not sure if we are in 100% agreement, but believe that we approach things in slightly different ways. I rarely see disagreement as heresy, but do believe there is a line in Scripture where heresy begins.
Blessings,
Dave
Dave,
Thank you very much. That means a lot to me.
Apologies again for so many comments! I agree that the heretic probably means an opinionated person. However I wonder if Paul presents a possible definition of heresy in something like the conventional sense in Acts 24:14,15. He seems to deny the church should be considered a heresy and affirms he believes the Law and the Prophets. Could this be a dig at the Sadducees who denied the prophets and the Pharisees who added to the law? That is could heresy be defined as adding to/subtracting from revelation?
On this view orthodoxy is heresy! The Church councils all sought to adjudicate between different interpretations of scripture. So, for example both the Arians and the “orthodox” affirmed all the biblical statements about God and Christ, they just had different ways of fitting them together. In seeking to demand not merely belief in these statements but a particular interpretation of them, wasn’t the church adding to the Bible and imitating the heresy of the Pharisees? Just a thought.
Hey, we love comments here. Leave a bunch! I usually try to respond to most of them…
Very interesting idea, and I think you might be on to something. Although, the Pharisees would say they were just trying to apply God’s law to daily living. Don’t we all do this? Isn’t application what is expected and desired?
In my (developing) view, I think that we start getting into hot water when we try to force our applications of Scripture onto others. We can talk about Scripture, and share how we understand and live it ourselves, but when we say, “This is how I live in light of Scripture, and so you must too” that is when we begin to go too far.
More precisely, to link Paul’s statement to the root word meaning an opinion or division, perhaps heresy is insisting on dividing from others over a doctrine not spelled out in scripture, (the Pharisees) or dividing from others because one insists on denying something that is in scripture (Sadducees)?