Heresy

JUSTIN M. LASSER

The term “heresy” derives from the Greek term hairesis, which, in classical usage, typically meant “a diversity of opinion.” This usage was common within pre­Christian Hellenistic schools but acquired a new usage in the Christian era. In the Hellenistic schools a thesis or question would be offered and students or disciples would offer their opinions on the matter. In the case of a resulting diversity of opinion the matter would remain unresolved in a state of hairesis. In the classical schools the matter would be followed by extended debate and varying conclusions. In this usage “heresy” was the beginning of fruitful debate. On occasion these “here­sies” would consolidate into cohesive “schools of thought.” These schools of thought are exhibited most clearly in the various ancient philosophical schools (i.e., the Epicureans, the Platonists, the Stoics, etc.). Though the schools had many dis­agreements they rarely “condemned” each other – they merely maintained different opinions.

This classical usage of the term “heresy” was expanded in the Christian era. Whereas theologians such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria tended to view heresies as diverse schools of thought, other theologians, such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Justin Martyr, actively sought to characterize these diverse opinions or novelties as “corruptions” ofthe simple truth of the Christian faith handed down by the apostles. This move by the early heresiologists was not made out of vain intentions, but rested upon the belief that the Christian truth they were taught was not created but revealed and discovered. In this sense, Christian truth was not viewed as the result of theological speculation but as the recording and preserving of revealed truth. The simplicity and communicability of Christian truth was most important to the apologists such as St. Irenaeus and St. Justin, and became a paradigm for influ­ential theologians such as St. Athanasius. It was a view that was first laid down in the Catholic epistles of the New Testament (see the letters of John, for example) which defined “those that had come out from among us” (heretical dissidents) as never having really belonged in the first place.

The term “Orthodoxy” derives from the Greek word for “straight” (ortho) and the word for “belief” (doxa) – “straight belief.” In Orthodox opinion, its faith is not just one school among others, but the school which represents authentic Christianity. With this conviction the early heresiologists and later theologians viewed various opin­ions that challenged the core of Orthodox truth as cancerous corruptions. In the early periods of the church these heresies were often challenged in the public forum with few repercussions. However, when the church acquired imperial support the subsequent decisions on certain issues were endowed with the power of the state, and all the force of legal proscription. In such instances the antagonists were often exiled and deposed – with the suffering (sometimes fatal) that accompanied such penalties in Antiquity. Orthodoxy’s own great confessors and theologians, however, occasionally experienced this uncom­fortable label of “heresy.” One recalls the state punishments imposed on St. John Chrysostom and St. Maximus the Confes­sor, and in the Iconoclast controversy, for example, the Orthodox faithful felt the full wrath of an oppressive state which regarded itself as endowed with divine authority to establish the canons of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy’s survival, however, demon­strates that its preservation of the truth does not depend on coercive state power, but on the testimonies of the faithful, and the living sense of what Orthodoxy means coherently, as a living system of truth.

Certain primary mechanisms were employed as means to ensure and preserve Orthodox belief – chief among these were the succession of bishops as purveyors of Christian truth, the creeds, and conciliar decisions. The first, apostolic succession, was established in response to the popular­ity and frequency of the didaskaloi (ecclesi­astically independent teachers) in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Initially, Christianity depended on the work of these teachers (or apostles), but after various churches were established the relations between local overseers (bishops) and itinerant prophets (teachers) became strained. This is most clearly exhibited in the Apostle Paul’s controversy with “rival” teachers (Galatians 1.9), as well as the controversy alluded to in the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles). The Apostle Paul’s exam­ple also emphasizes the important function the creeds play in ensuring Orthodoxy when he demands that they hold true to what they were first taught. In the Didache the church expresses a more nuanced approach to the issue raised by traveling apostles and prophets: “Whosoever, there­fore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him” (Didache 11). In this case, the local church is only to receive those that reinforce the message they had already been taught. If the visiting apostle preached anything foreign they were not to listen to him or her. Not only were the local churches to listen to the itinerant preacher, they were also to support him. “But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there’s a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet” (Didache 11). These in­structions reveal what was an emerging controversy between itinerant preachers and established local authorities. The con­troversy, it seems, was initially resolved by limiting the time the prophet was allowed to stay. This served to stem any potential challenges to the local bishops’ authority and charisma.

St. Irenaeus articulated a systematic basis for local Christian authority by resting it with the bishops as “successors to the apos­tles.” This was in direct contradistinction to the “gnostic” teachers that believed that the charisma and authority of the church rested with the didaskaloi who could prove their inspiration by the quality of their personal words. The ancient and more recent history of the Orthodox Church reveals that the occasional tension between teacher and bishop has never been completely resolved. Origen, for example, encountered much ecclesiastical resistance but remained con­vinced of the importance of the didaskaloi in communicating Christian truth and expressing it in a manner that was sensible to the contemporaneous generation. After the 4th century the episcopacy was more and more drawn from the ranks of the rhe­torically educated; and in the golden age of patristic literature (and long after) almost all the major theologians of the church have been its bishops.

The most visible means of preserving Orthodoxy and defining what is heresy has been the synodical and conciliar system of the church. The local and ecumenical councils resolved the various and major differences of opinion according to consen­sual decisions guided by the Holy Spirit. In this manner the church operates according to the structure expressed by St. Irenaeus: from Christ to the apostles and from the apostles to the bishops. Thus in Ortho­dox belief the ecumenical councils are a convening of the “apostles,” not just bishops, and in this state the Holy Spirit is set to guide the church in the Spirit of Truth. It is for such reasons that at a council a majority view on matters of doctrine is never acceptable: the gathered bishops are expected to be able to articulate as with one mind and one heart what is the faith of the church, that faith into which they were baptized: to confess it, not to have to seek for it in the face of bewilder­ing “new heresies.” As such the council always demanded total uniformity of con­fession from its constitutive members, and expected the obedience of the faithful to its decrees as resulting from the laity’s own charism of “recognizing the truth.” It is for such reasons that a council is only recog­nized as ecumenical once it has gained the assent of the Orthodox faithful in gen­eral – the consensus fidelium being a very important part of what is meant by Ortho­doxy and the very antithesis of what it means by heresy.

SEE ALSO: Apostolic Succession; Gnosticism

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Behr, J. (2001) The Formation of Christian Theology, Vol. 1: The Way to Nicaea. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Irenaeus of Lyons (1997) On the Apostolic Preaching. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

McGuckin, J. A. (1998) “Eschaton and Kerygma: The Future of the Past in the Present Kairos: The Concept of Living Tradition in Orthodox Theology,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 42, 3–4: 225–71.

Osborn, E. F. (2001) Irenaeus of Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Simon, M. (1979) “From Greek Haeresis to Christian Heresy,” in Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition. Paris: Beauchesne, pp. 101–16.