What Is “Heresy”?

Dr. Paul G. Schrotenboer Trowel & Sword. Jan/Feb 1987

Preamble: The dictionary describes heresy as: “belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine”. At first glance this definition would appear to be straightforward; or if you like, cut and dried. However, this word, like many, has a history where its meaning has gone through a number of subtle changes. The consequences of heresy has also undergone significant changes, one of the most drastic of which was to be “burned at the stake”. Even today blasphemy, (heresy by another name) is punishable by death in certain cultures. In this article Dr. Schrotenboer attempts to make some sense of the idea of heresy, firstly by delving back into history and then how it has developed through the ages. This is followed by a further explanation by Prof. Runia who was then Professor of Practical Theology of Kampen Seminary. The Netherlands.

What Is “Heresy”?

(The following information on the timely issue of the South African Reformed Churches and Apartheid appeared in the R.E.S. News Exchange).

In classical Greek the term “heresy” (hairesis) meant originally a choice, either a good one or a bad one. From this original meaning the word evolved to signify a school (which presumably people attended by choice) or a teaching (which people voluntarily espoused). It was sometimes associated with schools of philosophy which were said to spread false teaching.

Among the Jews the term “heresy” had originally a similar meaning. Josephus spoke of the heresy (religious community) of the Essenes. He spoke of the three Jewish schools, the Essenes, the Sadducees and the Pharisees in a non-pejorative sense. It may be noted that these were three schools within Jewry. At this point the word “heresy” did not mean excommunication, or necessarily, disapproval.

In the New Testament the term “heresy” (sect) was applied to Sadducees (Acts 5:17), the Pharisees (Acts 26:5) and, likely contemptuously, to the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5). In the Pauline letters there is a trace of the idea that heresies exist within the fellowship of believers, for he tells the church in Corinth that “the differences (hairesis) among you [are] to show which of you have God’s approval” (I Cor. 11:19). But in general it must be said that in Paul’s usage the word acquired a negative connotation. In Galatians 5:20 Paul places heresy alongside other sins of which he says “those who live like this will not inherit the Kingdom of God.” Here heresies seem to have been related more to sinful living rather than to wrong teaching and is translated as “factions” (NIV).

Peter uses the word to describe the teaching (“destructive heresies,” NIV) of those who deny the Lord who bought them (2 Pet. 2:1). Thus the term came to refer to those teachings and those schools which could only be called heterodox. Moreover, the false teachings to which reference was made were not incidental to the faith, but fundamental to salvation.

By the end of the second century A.D., heretics ceased to mean a sect within the fellowship, but to describe people of another faith. It is this meaning that has persisted until modern time. In the Middle Ages a real heretic was considered not worthy to live. Philip Schaff records that in the thousands of reports of iudicial cases in the Middle Ages, charges of immoral conduct are rare and that one who dissented from the church dogmas was considered to be worse than a person of depraved morals.

“The opinion came to prevail, that what disease is to the body that heresy is to the Church, and the most merciful procedure was to cut off the heretic” (History of the Christian Church, Vol. V, part I, p. 467).

During the last half century heresy became almost a good thing. A “heresy hunter” is accordingly not seen as someone who is doing the church a service by finding and condemning false doctrine, but a nitpicker who disturbs the church and is more likely to shoot at the soldier on watch than at the enemy outside the camp.

The word fell on evil days until there came a general shift in emphasis from correct doctrine to right practice. Here the statement of Dr. Willem Visser’t Hooft at Uppsala, Sweden in 1968 is significant.

“It must become clear that church members who deny in fact their responsibility for the needy in any part of the world are just as much guilty of heresy as those who deny this or that article of the faith” (Uppsala Report, p. 320).

From that time on “heresy” became a very usable word once again, and was employed increasingly to refer to deviations from right conduct. Into this category of conduct the one evil that get’s the lions’ share of attention is racism.

One consequence of calling racism heresy is that it tends to galvanise public opinion against this evil, for the word still has a strong carry-over from its two millennia history of excluding from the fellowship those who practice this heinous sin. Nor does one use the term “heresy hunter” in a pejorative way if heretical practice is at stake. Actually, to call a racist (or an alleged racist) a heretic, and the defence of racism a heresy gives one a feeling of satisfaction, and perhaps of smug self-righteousness.

Another consequence is that in those churches which are still strongly oriented to the traditional meaning of heresy, the accusation falls like a heavy blow and causes a painful wound. For to them it means that they are charged with having departed from the substance of the faith. To them it seems to mean that they no longer have a place in the church.

A third consequence of using the term as it relates to a burning social issue is that the discussion becomes unavoidably highly emotive, both by those who charge and those who are charged. Among the accusers the feeling runs so high that if a church or ecumenical body refrains from using the term, it exposes itself to the accusation of being soft on apartheid, the greatest of evils. Among those who are accused of being heretical, the emotions are so deeply conditioned to the idea of exclusion from the fellowship, they cannot really “hear” a specific meaning that an ecumenical body such as the RES Chicago 1984 gave to the term when it rejected the ideology of apartheid. The RES simply declared that heresy means “contrary to the teaching of Scripture.” But what was heard by the churches which have supported the policy commonly called apartheid is that they were said no longer to belong to the fellowship. This hurt them deeply.

A further explanation of heresy is given in the comments by Dr. Klaas Runia who by then was teaching at

Paul G. Schrotenboer

(Dr. Schrotenboer has been the General Secretary of the RES since 1963)

What Is “Heresy”? Dr. Klaas Runia. Trowel & Sword. Jan/Feb 1987

The concept of heresy is hard to define. Usually a distinction is made between heresy and schism, and between heresy and error. Schisma means separation from the church, not on the basis of doctrinal differences, but on differences concerning liturgy or church polity. Error does concern doctrine, but it is usually confined to nonessential elements of the doctrine. Heresy is regarded as a persistent error in the substance of the truth.

Before the Reformation, when the church was largely undivided, every deviation from the doctrine of the church was regarded as heresy and the heretic, if he persisted in his error, was excluded from the church and the Kingdom of God. Since the Reformation the situation has changed. The reason for this change was that there was not only a profound difference between the churches of the Reformation and the Church of Rome (which was regarded as a false church), but there appeared to be also considerable differences among the churches of the Reformation themselves. Bavinck has pointed out that since the Reformation one must allow for some “elasticity” in the purity of the administration of the Word (De Katholiciteit van Christendom en Kerk [The Catholicity of Christianity and Church], 1888, 1968, 26). Since that time concepts of heresy and schisma have been “weakened”. Heresy now means a persistent error in fundamental articles and therefore has become a ‘floating’ concept. It is not even incompatible with true faith and regeneration. Even true believers can fall into heresy, continue to live in it, yes, perhaps die in it” (27).

This does not mean that one cannot use the term any more. Persistent error must still be called heresy, but one has to allow for the possibility that a heretic may be ‘of good faith’. At the same time this heresy must be pointed out and he/she must be called to return to the truth as revealed in Scripture.

When the RES Chicago 1984 used the word “heretical” (Acts, p. 93) it rightly explained it as a teaching which is “in conflict with the teaching of Scripture.” In the preceding sentences, however, it was clearly pointed out that it was not just a matter of ‘error’. Synod declared that the teaching in this particular case concerned an ‘ideology’ and added that “when the evil of such an ideology has been exposed from within the church itself and the church(es) nevertheless would continue to support or fail to denounce such an ideology, there is a status confessionis.” It should further be noted that Synod did not state that the churches in South Africa are de facto guilt of such a heresy but decided to put the matter as a question to all the member churches in South Africa.

Moreover, it did not in any way indicate that the use of the term “heretical” was meant to convey the idea that the churches concerned no longer are part of the Church of Christ in this world. But this does not alter the fact that Chicago stated that to support the ideology of apartheid, in the sense of justifying it theologically, is “heretical.”

Klaas Runia

(Dr. Runia is Professor of Practical Theology of Kampen Seminary. The Netherlands)

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com