Who Is A Heretic?

By Leroy Garrett

[Page 34]

     The roll call of heretics in the history of thought is more honorific than it is infamous. The prophets who once were stoned as heretics lie buried in tombs that are garnished by later generations. The scientists who were once silenced and excommunicated for their heterodoxy are today among the heroes admired by every schoolboy who studies the history of nations. The philosophers who were once exiled and poisoned as schismatics are now among the respected names in the annals of thought.

     Jeremiah, in his own generation, was a laughingstock, held in derision by his own people. But those same people, generations afterward, were ready to identify him with their Messiah (Matt. 16:14). The star-gazing Galileo was excluded as a heretic by the Roman Catholic Church of the sixteenth century. After all, he dared to challenge some of the conclusions of Aristotle (who incidentally was a heretic in his time) and to support the views of Copernicus, and so, even though almost blind, he was twice brought before the Inquisition. But the same Roman Catholic Church today extols the name of Galileo, granting scholarships to their universities in his honor.

     The heresy of Galileo gave to the world the principle of the pendulum, the law of gravity, the truth about the rotation of the earth around the sun, the telescope, mountains on our moon, Saturn's rings; he formulated the laws of motion and principles for the improvement of simple machines, and (in view of our present concern for outer space) he discovered the parabolic trajectory of a missile. This heretic has had more influence upon the direction and nature of modern developments in the applied sciences than any other man. Where would we be had it not been for our heretics?

     And so with the philosophers: Socrates was poisoned, Aristotle exiled, Spinoza excommunicated, Bruno burned alive. Their heresy was that they dared to think for themselves. History teaches us that cultures have rewarded nonconformity with reprisal; it has always been a sin to be different!

     It is often the case that the heretic (so called) is really a good man, while his accusers are the actual heretics. One can see the plight of the supposed heretic in Plato's description of the lover of truth (the truthseeker) in his allegory of the cave. Men are chained within the cave. Their backs are turned to what little light there is and they cannot move their heads. The men have never seen each other. They have not even seen themselves. Their only idea of reality is what appears before them on the wall of the cave in the form of shadows. All they know about themselves and each other, or horses and

[Page 34]

ladders, are the shadows that dance on the wall before them.

     One of the prisoners in the cave works himself free of his chains and gradually works his way out of the cave, which Plato describes as rugged and dangerous. His desire for freedom drives him out of the cave and toward the light of the sun. Though the way is difficult he has the courage to ascend. The courage to ascend! This is so often a fitting description of those branded as heretics.

     Once the prisoner is out of the cave and into the light, he must struggle to adjust himself to his new environment. Less courageous men will choose to turn back and avoid the dangers of the cave's ascent and the discomforts of being different. Once in the light he must grope for a place to stand--and he may have to stand alone.

     Plato points out that the freedman's first experience is to view himself in a pond. To see ourselves as others see us, to see ourselves as we really are! This is one's first installment toward liberation and perhaps the most painful of all. Most people will remain shackled within the cave of self-deception rather than examine themselves. What is more painful than for one to face up to his own littleness? It is unpleasant for a man to realize that he is ignorant. But once man is able to see his real self, he is able to view all of life from a different perspective, and so he comes to understand. He now has some sense of reality and the world of understanding is so different from the darkness of the cave. Whereas he saw but shadows now he sees things as they really are. Back in the cave where his world was small and his soul shriveled he was concerned with the trivial and the mediocre, but now he is concerned with "the things that matter most."

     But Plato's allegory is only half told. The truthseeker who has ascended also has the courage to descend back into the cave--back to those who need him most. Once he is back in the cave, Plato explains that again he must adjust himself to the change. The free man must not grow impatient with those yet enslaved. He must learn to sit and wait with those who are yet in darkness. Education is a slow process. Men need time to grow. As Luther put it, "Give men time!"

     The tragedy in Plato's allegory is the tragedy so often present in the "struggle for truth" drama. Those in chains preferred their slavery to freedom; yea, they could not even be convinced that they were other than free. Had they not been seeing themselves, and ladders and horses, on the cave's wall these many years? How dare this troublemaker who has "gone off and got educated" tell us that we are ignorant and enslaved? The freedman has trouble understanding why his friends will not accept what is now so obvious to him. They in turn cannot understand what has gotten into this brother who once sat so contentedly in their midst. Finally, those in darkness turn against the lover of truth and threaten his life. To them he is a heretic!

     The hero of Plato's allegory is the heretic Socrates, who was put to death by the Athenians because of his impiety. Socrates ascended from the cave of ignorance and then returned to share the light that he had found. He was poisoned because he was not understood. He was actually their best friend, as heretics so often are, but they did not know it. He was a victim of the tragedy of wilful ignorance. Such is the experience of heretics.

     There are heretics of a different sort- heretics that appear to remain heretics--who are not vindicated by history. After all, there was Mani of the Manichaeans, who claimed that he was the Paraclete sent by Jesus, and who drew away many disciples after himself. There was Cerinthus and the Gnostics, who denied the incarnation and succeeded in forming a party around the viewpoint--and attractive it was to the mind of that time--that the Christ was not tainted with sinful flesh.

     There was Marcion, who sought to solve the problem of Judaism in the church by having two Gods, one being the evil God of the Jews and the Old Testament, the other being the Father of the Christ. He attracted a large following. To the mem-

[Page 35]

bers of his churches all sexual union was forbidden, which, we may presume, made him all the more of a heretic! Then, of course, we have the Judaizing party in the New Testament, which insisted that conformity to the law of Moses, especially circumcision, was essential to salvation, a faction that continued to cause grave difficulties in the history of the early church.

     So we have heretics, and we have heretics, which takes us back to where we first began. What is a heretic?

     This is the understanding that most of our brethren have regarding heresy. A case in point is a recent treatment of the subject in the Temple City Christian (California), by Cecil N. Wright, who says, "Heresy is not confined to division, but embraces false doctrine as well..." Brother Wright bases his remarks upon 2 Peter 2:1, which we shall consider later, and then he says, "Heresy in this passage clearly refers to false teaching. It would still be heresy if every congregation where it is taught accepted it and no divisions were produced. By the same token, the teachers of heresy would be heretics, and would be such even if everybody where they go accepted their teaching and no congregations were divided."

     According to Brother Wright, it is false teaching that is the necessary ingredient of heresy, for even if there be no faction or party formed, heresy exists if false teaching exists, according to him. This is the typical "Church of Christ" position. Premillennialism is a heresy because it is false, irrespective of any divisive nature it may have; the use of instrumental music in worship is heretical because it is wrong. The doctrine of Roman Catholicism, Methodism, Calvinism, Baptistism, are all heresies, according to this common interpretation. While it is true that in the popular mind faction or division is usually associated with the term, it is error that makes heresy to be heresy.

     We insist that this understanding of heresy is wrong. We affirm that there is no place in the New Testament where heretic or heresy appears in connection with either preaching or teaching. In the New Testament scriptures no one ever preaches a heresy or teaches a heresy. There is no necessary relation between heresy and doctrine, whether the doctrine be sound or unsound. Heresy is not wrong opinion or false teaching. We affirm that heresy can exist today and did exist in the primitive church quite apart from any erroneous opinions or false teaching.

     Let us call to witness one of history's most notable Biblical scholars, Dr. George Campbell of Aberdeen. One notices when he turns to Thayer's Lexicon for a definition of "heresy" that Thayer refers to the Preliminary Dissertations of George Campbell, to the very essay from which I now quote.

     Neither here (referring to 2 Peter 2:1) nor anywhere else in Scripture, I may safely add, nor in any of the writings of the first two centuries, do we ever find the word hairesis, construed with didasko, kerusso, or any word of like import; or an opinion, true or false, denominated hairesis.

     As far down indeed as the fifth century, and even lower, error alone, however gross, was not considered as sufficient to warrant the charge of heresy. Malignity or perverseness of disposition was held essential to this crime.

     To those of us who would suppose a

[Page 36]

man to be a heretic because of the wrong opinions he holds or false views he teaches, Dr. Campbell says: "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."

     We conclude with George Campbell that mistaken interpretations of Scripture are not heretical. A man is not a heretic because he believes in or teaches the existence of purgatory, infant baptism, or total hereditary depravity. It is something else that makes one a heretic, irrespective of whether his teachings or beliefs are true or false.

     Let us hear from another scholarly witness as to what heresy is not. Alexander Campbell writes as follows in the Christian System:

     In its scriptural application, whether used by Luke, Paul, or Peter, (and it is found in no other writer) it never relates to doctrine, tenet, opinion, or faith. There is not, in sacred usage, any tenet, or doctrine, which is called heresy or sect. Hence that ecclesiastical definition, viz., "Heresy denotes some erroneous opinion, tenet, or doctrine obstinately persisted in" is without any countenance from the New Testament. Heresy and heretical, in the lips of Paul and Peter, and in the lips of an ancient or modern schoolman or churchman, are two very different things.

     In the New Testament it first of all means "party or sect," still with no derogatory implication: "the party of the Sadducees" (Acts 5:17); "the party of the Pharisees" (Acts 15:5); "the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5).

     The last reference might appear to be used in reproach, for Tertullus is making accusations against Paul to a Roman official when he refers to "the sect of the Nazarenes." This is strengthened by Paul's reference to the accusation in verse 14: "But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers."

     Close examination of the context will reveal, I think, that Paul is making no objection to the use of hairesis on the part of Tertullus, but rather to the charge that he is a renegade from Judaism. The Jewish lawyer had said, "We have found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple, but we seized him."

     Tertullus is accusing Paul of being a troublemaker and a seditionist within Judaism, which was officially sanctioned by the Romans. If the lawyer could have made Felix believe that Paul was a renegade to the Jewish religion, an insurrectionist to the nation, it would have placed the apostle in a bad light. Paul's response is an argument to the effect that he is loyal to Jewish religion: "I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the law or written in the prophets." He is really saying, "I am loyal to the party of Judaism and do not have a party of my own."

     This is consistent with his claim before King Agrippa in Acts 26:5, "According to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee." Here Paul uses hairesis honorifically. He was pleased to identify himself with a sect, the sect of the

[Page 37]

Pharisees. There is no reason to suppose that the apostle would have objected to the expression "sect of the Nazarenes" if there were no implication that it was inimical to either Judaism or the Roman Empire. We must not forget that Paul considered himself a loyal and orthodox Jew until his dying day. Christianity was the culmination of Judaism and the Christ was its very purpose. He therefore rejected the charge that Christianity was a disparate party within Judaism.

     Paul would probably have had no objection to the statement that he belonged to a sect or party if it were sheared of any charge of insurrection or sedition, for he was not an agitator or a renegade. In Acts 28:22 we have a neutral application of hairesis to Paul's religion, to which he would not likely offer any objection, "We desire to hear from you what your views are: for with regard to this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against."

     Thus far we have no use of hairesis that suggests it has anything to do with opinion or doctrine, whether true or false. It simply means sect or party, whether good, bad, or indifferent. But how about the four other uses of this term in the epistles? Is not heresy in these instances in reference to something bad and reproachful? Yes, in all four cases. And yet the basic concept of the term does not change. It still means sect or party, the difference being that in Judaism it was proper that there be various parties, while in the ekklesia of Christ the imperative was to "give diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." The church has parts but not parties. In the life of the ekklesia a heresy still had no connection with opinion or doctrine--not necessarily, at least.

     In 1 Corinthians 11:19, "There must be factions (hairesis) among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." The context here indicates that at the love feasts in the Corinthian congregation there were those who formed cliques, separating themselves so that they might eat together in their own party, ignoring the "genuine" saints, meaning those who were prompted by love to assemble with others. Many of those who came to the Agape were slaves, while others were wealthy. Some of the wealthy chose to get together among themselves, shunning the others, thus "despising the church of God and humiliating those who have nothing." This is the party spirit, a sect or heresy, within the body of Christ.

     This case reveals that heresies can exist within a congregation that is still organically united. The case at Corinth is further described in 1 Corinthians 1, where we find some claiming to be of Paul, others of Apollos, others of Cephas, others of Christ. This indicates a factious spirit rather than an open break. You can thus have heresies among people who happen in their ugly spirit to maintain organic oneness.

     In Galatians 5:20 the apostle lists heresy within the catalogue of works of the flesh. William Barclay in his Daily Study Bible Series on Galatians, describes this use of heresy as meaning "crystallized dissension." After showing that parties usually form between people sharing a common belief, Mr. Barclay makes a statement that should certainly be heeded by our people. He says, "The tragedy of life is that people who hold different views very often finish up by disliking, not each others' views, but each other. It should be possible to differ with a man and yet remain friends."

James Macknight in his Apostolical Epistles translates hairesis in Galatians 5:20 as "the forming of sects in religion." Thayer defines it as "dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims." To quote Barclay again, this time from his Flesh and Spirit: "It is the breaking up of the unity of the church into cliques who shut their circle to all but their own number." The New English Bible renders it "party intrigues." J. B. Phillips and Edgar Goodspeed give it as "party spirit." Campbell's Living Oracles translates it "sects."

     In 2 Peter 2:1 we have the one passage that looks as if heresy is false doctrine. "False prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the

[Page 38]

Master who bought them, bringing upon it themselves swift destruction." One need not conclude that the heresy mentioned here consisted of denying the Master, for it is the teachers that deny the Lord, not the heresy. The phrase "even denying the Master" modifies "false teachers" and not heresies. In the Greek, "denying" is masculine, agreeing with "teachers" and not feminine, agreeing with heresies.

     Dr. George Campbell, in the Essay referred to above, discusses 2 Peter 2:1 at length, insisting that the idea of false teaching is not in the least implied in the word "heresy" in this passage. He points out that Peter is showing that these teachers were guilty of two separate and distinct evils: one is the forming of sects or parties, the other is the teaching of destructive principles.

     Perhaps the comments of Albert Barnes on 2 Peter 2:1 are the most useful. "The idea of sect or party is that which is conveyed by this word rather than doctrinal errors, but it is evident that in this case the formation of the sect or party, as is the fact in most cases, would be founded on error or doctrine...The idea then is that these false teachers would form sects or parties in the church, of a destructive or ruinous nature, founded on a denial of the Lord that bought them."

     In this case we see that a heresy might well result from false teaching, and of course it often does, and yet not of itself be false teaching. There is no indication that the party spirit at Corinth was caused by any doctrinal dispute.

     To quote Barclay again, "A heretic is simply a man who has decided he is right and everybody else is wrong." Again he says, "There is all the difference in the world between believing that we are right and believing that everyone else is wrong. Unshakable conviction is a Christian virtue; unyielding intolerance is a sin...Christianity was not meant to divide men but to unite them..."

     Macknight sees the heretic, not as one who errs in judgment (otherwise he would not be self-condemned), but as one who has "an error of the will." Alexander Campbell sees a heretic to be both a sectarian and a factionist, but he distinguishes between these terms. Every factionist is a sectarian, he points out, but not every sectarian is a factionist. Like George Campbell, he makes a difference between the leader of a faction and those who are innocently involved. "There are many sectarians who, in the simplicity of their hearts, imagine their party to be the true and only church of Christ, and therefore conscientiously adhere to it." Such ones are sectarians but not factionists.

     It looks as if the heretic of Titus 3:10 is very similar to the false teacher of 2 Peter 2:1. May I suggest that it is not the teaching that makes one a false teacher, a term that appears but once in the New Testament scriptures. One may misinterpret some scripture (and who among us does not?) and teach the misinterpretation. The teaching may be dead wrong, false and even injurious, and yet the individual would not be a pseudodiaskalos. Who can believe that all of us who err in our understanding of the Bible and thus teach something wrong are consequently false teachers?

     On the other hand one may teach nothing that is grossly wrong--all of his interpretations may be simon-pure!- and yet he may be a false teacher. The pseudodiaskalos is like the heretic. He is conniving, underhanded, insincere, insidious, factious, eager to form a party around himself, willing to disrupt the peace of a congregation in order to have his way. He is vicious and surreptitious; he will do any lowdown thing in order to lead disciples astray and make them into a sect for his own selfish ends. This is the man

[Page 39]

who is to be rejected from the fellowship of the congregation.

     But we are not warranted in applying such derogatory terms as heretic and false teacher to brethren who happen to differ with us in Biblical interpretation. The false teacher is a sinister character. His heart is evil and his motives are impure. He is the "fierce wolf that enters in, not sparing the flock," as described by the apostle in Acts 20. He is the "insubordinate man, empty talker, and deceiver" against whom Paul warns in Titus 1. Now, really, can we apply this description to the many well-meaning people who teach the Bible other than the way we do?

     In 1 Corinthians 11:18, schisma is used almost synonymously with hairesis. "When you assemble as a church I hear that there are divisions (schismata) among you; and I partly believe it." Then in verse 19: "For there must be factions (haireseis) among you..." Here the difference seems to be only in degree. If a schisma is a tear in the body, as dissension and rivalry would be, then a hairesis is a more serious rupture, a tearing away to the point of separation.

     Schisma means "discord" as in 1 Corinthians 12:25. "That there be no discord in the body." Hairesis means a "party," a more crystallized form of discord, even to the point of rupture. In both cases a spirit inimical to the peace of the church is connoted, and in both cases there is no necessary relation to doctrine, whether true or false.

     Dr. Campbell points out that schisma never refers in holy writ to a formed party as does hairesis. He says the words represent different degrees of the same evil. An ugly spirit can cause discord among brethren, which is schisma; but when that discord reaches such extremes that cliques and factions are formed, such as the selfish brethren at Corinth who separated themselves from others in order to eat together and share their own conceits, then you have hairesis.