Analysis of Heresy
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 1] |
Intelligent creatures communicate with each other by means of language. Any revelation to man must be given in this fashion if it is to be understood. That which cannot be understood is not a revelation but a mystery. Language is composed of words which may be delivered orally or in writing. The Holy Spirit had to employ words to convey the thoughts of God to the minds of men. To this the sacred writer bears witness. "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit."
A word is a symbol of an idea or thought. It employs a certain combination of sounds or of written characters which are intended, when heard or seen, to convey to the mind of the one whose senses are thus exercised the idea which is in the mind of the speaker or writer. The communication of thought is always a difficult process. To transmit an exact image from one mind to another is not easy. Words come to mean different things to different persons. All of us are creatures of environment and training and our use of language is affected by these factors.
The problem of our understanding is even greater when the message was delivered twenty centuries ago and in a tongue alien to our own. For one thing it is not always easy to find an exact equivalent to a word in another language. We must also realize that words are not static. They alter in meaning with the passage of time. Words are like the persons who use them--they possess both a body and soul. The body of a word is its form as seen or heard. It is composed of sounds or characters as the fleshly body is of muscle and tissue. The soul of a word like the soul of a man is invisible. It is the mental image that is formed when the word is used. The image grows or recedes as the meaning attached to a word expands or contracts through the march of time.
[Page 2] |
The importance of this cannot be too greatly stressed. If we do not know what God meant by what He said we will not have the thoughts of God at all. In such an event the scriptures are not a revelation but an orderly arrangement of words and phrases. The fact is that the sacred volume becomes a revelation to each of us only as we understand what God is saying. Without this we have the form of words but the soul has fled. The Book will then be to us a dead letter for "the body without the spirit is dead."
While this is sad enough there is an even more dangerous aspect which grows out of lack of understanding the message of the Spirit. One may form a wrong concept of a word and do so in all sincerity. If he passes this on to others as the meaning intended by the Spirit he misleads his hearers. This is always regrettable but not always equally serious. None of us has a perfect knowledge of either the mind or language of the Spirit. All of us must constantly amend our thinking as we learn additional things from the word of God. Words are like coins in that they do not all have the same value. We do not like to lose any money but we would rather lose a penny than a dollar. In our teaching we may pass along a thought which does not do justice to a word or actually distorts its meaning and still we may do little harm. But in other instances the word under consideration may be vital to our relationship unto God. A mistaken view of such a word may do a great deal of harm to the whole system of revealed religion. Until such a mistake is corrected it may be impossible to recapture for our generation the idea of God as expressed in his revelation.
It is my intention to discuss such a word in this article. I realize that some are not interested in a study of this nature. They will even quote, "Charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers." There is a difference between studying words to determine their true meaning and disputing about words. It is not our intention to engage in strife or empty argument. We propose to make an unbiased investigation of the language of the Holy Spirit to determine the thought of God on a vital subject. This will not ruin the hearers. It may save the church in our generation from perpetuating an error that has proved to be tragic and destructive.
Justice demands that we say that the readers of this journal who are indifferent about such matters constitute a very small minority. The majority are eager students, anxious for truth and willing to make a sacrifice of time and effort to secure it. The quality of the readership has steadily increased. Bitter partisans have weeded themselves out for it is characteristic of the party spirit that it cannot long endure that which does not conform to the party position. The result has been to provide a select group who constitute a sort of fellowship of the concerned ones and who have a genuine longing to know the will of God. We are grateful for such a forum and realize a deep sense of responsibility toward God and those who read the things we write.
Our present readers represent many facets of religious belief. They belong to various Protestant sects. However, most of them are affiliated with some branch growing out of the Restoration Movement
[Page 3] |
The immediate question before us concerns the meaning of "heresy." I consider this one of the most important studies we have ever made. It is not an exaggeration to say that the hope of answering the prayer of Jesus for the unity of all believers may actually hinge upon our arriving at a correct understanding of the term. Certainly we must receive all whom God receives and reject all whom God rejects. We can only know whom He receives or rejects by what He has revealed. "Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God" (Romans 15:17). Christ does not receive us because we have perfect knowledge or agree with each other on everything. It is distinctly said that he receives us in spite of our differences. "Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth; for God hath received him" (Romans 14:3).
If we are to receive one another on the same basis that Christ receives us we cannot make an opinion a test of fellowship. We must receive each other regardless of opinions held. "As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions" (Rom. 14:1). But are we not told to reject heretics? Indeed we are! "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject" (Titus 3:9). Is not a heretic one who holds an opinion at variance with our views? This is the definition generally given but if it is true we can never reconcile the scriptures. It will be impossible to receive one upon whose opinions we are not to sit in judgment, and at the same time reject him as a heretic for holding certain opinions.
The scripture which tells us to welcome a man regardless of opinion is quite plain. In the context the apostle even gives us examples of how men may differ in opinion and still be received of God. The apparent contradiction must lie in the definition of the word "heretic." What does it take to make one a heretic? On what ground can a man be rejected as such? We regret that any thorough examination of words must be somewhat technical. It is not possible to write upon such a theme in light popular fashion. In our research we shall be as simple and plain as possible. Our purpose is not to confuse but to explain. Yet there has to be in the heart of the reader a desire to learn. We believe that most of our readers are eager to know the truth and that they will study what we write. We trust that what we say will not be boresome nor tiring.
The restoration brotherhood has been splintered and shivered into fragments. There are some two dozen factions now existing. Each of these claims to be the one and only holy, catholic and apostolic church of God upon the earth. All of these have resulted from an attempt to purify the church by withdrawing from "heretics." These brethren are sincere. They all feel that they are contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. It is strange indeed that they have not paused to examine their own thinking. The command to reject heretics was evidently given to keep the church intact, but its attempted enforcement has divided the church into rival parties. That which was given for protection has proven to be destructive beyond description. Surely there is something wrong in our definition of heresy.
What is heresy as it is today regarded by these various "Churches of Christ"? The answer is that it is any view or opinion which differs with the position of the party. A man must either conform in every respect to the partisan thinking or he is branded as a heretic and rejected. Thus "heresy" differs with each party.
[Page 4] |
In one group it is heresy to advocate individual cups, in another it is heresy to contend for one container; in one it is heresy to suggest breaking the loaf before passing it, in another it is heresy to suggest passing it without first breaking it. Depending upon the segment under consideration advocacy of instrumental music, colleges, the pastor system, orphan homes, national television programs, classes, cups, literature, fermented wine, unfermented grape juice, leavened bread, and a host of other things, is regarded as heresy.
The brethren stigmatize each other as sectarians or hobbyists, and reject each other as heretics. In "Church of Christ" usage a sectarian is one who has what we oppose and a hobbyist is one who opposes what we have. If we oppose instrumental music, those who have it are sectarians; if we have Bible classes, those who oppose them are hobbyists. If we oppose a missionary society, those who have one are sectarians; if we have individual cups, those who oppose them are hobbyists. No two parties regard the same people as sectarian and no two regard the same people as hobbyists. Those who are sectarian to the one extreme are hobbyists to the other. Yet each of these two dozen factions is "the only faithful church" in its own sight and its adherents are "the loyal brethren." To this deplorable state have we come by reason of our thinking and the condition will continue to grow worse until our thinking has been changed.
We cannot think that the serious brethren in any of these factions can be satisfied with conditions as they are. It is obvious that no one faction will win the adherents of all other factions to its position. Instead the history of our movement leads us to expect only more division and disunity so long as we continue on our present course. Already the most divided religious movement on the American scene, "The Church of Christ" will eventually become so fractured and fragmented that its shame and disgrace will reflect against it in every community where it is known. What has happened to this great effort which was launched for the express purpose of uniting the Christians in all sects?
Those who compose "The Church of Christ" are not vicious or mean. They are generally good people and sincere in their religious efforts. But they have misunderstood some of the vital teaching of the Spirit and have constructed unwritten creeds which they seek to bind upon others with the dire results we can observe. No greater error afflicts them than their mistaken view of heresy. So long as they retain it they will drive from themselves every independent thinker, impose rigid conformity as the desire of heaven, and continue to splinter and fracture themselves into rival and warring camps. That we may pinpoint the problem created by their grave error we wish to make some statements relative to heresy which can be proved and defended. Startling as some of these statements
[Page 5] |
What is the special implication of these things to the divided disciple brotherhood? It is this. No one is a heretic because he believes instrumental music or missionary societies are justifiable. No one is a heretic because he believes in colleges or orphan homes. No one is a heretic because he believes in the premillennial coming of our Lord. No one is a heretic because he believes in Bible classes, individual cups, or uninspired literature. These things may be right or they may be wrong. We are not dealing with whether they are justified or not. We merely say that one who believes in any of them is not a heretic and his statement of such belief is not heresy. This is not even a consideration of whether he who believes in one or more of these things should be rejected or not. It is a simple declaration that if one is rejected on the basis of such belief it must be upon some other ground than that of heresy.
A man might be guilty of error and indicted on a false charge. In civil courts such a case is thrown out. We are not sitting in judgment now to assess the right or wrong involved in belief of the use of instrumental music or societies nor to determine whether the pre-millennial interpretation is sustained by the sacred scriptures. We merely affirm that those who defend their views of these things are not heretics because of doing so, and to charge them with heresy on that account is to make a false accusation against brethren. Mind you, those who believe in these things may be led into heresy because of them, and those who oppose them may be led into heresy by their opposition. But neither advocating nor opposing them is heresy, therefore no man can be rejected as a heretic on either ground.
It will now be seen that one of the most important tasks confronting the restoration brotherhood is to determine the meaning of heresy. If what we have said thus far proves to be true it is obvious that hundreds of good brethren have been driven forth as heretics who were not such at all. Many divisions have been caused by branding certain things as heresy which were not at all in that class. One of the symptoms of the perilous times to come in the last days is that men will become false accusers (2 Timothy 3:3). Against this crime even the aged women are warned (Titus 2:3). What is not generally recognized is that the word translated accuser is diabolos, and that is the word for Devil. In Revelation 12, where we have a description of the war in heaven it is said, "The great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil." John then heard a loud voice saying in heaven, "Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night."
To falsely accuse our brethren does not
[Page 6] |
The word "heresy" is merely the Anglicized form of the Greek hairesis. Basically it means "choice, option." It is used nine times in the new covenant scriptures. In the King James Version it is rendered "heresy" four times and "sect" five times. It is applied to the Sadducees in Acts 5:17, "Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees), and were filled with indignation." It is applied to the Pharisees in Acts 15:5, "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed Paul declares that "after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee" (Acts 26:5). The Pharisees and Sadducees each constituted a sect or heresy among the Jews. That which made them a heresy was not what they believed or taught, but the fact that each constituted a party or sect.
There is nothing inherently sinful in the word "heresy." A choice or election is not wrong of itself. Originally no bad significance was attached to the term. Jesus did not once during his earthly sojourn condemn the Jews because they were Pharisees, Sadducees, or Essenes. Judaism always provided leeway for varied opinions or interpretations. Instead of condemning what the Pharisees taught, our Lord said, "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, but do not ye after their works: for they say and do not."
It should be remembered that in spite of their differences the various sects of the Jews did not set up rival places of worship. They all worshipped at the same temple, offered the same sacrifices, respected the same priesthood and observed the same ritual. Frequently both Sadducees and Pharisees would be numbered among the priests. There was no apparent attempt to drive each other out of Judaism and all seemed to respect the right of others to differ. Dr. Edersheim in his book "Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ" says: "The course of our investigations has shown that neither Pharisees nor Sadducees were a sect, in the sense of separating from Temple or Synagogue; and also that the Jewish people as such were not divided between Pharisees and Sadducees."
Dr. George Campbell in his "Preliminary Dissertations on the Gospels" says of heresy, "The word was not, in its earliest application, conceived to convey any reproach in it, since it was indifferently used either of a party approved, or of one disapproved, by the writer." Alexander Campbell in "The Christian System" writes thus: "As the word sect or heresy found only in the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles, does always in the former simply mean a party without any regard to its tenets, the term has nothing in it either reproachful or honorable, nothing virtuous or vicious."
If the word had always been translated sect as it should have been there would be less confusion about it in these days. Certainly many who have been charged with heresy would not have been so accused. The inconsistency of the translators is seen in one specific case which should be apparent to all. When representatives of the Sanhedrin went to Caesarea to indict Paul before Antonius Felix in the Praetorium, their case was presented by a lawyer, Tertullus. He charged Paul with being a trouble-maker, a seditionist, and "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5). The word for sect is hairesis In his reply Paul
[Page 7] |
Of this passage, Alexander Campbell says: "It is only once rendered heresy in the Acts, and in that place it ought most obviously to have been sect. Paul had been accused by Tertullus with the crime of being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. Now, in vindicating himself from any censure in this case he ought to have met the charge under the same title. This he did in the original, for in verse 5th, in the indictment, and in verse 14th, in his defense, we have the same word hairesis. How injudicious, then, was it on the part of our translators and the Vulgate to make Tertullus accuse Paul of a sect, and to make Paul defend himself of a heresy, when both Tertullus and Paul used the same word in their speeches as reported by Luke in the original!" We shall not burden the reader with the remainder of Campbell's treatment of this passage as it can be read in full in his book The Christian System.
Heresy is not spoken of in a bad sense in either of the four gospel records or in the book of Acts. It is never spoken of in a good sense in the epistles. Why the difference? The answer is that the church of our Lord is to be "essentially and constitutionally one." It is a community which is to maintain unity. Division is destructive of its nature, detrimental to its purpose and harmful to its functioning. A sect created within it contributes to its weakness and corrupts it. Thus heresy is rebellion against the will of the King. It is treason, for it betrays the divine purpose and encourages rivalry among those who should strive together and not against each other.
Is not all division caused by introducing new doctrine? Does it not all stem from innovation? The answer is in the negative. Many cleavages have been caused by men who without scriptural warrant enact laws where God has made none. Dogmatism is the root of a great deal of our trouble. The demand for conformity in matters of opinion is a fruitful source of heresy. No opinion ever divided a community of saints when held or stated as an opinion. But unwarranted demand that one renounce an opinion and subject himself to tyrannical thought control has shivered and split many congregations.
No opinion constitutes heresy for heresy is the "party spirit" as hairesis is translated in Galatians 5:20 in the Revised Standard Version. A man can be wrong in a matter of doctrine and not have the party spirit; he can be right doctrinally and be guilty of the party spirit. Thus one can be correct in doctrinal matters and be a heretic. A heretic is not one who holds an unorthodox position, but is a factious man. For this reason the Revised Standard Version rendering of Titus 3:10 reads: "As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him." No one is quite so factious as the man who thinks he knows all that can be known and who demands that everyone else give in to his views as the price of peace. Some of the most contentious people I know brand all who differ with them as heretics, while those whom they label as heretics may be mild, gentle and easy to be entreated.
Young's Literal Translation renders Titus 3:10, "A sectarian man after a first and second admonition be rejecting." A sectarian man is one who devises partisan tests and separates from his brethren or drives them out if they do not concur with his views. Any person who makes a test of fellowship out of anything which God has not made a condition of salvation, and who holds himself aloof from his brethren on that basis is a sectarian man. He is a heretic. He regards his party as the church of God on earth and his attitude is divisive and factious. Edgar J. Goodspeed translates the passage: "If a man is inclined to a sect, after warning him once or twice, have nothing to do with him."
I was reared in one segment of the Restoration movement. I was brought up to believe that it constituted the church of Christ on earth and that no one in the
[Page 8] |
If one said he could see no harm in instrumental music, missionary societies, colleges, the pastor system, charitable institutions, etc., we immediately placed him under grave suspicion, and went to work upon him at once to get him to recant his sin. It made no difference if he said that he intended no harm and would not create division. He could not believe such things and remain among us. He had to renounce his false doctrine and "line up with the truth." When one insisted on doing his own thinking and would not bow to our party ultimatums he was accused of heresy, admonished twice, then excluded to be regarded "as a heathen man and a publican."
Having learned the meaning of heresy and having grown in knowledge I now realize that it was my attitude which was factious. I was the real heretic in such cases as I have mentioned. To a great extent this has been true of all of us. We have been brought up in, or brought into, a partisan "fellowship" in which "the brotherhood" consists only of those who conform to our views. We confuse brotherhood with conformity and fellowship with endorsement. Unwittingly, all of us who do this have become heretics. We are motivated by the party spirit and this is heresy. Every faction among us is a miniature sect, a heresy in embryo if not in fact. I have repented of my heretical attitude. I am no longer a defender of any party nor the champion of any faction. In such a state of freedom I am at liberty to love all of my brethren in all of their factions and not be circumscribed in affection by party lines drawn by men.
Actually we are the victims of Roman Catholic propaganda. It was the pope who convinced the world that heresy consisted of "an opinion maintained with obstinacy against the doctrine of the church." It was not until the fifth century that this came to be the accepted meaning of the word. Rome made it so that she might beat, flay, strangle, burn or behead dissenters. Those who were killed by Rome were not heretics. Those who killed them were. We borrowed a page from the book of the mother of all sects, for the sectarian or party spirit is the same in essence wherever it is found.
The church has no doctrine. It has no official teaching. The doctrine of our Lord has been given through the holy apostles and those who are members of His body seek to continue in it. But the church is composed of men and women. They are fallible. They have no infallible interpreter or interpretation. For this reason the members of the body must be tolerant, longsuffering and patient with each other. They must be forbearing toward one another in love. As they read and study the sacred oracles they may arrive at different conclusions. If these are not grave enough to sever them from God they should not be serious enough to separate them from each other. No man who honestly and sincerely believes that God teaches a thing is a heretic. He may be mistaken and suffer from grievous error in reasoning, but he is not a heretic. A heretic is not one who pleads for unity, but one who is factious, contentious and divisive.
Commenting on Titus 3:10, Albert Barnes says of the term heretic, "The true notion of the word is that of one who is a promoter of a sect or party. The man who makes divisions in a church, instead of aiming to promote unity, is the one who is intended. Such a man may form sects and parties on some points of doctrine on which he differs from others, or on some custom, religious rite, or peculiar practice; he may make some unimportant matter a ground of distinction from his
[Page 9] |
There are many among us who are like I once was. They have a zeal but not according to knowledge. In their attempt to keep the church pure they brand all who differ with them as heretics. In doing this they reveal that they are themselves heretical. The concluding statement of Dr. George Campbell in his Dissertation on Heresy should produce serious thought. He says:
"I shall conclude with adding to the observations on the words schism and heresy, that how much soever of a schismatical or heretical spirit, in the apostolic sense of the terms, may have contributed to the formation of the different sects into which the Christian world is at present divided, no person who, in the spirit of candor and charity, adheres to that which, to the best of his judgment is right, though in his opinion he should be mistaken, is in the scriptural sense either schismatic or heretic; and that he, on the contrary, whatever sect he belong to, is more entitled to these odious appellations, who is most apt to throw the imputation upon others. Both terms, for they denote only different degrees of the same bad quality, always indicate a disposition and practice unfriendly to peace, harmony, and love."
This is our own conclusion and is expressive of our personal sentiment arrived at through intensive and painstaking research in the term "heresy" so we adopt the closing statement of Dr. Campbell as the closing statement of our analysis.