THE HERETIC AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT HIM
By THOMAS LANGFORD

I welcome the chance to participate in a meeting such as this, not because I entertain any illusions about my ability to make any great contribution to the studies, but because I believe in the stated purposes of the studies, “to understand what divides men, the basis of unity, and the nature of brotherhood.” And I know that one determinant of the success of such efforts is the inclusion in the studies of men from as many segments of our movement as possible. I have been, and expect to continue to be, associated with one of the more conservative groups within the Restoration Movement. This is true, not because of any superior knowledge, nor because I have “read myself out of error”, but largely because of the accident (is anything an accident in God’s sight?) of physical birth. I am a part of a larger group, however, the church of the living God, not by an accident of physical birth, but by conformity to the will of God, “by the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit.” And it is as a part of this larger brotherhood that I feel the responsibility to participate in any honest effort toward peace and unity.

Some of my brethren whom I know best will probably be disappointed in my participation in this meeting. I can only regret that they feel this way and hope that they will do what they can in their own way to promote peace among God’s family. They may be right and I wrong, but each will have to answer for himself. I’d like to make it clear that I do not speak for the brethren I am most closely associated with. I can’t do that. I do think that there are some things in our distinguishing positions which the larger brotherhood could profit by, were we in contact with it. On the other hand, I know that there is much we could learn from that larger fellowship, had we more contact with it. This, it seems to me, is the greatest tragedy of our situation today. Each group is isolated from others, without the enlarging benefit of the others’ experience and knowledge. That’s why meetings such as this could be such a fine thing, could they gain more general acceptance. Here we are free of in-bred constrictiveness of party lines and dogmas, free to learn from the wisdom and experience of all our brethren, free to offer what we can ourselves. And the fact that I won’t agree with everything I hear here is not only to be expected, it is something to be thankful for. Whatever truth I hold will be sharpened and polished, both by the agreeable and the disagreeable. I am under no compulsion either to accept or reject. My only necessity is before God to be honest and to love whatever proves to be true when tested by the conflicts of human approaches. This is the kind of an atmosphere men can grow in; any other stifles and dwarfs development or even produces atrophy.

But my subject is “heresy”, or “identifying the heretic”. What I have said so far has not really been beside the point. The conditions which have shattered brethren into segments, and the attitudes which have kept them separate have a great deal to do with the subject of “heresy”. Wherever there is division in God’s family, some aspect of heresy is responsible. But what has often gone by the name heresy has not always been heresy. What the Bible calls heresy, or that person who is called an heretic, seems fairly easy to identify. Our difficulty is in using Biblical instruction for dealing with situations not envisioned by the Spirit for that instruction. When Paul tells Timothy to reject an heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, he seems not to expect that Timothy will have any difficulty knowing who a heretic is. Today, if we accept our common terminology, the situation is a bit more confusing. What is heretical depends upon which segment of the church you stand in. It may be instrumental music, missionary societies, Sunday Schools, or individual communion sets, or any number of other things. Heresy was no such relative thing in Paul’s day. It was something that might be identified anywhere, in whatever congregation Timothy happened to go into.

Actually the word “heretic” has suffered very much the same fate as a word almost its opposite. That word is “saint”. In the language of the Spirit, “saint” meant one who was sanctified, one who had been set apart to the Lord. All Christians were’ saints. The word did not imply sinlessness or a degree of perfection. It simply designated a man’s relationship to God. A man was no more a saint at the end of a long life of Christian growth and development than he was when first baptized. But not so today. A saint is a special something, one in a million—one who never loses his temper, never does anything bad. You see how a word can be perverted. And you can see why Alexander Campbell felt so strongly about restoring a scriptural vocabulary as a prerequisite to any other kind of scriptural restoration. Of course the world “saint” underwent change as certain religious circles began to appropriate it for special uses. Eventually it was used only for those persons who after their death were adjudged especially worthy and were canonized by the church. Another word which has suffered a similar fate is “minister”. It is seldom used in the same sense in which the Spirit used it. Now it refers to a special class of servants; it has been appropriated from general use to describe a particular functionary which the modern church has called for. In most cases the man who is referred to as a “minister” is really a minister, just as the one referred to as a “saint” really is a saint in the biblical sense it is the exclusive use of these terms which is not Biblical, a use in contrast to that book’s general application of them.

Originally, a heretic meant simply a factious man. In fact, the RV uses that word in the place of heretic in Titus 3. But the same influence which corrupted the meaning of “saint” gradually changed the signification of “heretic”. It came in time to mean anyone who deviated from the norm, anyone who could not hold the same convictions which the church proclaimed as orthodoxy. A heresy was not the formation of a new sect, or a factional clique, as in New Testament times that word signified, but merely an idea held in contrast with orthodoxy. And so the Albigenses and Waldenses and Husses, all of whom were probably much nearer the Biblical norm than their persecutors, were fashioned heretics. So Martin Luther was a heretic. So Alexander Campbell was a heretic. And so today many of you here are heretics, perhaps all of you. For today, the Bible is not the basis of determination of who is a heretic, but each party and its creed. Each of us is a heretic according to the creeds of the parties of which we are not a part.

But not so in the Bible’s view. Paul seems to be talking about the heretic in Romans where he gives those brethren what seems to be essentially the same instruction he gave Titus, “I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). A heretic is not a person who holds an opinion of conviction which differs from the norm, not a man who cannot agree with me on instrumental music or Sunday School, or smoking, or integration, but a man who insists that his differing opinion be taken as the norm by all others, a man who pushes his peculiar view to the point of dividing brethren and disrupting unity. A man who forsakes his faith and denies the sonship of Christ is not even properly to be called a heretic, although it would seem that other scripture provides for disciplinary action in his case. A heretic is a troublemaker, a schismatic, a factional man. His disposition is one of the works of the flesh which Paul describes in Gal. 5 under the terms “dissension” and “party spirit”. He is never hard to identify because his nature contrasts sharply with those saints who love and seek for the things which make for peace.

Where I customarily worship, we have some who believe that it would be scriptural for the congregation to have a Sunday School, using women teachers. Most of us there do not think so and we carry on our work without such a program. We love and respect these brethren who differ with us and they respect our conscience. They are not heretics because they differ with us on this subject, nor do we regard them as such. If they were to insist on establishing a Sunday School, heedless of the peace and unity of the congregation, and push to the point of creating a faction or a division, the term heretic could be applied. On the other hand, if one with my convictions on the matter were to enter a congregation with such an established program, and agitate to the point of division in an attempt to swing others around to my conviction, I would be a heretic.

I have participated in the teaching services where only one container for the fruit of the vine is used. Now although I believe I can scripturally participate when more than one container is used, if I tried to make my liberty the law for that congregation, and tried to push it to the destruction of the peace and unity of those fine people, I would be a heretic. On these grounds the real heretics in our day have not been those who have held opposing views about the things that separate us, but those who have made those things the “tests of fellowship”. Real heresy ought to be a “test of fellowship”, but not merely the holding or even practicing of a differing conviction. If those who preach faction were truly avoided, as Paul says such should be, our problems might diminish. But as long as our leaders advocate division, or when each of our sects remains in its isolation with no attempt to heal the breaches, the deplorable state of the brotherhood of Jesus will remain with us.

We have outgrown most of the factionalism of fifty years ago, from that related to instrumental music down to that involving the Lord’s Supper. We seldom hear of new divisions over such things. But a new factionalism has replaced it. Now those who would not be a party to the kind of divisions which brought the various parties into existence, will have no part in any attempt to heal the breaches that remain. They say, “We are at peace going our separate ways; why stir up unrest by trying to make any changes?” We have preached against sectarianism, and yet have fed the fires which resulted in our own sectarian state. And so now we defend our sectarianism rather than face the conflict which is necessary to eliminate it. There certainly must be material here for the student of group psychology!

How does all this relate to congregational discipline? Perhaps I have gone afield, talking too generally about brotherhood problems and not enough about those of the congregation. Paul is specific, for he sets the pattern both for the reception and rejection of members into the local fellowship. And that pattern makes provision for differences, for various stages of growth, for conflicting opinions.

He says, “Welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God” (Rom. 15:7) . He recognizes that some will have scruples that others don’t have, and so he says, “Welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions” (Rom. 14:1) . We might, of course, interrogate him to see if he is “sound in the faith” on all of the issues that have divided us, but we hear Paul say, “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand” (Rom. 14:4).

But some will say, “Won’t such open reception of differing brethren jeopardize our peace? Can we afford to have people among us who are in error?” Paul did not seem to be nearly so concerned about the possibility of differences existing among brethren, as he was about the attitude brethren had in the face of those differences. Love can cover a multitude of differences. Without love every difference is an occasion for trouble. And after all, isn’t it true that it is not the issues we debated which divided us, but the spirit of debate over those issues? That is why Paul says, “Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Rom. 14:19). Pursuing the things that make for peace makes room for differences and the congregation benefits from the uniqueness of each member. But if, in spite of such love there should be one who is factious—one who demands that all conform to his mould—then Paul provides the discipline: “Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).

But this must not be applied to men of peace who sincerely differ, but who have no intention of disrupting unity. Such are not the ones Paul speaks of. It is evident that such action as he advises is to be used against the incorrigible, flagrant, quarrelsome troublers. “For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded” (Rom. 16:18). Such are true heretics.

“For the kingdom of God does not mean food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit; he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men” (Rom. 14:17-18). “Welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has, welcomed you, for the glory of God” (Rom. 15:7) .

__________________

Thomas Langford (Ph.D. Candidate, Texas Christian U.) is an Instructor of English at Texas Tech University. He is an evangelist among Churches of Christ that are often designated as “non-class” churches. This essay was originally presented at the Fellowship Forum, Wynnewood Chapel, Dallas, last summer.