You’re A Heretic & So Am I

Zack —  March 28, 2012 — 18 Comments

 

 

As Christians we love our traditions.

It doesn’t matter if the tradition is sacred, like celebrating the Eucharist, or something more earthbound, like the annual 4th of July picnic. Whatever the tradition is that we embrace, we do it with gusto.

One such tradition that we seem to especially enjoy is the tradition of calling each other names.

When we were on the playground, calling each other names was anything but sacred and we had to be careful that our teachers didn’t overhear us, lest we be put in timeout. However, as adults, we’ve somehow convinced ourselves that our childhood shenanigans are in fact a divine calling.

Unlike our childhood, our name calling has become significantly less creative. In fact, we really just call each other the same thing over and over again.

Heretic.

Never mind the fact that heresy requires one, set agreed upon list of beliefs, which is difficult to come by when there are more than 10,000 different denominations. If somebody disagrees with us, then in our book, they’re a heretic.

But there’s a great irony in our name calling.

The truth of the matter is….we’re all heretics.

All of us.

A heretic is “a dissenter from established religious dogma” or “one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine.” Not quite as scary of a definition as you might have thought. There’s no mention of “a wolf among the sheep” or “the instrument of Satan.” However, if Webster’s dictionary is right, then all of us heretics.

The reason we have thousands of denominations today is simple. People don’t always agree, even good Christian people. When you couple that disagreement with an understanding of freedom that equates that ideal with “I have the right to do whatever I please”, then those “dissenters” will inevitably break away from the “established religion” or church or denomination or whatever to go off and start their own thing.

This breaking away is, of course, seen most clearly in the Reformation. Regardless of what you think of Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any of the other reformers, the Protestant Reformation was, by definition, an act of heresy in that men and women dissented from the established religious dogma and then broke away from Rome. Therefore, all of us who followed in their path by choosing Protestantism over Catholicism or Orthodoxy are heretics.

But, our Roman Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters shouldn’t get too comfortable. They’re heretics too.

In 1054, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church became 2 holy, catholic, and apostolic churches when the Eastern church broke away from the Western Church (Rome) over several issues, most prominently the inclusion of the “filioque” to the Nicene Creed. While our Orthodox brothers and sisters would probably argue (and perhaps rightfully so) that Rome broke away from them by adding something to the faith, since the issue of papal authority was also one of their sticking points, and for the sake of argument, we’ll say that the East broke away from the West. In that case, our Orthodox brothers and sisters are, by definition, heretics.

But again, our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters aren’t out of the heretical woods either.

Sure, they can trace their history all the way back to Peter who was, depending on your theological perspective/particular Biblical interpretation, chosen by Jesus to lead the Church. However, and this may come as a shock to your system if you’re Roman Catholic, that doesn’t excuse Rome from heresy.

You see, when the Christian faith began it wasn’t a separate faith from Judaism. For the first followers of Jesus, and no doubt for Jesus himself, Christianity (or more precisely “the Way”) was the fulfillment of God’s promises to the people of Israel. Jesus was a Jew. His disciples were (mostly) Jews. Christianity, in its infancy, was simply a branch of Judaism which believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah.

Of course, we all know from history that this marriage didn’t last long. After the first Christians had been expelled from their synagogues one too many times for being “dissenters of the established (Jewish) religious dogma,” they eventually broke away to form what we now call the Church.

Which means, therefore, that every single person who has every worn the mantle of “Christian” is, by definition, a heretic.

So what does all of this mean?

For starters, it means that if someone ever calls you a heretic, you can look them in the eye with confidence and say, “You’re right, I am a heretic. And so are you.”

More importantly, this brief history lesson should remind us that in our zeal to “defend the faith” we should remember that the faith is not always as black and white as we may have come to believe. Furthermore, we should remember that the Christian faith is full of disagreement. It’s full of people who were at first labeled heretics, but who, over time, came to be regarded as great heroes of the faith.

Without the great “heretic” Martin Luther, your Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, or in my case Nazarene church wouldn’t exist. Even for Roman Catholics, Martin Luther ultimately played a positive role. He spurred the church in Rome to undergo much needed reforms.

Granted, not all heretics turn out to be heroes and not all reformations are necessary. But when people come along preaching or teaching things we may happen to disagree with, we should think long and hard before we start name calling. They could very well be leading the church away, but like so many before them, they could be reminding us all what it really means to be the people of God.

So, the next time you get ready to label somebody a heretic, remember: you’re a heretic too.

 

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

Zack

Posts

  • http://twitter.com/bmk BrianK

    Thank you for this. I was just trying to enunciate something along these lines earlier today.

  • Dale

    There is some cleaning up to do with this … number one Rome and Orthodox usually consider each other Schismatics not heretics (at the extreme they may go to claiming the other is heterodox). As far as Judaism goes … large group of influential rabbis at the counsel of Jamnia in 90AD redefined themselves around Rabbinic Synagogue Judaism thus separating themselves from Temple Judaism which included Christians. The question then is who left who in the beginning of the Jewish Christian separation (it seems to be the Hillel Jews)? And it was more probable that those Hillel Jews considered the Jewish Christians as Apostates not heretics and the Gentiles as… well Gentiles (you can’t get much worse than that).

    By the way this I am afraid is a very “American” way of dealing with Christianity. You can’t break away from the established Catholic/Orthodox Church with heretical teachings and then say oh but everyone is doing it so I am okay. America is the seedbed of sectarian Christianity. It makes sectarians feel good about themselves when they can judge everyone as heretics because then they don’t have to deal with their theology. I generally am sympathetic to your blogs but this one is just sloppy, I can’t even sentimentally agree with it. Especially because you criticize identifying Jesus with America and yet this is quintessential American Christianity at its worse.

    • Zack

      Dale,

      I appreciate your feedback, but you have missed my point. I am by no means affirming schism or sectarianism in the church. Neither am I supporting some notion of “everyone is doing it so I am okay.” This post was written to address the self-assumed authority taken by those who go about calling people who disagree with them “heretics”. That authority is grounded in the belief that there is one set list of agreed upon doctrines or “essentials” in the church. Tracing the history of dissidents in the church was intended to demonstrate that this is a false assumption. Therefore, the point I was making, as I said in the end, was that we should be careful about labeling people “heretics” so quickly and easily.

      Additionally, I would have to disagree with your historical assessment. I am well aware of the Great Schism, which is why I referenced it (1054). However, Constantinople dissented from the established authority in Rome over both the filioque as well as papal authority (among other issues). Therefore, by definition the word “heretic” is technically correct regardless of how either side chooses to frame the narrative. The “Council of Jamnia” is a disputed hypothesis, not a historical fact. If anything it was a school, not a council that made authoritative decisions. Regardless, Second Temple Judaism didn’t exist in 90AD as the Temple had been destroyed by the Romans in 70AD. Additionally, the first Christians were kicked out of synagogues (in large part) for their insistence that Jesus, a man, was also the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. For Jews, that was and is both heresy and blasphemy. Which would have made Jewish Christians heretics. Although, I would agree that for 1st century Jews there was not much worse than a Gentile.

      • Karen

        Zack, what then do you do with the acceptance (upheld by Eastern Orthodox even to this day) of the decisions of what are known as the “7 Ecumenical Councils” of the “Orthodox and Catholic Apostolic Church of the first millennium as the standard of orthodox dogma? Your doubt of such stability in any part of christendom notwithstanding–this is just historic fact. In their own context, those were historically hashed out and accepted by every single regional church (all of the historic “Patriarchiates” of Christendom, including Rome, defined as “orthodox” by such councils).

        Also, it was the Roman Pope that initiated the Great Schism in 1054 by sending his representative to slap the papal bull of excommunication against the Bishop of Constantinople on the altar in the Church of Holy Wisdom in Constantinople. The Bishop of Constantinople merely returned the favor! :-) So, obviously, your opinion is historically inaccurate in this respect (if formal Bishop-initiated actions are to be deemed the “cause” of such official schism.)

        On the other hand, I have read that one formally defined as a “heretic” in EO terms refers only to the initiators of what is officially deemed heresy (after due examination and process), not to those who innocently and in good faith inherit the “heretical” tradition. Those are more properly deemed “heterodox,” which is not pejorative–just a descriptor.

        • Karen

          Sorry, that should read . . . “Orthodox and Catholic Apostolic Church” . . .

          If you said “all Christians hold heretical beliefs in the eyes of some other groups of Christians” that might be more plausible, but like Andrew points out below, you still don’t get to the root of the issue of the promised gift through the Holy Spirit of discernment of the truth from falsehood promised by Jesus to the Church, and which was the basis for all the “Ecumenical Councils” of the Church held to discern and articulate such truth in the face of various heresies that cropped up during the first several hundred years following the birth of the Church, and how that fits in to a truly Christian (vs. an “objective” dictionary/secular) definition of “heretic.”

      • Michael

        >>>This post was written to address the self-assumed authority taken by those who go about calling people who disagree with them “heretics”.

        Fair enough. However, removing any possibility of an existing, *real and legitimate* authority for what is or isn’t Christian teaching probably isn’t going to solve this one.

        …because:

        >>> That authority is grounded in the belief that there is one set list of agreed upon doctrines or “essentials” in the church.

        Well, no – that “authority” is grounded either on pride or on genuine authority (in which case it should be, and to be fair, normally is, used extremely carefully and rarely).

        Here is the list:

        http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

        …but just because it exists doesn’t mean that we should all go round accusing each other.

        Probably a more likely root problem is the *lack* of a clear and legitimate authority…?

        A more detailed response is here:

        http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/03/are-we-all-heretics-a-reply-to-zack-hunt/

        It’s great that you are looking into Church history but try a reliable source like http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kleine-Kirchengeschichte-August-Franzen/dp/3451299992

    • Karen

      Dale, I’m by no means an expert here, but here’s an article from an informed Eastern Orthodox position on the Great Schism: http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/church_history/michael_theschism.htm

      The authority gradually assumed or attempted by Rome over the rest of the Church was never accepted as a primacy of authority in the East, but only as a primacy of honor, with every bishop carrying equal authority in the Church, i.e, in the NT Jesus conferred the authority of “binding and loosing” (the keys of the Kingdom) not only on Peter, but on all of the Apostles. With those caveats, EO would have many of the same objections to Zack’s reasoning here as Andrew Preslar cogently outlines in the post linked below at his site. What Zack erroneously dubs “heretical” on the part of EO dissent from increasing claims from the Pope in Rome of primacy of authority, unilateral addition of the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed, etc., were rooted in the Scriptures and up until the 5th century, the consensus of the whole Church (which the above article makes more clear), and it is notable that formal acceptance of the Spanish addition of the filioque was resisted even by the Pope up until the 9th century!

      Sorry, but I do have to agree this post represents some sloppy thinking on Zack’s part.

  • http://www.calledtocommunion.com Andrew Preslar

    Hello Zack. I came across your post by way of a friend who linked to it on facebook. I wrote a brief reply here:

    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/03/are-we-all-heretics-a-reply-to-zack-hunt/

    I also read your reply to Dale, and am interested to know how you distinguish between those with “self-assumed” authority and those with actual authority in the Church.

    Please feel free to respond to my post at Called to Communion, but don’t feel obligated. I just wanted, in courtesy, to let you know that I had replied to your thought-provoking (and provocative!) post. It touches on some themes and raises some issues that we have recently explored at CTC.

  • http://www.catholicfiction.gadel.info GADEL

    We are all NEVER heretics or schismatics. Your analysis is faulty to the core.

  • Shawn

    Ya see Zack, this is exactly what I was talking about the other day. This type of stuff is what sets you apart from the others. & look at the responses… Love a thoughtful debate! You wont find that on that pukes Christian Nightmare site. Keep up the good work!

  • R.C.

    Zack:

    Your piece is well-intended, I know.

    But it won’t do. Christianity as a religion forbids us to hold that truth is purely relative. There is an objective truth, and while our capacity to learn what it is is limited and fallible, still, we’d better grab hold of as much of it as we can, because it’s the Truth that sets us free.

    Of course I acknowledge that Christian persons are sometimes in error about what that truth is. But I think it’s playing fast and loose with definitions to say that that makes us all heretics. For even when error exists, sometimes that error involves guilt, and other times it does not.

    Sin, to be sin, must involve a wrong choice of the will. For a person to be guilty of the sin of heresy he must choose to embrace what is erroneous for guilty reasons (e.g. because it was easier than embracing the truth).

    If a man is in error through no fault of his own, then he holds a heretical opinion but he is not a (willful) heretic.

    You see, I fear that accepting too quickly the notion that “we’re all heretics now” allows us to take a cavalier attitude to truth and our moral responsibility to seek it. But we cannot take that responsibility lightly except in danger to our souls.

    Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The truth is a Person. The better we know Him, the more of it He will show us. And the more we cling to it no matter where it leads us, the more we find ourselves clinging to Him no matter what He demands of us.

    And, “from he to whom much is given, much is expected.” A person with your kind of analytical mind is held to a higher level of responsibility than a person who hasn’t the education, patience, and compulsive honesty that you do.

    These are all good things, but they mean that if you hold an erroneous opinion, you are less-fully excused than, say, your not-quite-literate great-grandfather who, besides an incomplete education, couldn’t easily obtain fifteen translations of the Scriptures and three of the Apostolic Church Fathers for free on the Internet.

    So a more edifying (but less innovative, and thus less exciting and popular) approach to the topic is to say: Let us be gracious with one another, receiving the accusation of heresy with humility if it comes, and accusing no other man of that sin even if we question and respectfully dissent from his opinions.

    And, in the meantime, let us adopt an objective and practical approach which will enable us, so far as we are able and no less than we are able, to learn the truth about these matters.

    Yes. Let us learn for ourselves — with complete openness to what God in His grace will show us — what the ecclesiology of the Apostles and their immediate successors actually was.

    If it should happen that we can locate a church which allows us to view Isaiah 22, Daniel 2, Matthew 16 and 16 and 28, John 17 and 21, Acts 1, and the rest of the relevant passages in a way which stands in union with the interpretations given by those men whom the Apostles themselves appointed to lead the Church after them (I have in mind the Didache, the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, the Apologies of Justin Martyr, Adversus Haereses of Irenaeus, and the like)…if that should happen, and if it leads us out of our comfort zone to an unfamiliar communion, what of it?

    Will we not follow Him wherever He leads?

    And of course even then we may one day stand before God and find that we were mistaken.

    But we should at least be innocently mistaken. We might have mistakenly believed heresy, perhaps; but we would not have culpably believed heresy.

    That could be the difference between no crowns and many; it could even be the difference between damnation and salvation; at the very least it matters. And we have reason to hope for success: “They will find Me, when they seek me with all their heart.” Should we happen to be innocently mistaken in the end, it’s on His lap, not ours.

  • Zack

    I genuinely appreciate all of your feedback and rebuttals. However, the additional historical information you all have provided doesn’t change the fact that in the moments I described in the post we witness people and/groups of people who “dissent from established religious dogma.” You are more than welcome to call it whatever you like, however Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines that as a heretic. So it’s not “sloppy”. It’s actually quite simple.

    I think were we diverge is that I’m not equating being a heretic with sin or evil. Certainly there have been ‘heretics’ in the past who have been ‘evil.’ The point of this post, however, was deconstruct and demythologize that word a bit, while calling attention to the fact that the history of the faith is not divided nice and neat between the “good guys” on one side and the “bad guys” on the other as we would like to believe.

    You are all, of course, free to disagree with me and I welcome that. But our disagreement is not over historical facts; it’s over historical interpretation.

    • Karen

      Wow, R.C.! Thanks! Beautifully said.

  • Karen

    I guess, Zach, my challenge to you and all Christians is to recognize that the philosophical mindset underlying accepting a modern “dictionary definition” as normative for something requiring a specifically biblical and Christian discernment of the mind of Christ are not necessarily the same thing. What is important to me as a Christian is how Christ defines “heretic” and I think the more historically Churchly thinking about this is just more on the mark (and will ultimately bear better spiritual fruit). I can’t really top R.C.’s comment.

  • Shawn

    “But our disagreement is not over historical facts; it’s over historical interpretation.”,,, THAT is the problem with this country. To many people wanting to interpret documents instead of following what they say. Is God’s words open to interpretation? & further more, is this interpretation divine from the get go. After all, we are talking about God! I know, I know, I am opening a can of worms… You opened it first Zack.

  • Andy Forsythe

    If persons viewed those who were obstinate in heresy as evil, they had a misunderstanding of Catholic moral teaching. Evil is an objective thing whereas sin is a subjective thing relegated to a person’s freely willed decisions regarding grave (serious) matters that they have full knowledge of.

    The historical arguments above are not exhaustive of the fullness of what heresy is and I do not wish to embark upon any discourse that would warrant pages of rabbit trails and tangential arguments. I will say this, Hillaire Belloc (The Great Heresies) asserts that the source of all heresy is a denial of the unity of the Holy Trinity and by its nature is a device that seeks to destroy this unity because it denies the unity of the Church. The Church is One as in the Credal statements because it receives its unity from the Trinity.

    Heresy is a grasping of a particular truth without regard to the fullness of the matter. It is a partial truth when we speak of it in this way. I offer these definitions as explanatory. The official teaching of the Catholic Church about these matters is as follows:

    “Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (CCC 2089).

    When we Catholics speak of heretics in proper fashion, then we are talking of two different categories: Formal Heresy and Material Heresy. Formal heresy is heresy that has been reviewed, investigated, and found to be in error. (For instance, a review of a book written may be 99% accurate in matters of Faith and Morals with one heretical sentence and this may be asked to be restated and if the author refuses, then he will be questioned further to make sure he is simply misunderstanding and if it is clear he understands and has no wish to clarify the line or to alter it according the deposit of the Faith, then the line in the text will be condemned as formal heresy, thus making its author a formal heretic. This takes a LONG time.

    Material heresy happens all the time. Many Christians cannot speak accurately of the Trinity and fall down the slippery slopes in their analogies. They have no intention of heresy and thus the heresy is seen as misunderstanding or words misspoken. Fraternal correction in charity is typically all that is necessary for this kind of heresy.

    I have a question regarding your position that everybody was at odds (heretics) with (Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Scientology, Spaghetti Monsters) at one point in their history: In the story of the Prodigal Son, at what point was the son who remained at home not in unity with his Father and a formal heretic?

  • Karen

    For those who are interested in some Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic differences, there is a beginning summary here (from the EO perspective):

    http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxyheterodoxy/orthodox_and_roman_catholic_differences

  • Pingback: Weekend Links, Tuesday Edition – 4/10/12 « And That, Virginia, is Called Grace