On Heresy

The Sixth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, who hast prepared for them that love thee such good things as pass man’s understanding: Pour into our hearts such love toward thee, that we, loving thee above all things, may obtain thy promises, which exceed all that we can desire; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Discussions of theology, and how Anglicans have traditionally explored theology in order to ensure right belief, naturally brings to mind the question of what happens when theology, regardless of how it is done, leads to incorrect belief. In the history of the Church, when someone promotes these incorrect beliefs, it tends to be called heresy. This flippant use of the term heresy has a diluted its meaning somewhat however. In the early church, a distinction was drawn between what is merely false teaching, whether intentional or unintentional, and heresy.

In Holy Scripture, Christ himself spoke of false prophets who would distort his words. St Paul similarly echoed Christ’s several times in different epistles. II Peter specifically warns against false teachers and their teachings leading people astray. Throughout Scripture, we are warned that Christians must be on guard against those whose teachings seek to take us away from the Truth that had been revealed in Christ. In modern times, this would be viewed perhaps in terms of any teaching which corrupts Biblical truth and teaching.

To go from false teaching to heresy, there is an element of obstinacy in the face of correction, but more it is the subject matter of the false teaching that can push a false teaching into true heresy. Bishop Daniel Martins, commenting on some of the policies coming out of The Episcopal Church of the United States of America’s recent General Convention, suggested that a distinction must be drawn between that which is merely false teaching and that which is heresy.

To Bishop Martins, the distinction comes when the false teaching is against an article of the creeds. This follows other traditional definitions which have tended to provide for heresy as a public and obstinate denial of one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. These two definitions are entirely consistent as the creeds are what define the essentials of Christianity, though as has been previously discussed, encompasses more than just the creeds, but also the canon of scripture, the sacramental life of the church lived primarily through Baptism and the Eucharist, the three-fold order of ministry and the creeds. Bishop Martins here draws a narrower definition that focuses exclusively on the creeds.

The creeds ultimately are the standard of our faith. The Canon of Scripture tells us which books are divinely inspired and therefore, “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work,” (2 Tim 3. 16, 17) as St Paul tells us.

In the case of the Nicene Creed, it represents a working out of particular Christian doctrines in response to strong heresies, such as Arianism, which denied such core Christian doctrines as the Trinity.

For Bishop Martins, the issue was greater than just an individual false teacher, though. What must the response be when it is the church itself, though its liturgies, canons and practices, which promotes the heresy rather than simply a specific and individual false teacher? For Bishops, who are the guardians of teaching and doctrine in the church, to be the ones teaching it speaks to a problem of heresy through the core of the church to which they belong. In any tradition which maintains an ecclesiology of a visible church, as the Anglican Communion, Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church do, there are even greater complications.

When a church with an orthodox history falls into heresy, what obligation do individual Christians have to remain in communion with it? In his Epistle to the Galatians, St Paul tells the Galatians of a time when he was forced to rebuke St Peter who had, by the definition described here, fallen into heresy in his hypocrisy. St Peter had, when confronted with Judaisers who argued that Jewish Christians were free to believe in Christ as the Messiah but still needed to maintain the law including both the dietary restrictions and circumcision. This was viewed by Paul as backsliding and heresy. Had not Christ died for the justification of all believers? In Christ was the fulfilment of the Law. The Creed says Christ was incarnate and crucified for us and for our salvation. When St Peter accepted the Judaiser practice of maintaining the Law, he was at best saying, “Christ died for us, but just in case, let’s still follow the Law.” At worst it was a complete rejection of Christ’s nature and incarnate mission.

St Paul rebuked St Peter who accepted the rebuke and was restored to orthodoxy. What would happen if he had not? What would happen if a modern bishop in the Anglican Church of Canada, for example, were to profess that the Law must still be followed? Would it be necessary for other bishops to remove themselves from communion with that diocese if the heresy persisted?

Bishop Martins argues that when the heresy becomes systemic to the Church itself, it must persist in those heresies for over forty years before a faithful Christian is obligated not to be in communion with it. This does not, however, mean that a faithful Christian should not in all circumstances break communion with it before then. It is laudable to seek to remain in the communion, to correct or rebuke and hopefully encouraging those who also remain to see the errors being taught.

In chapter 14 of his epistle to the Romans, St Paul warns first not to pass judgement on fellow Christians if their weak is faith or strong, for it is the Lord’s right to pass judgement. He continues by famously writing that we should never place a stumbling block in front of another. In this same way, it may be necessary to remove ourselves from communion with a particular church which promotes a particular heresy in order to prevent it from becoming such a stumbling block.

That said, removal from communion is something that should not be undertaken lightly, and should not be something that one does on the basis of flippant motivations. Bishops are the anointed of God, and that anointing should never be forgotten. In many ways, the story of David is instructive in this regard. David had been anointed by God, through the Prophet Samuel, after one too many times, Saul had been disobedient. Later, David became friends with Saul but his great deeds caused him to receive greater praise than Saul. In Saul’s jealousy, he thought David meant to usurp him and tried to kill David several times, before eventually David was forced to flee. In the well-known story, David is on the run from Saul with a few companions, taking refuge in a cave. They are in a dark corner, and go unnoticed by Saul himself when he enters in order to rest from the afternoon sun, and falls asleep. His companions gesture to him that he ought to kill Saul, but David simply goes and cuts a corner off Saul’s robe. Then, after Saul wakes from his rest and leaves the cave, David follows him out and says:

Why do you listen to the words of men who say, ‘Behold, David seeks your harm’? 10 Behold, this day your eyes have seen how the Lord gave you today into my hand in the cave. And some told me to kill you, but I spared you. I said, ‘I will not put out my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord’s anointed.’ (1 Sam 24. 9, 10)

Saul then replies:

“Is this your voice, my son David?” And Saul lifted up his voice and wept. He said to David, “You are more righteous than I, for you have repaid me good, whereas I have repaid you evil. And you have declared this day how you have dealt well with me, in that you did not kill me when the Lord put me into your hands. For if a man finds his enemy, will he let him go away safe? So may the Lord reward you with good for what you have done to me this day. (1 Sam 24. 16-19)

In this same way, we ought to approach a Bishop, with hope that the respect that is shown for their anointing might give them pause to consider why their teachings are forcing Christians in good conscience to break communion with them.

In all things, the term heresy should not be used lightly, and it should never be used to reflect the idea of “those who disagree with me,” nor should mere disagreement, even over a matter of false teaching, ever be reason to break communion with other Christians.