Defining Heresy
On Friday I wrote my first post in which I openly claim heresy instead of only guessing I may be accused of it. A few of the comments (thanks, by the way) both on the post and through email seemed more concerned with claiming heresy instead of the actual statement I’d hoped to make with such a claim. Don’t get me wrong, I’m ok with that, and take it as a sign that perhaps clarification is needed because those comments for the most part sounded confused with the idea. I’m already in the mood for clarification of words used in admittedly dense philosophical discussions. Ashley and I have been discussing the definition and use of rhetoric recently. Click here and here and here to read up on (some of) that conversation, though most of it took place over email.
The definition of heresy is:
belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (esp. Christian) doctrine
“for a heresy to exist there must be an authoritative system of dogma designated as orthodox” (wikipedia)
“a value judgment and the expression of a view from within an established belief system” (wikipedia)
I think the key word there is orthodox, which is defined as:
conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved
I can only assume that most people think immediately of Christianity when they hear the word heresy, and likely their mind assumes that heresy is automatically against truth. Not so, according to the definitions above. It is simply saying that I disagree with the commonly held opinion of the institution in question and am open and honest about my disagreement with it.
Heresy is a disagreement with orthodoxy and orthodoxy is a consensus of human opinion and tradition. Not a definition of absolute truth or the idealism expressed by God. Heresy is a culturally relative term, meaning that its implementation depends on the commonly held belief of a culture. If only the church were God…
I hope this makes sense, but thanks everyone for the conversation. I’m always up for more precisely defining the terms used within the scope of another idea.
And hey, I can’t end this post without encouraging anyone reading this to do the same. What comes first, of course, is thinking and asking questions. Status quo does not equal truth. Mike of subversivechurch says it well:
Jesus’ message was listened to by the masses, but only carried out and followed to the end by a few.
I think its more obvious than we’re willing to realize that this statement describes both then and now.
RSS Feed
RSS by Email
a 12th century theologian defined Heresy as: who, while keeping the outward appearance of Christian religion, devises or follows false opinions for a desire for human approval, earthly reward, or worldly pleasures. hmmm…also originally it was those looking to deceive followers of certain dogmas. They were the “false prophets”. To be a heretic in early times was to be a virus, a disease that invaded the church body. Infecting it, causing followers to fall.
Recently, however, it is a word that has seemed to have an altered meaning. A meaning along the lines of how you are using it. You do not deny the Trinity, the fall, the death and resurrection and other foundations of the Christian faith, instead you are disagreeing with practices [doctrines?] put into place by the church in an institutionalized sense [but not the Church as in Christ]. I have to say to claim heresy in this sense is, quite possibly, where many modern day “Christians” or Christ Followers stand. The possibility that you can somehow go against the “proverbial grain”. In many ways “Christianity” has become so institutionalized that we, as followers, may sound like “heretics” because we are weeding through it all [at times discounting things] to find solid truth. A solid place to stand. You said “Life is about the daily love, not the self-indulgent reward of our idea of heaven.” But that doesn’t seem like heresy; it seems like the heart that Jesus showed us time and time again. We all know how to love, if we choose to cast out our own humanism, our own selfish desires and self-focus, and we realize that what it really is about is love. It’s the love that we are capable of through the grace and understanding provided to us by the Trinity [Christ in us].
@Jessie — you see this accurately. The definition of heresy is of course controlled by the orthodox institution. Hence in earlier times, it was the church accusing people with differing opinions as heretics. The only difference, really, between that and this is that today’s culture doesn’t call for nor approve of the immediate burning at the stake of a heretic.
Also, you say that my statement doesn’t seem like heresy because it seems like the heart that Jesus showed. True, but heresy, as I said, isn’t against the idealism of God. It is against the orthodox view and practice of the people. Heresy is not a sin against God, but rather, a sin against the culture.
Again I say: There is a difference between what Jesus said and the religion our culture practices.
well when i think of the word “heresy”- i think of it like this- “what i hear/heard someone say.” whether you’ve adapted the idea or not, often claiming “heresy” is simply expressing that particular thought, though it may not be your own- or your authorship.
being “hypocritical” is more about being/saying one thing and acting/saying in another way. the greeks used it as a term to refer to their actors, stage performers. how fitting it was for jesus to introduce a cultural term into his society that we now find common…particularly when christians don’t act like the orthodox way of thinking/living.
just some of my thoughts
Popular Religious beliefs and or practices don’t always equal or correlate with what Jesus said. You speak the truth good sir.
and with that, you just became my favorite blog. I’m friends with Ivey and Bush, thats how i came across ya.
B.
http://bmccoy.wordpress.com
When 95 percent of Christians do not have 5 minutes a day quite time with the Bible.. they are all bad sinners.. all of them
A FALSE PROPHET OR NOT?
(Mark 10:19 KJV) Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
The too often misconception publicized by fundaments on the net too now is that a Prophet only foretells the future, and everything a false prophet does is false, and that he is not a God gifted person.. and this itself is false, not true. How ironical. Balaam was firstly a genuine Prophet of God, he communicated with , talked with God, but he did not always obey, or listen to him, for he next still did his own thing, like most of us today too, and that is what made him a false prophet, and so simply too are the many persons false Christians now too who follow his bad behavior, example, and rebel like the devil now as well. God is still really always displeased with all such negative motivational behaviors, acts of self centered persons, not Christ centered, not Holy spirit obedient.. as the Bible clearly, undeniably indicates now many times.
http://postedat.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/you-know-the-commandments/
http://postedat.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/real-actions-speak-louder-than-mere-words/
I would like to see the inscription “to be continied”:-D
Your news is a cool stuff man, keep it going.
That’s good man, keep it going.
Stunning blog and good article. High 5 for u man !