Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Politics and Religion
What Constitutes “Heresy” and “Orthodoxy”?

What Constitutes “Heresy” and “Orthodoxy”?

Last updated on: August 16, 2017 at 7:50 am by Gene Veith

0 Comments

What Constitutes “Heresy” and “Orthodoxy”? 2017-08-16T07:50:15-04:00 Gene Veith

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Does acceptance of same-sex marriage on the part of a Christian constitute “heresy”? It may be wrong and un-Biblical, but does it rise to that level? Conversely, can a Christian hold other-than-traditional opinions on sexual morality or other issues and still be considered “orthodox”?

Calvin College professor James K. A. Smith has ignited a controversy over the definitions of “heresy” and “orthodoxy” in his post On “orthodox Christianity”: some observations, and a couple of questions. Derek Rishmawy discusses the controversy, summarizes the counter-arguments, and offers some insights of his own in his Christianity Today article What We Mean When Say “Orthodox Christianity.”

Prof. Smith says that “orthodoxy” refers to adherence to the Ecumenical Creeds. “Heresy” refers to deviation from those creeds; specifically, to the Christological teachings that the creeds were in large part formulated to address. You are thus a “heretic” if you are an Arian, a Monophysite, and so on.

According to this view, someone may have false beliefs or a wrong theology without being a heretic. The current debates about sexuality, Prof. Smith observes, are not doctrinal but moral. They can create the impression that Christianity is all about morality, rather than theology.

He suggests that it is indeed possible to be an “orthodox Christian”–that is, to believe in the creeds of the church–while still supporting same sex marriage.

Supporting same sex marriage might still be wrong. But it is not a “heresy” and the person with those convictions might still be “orthodox.” Prof. Smith suggests that we use other terms in discussing the issue, such as “traditional,” as in “he is an orthodox Christian, but he questions the traditional view of marriage.”

You can, however, see where this is going. Bracketing away Christian morality from Christian theology enables people to be considered “theological correct,” even as they support gay marriage and other “non-traditional” beliefs.

Theology can thus be squeezed into a narrow corner as a set of abstractions that can be affirmed, without reference to actual life.

Not that this is what Prof. Smith is intending. In fact, I think creedal adherence can be a good definition and criterion for orthodoxy.

But Prof. Smith applies the creeds much too narrowly, as if there can be no new heresies and as if all heresies have to be Christological.

For example, by this standard, evolution could be considered a heresy, a violation of the first article of the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

As for same-sex marriage, it would seem to violate the third article, on the Holy Spirit: “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.”

The creeds do not require us to be “orthodox”–except in that sense of accepting them–but to be “catholic.” The word means literally “according to the whole.” That is, we believe what the church as a whole, throughout time, believes and has believed.

Same-sex marriage is not “catholic.” Up till now, no church has ever believed that marriage is possible for couples of the same sex. The church–whether early or medieval or Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Protestant in any of its varieties–has ever looked at marriage in that way.

This is one of the strongest arguments against same-sex marriage. It is also a strong argument against women’s ordination. But other arguments also are comprehended in the Creed. Again, the first article, which teaches the doctrine of creation, that “all things visible and invisible” are made by God, looms behind the arguments that same-sex marriage violates the created order and God’s design for human sexuality, which is the conception of children and their continued care by a father and mother bound as one flesh into a family.

Being “catholic” in this sense means that there can be no new teachings, as such, in the church. New applications, new understandings, new emphases, but not innovations unknown to the rest of Christendom throughout the world and throughout time.

But didn’t the Reformation inject new teachings in rejecting the “Catholic Church”? The Reformers were at pains to insist that they did not. “Justification by faith” was not a new teaching, they insisted. The authority of Scripture was not a new teaching.

On the contrary, the Reformers accused the Catholics of innovation, of not being Catholic enough. The papacy isn’t catholic, they argued. The eastern church has existed for centuries without the authority of the pope. The early church had nothing like the infallible papacy. Indulgences were unknown in the early church. Not all Christians have believed in purgatory.

To be sure, the Roman Catholic church disagreed with those arguments and condemned the Reformers as heretics. That is their privilege. Disagreements over what the creeds teach and how they are to be applied are at the essence of legitimate theological debate.

But the Reformers also emphasized that the church is not only “catholic” but “apostolic.” That means that the church is in line with what the apostles taught. That is, in accord with the apostolic writings of the New Testament.

As the creed says, the Holy Spirit “spoke through the prophets.” The prophetic writings of the Old Testament are nothing less than the Word of God the Holy Spirit, as are the apostolic writings of the New Testament, also comprehended in this article.

Yes, the Roman Catholic church–also the Eastern Orthodox and the Anglicans–believe that an “apostolic” church is one that is in the line of a continual succession of bishops. But Luther and other Reformers denied that bishops are apostles, as such. Though some Lutheran church bodies, such as those in Scandinavia, do have bishops in that continual line, being “apostolic” primarily means believing the same things that Christ’s apostles did.

Thus, “apostolic” helps us to define what is truly “catholic.” This is why Scriptural authority is creedal.

Again, Roman Catholics disagree. They called the Augsburg Confession, which presented the case for the catholicity of the Reformation teachings, to be heretical.

Then again, they called Jan Hus a heretic for, among other things, giving the cup in Holy Communion to the laity. This was a conciliar decision, made by the Council of Constance. And, heresy being a civil as well as an ecclesiastical offense, the Council turned him over to the secular arm to be burned at the stake. But Communion in both kinds was the practice of the early church, and it is even the practice of the Roman Catholic church today. So the practice is “catholic” in a way that this church council was not. Nor was it “apostolic.”

But it is a lesson that charges of “heresy” should not be thrown around carelessly as simply a way to put down dissidents.

One question, though. What do evangelicals who insist upon their adherence to the “orthodoxy” of the Nicene Creed do about its teaching on Baptism?

We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We Lutherans believe this, that baptism conveys the forgiveness of sins. Most other evangelicals–including Baptists and Calvinists–as I understand them, do not. Baptists do not claim to follow the creeds, but Calvinists do.

So, by Prof. Smith’s standards, is not believing in the efficacy of Baptism a heresy?

I ask because I do not know. Calvinists insist on their adherence to these creeds. So how do they interpret that article so as to reconcile it to their sacramental theology? I’d appreciate hearing from some of our Reformed readers.

There are other issues here–doctrinal minimalism, confessionalism, and discerning who is a Christian–which are different from “orthodoxy” and “heresy.” Maybe we’ll discuss those later. . . .

Photograph of Gloucester Cathedral cloisters by GrahamH, via Pixabay, Creative Commons

Previous Post

August 10, 2017

Purists vs. Pragmatists

Next Post

August 11, 2017 Latest developments

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"Archaeology: It's the case that we don't have to go back very far to discover ..."

DakotaLutheran

Luther on Tools

"Turns out, she wasn’t the right tool for the job."

1another

Luther on Tools

"You may have just given me my next sermon opening line."

1another

Luther on Tools

"So Katie Zacharia lasted only a demiScaramucci as press secretary......"

reg

Luther on Tools

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category America Apologetics Art baseball Bible Blog Christ Church crime Culture Economics Education Ethics Family Food Football Government History Holidays Holy Week Humor International Islam Language Law Life Issues Literature Media Medicine Movies Music Nature News Personal Philosophy Politics psychology Reformation Religions Sacraments Science sex Social Science Sports technology television terrorism Theology Uncategorized Vocation war

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: In Revelation, Satan is bound in the Abyss for 500 years.

Select your answer to see how you score.

TRUE FALSE

Books by This Author Books by Gene Veith

See All Titles »