Orthodoxy and Heresy
Orthodoxy and Heresy
The terms “orthodoxy” and “heresy” have now largely lost their original theological meanings. The rise of anti-authoritarian attitudes in modern times has led to “orthodoxy” (that is, literally, “right opinion”) being seen as little more than “a dogma imposed upon people by coercive authority,” with “heresy” often being viewed as the victim of suppression by intolerant church or state authorities. As we shall see, Walter Bauer (1877–1960) advanced the thesis that forms of Christianity which later generations regarded as “heretical” were actually earlier and more influential than “orthodox” views; the Roman church deliberately suppressed these ideas, declaring them to be heretical, and enforced its own less popular ideas as “orthodoxy.” Recent scholarship has cast considerable doubt on this thesis, although it remains popular in more liberal circles.
It should be noted that heresy has often been associated with marginalized social groupings: for example, the Donatists (a separatist group in late fourth-century North Africa; see pp. 358–60) drew their support mainly from the indigenous Berber people of the region, whereas their Catholic opponents were mainly Roman colonial settlers. While the Christian church has frequently fallen into the temptation of suppressing its opponents, inside and outside its ranks, the notion of “heresy” is and remains of genuine theological importance, and needs to be examined more closely. In what follows, we shall consider both historical and theological aspects of the ideas of heresy and orthodoxy.
Historical Aspects
The ideas of “orthodoxy” and “heresy” are especially associated with the early church. So how did they develop? Are we to think of heresy as a degeneration from orthodoxy? In his study Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (1934), the German historian Walter Bauer argued that the basic unity within the early Christian churches did not seem to be located at the level of doctrines but at the level of relationship with the same Lord. Christian unity lay in the worship of the same Lord, rather than in the formal statement of doctrine (which is how “orthodoxy” tends to be defined).
Bauer went on to argue that a variety of views which were tolerated in the early church gradually began to be regarded with suspicion by the later church. An orthodox consensus began to emerge in which opinions that had once been tolerated were discarded as inadequate. But how was this distinction between heresy and orthodoxy drawn? Bauer argued that “orthodoxy” was the result of the growing power of Rome, which increasingly came to impose its own views upon others, using the term “heresy” to refer to views it rejected. Bauer's argument is that, to him, the difference between orthodoxy and heresy often seems arbitrary. Bauer's hostility to the idea of doctrinal norms reflects his conviction that these were a late development within Christianity.
Bauer's account has been subjected to devastating criticism in recent years, and it is uncertain whether it has a viable future. Historically, it is clear that early Christian communities were engaged in a quest for authenticity, which involved exploring various ways of conceptualizing and expressing the core themes of faith. It is beyond doubt that some early attempts to do this were rejected by later generations. This, however, seems to have little to do with power or authority and more to do with the need to find the best way of expressing the core themes of faith.
Theological Aspects
The debate over the historical origins of the notions of heresy and orthodoxy might suggest that the ideas are of purely antiquarian interest. In fact, there is a continuing theological significance associated with the ideas. Heresy is important theologically. This point is perhaps best seen from one of the most important discussions of heresy, found in F. D. E. Schleiermacher's Christian Faith (first edition, 1821–2). Schleiermacher argued that heresy was what preserved the appearance of Christianity, yet contradicted its essence:
If the distinctive essence of Christianity consists in the fact that in it all religious emotions are related to the redemption wrought by Jesus Christ, there will be two ways in which heresy can arise. That is to say: This fundamental formula will be retained in general [...] but either human nature will be so defined that redemption in the strict case cannot be accomplished, or the Redeemer will be defined in such a way that he cannot accomplish redemption.
Schleiermacher's discussion of heresy is of such interest that we shall consider it in detail, partly because it illuminates the distinction between heresy and unbelief and partly because it shows the continuing need for the notion of “heresy” in theology, even if the word itself risks becoming discredited through overuse.
Schleiermacher argues that the central and distinctive idea of Christianity is that God has redeemed us through Jesus Christ, and through no one else and in no other way. It must therefore follow that the Christian understandings of God, Jesus Christ, and human nature should be consistent with this doctrine of redemption. To give some obvious applications of this point:
In other words, it is essential that the Christian understanding of God, Christ, and humanity is consistent with the principle of redemption through Christ alone.
According to Schleiermacher, to deny that God has redeemed us through Jesus Christ is to deny the most fundamental truth claim of the Christian faith. The distinction between what is Christian and what is not lies in whether this principle is accepted. The distinction between what is orthodox and what is heretical, however, lies in how this principle, once conceded and accepted, is understood. In other words, heresy is not a form of unbelief; it is a faulty or inadequate understanding of core Christian beliefs that arises within the context of faith itself. For Schleiermacher, heresy is fundamentally an inadequate or inauthentic form of Christian faith.
On the basis of his analysis of the theme of redemption in Christ, Schleiermacher identifies four heresies that arise from an inadequate grasp of the doctrine of redemption, as follows:
The four heresies described above may, according to Schleiermacher, be regarded as the four “natural heresies” of the Christian faith, each of which arises through an inadequate interpretation of the doctrine of redemption in Christ. It is no accident that these were by far the most important heresies to be debated in the early church.
Schleiermacher thus holds that heresy is ultimately an inadequate or incoherent way of conceiving the Christian faith. It retains the outward forms of orthodoxy while proving incapable of sustaining the theological weight necessary to support core themes of faith. This has proved to be a fruitful way of thinking about heresy and has been developed further by more recent writers (see, for example, my own Heresy, 2009).