Now, I don't know what your experience was or how you learned about the Christian faith, but growing up, I went to what could be considered a college prep school that also happened to be very protestant. It was mandatory for me to take a lot of Bible classes as well as other religious classes to reinforce my Christian faith. During that time I learned a lot about Christian history but everything started about mid-1500s onward. I knew very little about Christianity from the time after Christ's ascension to the time of the reformation. Even in my college education at Liberty University it wasn't until I took a class on Western Civilization that I learned much at all about the development of the early church (this was just a basic history course requirement and not a biblical history class). It wasn't until my mid 20s - early 30s that I started studying the early church and I think I got the most from a book called The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware (now Kallistos Ware). In this book Ware gives a very comprehensive outline of the growth of the Christian church from the time of Christ to current day. It was very interesting to read how the church expanded throughout the world and, not only when and where, but why the church split into different schisms. Damick's book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy goes into much more detail about all the different schisms in the church as well as how other religions compare to the Orthodox Christian faith. Before doing these personal studies, I never really understood what Christians actually believed for the first 1000 years of the faith. Now I don't think anyone should have to become PHD in Christian History to have a basic grasp on the historical Church but I find it very heart breaking that most of my Christian friends have such a limited / skewed understanding of Christian history. But this post is not intended to be an extensive history lesson and I don't plan on rehashing what could easily be found in Ware's book The Orthodox Church. However, I do think that if we don't have a proper view of history it will make it harder to make a proper assessment of the topic of Heresy, but I will get back to that soon.
First I'd like to start by defining the word Heresy. But, to define this word I would like to define a few other words for the sake of being on the same page in regards to other language we need to use as well. (Please excuse me for being lazy here but I am just going to take these definitions directly from Damick's book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy. I felt like he just did such a great job; why make things harder.)
- "Orthodoxy" means both "true teaching" and "true worship". Orthodox Christianity is the life in faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and then passed down within the Orthodox Church from generation to generation. It is not possible to be Orthodox outside the historical community of the Orthodox Church.
- "Heterodoxy" means "other teaching" or "other worship." Heterodoxy is anything that contradicts Orthodox Christian doctrine and worship. This term may also be used to refer to all non-Orthodox Christian groups.
- "Heresy" literally means "choosing." Heresy is the act of choosing to be separate from Orthodoxy in doctrine and/or worship. The word may also be used to describe any heterodox teaching.
- "Heretic" is one who was a follower of the Orthodox Christian faith and then consciously rejected it. Technically speaking, one who was never Orthodox cannot be a heretic. He may, however, believe in heretical teachings (i.e., heterodoxy).
- "Apostasy literally means "standing apart." Apostasy is the act of deliberately leaving the Orthodox Church. One who dose so is an apostate.
- "Schism" literally means "separation." Schism is a separation of a group from the Church, which may not include heresy on the part of the schismatics. (It often does, however.)
Again these definitions are going to be the guide for this discussion so feel free to refer back to them as you need to.
So, now that we have some words defined for the discussion, let's take a minute to talk about some history. It's important that we are all looking at the same time line for this discussion so we can discuss these terms above in the right context. To begin with, I'd like to acknowledge an interesting anomaly that often gets ignored with these types of discussions concerning church history and how we use the scriptures to prove our points. My first instinct is to talk about what we know about the early church from scripture, but that is a historically inaccurate approach to this whole conversation. The truth is that what we know about the early church comes from the early church itself. In so facto, we have the scriptures as a direct result of a thriving church that had a well developed spiritual life before it ever had an official "hand book" of sorts. So the question we all need to address first is "how did the church really grow after their leader died as they faced some of the worst forms of persecutions to date?" Well we know historically that the Apostles were unified and organized. They traveled to different cities and discipled people and trained leaders how to worship and follow Christ. They created a network of people that all believed and practiced their faith in a particular fashion. We can see the results of this movement in historic documents describing their beliefs and practices as well as visit their church buildings that still exist today, even though they were built 2000 years ago. The early church was very good at documenting movements and ideas but our knowledge of these beliefs and practices are not limited, simply, to a catalog of documents; after all Christianity has always relied on oral and ritual tradition. Because of the great wealth of documents in the church we can see that the Apostles themselves established an organized and authoritative hierarchy for church leadership and accountability, as well as carried on the liturgical worship practices that carried over from Judaism. (This "New Liturgy" was now practiced in light of the Truth of Christ; not completely abolished as some have taught. But this is a completely different discussion to be had at a later time.) The Apostles were the first bishops and we know who their successors were and we can follow that lineage of apostolic successors to modern day bishops. We can even read about what some of these successors believed and taught. These men of the early church are affectionately referred to as the "Church Fathers." For more information look up Ignatious of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, St Basil the Great, Irenaeus of Lyons, John Chrysostom, and Maximus the Confessor (this list is not exhaustive but is a good place to start).
Now as much as we attribute the establishment of the faith to Christ and the Apostles, we have to give credit for the survival of the church to the Holy Spirit and the work that was done through those who were ordained and succeeded the Apostles. I'm really trying to emphasize that if it weren't for the Holy Spirit's continual work, then there would be no church at all. After all, by definition, heresy is (almost always) developed within the church; and sometimes from bishops. Again, we have many documents discussing the many heretical movements and the defense against them within the church. For instance, Irenaeus wrote a book called "Against Heresies" (180), which was an attack of popular heresies that were causing problems in the church. But the problem of heretical teaching was something even the Apostles had to combat. In 49 a.d. we see the first counsel of Bishops gathered in Jerusalem to discuss the issue of gentiles (which involved a heresy that even the Apostle Peter was guilty of following for a short while, but thank God for the Holy Spirit whom worked through Paul to call Peter to repentance). This counsel set the standard for dealing with church disputes. This tradition of counsels is how the church continually articulated its foundation of faith and reinforced their beliefs when heresy arose in the church. There are Seven Ecumenical Counsels that the Church can confidently look to when certain issues are brought back into question. I think it is important to recognize that these counsels did not invent or create theological positions but simply affirmed what was already entrusted to them from Christ and the Apostles. A few examples of this would be the the deity of Christ, the two natures of Christ, and the Trinity. These were not new doctrines of the church but were affirmed as the truth preserved.
Now let's get back to the scriptures for a moment. The canonization of the scriptures took about 300-400 years to become official and even then there was further debate as to what should or should not be included. This leads us to consider a few things.
1) The early church only had access to the Old Testament for most of it's development; textually speaking, that is what was considered "the scriptures". The contents of the New Testament did come around eventually and were circulated amongst the churches abroad but was not the foundation in which those churches were established.
2) The teaching of the Apostles was/is authoritative. Christ sent them out and gave them authority to establish his church and they did.
3) The letters, written by the apostles, were in addition to what was already sufficient for knowing Christ and a life fulfilled in Him. The epistles became authoritative not because they were from the Bible but because they were from the Apostles.
4) The Gospels and the Epistles were reinforcing what was already taught, correcting followers of an existing church, and encouraging those believers to hold on to those traditions they were taught in person.
5) The Bible was never intended to be a stand alone source. It was always meant to be understood in the context and in the care of those to whom it was entrusted. Otherwise it is incomplete.
6) It is the church that preserved the truth found in Christ and established the canonized scriptures.
7) The church valued and respected the scriptures and sees them as authoritative. Even today the Bible is celebrated and paraded around Orthodox churches in the Liturgy. They even stand up out of awe and respect while the Bible is being read during the service.
8) The scriptures are a crucial tool in combating heresy. This however can become problematic if the scriptures are used improperly whether intentionally or un-intentionally.
9) The New Testament itself reinforces it's non-exclusivity. ( 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2, John 21:25, Luke 24:27)
10) The Bible confirms the establishment of the church and it's authority as well as the promise to preserve it ( Matthew 16:17-19).
The reason I took a moment to talk about the scriptures is because as protestants we have been taught that the Bible is the supreme authority in all maters of doctrine and practice. However, you can see how this idea is contradictory to both history and the scriptures themselves. As we review history, and the scriptures, we can clearly see the interdependence of the teachings of the Apostles, early church fathers, the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit as the glue that holds the church together. (This is the conduit Christ has used to fulfill the promise that He would establish His Church "and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it" again, Matthew 16:17-19). This foundation is affectionately called "The Traditions" of the Church. So when someone says "The Traditions" they are not simply referring to rituals; they are referring to the teachings and worship practices handed down from the Apostles. Now earlier I mentioned the Seven Ecumenical Counsels. These counsels were considered authoritative, by the whole church, as preserving the truth when heresies arouse and clarity was needed on issues that addressed the life of the church as a whole. For the first 1000 years of Christianity, the church was all on the same page and these counsels were the product of that unified body. Let's take a moment to look at some of the issues these counsels addressed.
1) Nicea 325 Repudiated Arianism. Formulated the First Part of the Creed, defining the divinity of the Son of God.
2) Constantinople 1 381 Formulated the Second Part of the Creed, defining the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
3) Ephesus 431 Repudiated Nestorianism and defined Christ as the Incarnate Word of God and Mary as Theotokos.
4) Chalcedon 451 Repudiated Monophysitism and Defined Christ as Perfect God and Perfect Man in One Person (His Two Natures).
5) Constantinople II 553 Reconfirmed the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ to combat uprisings of Arianism Nestorianism and Monophysistism.
6) Constantinople III 680 Repudiated Monothelitism and affirmed the True Humanity of Jesus by insisting upon the reality of His human will and action (His two wills).
7) Nicea II 787 Ended the first iconoclasm and affirmed the propriety of icons as genuine expressions of the Christian Faith.
Looking at this list a few things pop out at me. First of all the deity of Christ, His nature, His will, the deity of the Holy Spirit, and the doctrine of the Trinity are not simply things we find "clear" from Scripture. In fact, they needed to be specifically articulated and affirmed by the Church to bring clarity to those who disputed these truths. Second as a protestant these were things I took for granted and assumed they were true because the Bible said so somewhere (but it doesn't). Maybe I was just naive, but these issues didn't seem like an issue that needed to be revisited over and over. Now I can see that these truths were just considered common knowledge and settled issues, because they had been settled long ago by those that came way before us (or at least in some circles). The third thing that stood out to me was that it seemed like a lot of these issues were repeat problems. Even though there was a collective agreement affirming these issues there is still a need to continue to preserve the truth over and over again. And the fourth thing that stuck out to me is that, even though these issues arose, there was a system in place to affirm what is "right" teaching and what is "wrong" teaching. And the fifth thing that stuck out to me is that all of these issues are about who God is and what is He like. And all of these issues matter greatly in how we relate to Him and how He relates to us. (This is one of those topics that I think needs more discussion, but later, of course.)
So far, all of this is leading up this question of "What makes something heretical?" . So let's recap. The early church was established and growing and spreading throughout the world, and for 1000 years there was a unified system of beliefs and practices that was common to all. So during that time, if an individual or a group decided that they wanted to believe or teach something other than what the church defined as the Orthodox Faith, they would fall into the category of "heretic". If they choose to leave the church then they would be considered "apostate" or "schismatics". Around 1054, the Church in Rome separated from the rest of the Christian Church. The two main issues, surrounding this schism, were a change to the Nicene Creed, which altered the understanding of the Trinity, and the claim that the Bishop of Rome had supreme authority over all the other bishops in the church. (A more in-depth look at this topic can be found in The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware.) But it was the issue surrounding the creed/Trinity that caused the most controversy within the Church. After the Great Schism, Rome continued to develop doctrines and practices that would further distance themselves from the Orthodox Faith.
Skipping ahead a little, the Reformation is a very confusing series of events for many reasons. I don't necessarily want to go in depth about what each sect of protestants believe, so I am just going to make very broad strokes for the sake of time. (As I mentioned before Damick, Trenham, and Ware all have amazing books on this topic.) First of all, the Reformers did not attempt to reform anything, otherwise they could have just reconciled with the Eastern Church (there are cases where some reformers consulted the east but eventually rejected their teachings as well) or even if they didn't, true reform would have looked like or lived like an identical version of the Traditions of the Eastern Church. Second, there was no official belief system as a result of the Reformation; unless you consider the over arching theme of the Reformation was to reject the authority of Rome, which also resulted in a rejection of basic foundations of the faith itself. But to be fair, I believe that the reformers had every right to demand change, after all they themselves were by products of a flawed system. (Here I'm referring to the problems in Rome, not the Orthodox Christian Faith which Rome abandoned.) However, the Reformers did choose to abandon the foundations of the Christian Faith in the process.
So were the Reformers heretics? Yes in every sense of the word. First in that they "chose" to reject the teachings of Rome and second in that they "chose" to rejected the teachings of the Orthodox faith. The reality is that these scholars of the faith had the Bible as well as the teachings of the Apostolic Church Fathers and they still chose to reject the Traditions of the Church to create their own system of faith that is very different from the Orthodox Christian Faith.
But what about the generations that followed the reformation? They may not have had the wealth of knowledge of the reformers. They are simply holding on to what truth they have been given. They may not believe all the things that the Orthodox Church would consider the True Christian Faith, but they aren't necessarily choosing not to believe it. In that case I would say they would not be considered "heretics" but simply "heterodox" in their beliefs. (This would be one of those statements that may be offensive. But again, I am not trying to condemn anyone. I am simply trying to acknowledge the reality of these terms and how they apply to all of us in proper context.)
So, how should protestants respond to this idea that their faith is based on, maybe not all but, some heretical teachings? Well, lets take a look at something for just a moment. Remember that high school I went too? Well they taught me about the difference between "cults" and the "occult". They taught me that a cult was a group that had deviated from the "true faith". A few examples they gave me was Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Classically speaking, these groups do deviate from the Protestant faith and do have a fixation with particular individuals that shaped their beliefs. But what about "The Church of Christ"? Would they be considered a cult? To some they are. Others would say they teach heresy because of their beliefs in baptism and their rejection of instruments in Church. But if you spent time with anyone within these three groups you will find plenty of people who live passionate lives for the Lord. They may even devote their lives to the scriptures and prayer. And these are also the groups that devote a considerable amount of time to missions. So, how do we address these groups or individuals? How can we show them their errors (without offending them or scaring them off as some of you may relate to while reading this blog) and hope to perfect their faith? Because what do we really want for these people? Don't we want them to come to know the complete faith? Or do we belief that because they have some parts wrong that they are completely wrong? Does it matter which parts they get wrong? There is a saying I have heard people use when talking to atheists and former Christians and I really like it, "Tell me about the god you don't believe in and I probably don't believe in that god either." This goes back to what I was saying earlier, what we believe about "who" God is and "what" He is like shapes our faith and our lives. So I think the question, for not only these 3 groups but for all of Christianity, is "do we all believe in the same Jesus?".
So, which Jesus do you believe in? The one who established his church 2000 years ago, 500 years ago, 2 years ago, or the one who changes when culture changes? Do you know why you believe certain things about The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, their characteristics, how to connect with them, or how to connect with their people? When I read Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Damick, my mind was blown by how much of my beliefs about God were shaped by very specific people and very specific movements in the protestant church (not the Bible). Not only that but by how many of my beliefs were actually contrary to both the Bible and the Church. My whole life, I have been in churches, or study groups, where the leaders have been "preaching the scriptures" through the filter of their favorite (or only known) theologian(s). I have met many different Christ's and learned about many different paths to salvation. In college, I was taught to study the scriptures and interpret them through the lens of the church; but which version of the church should I attempt this process? This "freedom of interpretation" was quite maddening.
So again, how should protestants respond to this idea that their faith is based on, maybe not all but, some heretical teachings? (That maybe the protestant faith is not quite the same as the Christian Faith, but a cult.) I think the initial reaction is to be offended (but remember that Christians are a "Cult" of Judaism: also I don't believe protestants are the same as mormons or JW). So, let's not let pride rob us from really evaluating our beliefs. I remember my first thoughts when I was exploring the Orthodox Church. At first I was excited because I felt like a lot of questions I have always been asking were finally answered for the first time. But then, I was mad, because I felt like all these pastors and Christian leaders in my life had just neglected to tell me the whole truth (but honestly most of them were just as clueless as I was at the time). Then I was confused because I felt like, in order to reconcile what I had always been taught with what I now knew to be the truth, I would have to abandon all the people I loved. But thankfully that just wasn't true. I have found so much joy and freedom as I have begun to discover the Orthodox Faith.
But why does the protestant faith have such a blind spot to the ancient, and in fact current, Christian faith? I think that a big reason is because at its core protestantism teaches us to reject all forms of Biblical authority and traditions. But it is ironic that a schism that was founded on the rejection of papal and church authority has become so obsessed with the teachings and interpretations of specific teachers (or and endless supply of popes and traditions). As much as we study the reformers and their beliefs, we should really make an effort to know what the early church believed and WHY they believed it. However, most conversations I have with protestants, that are familiar with Orthodox Traditions, don't seem to really understand what those Traditions really mean or what they teach us about who God is (Luther was especially guilty of this, again another discussion).
Today, Russia (who was a Christian nation for over 1000 years before communism took over: which is something Americans should really consider) is experiencing a revival in the Orthodox Church. In the Middle East Orthodox Christians, who are still worshiping in Churches established by the Apostles themselves, are being heavily persecuted and killed. Most protestants would like to call these people brothers and sisters in Christ but in reality they have made many efforts to convert these people to the "right faith". In conclusion, in today's modern world we have more than enough access to learn about our faith and if we truly desire to "be like the early church", or to just not be heretics, then I think we should make the effort to know what that actually means and then make every effort to embrace the faith that others have died to preserve (I'm not trying to belittle the many protestants who have died for the faith). I also think it's been long enough to have evaluated the progress, or the lack there of, that the "Reformation" was supposed to accomplish. If we were honest, then we should admit that the Protestant church is more confused about who God is and what he is like then ever before. And we if we are confused on who He is, how could we begin to attempt to become more like him? I hate to end this on such a downer, but my experience is that most protestants are completely apathetic about whether their beliefs are genuinely Christian or not. We tend to like the comfort that comes from subjective beliefs and relative truth. To contrast that, the foundation of the Christian Faith is communion with Christ and each other, being of one accord. And yet somehow we have become content with doctrinal chaos and spiritual disunity. I hope this post encourages you to study Christianity in its entirety and embrace the fullness of the Christian Faith that is found in the Orthodox Christian Church. And as much as a conversation about the differences between the Orthodox Church and many Protestant denominations would be a good thing, more importantly there needs to be a celebration of the things they hold in common.
I know I tend to ramble a bit, but I hope it wasn't too confusing and that this leads to good and healthy discussions about our faith. Please feel free to contact me about questions or comments.
DC
Here are links to the books I mentioned above.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Orthodox-Church-New-Edition/dp/0140146563
http://www.amazon.com/Orthodoxy-Heterodoxy-Exploring-Systems-Christian/dp/1936270137
http://www.amazon.com/Rock-Sand-Archpriest-Josiah-Trenham/dp/1939028361/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
