The way forward, part 5: Who is a heretic?

There are some things every Christian is bound to believe, views without which one is not a Christian in any sense of the word. In my view, these are the things revealed by the apostolic community of the first century as necessary to salvation. The apostles are clear that they are telling us the way of salvation. I take them at their word, and so I must grant in charity that whomsoever receives their message as the truth and honors it in life choices is a Christian in some sense. The Lord says that whoever hears his words, and believes God who sent him, has passed from death to life. I will not be more stringent as to who is a Christian.

I do not deny that there are better and worse insights on how to understand the Christian life so to live it, but not every deviation from my own communion's understanding is fatal. It is fortunately so, for otherwise, any flaw in my own church's understanding would likewise be fatal. I am not willing to claim that our understanding has always been flawless. I would surely not say we have always agreed among ourselves.

Heresies are denials, direct or indirect, of the saving message of the apostles. I do not think heresy consists in the denial of some later practice, however salubrious or godly that later practice might be. One is a heretic for damaging the fabric of the message of salvation.

Therefore I need not think someone a heretic for his different traditional practices, even if I think them not the best. I, of course, think mine are best. He, of course, does not.

I may see flaws in his theological stances, but he surely thinks mine are flawed. Yet, if we measure ourselves by the standard scripture holds out to us, we see two believers with flawed understanding. Now we are talking only about a matter of degree.

Once again, heresy is not the right charge, if both are seeking in good faith to understand life within the gospel's new reality. It is a new reality because we are given a new life. How ought we understand that, and how ought we now live? Our insights differ but our aim does not, if what we are trying to do is grasp and apply the concepts bequeathed us in the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

The ecumenical motto, "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity" has always foundered on the problem of identifying essentials versus nonessentials. We say to each other, this is an essential and you must comply, or, that is not essential, so I need not agree. My way of breaking that logjam is to propose that essentials are necessary to salvation and contained in the testimony of the first-century apostolic community. The truths of the apostles are the things that have always been so for Christians, and it is fair to suppose they always will be, for all later traditions lack force without them as their core.

When I want to persuade a Christian from another heritage that my tradition is right (or at least plausible) on some nonessential, I know that my best approach is to say that our view is helpful, useful, inclining one to godliness or helping in avoiding sin and error. It is a good argument to the extent that my church has set a good example in those things. Where we have not, perhaps I should listen instead of talk.