The Eye of the Beholder

“Heretic” is a strong word.

As an enthusiastic young believer, I used to hurl the epithet around a fair bit, as did several of my equally enthusiastic friends. We were excited about the things we were discovering in the word of God and determined to practice them. Anyone who didn’t agree with our views of scripture obviously had serious spiritual problems. Perhaps they were merely dull or deluded … or maybe they were the dreaded “H” word.

Yeah, we didn’t do nuance much.

Strong Language

I should probably qualify that. “Heretic” is a strong word … in English. Dictionary definitions differ, but we generally use the term to refer to a person who differs in opinion from religious orthodoxy. Some dictionaries use the word “dogma”. There is also a watered down, almost ironic sense in which the word is now used to describe anyone in any field who is a bit of a nonconformist, but when Christians use the word, they are rarely concerned about a few minority opinions at the borders of orthodoxy. They are thinking about men who might be way out there, on the road to starting their own cults. As used in Anglophone theological circles, a heretic is always the bad guy. The only real question is just how evil he is.

In Greek, it’s a different story. In the language of the New Testament, a heresy [hairesis] is a sect or division, and a heretic [hairetikos] is not merely a man with an unusual private opinion but a conscious and calculating division-maker in the church. The latter is a major problem, the former not so much.

Heretic-the-Bad

Let me explain that a little. Theological sects and divisions are very much in the eye of the beholder. Peter speaks of “destructive heresies” that include the denial of Christ himself. Paul puts these sorts of heresies (or divisions, depending on your translation) among the works of the flesh alongside drunkenness and orgies. These are the wrong sorts of spiritual divisions: things that cause church fractures and lead others to fall away from the faith, rather than refuting error and helping others see the meaning of scripture more clearly. As Paul tells Titus, the “heretic” of this sort — the deliberate opponent of unity — “is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned”. After two warnings, he instructs, “have nothing more to do with him”.

Probably there is a bit of an overlap between the heretic of this sort and the type of man Paul mentions in his first letter to Corinth, a man whose persistent conduct requires his removal from the church. The “reviler” is a man with whom Christians are not to associate, “not even to eat with such a one”. Such a man will not be quiet about his opinions, contending with church leaders to the point where there is a danger he will lead others astray.

Heretic-the-Not-So-Bad

On the other hand, being able to make theological distinctions is not necessarily a bad thing unless you insist on making too much of the lesser ones. This is why I say one man’s heretic may be another man’s devout adherent to the mainstream. When Paul testifies, “according to the strictest party [hairesis] of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee”, he is expecting his audience to understand that within Judaism he used to be considered the most orthodox of the orthodox. The Pharisees were old-guard traditionalists. You would not think of them as a sect. Jesus affirmed their spiritual authority, though definitely not their behavior. The Sadducees were the Johnny-come-lately liberals with their heretical disbelief in angels and resurrection. Neither group was right, but then, within the mainstream of first century Judaism, nobody was. Of late there had arisen a new “sect of the Nazarenes”, one of the names given to the Christian faith by its enemies. According to someone somewhere, every possible interpretation and variant of Judaism was a “sect”, “division” or “heresy”.

In another testimony, the apostle refers to “the Way, which they call a sect [hairesis]”. Jews called the Christian faith a heresy, but it was the truth of God. Who then were the real heretics? Again, in writing to the Corinthians, Paul says, “there must be factions [hairesis] among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized”. When the mainstream in a local church has embraced false doctrine and fallen away from the truth of God, the inadvertent division-makers who dissent — the so-called “heretics” — may actually be the good guys.

For this reason, I say that divisions may be very much in the eye of the beholder. The question is where God is in every difference of opinion.

Recognizing the Real Heretic

So then, there are real heretics and fake heretics. The mere accusation of heresy does not make it so. The right kind of “heresy” clings to the word of God, insisting it means what it says. The wrong kind finds ways to explain why it doesn’t. The right kind of heresy is worth contending for, though no opinion is worth reviling for. For the right kind of heretic, division is an accidental by-product of an unrelenting search for truth. For the wrong kind of heretic, division is an end in itself. It gets him followers.

The right kind of heretic, finding himself in the minority in a local congregation, will leave quietly, though he may shake the dust off his feet on his way out. He may even warn the errant leadership, “Your blood be on your own heads!” Still, he’ll move on, leaving the incumbents in place and the congregation wondering what happened. This was Paul’s pattern in the synagogues of the Gentile world. He would preach, teach and seek to persuade others of the truth until it became impossible not to notice that the Jewish majority were unwilling to hear him. Then he would move on to others willing to hear what he had to say.

On the other hand, the wrong kind of heretic is going nowhere. He’s with you until he succeeds in tearing down the existing authority structure of a local congregation and establishing his own views as the new standard of interpretation. This is why it’s necessary to move him along. There’s no chance you’ll ever see the back of him otherwise.