What is heresy? A lot of people throw the heretic word, or heresy label around to diminish or defame differing theological positions from their own. A Baptist might call a Pentecostal a heretic for their belief in tongues for example. I myself would be called a heretic by many of my Eternal Damnationalist, or even Annihilationist brethren for my belief that God shall save all mankind. But what is heresy and where can it be legitimately called? To what end shall we raise alarm if we cannot call differing beliefs from ours, heresy?
Firstly, I am not advocating a trash-dump Christianity where everything goes and everything is true, and there is no absolute truth. No there is only one Truth and He is Christ. Surely and God forbid it that I would ever give the throne of Truth to thoughtless tolerance. Tolerance as the world sees it;
“Conform to me, all ye who hath a mind to be wise, and think nothing of reality or consequence.”
On touching “tolerance” there must be room for discussion, discourse, and growth. This includes therefore the true form of tolerance - Godly tolerance. Grace, mercy, humility, conviction in strength, and willingness to speak softly in a still voice, not unto condemnation but deliverance and edification. Godly tolerance does not condemn the man who sins, but it does not take the sin and include it into its own philosophy. However, what good the sinful man may present (if it is truly good) is accepted and incorporated. All things that are good, are from God. Nothing good is not without its source in the Goodness of its inventor and source. Do not conform to the world, but be transformed by Truth, Life, and Love in all forms of goodness.
But that aside, for I digress and must get back to my point. While I do not advocate a convictionless or truthless devotion to Truth. I do not advocate either the extremism of tradition made idolatry, that is to say;
“Doctrine is infallible and inerrant. Theology and Theologian are irreproachable. Pastor, church and creed are Truth, Life, and Way.”
None of these are true. Show me a man or a congregation who speaks of their theologian or pastor as infallible and inerrant and I’ll show you a cult. Show me a man or congregation who present their doctrines, creeds, and theologies as infallible and inerrant and I shall show you a place of idolatry; worship of the mind and intellect of man in spiritual things. Men should not be wise in their own sight.
Nothing save God himself is inerrant and infallible, ultimately speaking. God must empower a thing to make it errorless even our Bibles.
My wish in presenting these two points, that a godly man must show godly tolerance without being a vessel for what ever sewage might be taught him - while at the same time not uplifting himself or his favourite spiritual precepts as infallible and inerrant in and of themselves, without constant and direct empowerment from God; is to prepare the field for discussion on heresy.
Heresy tends to be called out by one group or person against another for holding a different doctrinal viewpoint. Now often these doctrinal viewpoints are menial…Akin to calling a person a heretic for believing that angels can indeed dance on the head of a pin. Others are very serious, like calling a person a heretic for denying the deity of Christ.
In the face of menial alarms of heresy, or heretic-calling I can only tell such Christians “grow up”. There are too many evils in the world for you to go around arguing over things that are not even matters of Truth, but rather matters of intellectual ego, strutting your biblical knowledge, memory, or expertise - showing you can make an argument from the Bible to match the argument of your fellow brother. In other words, a biblical bully; but a bully none the less.
An example of “menial” heresy calling would be the person who calls another a heretic because said other believes that Jesus had long hair, or arguing over whether or not Jesus or Yeshua is the only proper term for the son of God, or believing that women can or can’t preach from the pulpit.
But in the face of greater heresy calling, this is where one should certainly strive for godly tolerance, but especially for godly wisdom, and prayerful consideration. In the face of greater heresy, it must be understood that such a thing is a battle - and one prepares for battle and takes time as he can to prepare himself and the troops. It is here that one should be implored to fight the good fight of faith the way it is to be fought - by faith in Truth, who is Jesus Christ. It should be fought with the weapons of God that he has given to his children. Weapons of peace, love, wisdom, edification, and a godly redeeming wrath, and especially the weapons of freedom in the Truth.
Heresy though, what is heresy? We must know our enemy in order to fight it properly. A man might say in his intellectual wisdom that heresy is unorthodox doctrine against the grain of traditional doctrine as espoused and set forth in the creeds of our forefathers. Another might say that heresy is deviance of proper biblical interpretation. Another might go so far as to say that heresy is deviating from a particular Bible translation altogether (example; KJV only). And yet still more another might say that heresy is disagreement with this or that church’s statements of faith, or teachings.
None of these address what heresy is at all. Infact, none of them are heresy. Heresy is ever always and simply this;
“The abuse of God, and Godly things.”
For this then, we are all heretics who fall short of the glory of God. But that being said we should not put ourselves in a position that just because we are sinners ourselves we should not strive to take the beam out of our own eye, so that indeed we can take the spec from our brother’s eye and both of us be free together. But though we are all heretics after our own fashion there are still those who are certainly heretics after the fashion we are discussing, but more often than not the ones we call heretics, are not actually heretics.
There are certainly those who are heretical - like certain televangelists who sell the kingdom of God “Send in a significant seed of one thousand dollars or more, and God will pour out a blessing on your life”. But for the most part the people we call heretics are not so, no more than we ourselves are. Rather they are the ones who question the status quot in an attempt to grow in the faith, to know the truth in The Truth. Martin Luther a hero to many a protestant is such an example of a supposed heretic. The Catholic Church certainly was not fond of such a man as he. Yet who would call him a heretic today amongst the protestants? I would (so far as I am technically a protestant). But for different reasons than you’d expect. Namely that like you and I he too is a heretic. But for heresy we must understand that someone who is seeking the truth and comes to a different, and often times vastly different conclusion than the pat answers of our beloved seminary-raised pastorship; such a person is not actually a heretic. But rather they are the growing generation of movers and shakers in theological thought, which is an ever refining discourse in the understanding and relationship that we as finite human beings subject to futility and error have with our infallible, inerrant, and immutable heavenly Father, through The Truth!
Heresy is the abuse of Godly things, and seeking the truth and having differing doctrinal positions so long as they are in tandem with Truth is not heresy, or heretical. It is only by means of stepping out in faith - even with our doctrinal positions, that we can grow in said faith.
Now, with this in mind it is important to understand a few central pieces of advice concerning heresy and seeking of the truth. There are cases where a vastly different conclusion from a doctrinal position is certainly heretical. Even if it can be “biblically backed” or logically presented. But what makes a thing heresy is that it is abusive to God and Godly things - namely it abuses or diminishes God, and those made in his image in such a way that it becomes incomprehensibly vile. If a doctrinal conclusion is reached that is anti-benevolent, or anti-beneficial to the edification and beautification of God and Man his child; it is heresy and worthy only of the trash heap of Gehenna.
One might say now; “Edification and beautification of Man? Would you commit yourself to the heresy of Humanism?”
To this I would say, I would not. It is not beneficial, beautifying, or edifying for a man to worship himself. Narcissism is destructive, and may God burn it out of a man and redeem him to humility and proper appreciation of God’s work in him as his maker. Self-worship never served to edify anything but the illusion of vanity, which dooms its holder to disappointment and miserable conditions in their quality of life. So while I would not commit myself to Humanism, or the hinted implication that to seek only for the edification and beautification of Man is to ignore his faults (for you cannot edify an edifice if you ignore the cracks in its foundation, or the disrepair of its walls) - I would certainly clarify my position to state that what ever doctrinal conclusion, though vastly different from traditional ideas, must seek ever constantly for the highest benefit and benevolent edification and beautification of that which is right, good, and true in a man, or a man’s beliefs, and especially his relationship with his Father.
Heresy is the abuse of Godly things. But that which is right is true, that which right is good, and so that which is good is therefore true. If a doctrinal position is reached that proves itself to reach for the higher, and more beneficial and benevolent edification and beautification of man and his beliefs - especially his relationship with his divine Father; proving itself to be good, right, and true by that witness! Then it is by no means heresy in the least. As different as it may be from preconceived notions, taught or otherwise for centuries.
Now one might say; “Taught or otherwise for centuries? Now you’ve ventured into heresy! You’re undermining the foundations of the faith by opening it forth for any conflicting doctrine to have its way, “so long as it is good”!”
Another might say; “You’re undermining the authority of the church, and the learned men and women of God. You are opening the way for convictionlessness, faithlessness, and foundationless Christianity. If I knew better I would say you were even saying it were possible for the Church to have had it wrong all along!”
To these I would say, I do none of neither. I stand strong on foundations of faith, for Truth is absolute as God is absolute. The Truth is God…and he shall not be moved by lies, nor usurped by them. This is impossible. But as far as man goes in his fallibility, I would say that man has the ability to grow. We must all grow closer to the Truth, because our relationship with him is one of growth. We are ever more fully learning about him, from him, as we grow closer to him. And so if our relationship with The Truth is like this, even church-wide for we as a Church do not fully know our Lord lest we dare say we are sinless - then we must apply it with our practical growth towards the Truth when it comes to our understanding of the things that are true!
As for opening the way for conflicting doctrine, be not afraid. For if it is good then it is right and if it is right it is true. Things that are good, right, and true do not contradict for that which is right does not contradict that which is right, and neither does good contradict good, nor truth contradict truth. If it is good in truth, it is to be welcomed without harmful resistance. Do not quench the Holy Spirit as he reveals himself, and reveals the fullness of God in our lives. The Holy Spirit reveals the Truth to us, and draws us to him - even as we must grow in our understanding of him in our relationship with him.
As for the Church, it is never wrong on “everything”. So surely the Church would not have it “wrong all along” on “everything”. Yet I will tell you that the Church is not infallible, neither is it inerrant. That is to say - it is capable of error, and for a long time it is capable of expressing that same error. We must recall that there was a reason for the Reformation. Yet I would point you also towards the chosen nation of God, Israel in support of how a whole body of believers is capable of getting something “wrong” for so long. For two thousand years at least the Israelites expected their Messiah to come as a conquering king to rule an earthly kingdom. He came as a carpenter who wouldn’t lift so much as a spoon against their Roman oppressors, and died under Roman nails on a Roman cross, driven to it by Roman whips at the behest of the Jewish religious elite of the day! The learned theologians and tradition-minded men, the pious and orthodox of the time!
“Forgive them Father, they know not what they do.” Indeed they didn’t know, and that’s just the point.
Yet, there were ever those who do know at least enough to be wise - Nicodemus for example.
Jesus was the “heretic” of his time, against the religious caste whose teachings and theology served no more the purpose of edifying and beautifying than The Law made a man righteous. The hypocrites were hypocrites for their heresy in the abuse of God and Godly things - tithing on mint but neglecting justice, keeping a sabbath day of rest only to make it miserably heavy to keep, restless in vain ritual and empty piety.
Yet we know that Christ was no heretic, though he was surely called one by no so many nice words. We know this because what he taught made an impact, and continues to do so; for the edification and beautification of man, his beliefs, and his relationship with God.
Heresy therefore, in another way of putting it; is the dis-edification, and the dis-embeautiment of God, his attributes, and his children.
If it makes God out to be wicked, unloving, divided against himself, or malevolent then it is heresy. If it abuses, mishandles, robs, maliciously harms, or maims God’s children, then it is heresy.
Fight heresy where you find it, so long as it is heresy indeed.
-Matthew Lewis (a.k.a Lefein)
