Thoughts on the idea of heresy in the Church

Michael Hicks

THE word "heresy" stands like bookends bracketinga shelf of my seven years in the Church. When Icontemplated joining, late in 1973, my stern

Baptist father handed me a worn booklet titled HeresiesExposed. Mormonism, of course, was the subject of alengthy and not-too-kind chapter. As that chapter didnot deter me, I found myself in 1980 privileged andperhaps a little disturbed to hear a fireside address byElder Bruce R. McConkie called "Seven DeadlyHeresies." In that now well-known talk he referred tocertain theological concepts which, if a man believesthem, might establish him as a heretic. The differencesin perspective between that old booklet and the firesidetalk are plain enough. But the word fascinates. Used incountless other polemics than these I have mentioned, itprofesses to identify error. Yet as a concept in thelatterday Church it seems foreign, out of place.

In the earliest sense a "heretic" was merely one who"chose" his beliefs carefully, then adhered to anddefended them (from the Greek hairesein, to choose totake upon oneself). There was no pejorative sense to theterm. A heresy (hairesis) to the Greek mind was simply aschool of thought, one mode of belief as opposed toanother. A hairesis was usually a non-exclusivephilosophy, a system of belief that made no claim to amonopoly on truth. The Greek, after all, professed toseek truth from many sources. He was reluctant tobrand a man, willing at the most to label him: Stoic,Epicurean, Christian. It is with this sense that the NewTestament writers inherited the word. Thus, in Luke’saccount, Paul explains he was a member of the hairesis ofthe Pharisees. Later, he says, he converted to the hairesisof the Christians.1

But, as we know, some New Testament writers beganinfusing the word with negative connotations. Paulhimself includes hairesis, or "sectarianism," in his list offleshly works.2 On another occasion he writes that it isinevitable, or perhaps even necessary, for heresies(opposing schools) to appear in the Church so that thosewhich are approved may be made manifest.3 Peter also,president of: the Church, prophesies that some men willinfest the Church with "damnable heresies" or factions.4It seems clear from the linguistics and context of thesepassages that what was, in fact, considered "damnable"about a heresy was not what a man believed but hisinsistence on it as the only authoritative theologicalposition. The real sin of heresy was in division,

squabbling over temporally--and perhaps eternally--moot points. As one writer expresses it:

The concord of the communities of the early church wasalways a major theme in Acts and Epistles, and schismand heresy probably were denounced because they weredivisive rather than, in the modern sense, subversive.5

The evil, then, the New Testament writers shunned wasthe division of Israel into ideological camps.

However, the early fathers also knew from experiencethat disagreement need not engender disfellowship. Insome of our earliest sources we discover that those mostantagonistic theologically kept up close social contact,ate and drank together without malice.6 The exchangeof their views, though often heated, did not disrupt theirmutual respect. This was dialogue, after all, not war--and it was essential. The difficulties the prophetsforetold arose when these theologians sought to controlcatechisms, to train up the young disciples in theirpeculiar doctrine, to impose their views by virtue of theecclesiastical offices some of them had justly, butperhaps unfortunately, attained to. When this happened

September-October/29

the sin of hairesis was in full bloom: regardless of who wasright in opinion, such men were wrong in their tactics.They had become factious, sectarian--that is, heretical.

The conditions that brought about this change areevident. The Church in its infancy needed and desired tooverlook internal differences of opinion for unity’s sake.The common causes of overthrowing a degenerateJudaism and proselyting among the heathen, not tomention the immense labor of mere survival amidpersecution, did not allow for the sense of orthodoxy(from ortho and doxa, i.e., "right opinion") as opposed toheterodoxy. The early Christians were spiritualmaw.~ricks bucking the overwhelming trends of the oldorthodoxy. When the clamor of persecution waned, oncethe Church was secure in its social status, that maverickfervor turned inward. Without a feeling of saint-against-Jew, or saint-against-Rome, the trend turned to saint-against-saint.

In such times each among many sides proclaims that italone holds the orthodox--or in our day,"fundamental"--doctrines of the gospel and that allother opinions are heretical.. The move toward this stateof affairs is always subtle. To understand its subtleties inour time we must first examine a related term,"apostasy." The latter word refers to a falling away fromthe truth and usually an open opposition to it. Theapostate is a once-beliew~r become unbeliever. Theheretic, on the other hand, is at worse a misbeliever.7 Thedanger of such misbelief was not originally thought to bein theological deviance per se but in the practices it might

We are left.., with the irony thatin denouncing so-called heresies,or unsound opinions, we createthem in the true sense by drawinglines of ideological divisionbetween the Saints~.

encourage. Thus, Justin complains that heretics teachpeople to "do and say blasphemous things in the name ofChrist."s

Consider a modern example of this very idea: in thefireside address on heresies, Elder McConkie attacks theAdam-God idea not from a theological stance but on thegrounds of unauthorized practices associated wiLh thatdoctrine:

Those ensnared by [the Adam-God doctrine] reject theliving prophet and close their ears to the apostles of theirday... And having so determined, they soon are ready toenter polygamou’.~ relationships which destroy theirsouls.9

It is well to note the real argument here. In this, as in theearly branding of heretics, belief is not attacked asdangerous in and of itself, but is rebuked for the contextin which it most frequently appears. It is for this rea,~onthat unorthodox ideas are rarely called just "false" butalmost invariably "pernicious," "damnable.." or"deadly."~0

Sunstone/30

We find an ancient example in the case of theMarchionites. Many of their views and even practiceswe would consider orthodox in the LDS Church. (JosephSmith himself cited them for their belief in baptism forthe dead.)11 Yet their doctrine was hopelessly tainted bytheir rejection of the ecclesiastical authority of theTwelve.~2 This ancient example illustrates theimportance of guarding against certain trends ofthought, realizing that it is really the integrity of theordinances that may be jeopardized by them. When wehear, as we frequently do, of so-called "apostatedoctrine," we must keep in mind that no theologicalconcept can make a man apostate. Rather, apostate men,by espousing them, make certain theological concepts"apostate" in our terminology. We are left then with theirony that in denouncing so-called heresies, or unsoundopinions, we create them in the true sense by drawinglines of ideo!ogical division between the Saints.

Even beyond this, the modern epithet of heresy asmisbelief presumes a fixed and stable orthodoxy bywhich doctrine may be tested. Has such an orthodoxyever existed? We can only conjecture on much of thedoctrine of the early Christian Church. Indeed, ourRestoratior~ scriptures insist that many "plain andprecious" themes have been expunged from the records.However, we can see in the gospels and the epistles afreedom of interpretation of old prophecy, quite radicalnew interpretations of well-known texts, and divergentexegeses by different authors of the same OldTestament passages. We go about blithely trying toharmonize various readings and interpretations on theprobably erroneous assumption that conflictingtheologies were and are intolerable, even impossible. Inthis case we are apt to compromise a rich doctrinalheritage and to obscure what may be a healthy, fruitfultension. So doing, we manifest a kind of medievalconsciousness in the worst sense: that of a body ofbelievers who have outgrown persecution and begun toimpose the narrow view of "official" interpretation--orthodoxy--on even the finest points. Such anorthodoxy was not part and parcel of the early apostolicChurch, nor as we shall see, the latter-day Church.

Walter Bauer, in his essential work,~3 hasdemonstrated the diversity of belief on many issues thatexisted among the early Christians. There were, as hesees it, no doctrinal norms whatsoever. This is a positionsubject to some controversy. But even Bauer’s foremostcritic, H.E.W. Turner, is compelled to admit that earlyChurch doctrine resembled

a symphony composed of varied elements rather than asingle melodic theme, or a confluence of manytributaries into a single stream rather than a river whichpursues its course, to the sea without mingling withother waters.14

The theology of the young Church was an evolution, aprocess. Where conflict over doctrine arose, it was oftenthe most persuasive or most respected rhetorician thatprevailed in the consensus ecclesiae. Once that consensushad been reached, and the doctrines tacitly or in factvoted upon, there was no going back. In this mannersome ideas we would consider more correct--like thewell-known Arian concept--were rejected and reducedto heretical status, while their counterparts ascended to

orthodoxy. To assure the stability of this new-foundorthodoxy--a stability confessedly unknown andunneeded in earlier days--creeds were formulated, testoaths which left, as one commentator observed, a"legacy of fear" on all Christendom. By the fourth andfifth centuries these creeds promulgated in auspiciouschurch councils were becoming proof-texts forascertaining the orthodoxy of a man’s faith. The epitomeof this insistence on an unquestioned pattern of belief isfound in the Vincentian canon of the fifth century,which defines true Christian belief as "that which isbelieved everywhere, always, and by everyone."

In times like these, as Canon Fairbarn put it, "alldoctrines are reduced to authority and all morals toobedience.’’15 Many of our greatest minds and spiritsendured the logical consequences of such a reduction:artists were enslaved, philosophers imprisoned,scientists beheaded, reformers burned. Unfortunately,some of the so-called reformers themselves continuedthe strange traditions of their own persecutors. ThusMichael Servetus, the sixteenth-century Spanishheretic, escaped the inquisition in Southern France byfleeing to Calvin’s Genoa, only to be burned to deaththere for his misbelief. In response to Severtus’sexecution, Sebastian Castellio wrote an impassionedplea for the abandonment of the common idea of heresy.He sums up the situation in his pamphlet De haereticis ansint persequendi:

The real sin of heresy was indivision, squabbling overtemporally--and perhapseternally--moot points.

If a man should devote himself to trying to provide a whiterobe--that is, to live an innocent life--all the rest bandtogether against him, if he differs from them in a single point.They set upon him and denounce him as a heretic... Theycharge him falsely with crimes he never even though of. Theyso slander and smear him before the public that it is consideredsinful even to listen to him. They work themselves up intosuch a fury with these ~landers that they are angry if he isstrangled first, and not burnt alive over a slow fire.

The reductio ad absurdam of the whole affair, says Castellio,is that "Christians are at odds with Christians aboutChrist."16

Less than three hundred years later, Joseph Smithmade his great inquiry concerning orthodoxy only to beinformed in vision that all existing creeds were corruptand erroneous. But perhaps paradoxically, from thisfirst vision onward, Joseph evolved an all embracingpolicy of tolerance toward many divergent beliefs. Herebuked sectarianism, to be sure--heresy in its truesense--and he was ever prompt to defend his restoredauthority to administer saving ordinances. Yet herefused to establish a pattern of orthodox belief forlatter-day saints. Why? Because, as he said, "creeds setup stakes, and say, ’Hitherto shalt thou come, and nofurther’; which I cannot subscribe to.’’17 As for misbelief,he insisted: "I never hear of a man being damned forbelieving too much; but they are damned for unbelief."~s

September-October/31

Joseph was compelled to take such a stance, for hehimself witnessed from day to day a divine interchangeof ideas that led his doctrinal thought from somethingakin to Campbellism to a revolutionary spiritual andcommunal philosophy that forever qualified Mormonsfor unquestionably heretic status in the minds of mostChristians.

The most extensive of Joseph’s references to thissubject was in a discourse given at general conference,April 8, 1843. Pelatiah Brown had been dragged beforethe High Council for preaching his interpretation ofJohn’s Revelation. Joseph was not impressed with theirattempt to censure Father Brown. His objection to theiraction had nothing to do with whether or not the councilwas able to provide Father Brown with the correctinterpretation. Joseph admits he doesn’t care either way,adding that "correct knowledge on the subject is [not] somuch needed at the present time." The only reason heconsents to explain the subject at all is to preventcontention and do away with division, i.e., heresy in theoriginal sense. He rebukes the council:

I did not like the old man being called up for erring indoctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and notlike the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds whicha man must believe or be asked out of their church. Iwant the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. Itfeels so good not to be trammelled.

We have reached a stage in ourhistory where the requisite carefuland critical thought seemsburdensome to many. People jointhe ranks of the Kingdomexpecting "the last word on thesubject"--on every subject.He then calmly rebuffs the myth of the deadly heretic:"It does not prove that a man is not a good man becausehe errs in doctrine.’’19

Joseph’s aversion to a sense of orthodoxy is furthersuggested in the fact that the only "creed" he everdevised came in response to the badgering of easternersfor a statement of belief from the Church. I refer, ofcourse to the Articles of Faith. The breadth of this quasi-creed is amply shown in the first article, wherein apotentially complex theology of the Godhead is reducedto "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His SonJesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." Within that basicbelief, some have speculated on the possibility of God’sprogression in knowledge and power~ on the identity ofthe Father, on the nature of the Holy Ghost, and so on.But the article itself still reads as it stands. Because thisand all the articles are so broad, it should not surprise usthat Joseph’s colleagues and. immediate successors foundlittle use for them. They ahnost never referred to them,favoring instead the so-called ’Mormon Creed,"presumably devised by Joseph himself, which statessimply, "Let every man mind his own business.’’20

The objection can be and has been raised that the LDSrule of faith must consist in the idea of the StandardWorks. Indeed, in some contemporary attacks on heresyin the Church we are told:

We have accepted the four standard works as themeasuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measureevery man’s doctrine.2~

One of the reasons we call our scriptures The StandardWorks [is thatl they are the standard of judgement andthe measuring rod against which all doctrines and viewsare weighed, and it does noi: make one particle ofdifference whose views are involved. The scripturesalways take precedence.22

Such an approach sounds reasonable, at first hearing,but as the early Christians learned, it is fraught withambiguity. Given the fact that the young apostolicchurch considered "the scriptures" to refer to the OldTestament and that even in the oldest manuscripts wepossess there is a dearth of "plain and precious"Christian teaching, we must look elsewhere for earlyChristian doctrinal sources. What were those sources?Contemporary works: the teachings of Jesus in variousaccounts and commentary on~ the Old Testament byapostles and other church writers. These commentarieswere absolutely essential to the faith of the Saints; tomerely have told these early brethren that "thescriptures always take precedence" would have left themat worst hopelessly entrenched in theologicalmisconceptions and outworn covenants and at best asmuddled and helpless as perhaps some of us findourselves when reading an Isaiah or Ezekiel. All this isnot to mention the problem of whose canon to accept.Should a preeminently gentile church subscribe to theexclusivity and bias of the councils of scribe,,; andPharisees?

In the LDS Church we have a similar, and even greaterdilemma with respect to the New Testament. We takethat canon for granted, but the issue of canonicity is atthe heart of the conflict between orthodoxy andheterodoxy in early Church times. I need mention onlyin passing the endless disputes over authorship and overthe authoritativeness of this apostle’s doctrine over thatapostle’s as well as the wild variance in the tenor ofbooks purporting to contain the sayings or teachings ofJesus--most of which were of equally ancient date. It isimportant to recall that many classic New Testamentbooks were only marginally accepted by the ma~ss ofchurch members for centuries. Trends in the popularityof certain texts waxed and waned. But at a :givenmoment in history a council of theologians and priests,bent on eliminating division, fixed the canon of currentacceptance and made it somehow binding for all tirne.How was that determination made? A strong factor’ was,as we have suggested, the co~nmonality of use in thechurch. However, a greater factor was the need forbool~ to fit the (:reeds of orthodoxy already created. Thewell-known Nicene Council had fixed its famoustrinitarian creed in A. D. 325. The council ofcanonization at Carthage was not till some seventyyears later.

Even by stabilizing the canon, the prevailingorthodoxy could not end heretical tendencies. In fact,with the same books accepted by all, divergent beliefs didnot recede but spread because, as Lanier would soeloquently explain, the scriptures are deliberately wague.Much of their power is i~ allowing for variantinterpretations.23 The problem on the minds of tlhe

Sunstone/32

authorities was not really how to get members to use theauthorized canon as the final doctrinal authority--forall, even the rankest heretics were doing that--but howto fix the interpretation of the scriptures. To effectivelyassert their’ desires, they joined to the scriptures twoother doctrinal criteria: tradition and reason.

Tradition, "what has always been believed," was mostessential. Some men, like Chrysostom, argued traditionwas more important than the scriptures themselves, forthe written text would be useless, unintelligible withoutit. Such had little use for new exegesis or exposition.They sought only to maintain a doctrinal status quo.Reason, as one might expect, was touted more thanemployed. In many theological concerns, like theTrinity, it only got in the way. Still, the logicalconsistency of a doctrine could be used as a measuringrod of its correctness--albeit as a last resort. Quasi-rational arguments were usually saved for dealing withheretic intellectuals, who were thought to rely far tooheavily on reason.

The trinify of scripture, tradition, and reason sufferedits greatest affronts from the early Mormon movement.What chance did the orthodox canon and its attendantcult of tradition have in the face of new historicalscriptures and daily revelations clarifying, expanding,even superceding the ancient ones. Among thoserevelations were sentiments like the following:"Whatsoever [the elders] shall speak when moved uponby the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of

The epitome.., insistence on anunquestioned pattern of belief isfound in the Vincentian canon ofthe fifth century, which definestrue Christian belief as "that whichis believed everywhere, always,and by everyone."

the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the wordof the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord .... "24 Thewritten text, then, was in no way superior to the spoken.And that Joseph did not consider the spoken or writtento be fixed is evidenced by his repeated revisions of andinsertions into the Bible, Book of Mormon, andcontemporary revelations alike. He makes no apologiesto ardent scripturalists. "I have got the oldest book in myheart," he says, "even the Holy Ghost."25 With Joseph apattern of continual welling up and crystallization, of"line upon line" development supplanted the prevailingclassical view of orthodoxy. That view, of course,insisted there was a pristine measure of doctrine buriedsomewhere in the dim past, but somehow preserved inthe doctrinal musings of the contemporary churchhierarchy.

Joseph’s chief disciple, Brigham Young, carried theProphet’s thought to its logical conclusions:You may read and believe what you please as to what isfound written in the Bible... [but] when my sermons arecopied and approved by me, they are as good scripture asis couched in this Bible.26

What of the majestic Genesis account? "A baby story," isBrigham’s answer.27 His apparent flippancy he explainswith a broad principle that extends to all scripture--eventhat from his own mouth.

I do not even believe that there is a single revelation,among the many God has given to the Church, that isperfect in its fullness. The revelations of God containcorrect doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it isimpossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinfulinhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from theAlmighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in amanner to meet the extent of our capacities.z8With scripture redefined and put in perspective and

tradition breached, what of reason? Strangely, theconcept of reason--or a sanctified form of it--iselevated, in effect, to the highest position. A few ofJoseph’s statements on this should illustrate:

September-October/33

The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself.Man was also in the beginning with God [for]intelligence.., was not created or made, neither indeedcan be.The Holy Ghost has no other effect than pureintelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind,enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellectwith present knowledge...29

The revelative act consists in the Spirit giving "suddenstrokes of ideas" to man.3° Clearly Joseph did not findthe rational and the spiritual to be the enemies manyclassical thinkers did. Nor did he merely concede them tobe compatible. The boldr~ess of his thought was toidentify the two so closely as to render them virtuallyindistinguishable. The mind and spirit are the sameeternal, uncreated entity, "co-equal" with the Godwhose glory is intelligence.

In such a conception, the duty of the mind is to beactive, always expanding, encompassing, and embracingnew things: "Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soulunto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmostheavens, and search into and contemplate the darkestabyss, and the broad expanse of eternity.’’31 Thus, trueorthodoxy--right thinking--consists in continualacquisition, not mere maintenance. And the real heresy,by Joseph, becomes apparent: "It is the doctrine of thedevil to retard the human mind .... "3~

With Joseph a pattern of continualwelling up and crystallization, of"line upon line" developmentsupplanted the prevailing classicalview of orthodoxy.

We have reached a stage in our history where therequisite careful and critical thought seems burdensometo many. People join the ranks of the Kingdomexpecting, as my Sunday School teacher is wont to put it,"the last word on the subject"--on every subject. Theyseek the kind of cut and dried orthodoxy that thefounding geniuses of Mormonism refused to succumbto. When they see doctrinal controversy these convertsoften turn away disheartened. The proper remedy to meseems not to squelch the dialogue, as some havesuggested, but to reappraise its significance. JohnMacquarrie in his fine Principles of Christian Theology statesit perhaps best:

"[’he stresses and strains that go on ~n theology serve toremind us once more that there can be no final theologyin which we can rest once and for all.33

And our own perhaps greatest theologian, B. H.Roberts, confirms this notion. After mentioning certaintruths of which we may and must be certain--"the Lordis God, Jesus is the Christ, the gospel is the power of Godunto salvation"--he concludes that

even with the possession of [the Spirit of Truth], I prayyou .... never to look for finality in things for you willlook in vain .... Intelligence [and] truth will always bewith us relative terms.3a

In that light, better we ~ake the latter-day notion of

heresy with a grain or two of salt than become withChristendom pillars of salt--continuallylookingbackward for something that isn’t there.

Notes1. Acts 26:5; 24:14~2.Gal. 5:20.3. I Cor. 11:19.4.II Peter 2:1.5. Edward Peters, ed., Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe: Documerlts inTranslation (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980), p.15.6. See H. E. W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth: A Study of the.Relationsbetween Orthodoxy amt Heresy in the Early Church (London: A. R. Mowbray,1954), pp. 58-59.7. Edward J. Machle, "How is a Heresy False?" Studies in Religion. SciencesReligieuses 1 (1971):2-28.8. Quoted in Turner, p. 98.9. Bruce R. McConkie, "Seven Deadly Heresies," BYU 14-StakeFireside, 1 June 1980, typescript in possession of the author.10. The orthodoxy, in its zeal, often carries this to extremes; the resultcan come in wonderfully mixed metaphors like that of Ignatius, whodescribes the heretics as "grievous wolves who lead captive theatheletes in God’s race." Quoted in Turner, p. 63.11. Joseph Smith et. al., History of the Church, ed. B. H. Roberts, 7 vols.(Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1970),. 4:599. Hereafter cited as HC.12. They believed that when Paul warned of "false apostles" (II Cot.11:13) he was referring to the Twelve.13. Rechtglaubigkeit urd Ketzerei im altesten Christentum (Tubingen: Mohr,1964).14. Turner, p. 9.15. See Machle, p. 229.16. Translated by Peter McLachlan in The Hibbert Journal 61 (October1962):38-40.17. HC 6:57.18. HC 6:477.18. HC 6:477.

25.

26.

27.

28.29.

30.

31.32.

33.

19. HC 5:340.20. See statement of Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses 26 vols.(London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1854-1886), 2:92-93. Thereare occasional references to the "Mormon Creed" in nineteenth-century Mormondom, one of the more notable being its placementon the masthead of John Taylor’s newspaper The Mormon, whrein the"creed" is attributed to Brigham Young, and reads simply "mind yourown business."21. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruoe R.McConkie, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: B,ookcraft, 1956), 3:203.

22. Bruce R. McConkie, "Finding Answers to Gospel Questions," anopen letter to all "’honest truth seekers," copy signed and dated 30October 1980 in author’s possession.23. Sidney Lanier, Centennial Edition of the Works, 10 vols, (Baltimore: JohnHopkins Press, 1945) 2:333-34.

24. Doctrine and Covenants 68:4.HC 6:308.

Journal of Discourses 3:319; 13:264.

]D 2:6.

]D 2:314.HC 6:310; Doctrine and Covenants 93:29; HC 3:380.

HC 3:381.

HC 3:295.HC 5:24.Principles of Christian Theology (New York: Scribner’s, 1966), p 17.

34. Improvement Era 8 (1905):369-70.

MICHAEL HICKS is working on a doctorate in music at Universiity ofIllinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Sunstone/34