The word heresy gets thrown around in certain circles with gay abandon. Any deviation from what someone, or some people, might think is deemed heresy. I am convinced the frequency with which the term is thrown around means that most of us don’t actually know what it means. So, I thought it might help – particularly some of our contentious discussions – to define the term.

Here is how The New Dictionary of Theology (ed. Sinclair Ferguson and David Wright, with consultation with J.I. Packer) defines heresy. At least, here is a portion of what it says:

Heresy connotes doctrinal deviation from the fundamental truths taught by Scripture and the orthodox Christian church, and active propagation of the same.

The rest of the section unpacks that brief little comment. There are some significant and pertinent details. Nevertheless, as an essential definition I think this is helpful. Let’s look at some key features of heresy.

Doctrinal deviation from the fundamental truths taught by scripture

Here, I think, we have the heart of heresy. Heresy – despite the claims of some – is not simply ‘doctrinal deviation’. If heresy were merely doctrinal deviation both Baptists and Paedobaptists should be denouncing one another as heretics because of their doctrinal deviation (as each side judges it). Likewise, anyone who differs on their view of polity must be denounced also. After all, the Bible has things to say about church order and any who deviate from such doctrine must be a heretic. Clearly, doctrinal deviation in and of itself is not heretical. It may be errant, but it is not heretical.

Heresy is not simply doctrinal deviation. It is deviation ‘from the fundamental truths taught by scripture’. This is generally understood (rightly) to be deviation from central gospel doctrines, the denial of which in and of themselves, necessarily mean a denial of the gospel itself. Some of these fundamental doctrines are specifically stated in scripture as a denial of the gospel. As The New Dictionary of Theology rightly notes, ‘2 Pet. 2:1 refers to the “destructive heresies” of certain false teachers who denied the person and work of Christ.’ They are destructive because to believe them necessarily means a person ceases to believe the gospel and cannot be considered to be any sort of Christian.

And the orthodox Christian church

This qualifier is a helpful one, but needs unpacking a little. Heresy is essentially determined by deviation from the fundamental truths of Scripture i.e. gospel-denying doctrine. However, Christians – as we saw before – have a habit of disagreeing. It turns out there are issues on which Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans and Independents all disagree. How do we determine which are the fundamental truths taught by scripture? The short answer: by affirming what is commonly held across all orthodox churches.

For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is affirmed by every orthodox church of every stripe. It is denied by just about every cult and sect that has ever existed throughout the history of the church. The early church councils that came to formulate these teachings did so, not because they didn’t hold this teaching already, but because some within the church denied them. The purpose of the councils was to articulate the faith once for all delivered to the saints, which will be affirmed not only in one corner of the church but across all of it. The councils were not a means of making up doctrine, but of ascertaining the view of the worldwide church in what it already believed. As some had risen up denying what seemed otherwise universally affirmed, they sought to determine whether this was doctrinal deviation from the fundamental teachings of scripture and the orthodox church or if this was merely a different, but legitimately non-gospel-denying, belief.

And active propagation of the same

This clause is helpful in making a small distinction. Namely, it is possible to believe heresy and yet not be a heretic. To believe heresy, one needs to believe doctrinally deviant, gospel-denying teaching. To be a heretic, one must also be actively seeking to propagate and promote that gospel-denying heresy.

To believe heresy is to put yourself outside the Christian faith. It is to believe a non-gospel that will not save you. But to believe such things, and yet not seek to promote or encourage such belief, means you believe heresy that will keep you out of the kingdom but you are not necessarily a heretic. To earn that moniker, you must be trying to convince others of your false beliefs and be encouraging others to hold to your gospel-denying doctrinal views.

Why does this matter?

I raise these things primarily because the terms heretic and heresy get bandied around these days so liberally as to shred the words of any meaning. Heresy is often deemed any deviation from any doctrine I happen to consider important. Being a heretic is to essentially state a view that I don’t hold in some public forum. These are misuses of the words and they ought to be employed much more carefully.

I dare say, in some cases, these are abuses of these words inasmuch as the people throwing them about know exactly what they’re saying and ought to know better. Their intentions in doing so – whatever they may be – do not seem to be the glory of God and the good of the church. Disagreeing over doctrine – even some significant doctrine – is not the essence of heresy. Stating a view in a sermon, on a blog or on Facebook that you do not share is not, in and of itself, the propagation of damnable heresy. At best, such insults are childish. At worst, they are intentionally malicious.

Perhaps worst of all, the abuses of these terms make it very difficult to deal with actual heresy when it arises. It is very difficult to address people who are buying into gospel-denying doctrine, and to show them that it is really heretical, when there are others bandying around these terms towards people because they have a different view on a particular cultural issue. It is deeply unhelpful.

Further to all that, I think it also speaks into the constituencies from which many of our churches are drawn. I remember sitting in a room where a speaker, with a hand-waving reference to 1 Corinthians, insisted ‘of course, we’re probably not dealing with our people visiting prostitutes today’. I was minded to say, ‘speak for yourself!’ It was a huge assumption about the kind of communities and people that we are dealing with and speaks to a huge chasm between many ordinary people and the kind of people who make up the overwhelming majority of our churches. I think the bandying around of the term heresy comes from a similar place. Some utilise heresy where it is absolutely unwarranted because they simply are not dealing with people and engaging people who really do buy into damnable heresy and even propagate it locally to the potential detriment of local churches.

It feels like there is a group of people who, bored about their inability to use the term heresy in its proper place, seem determined to find people to apply it to seemingly so it doesn’t fall out of fashion. Those of us who live and move in areas full of such things, and who have to call out gospel-denying heresy publicly in order to make the gospel that we profess clear, it is damaging to us to have these terms bandied around willy-nilly over issues that are no such thing. It would be great if we could be more sparing in whom we label a heretic and make sure that we apply it only to those who really are peddling a false gospel that will lead people to destruction should they come to believe the things that are taught.