Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth

by Alister E. McGrath

A study of the history of heresy and rival forms of Christianity, arguing that the church must continue to defend what is true about Jesus.Our ongoing fascination with alternative Christianities is on display every time a never-before-seen gospel text is revealed, an archaeological discovery about Jesus makes front-page news, or anew work of fiction challenges the very foundations of the church. Now, in a timely corrective to this trend, renowned church historian Alister McGrath examines the history of subversive ideas, overturning common misconceptions that heresy is somehow more spiritual or liberating than traditional dogma. In so doing, he presents a powerful, compassionate orthodoxy that will equip the church to meet the challenge from renewed forms of heresy today.

Genres: Theology, History, Christianity, Religion, Christian, Church History, Nonfiction

290 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Alister Edgar McGrath is a Northern Irish theologian, priest, intellectual historian, scientist, and Christian apologist. He currently holds the Andreas Idreos Professorship in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford, and is Professor of Divinity at Gresham College. He was previously Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at King's College London and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture, Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, and was principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, until 2005. He is an Anglican priest and is ordained within the Church of England.

Aside from being a faculty member at Oxford, McGrath has also taught at Cambridge University and is a Teaching Fellow at Regent College. McGrath holds three doctorates from the University of Oxford, a DPhil in Molecular Biophysics, a Doctor of Divinity in Theology and a Doctor of Letters in Intellectual History.

McGrath is noted for his work in historical theology, systematic theology, and the relationship between science and religion, as well as his writings on apologetics. He is also known for his opposition to New Atheism and antireligionism and his advocacy of theological critical realism. Among his best-known books are The Twilight of Atheism, The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, and A Scientific Theology. He is also the author of a number of popular textbooks on theology.

Reviews

[Paul Bryant · Rating 3 out of 5]

Everyone knows that history is written by the winners. “Orthodoxy” is nothing more than a heresy that happened to win out and promptly tried to suppress its rivals. Therefore what orthodoxy calls heresy is probably the true version, and actually, heresy is “a set of noble ideas that have been brutally crushed and improperly suppressed …and then presented as if they were devious, dishonest or diabolical”.

That's what AM thinks us modern types think like. We go on: establishing orthodox belief was really all about consolidating a power bloc in the church, specifically, the church in Rome. AM tells us that this is the main theme of Dan Brown’s blockbuster The Da Vinci Code (and he rather shoots his credibility in the foot a little bit on p5 when he describes Dan Brown’s novel as a “brilliant work of fiction”. Let’s pass over that!)

I think it’s uncomfortable for Christians to accept that it took over 300 years to figure out what Christian beliefs actually were. For at least 200 years after Christ there were various competing Christianities scattered over the Roman world. They didn’t have the internet, didn’t even have phones, so communication was intermittent, and local churches pretty much forged their own paths. The books of the New Testament had not been canonised so all kinds of random “gospels” and theological bits and bobs were cooked into the local holy goulash.

AM makes an interesting and curious comparison between Christianity and science. We moderns are quite happy with the idea that science evolves; the rubbishness of some ideas having been exposed, they are jettisoned without a twinge. He says this same evolution of religious understanding can be seen throughout Christian history, and what’s wrong with that?

So : earliest ideas are quite often wrong ideas. Early does not mean authentic.

SOME INTERESTING CHRISTIAN HERESIES

(when I say "interesting", I mean "to religious geek types" - the rest of you shouldn't even be here)


Ebionitism

in which Jesus is the latest and greatest Jewish prophet, and nothing more.

This heresy will appeal to : Jews.

Docetism

Jesus seemed to be human but really, he wasn’t. He was a divine spirit in human form. Or : no, he was a normal guy, and at his baptism when the Holy Dove came down and all, then the Christ spirit entered into this guy, and it departed when he was crucified. This is the beginning of a great struggle in the early church about the humanity and divinity of Jesus – what was he? If he was divine, and yet he died on the Cross, is that not therefore saying that God suffered and died? Is that not blasphemous or simply ridiculous? They were profoundly conflicted about this and it’s not surprising. Until the church imposed the paradoxical formula – fully human, fully divine – there was room for much disagreement and name-calling of people who made different interpretations.

This heresy would have appealed to : my grandmother

Valentinism

AM explains that there was a big spiritual movement in the 1st and 2nd centuries which has been given the label Gnosticism; but it’s not a useful term because it’s such a loose and baggy monster; just like calling someone a New Age hippy; not useful. However, there was a Valentine who promoted a Christian version of this thing, and it went like this. God created the universe. Then there was a rebellion in heaven such that one of God’s heavenly underlings wanted to do some creating of its own; and it created a mini-God (called a demiurge!). The miniGod in turn created Matter, and from Matter came our universe. It being formed from Matter, it is thereby intrinsically evil – hence all our suffering. The miniGod has no idea that he isn’t the actual Big God. Christ was sent by Big God to awake our divine innate sparks and pass us the Wisdom to enable us to find a way out of the evil universe of Matter and back to the world of spirit.
Wow, this sounds like the Matrix, or sumpin.

I note that this myth has strong echoes in the myth of the fall of Lucifer.

This heresy will appeal to : New Age hippies

Marcionism

Marcion thought this world was made by an inferior God, one who blatantly didn’t know what he was doing (hence childbirth labour, earthquakes, etc). He thought the Jewish scripture clearly showed that the Jews had mistakenly worshipped the creator of this world and were still at it. Christ came to show people what the real God was all about. Therefore the one had nothing to do with the other, and therefore Christianity should completely eradicate all its Jewish origins and references, since it was a brand new religion.
This heresy will appeal to : anti-Semites (it gets wheeled out by them every so often).

From Ulysses :

--Well, his uncle was a jew, says he. Your God was a jew. Christ was a jew like me.

Gob, the citizen made a plunge back into the shop.

--By Jesus, says he, I'll brain that bloody jewman for using the holy name.


Arianism

I think a lot of Christians are still Arians without realising it. Over the 4 centuries after Jesus Christians had been developing one very radical idea in particular – that Jesus was NOT a “prophet”, not some really special messenger from God, not a second Moses, he wasn’t a mortal man possessed temporarily with a Christ spirit, none of that, Jesus was actually God Himself. This is the doctrine of the Incarnation. Arian was a 4th century priest who thought that God was omnipotent, changeless and indivisible – what’s wrong with that, hmm – but that means that Jesus wasn’t God.
It would be interesting to ask a modern Christian was Jesus God – actual God. If they qualify the answer in any way – well, he was Lord, he was divine, but, er, he wasn’t God – then they’re a heretic! You can tell them that from me, and Athanasius of Alexandria.

Arian tried to find another really special category to put Jesus in, somewhere between actual God and mere creation (he was Logos, he was Wisdom, he was before creation, all of that kind of wriggling), but the other bishops called him on it – they said – we worship Jesus, right? If Jesus is a created being then we’re not worshiping God, which would be as bad as some golden bull, it would be idolatry. They said look, it’s a yes or no thing, so what’s it gonna be and he said “Jesus not God” so there was a big rackety row and finally they got him declared as a heretic.

AM’s point is well made here – if Arian Christianity had overcome orthodoxy, then Christianity would be quite like Islam, with Jesus taking the place of Mohammed. In other words, although it seems that the 4th century bishops were arguing about one word in a formula – was the Son of like substance to the Father or of the same substance – that’s what it came down to – yet behind this one word difference were two entirely separate concepts, two separate religions.

This heresy will appeal to : most ordinary Christians who don't have philosophy degrees


In each of these cases the early church rejected the simple version and opted for the complex, difficult version of Christianity. I have to respect that.

[Julian Worker · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an enjoyable read and I feel I know more about and am able to distinguish between the heresies covered in great detail namely Ebionitism, Docetism, Valentinisn, Marcionism, Arianism, Donatism, and Pelagianism. These heresies of early Christianity were differences in ideas whereas the heresies of the Middle Ages were more about challenging the authority of The Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.

Arianism was taken so seriously that the Emperor Constantine called the Council Of Nicaea in 325 to allow the bishops of the Western and Eastern Empires to vote on whether Arianism should be the new orthodoxy for the Christian church.

[jordan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Attempting a herculean task, Alister McGrath's "Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth" not offers a history of heresy from a Christian perspective, but also attempts to define the term. As history, McGrath does a fine job explaining the various movements within Christianity, though on occasion he can be selective with his use of sources in order to maintain his position with regards to the supremacy of Christian orthodoxy. For example, one might think from this work that the Arian "heresy" died in the 4th Century only to rear its head again in the 18th Century, when in fact this non-Trinitarian idea survived for further centuries, and continues today in groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. However, his attempt to define heresy proves far from successful.

McGrath tries mightily to find a definition (and for obvious theological reasons one which leaves Protestants on the "right" side of the divide. And yet, none of his efforts survive much scrutiny, his argument turning almost tautological. Thus, he describes Arianism as heretical because it lacks "internal coherence," yet one can just as easily imagine a counter narrative, where Arianism succeeded and could describe Trinitarians in similarly derisive terms. Likewise, his efforts to present the early Church as generally unified, do not stand up to serious historical scrutiny, as is clear from the diversity of texts in wide circulation during the period. Even within the New Testament itself, one can already infer charges and counter charges of heresy between the Jerusalem Church and Paul's work among Greek speaking Gentiles.

In many ways, the whole history of the Church could be read as a series of heresies, one following the other; early Christianity being a Jewish heresy, Paul's missionizing a Christian heresy, all the way forward to the heresies of Luther and his intellectual offspring. The same can be said of McGrath's suggestion that a heresy can be discerned when Christians seek to adopt to the larger culture, a thing which was clearly true in the case of Paul and to an even great degree as Christianity entered the Roman mainstream. As for defining heresy as those movements which don't survive, who can know whether Cathars, plainly a heresy in McGrath's view, wouldn't have flourished if not for the ironically named Innocent III willingness to engage in the questionably Christian effort to murder several hundred thousand of them.

While Christian readers may take comfort in McGrath's writings, he fails to counter much of the evidence offered by secular scholars, such as Bart Ehrmann.
In the end, McGrath offers an interesting history, but theological arguments which are less than persuasive.

[Kerry Campbell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I must confess that I found this book difficult to read, but at the same time I am willing to concede that this may quite rightly be more of a reflection on me than the book.

This book I can say gives the impression it is very thorough and even-handed in its historical analysis of heresy. Another impression this book gives is that the Christian community can be thankful that heresies and their continued occurrence down the ages are not only useful but essential, in that they provide the necessary backdrop for asking the essential question: Just what does constitute authentic Christianity? In this we see the truth in the words of Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians:
"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." 1 Corinthians 11:19
As C.S. Lewis said, one cannot call a line crooked without some idea of a straight line. And it is the impetus of the crooked in our midst that inspires us to better express what is straight. While for some, this may represent a disappointment in the book- in that little discussion takes place as to what authentic Christianity is, the book, true to its subject, is all about the history of ideas that have claimed to be authentic Christianity and have been found wanting.
An important distinction made in this work is that Christianity began with few Creedal statements and a very basic set of beliefs about Christ. Again C.S. Lewis made another discerning comment- that good philosophy must exist if for no other reason than to answer bad philosophy- and this truth also applies to theology. The growth in the creedal affirmations and more methodical, systematic theology of orthodox Christianity grew out of the need to answer bad theology. So in a sense, as more and more subtle but on the whole sincere attempts to better articulate what was true about Christ in order to fit into the presuppositions of other worldviews, other thinkers joined the fray to protect the purity of the Gospel.

Although perhaps not a direct aim of the book, what comes abundantly clear to me, is that what is utterly vital if Christianity is to continue to be consistent with its 2000 plus years of its history; is that eternal vigilance is the price of Christian liberty, and therefore the dialogue, the debate and the discussion must continue apace and this at least, is in the Spirit of Christ.

McGrath does an admirable job of showing how some of these attempts to redefine Christianity were motivated by a perceived need to genuinely make Christianity more palatable in terms of the contemporary thinking and culture of the time or the place in which they occurred. They were rebutted as the perception arose that these views tended to erode or destroy Christianity.

He examines the psychology of heresy. He rightly examines the tension that exists between authority and the role of conscience and how this played out historically in the reformation.

He also does a good job of making clear that when Christianity became a political force that heresy also was politicized. Heresy ceased -in a sense- to represent heterodox views but became merely the loser in a battle for power. This is an important distinction for today also, and a cogent reminder that there is much and warranted suspicion in today's context of post-modernism that "orthodoxy" is not connected necessarily to truth at all but exists merely as a ploy for power over others. As one would expect the lessons from history will continue to have a bearing on the direction that Christianity takes in the future. For that reason alone this is a valuable contribution to Christian thought.


The truth of the gospel is rightly thought of as, like our God- “the same yesterday , today and forever” there is an unending legitimate progression of innovative ways to express these timeless truths, and as our knowledge of His world around us grows, so does this give us growing opportunities to express the Gospel in contemporary terms, for contemporary problems but without compromise. But it is this writers view that truth by nature is objective and universal and therefore timeless- what changes is the culture and we need innovation in the sense of re-applying timeless truth to contemporary thought. I think there is inherent danger in the idea in McGrath's comment (p.221):
"Orthodoxy is thus, in a certain sense, unfinished, in that it represents the mind of the church as to the best manner of formulation of its living faith at any given time."
What exactly does he mean here?The mind of the church is not necessarily the mind of Christ. If that is the sense he intends then well and good, however When Christ said "it is finished" he incorporated (and this is a good word) the sense of a finished and complete gospel. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus..." This then means that we need to strive for the true Gospel expressed in the best possible way for today, but not a gospel that is really in a state of flux, with constantly changing goalposts. There is a danger as Ravi Zacharias, speaking of the "emergent church", recently spelled out: "What! After 2000 years of Christian thought and suddenly we didn't know what Christ was on about!"

If there were to be any one statement that I would seriously call into question it is in the section about the Arminian controversy.(P214fwd) McGrath proposes that the newly formed movement now known as Protestantism, while struggling with such heresies as anti-Trinitarianism, "was able to deal with such heterodox trends by an appeal to the consensus of faith of the church as set out in the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon." Earlier in the piece he said:"The Protestant approach to heresy worked well , providing it was restricted to the reaffirmation of the church's condemnation of existing heresies or their revival in new forms." And then, referring to the question of Arminianism which he alludes to a little further on, he questions: "Yet what of new religious teachings, arising specifically within Protestantism, that had no real precedents in earlier Christian history?Could these be described as heretical if they were found unacceptable?"

Firstly, the idea that Arminianism is wholly new is not entirely accurate. Pelagianism and Semi-pelagianism had indeed already been dealt with (and seen to be heretical) in earlier councils and the new controversy was simply another angle on that. In that way Protestantism could have fallen back on the authority of the earlier councils but by extension relate it to the new-ish but related controversy.

The question of predestination by God or whether-quote- "human beings were, if only to a limited extent, implicated in their own election...could equally claim to represent coherent interpretations of the Bible" I see that as a most unfortunate framing of the controversy. Of course it is true that "human beings were...implicated in their own election." We must choose Christ or we are not saved, we are not, without that decision- of that number, the elect. To the extent then, of making a conscious decision, there is no doubt humanity is implicated in their own salvation and election. I don't know any Calvinists that would deny this. But I assume this is also quite clear to McGrath which is all the more reason why I wonder why he expressed it in this way. The real question is: does this choice, this act of human will originate and is it attributable directly to the Holy Spirit or is it an act of libertarian free-will? And that is where I most strongly object to the latter half of that statement where he concludes that either view: "could equally claim to represent coherent interpretations of the Bible". Cohere- yes but equally- no. Arminianism has been correctly diagnosed as the humanist approach to Christian soteriology. All that is good and true about Arminian theology is subsumed in Reformed thinking. Analogously Arminianism comports with a beautiful seascape complete with icebergs and all manner of interesting phenomena.The reformed view is the same but is- like the camera half in the water and half out- whereby all that lies beneath is laid bare and is of far more beauty, complexity and consequence than what shows above the water line alone.




Secondly, according to my reading of McGrath- it seems, to him at least, to represent an insurmountable problem for Protestantism- and that is how to deal decisively with heresy. McGrath seems to be alluding to an inherent problem within Protestantism and that was the question of authoritarianism over against the freedom of conscience. In so doing we can be thankful to McGrath for addressing a problem that is fragmenting Protestantism to this day. In the old authoritarian order the clergy- and in finality- the Pope, were authoritative in proclamations of the faith, it fell to them to make the final call and force that view. But, and this is where he rightly questions the robustness of Protestantism- how do we fare with questions that have not been dealt with before, what, in the absence of the final authority of the Pope- will become of questions of heresy?

Well in a word- they convene a council or synod and upon due deliberation make their decision as they did in the Synod of Dort where, after the 154th meeting, on May 9, 1619, voting representatives from the Dutch Reformed Church and eight foreign Reformed churches concluded that Arminianism was a heresy.

I believe that answer- and which I hope is not being unfair to McGrath to say so- is left somewhat unsaid in his book. The authority of scripture- Sola Scriptura, and the power of critical thinking and a good conscience are vital. The answer has to do with the very thing that McGrath has so ably set out before us in the history of heresy. That is- that we should continue to dialogue in the form of discussions, debates and whatever other tools that can be used to facilitate an awakened conscience to the claims of truth.

McGrath:
"A heresy is a teaching that the whole Christian church, not a party within the church, regards as unacceptable."
It appears that McGrath is attempting to adjudicate between the merits of an autocratic system where, on the one hand a supreme head (as in the Pope) forces a conformity to a judgement- such as the Arminian controversy- on the whole church, and where on the other hand -admittedly only a section of the church- declare a controversy to be heretical but leaves open the possibility of a divided, fragmented Christianity. The situation where there are as many "orthodoxies" as there are believers is regrettable but I think preferable to forcing decisions of orthodoxy. I believe he fails here to appreciate- despite writing a whole history of heresy- that though an autocrat may forcibly declare a controversy to be heresy on the whole church, it by no means stops the said heresy.In I think, words similar to his own, it goes underground and simply pops up somewhere else or at some other time. Force never really works, if a person just can't see the truth of a particular point, then forcing him to confess it is counter productive. As Luther reputedly said:
"I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen."

The hierarchical structure of Judaism was not unlike the authoritarian muscle of the Church before the Reformation (and in places of Protestantism today is looking distinctly like being repeated). What did Jesus do? He was notably angry with an authoritarian structure that was used for personal gain under the guise of "guardian of the faith", and indeed he suffered and died under this forced observance of Judaism as many martyrs have since- under a forced "Christianity". His own form of leadership was more reasoned than it was autocratic. To imagine that the God who created all that exists ex nehilo- out of nothing, would, in the incarnation of Jesus, so engineer and limit his miracles in such a way that even his resurrection could be swept aside with a dismissive wave of incredulity- palpably and eloquently (if we have eyes to see)- demonstrates his attitude to force. This has been a characteristic of authentic Christianity ever since and long should it remain so. The magnitude and extent of his miracles were only ever- such that would gain him traction with the attention of his hearers- and from that point his energies were constantly focused on reasoning with people. And that is the answer to dealing with heresy.

One of the highlights of this book for me was the nugget mined up by McGrath on p.184:
“For though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” Austin Farrer “The Christian Apologist”(1904-1968)

In summary, what I have said is, some may rightly contend, quite inadequate- and I would agree, to remedy this- I recommend you read his book.

[Billy Osei · Rating 5 out of 5]

A significant and clarifying read for me. McGrath clearly shows how orthodoxy developed during the patristic era and why it should still evolve within the Protestant tradition. He exposes both the flaws of the Roman Catholic Church as the gatekeepers of orthodoxy and the issues the Reformers introduced while trying to protect Christianity from unfounded teachings.

The book has led me to revisit major ecumenical councils, especially Chalcedon and those before it. After Chalcedon, it’s evident that what was deemed “heresy” often drifted away from genuine theological debate to that of politics - which was extremely sad, and in which I am grateful for the reformers such as Martin Luther.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alister McGrath writes Heresy in the shadow of Dan Brown’s massive hits The Da Vinci Code, Inferno, etc. That cultural moment seems to have passed, and yet McGrath’s book is still timely. The ammunition changes, but the target remains the same: the gospel.
Ironically, in today’s climate, where power is suspect, the church is not trusted and challenges to orthodoxy are given preference. McGrath explains, “The deep-seated postmodern suspicion of the corrupting influence of power permeates, often subliminally, contemporary influence of heresy. Everyone knows history is written by the winners. ‘Orthodoxy’ is nothing more than a heresy that happened to win out—and promptly tried to suppress its rivals and silence their voices.”
He continues, “For many, heresy is now seen as a theological victim, a set of noble ideas that have been brutally crushed and improperly suppressed by dominant orthodoxies and then presented as if they were devious, dishonest, or diabolical.” Fundamentally, McGrath asserts, “the ultimate appeal of heresy in our times lies in its challenge to authority.” That is because, “Religious orthodoxy is equated with claims to absolute authority, which are to be resisted and subverted in the name of freedom.”
However, one shouldn’t so easily be swayed by this argument. In fact, “The belief that heresy is intellectually and morally liberating tells us far more about today’s cultural climate in the West than about the realities of the first centuries of Christian existence.” In fact, McGrath shows in his book that the challenges to orthodoxy, while well-intentioned, were ultimately rejected by the church at large (not by a small contingent holding political power) because of real deficiencies in the theological proposals.
That isn’t to deny the reality that the project of theology is incredibly difficult, even impossible. McGrath explains, “Augustine asked why people were surprised that they could not fully understand God. ‘If you understand it,’ he remarked, ‘it isn’t God.’ Augustine is not suggesting that belief in God is irrational; he is rather making the point that the human mind struggles, and ultimately fails, to cope with the grandeur of God.”
What is a heresy, then? “A heresy is a doctrine that ultimately destroys, destabilizes, or distorts a mystery rather than preserving it.” The definition explains why such lines must be drawn between orthodox and heretical beliefs. It is not an attack at the intention of the one holding the belief, but at the belief itself: “A heresy is a failed attempt at orthodoxy, whose fault lies not in its willingness to explore possibilities or press conceptual boundaries, but in its unwillingness to accept that it has in fact failed.”
McGrath continues, “Heresy appears to be Christian, yet it is actually an enemy of faith that sows the seed of faith’s destruction. It could be compared to a virus, which establishes its presence within a host, ultimately using its host’s replication system to achieve dominance. Yet whatever the ultimate origins of heresy might be, the threat comes from within the community of faith.”
Heresy isn’t unbelief. In fact, “Heresy shares a lot of the theological DNA of orthodoxy.” Rather, “Heresy is therefore to be thought of as a deficient form of Christian belief that preserves the appearance of Christianity while contradicting its essence.”
Ultimately, it is possible to establish boundaries for orthodoxy: “It is perfectly possible to identify a ‘core’ set of ideas within the New Testament, as follows:
1. The God of Israel can be loved and trusted as Creator of all.
2. Jesus is the one sent by God, to reveal God and redeem humanity.
3. In spite of human failure, trust in God’s redemptive work through Christ is the way to salvation, a redemptive process begun in this life and completed in the life beyond.
4. A person who has salvation is expected to love others and care about them, and to follow the ethical standards laid down by Jesus.
5. The body of believers is an extended fellowship.”
McGrath walks through all of the major heresies including Ebionitism, Docetism, Valentism, Arianism, Donatism, and Pelagianism. The book bogs down a bit here, but the details and exposition are necessary.
A few notes on these heresies:
• In Ebionitism, Jesus was “analogous to the great prophets of Israel—human beings who were in some way given special insight or wisdom through the Holy Spirit.”
• In Docetism, “Jesus of Nazareth was not really a human being at all. Jesus only seemed to be human; in reality, he was divine. His humanity was a phantasm, an illusion.”
• “If any ancient religious tradition can be said to resonate particularly well with contemporary social and religious fashions in North America, it is Gnosticism. What we know of Gnostic beliefs suggests that they chime in with contemporary ideals of self-discovery, self-awareness, self-actualization, and self-salvation, not to mention a dislike of any kind of authority, especially ecclesiastical.”
• “For Valentinism, Christ is this redeemer figure who awakens the divine spark within humanity, enabling it to find its way back to its true home.”
• “Marcion’s fundamental argument is that the ‘God’ of the Old Testament was not the same as that of the New Testament.”
• “The most fundamental Arian belief was that Jesus Christ was not divine in any meaningful sense of the term. He was ‘first among the creatures’—that is, preeminent in rank, yet unquestionably a creature rather than divine.”
• “Arian Christianity is much closer to Islam than to orthodox Christianity, in relation both to its notion to God and to its understanding of the religious role of its founder.”
• “Pelagianism is essentially a theologically naïve moralism.”
• Luther insisted that all Christians had a right to interpret the Bible. This allowed for a multiplicity of interpretations and denominationalism as we know it.
• BB Warfield: “The Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over Augustine’s doctrine of the church.”
• Because the Word is authoritative, “Protestantism thus finds itself enabled in some theological difficulties when dealing with the connected notions of ‘heresy’ and ‘orthodoxy.’”

McGrath concludes with a reflection on why the continued pursuit of defining orthodoxy is a worthy one. He explains that, “Morality, like art, means drawing a line somewhere” (Oscar Wilde). Orthodoxy is no stale pursuit: “The pursuit of orthodoxy is essentially the quest for Christian authenticity.”
Why would one dig back into the history of heresies? Because, “Heresies, like history, have a habit of repeating themselves.”
The pursuit of orthodoxy is always connected to wrestling with both belief and practice. How do we respond to disagreement? How do we respond to sin? In conclusion, McGrath reminds us that, “If Christianity is to regain the imaginative ascendency, it must rediscover what GK Chesterton termed ‘the romance of orthodoxy.’”
Even more so, in an age that is defined by an inability to disagree and by an age captured not by truth but by the sincerity of one’s belief, may we be captured again by this pursuit.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book McGrath sets out to define and explore the concept of heresy non-polemically, as "a form of Christian belief that, more by accident than design, ultimately ends up subverting, destabilizing, or even destroying the core of Christian faith" (pp. 11-12). He does a good job of refuting the (outdated but persistent!) Walter Bauer thesis that the line between orthodoxy and heresy is arbitrarily drawn by the politically powerful. As such, this is a good book for someone looking for an introduction to the topic -- it is reasonably accessible -- though in that case I think reading parts One and Three would really suffice. McGrath closes with an odd, brief chapter on Islam and how the Qur'anic views of Jesus and the Trinity were likely influenced by heretical Christians in the Arabian Peninsula, and what this could mean for Muslim-Christian dialogue today (my own thought: not a great deal, since we already knew this, plus the orthodox Christian views of these matters are still closer to the ancient distortions than to the Islamic views).

[Joshua Booher · Rating 5 out of 5]

It gave a nice balanced perspective to how to view the concepts related to heresies. It is NOT a book on individual heresies. Rather, it is a book on how heresies were judged to be non-orthodox. It is a valuable book to read in the current market which is flooded with Gnostic books.

[Rodney Harvill · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, Dr. McGrath develops a theory about the origins and definition of heresy and uses it to challenge views about heresy that he considers to be misconceptions. He sees heresy as an organic outgrowth of the development of theology. The Bible is not a systematic document, and theology is a logical synthesis of diverse biblical passages to form a coherent mental picture. Consider the fable of the blind men examining an elephant. Just as each blind man drew absolute conclusions about the animal based on the one body part he was examining, we neglect the big picture of scripture at our peril if we just focus individual passages without consideration of their local context and the bigger picture of scripture. Furthermore, ideas we have picked up from family, friends, our school and work environment, the broader culture, etc., impact how we interpret the data. So, it shouldn’t be a shock to see different people draw different, sometimes radically different, conclusions from the exact same raw data; in this case, the scriptures are the raw data. However, not all ideas are created equally. An idea is ultimately heretical if it has the potential to undermine or destroy Christianity if followed to its logical conclusions. Two such examples explored in the book are Ebionite theology and Arianism, both of which originated in the early church and denied the deity of Christ. The Ebionites had a Jewish background and followed Jewish theological models. As such, they saw Jesus as a prophet, probably the one prophesied by Moses in Deut. 18:15, but their interpretation of the Shema (Deut. 6:4-5) allowed for a monistic God and not the Trinity. Arianism was pioneered by Arius, a priest in Alexandria, and posited that Christ was the first created being and was then responsible for creating everything else. In other words, Christ is God-like but not God. Interestingly enough, Arianism was a result of one way of interpreting select passages such as those describing Jesus as a firstborn (of all creation, Col. 1:15; of many brethren, Rom. 8:29) while neglecting the big picture of scripture. In denying the deity of Christ, both the Ebionites and Arians undermined His ability to mediate between God and man, among other issues; hence, they were deemed heretical.

A common misconception among the early church fathers was that heretics are wolves in sheep’s clothing who have infiltrated the church to destroy or undermine it from within. When one person hurts another, the victim often assumes that the harm was intentional. Because the harm caused by early heresies apparently occupied a decent chunk of the church fathers’ attention, they probably made this assumption. However, as Dr. McGrath notes, most of the early heresies were failed attempts by Christians to reconcile the scriptures with how they saw the world. They meant well but foundered on the rocks of heresy.

Another misconception that has become popular in recent years is that heresy and orthodoxy represented variants within an originally ideologically diverse Christianity and that orthodoxy won by virtue of greater power and went on to write the history. Dr. McGrath’s theory of heresy allows for ideological diversity within early Christianity but nothing more. In fact, he points out that the evidence indicates that Constantine actually favored Arianism because the single-person godhead of Arianism provided a model for the divine right of a single head of state. However, believing that theology was the purview of church leaders and not political leaders, he submitted to the consensus view of the church leaders at Nicea. His son and successor Constantius was not so reticent and actually tried to impose Arianism on the church. Arianism was re-confirmed as heresy on logical grounds and not as a power play. If orthodoxy was nothing more than the most powerful of Christian factions, then why are we not Arian? That said, Dr. McGrath does note that the medieval church did brand as heretical movements that threatened papal authority, but this has no bearing on the early church. To associate it with the early church would be anachronistic.

Because a doctrine is deemed heretical by a consensus within the church, Dr. McGrath questions whether it is possible for the Protestant church, as fragmented as it is theologically, to classify a doctrine as heretical. I get his concern but come away from this book with a different concern. Whether the church is capable of classifying heresy is irrelevant; ultimately, the final arbiter is God at the final judgment. I find terrifying the prospect of so misinterpreting scripture as to give “thus says the Lord” cachet to nothing more than a doctrine of man. That is no excuse for not trying; rather, it is a further motivation to try to get it right.

[Larry White · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Persistent Challenge That Persistently Shapes Our Faith

In his excellent 2009 book, “Heresy: A History of Defending the Faith,” Alister McGrath, educator and theologian, looks at several significant heresies that have challenged, and often have continued to challenge, orthodox Christian theology. Separating his examination between the early church and the established church, he interestingly shows how the notion of heresy itself has changed.

In the early centuries of rapid growth and geographical expansion, the church transitioned from apostolic guidance in the essentials of faith as handed down from Christ Himself and revealed in the New Testament canon that they wrote or directly influenced, into more nuanced and detailed theological considerations not explicitly explained in the New Testament. How exactly was Jesus both human and Divine at the same time? What was the relationship between the increasingly Gentile church and its Jewish roots? What did Trinity mean? During these early years the church was not an institution, as it was to become, and had neither the authority structure nor the processes to reach agreement, and agreement was of growing necessity as expansion inevitably invited new ideas. What was to be deemed heresy in this environment actually served the purpose of formalizing the theology of the developing church. Heretics weren’t looking to topple established theology, but rather to gain clarity and coherence to the Christian faith they embraced. Nor were they necessarily condemned. They served a purpose, much as Paul said in a broader context in Romans 8:28. Ultimately, orthodoxy showed itself to be coherent and consistent as well as apostolic in its roots, which heretical ideas failed to do.

In the fourth century things took a decisive turn. The emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and made it the official religion of the empire. Now, along with authority, orthodoxy had both theological and political importance. It was a stabilizing factor in more ways than one. Interestingly, McGrath explains that Constantine wasn’t seeking to shape or influence orthodoxy but rather to gain its stabilizing effects. In fact, Constantine appears to have favored some positions that were to be determined heretical, yet he didn’t interfere. The church began to formalize its theology at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD at Constantine’s directive. From this beginning would come creeds and confirmation of the New Testament canon. Heresy began to be a threat more than an instigator for clarification of orthodoxy.

McGrath offers a compelling and engrossing examination of this nuanced and important history. If anything, it would be interesting to have more on modern heresies and their roots in ancient heresies. Heresies always have an element of cultural accommodation at their basis. And, the chapter on Islam was interesting in some ways, but perhaps not entirely relevant or even accurate, in my opinion, in some of its conclusions. However, “Heresies” is an excellent and informing book on a fascinating and always relevant topic.

[Eric · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mainly frustrated. Alister McGrath holds to the classical orthodox positions on main Christian doctrines, but does so from almost a sociopolitical approach. His justification for orthodoxy makes no appeal to transcendental Truth, as revealed by an omnipotent God, informed by the Holy Spirit who Jesus said would lead us (or at least the apostles) into all truth. Also, he fails to deal with the claim of the Bible that false doctrine is in fact demonic. 1 Timothy 4.1 Detached scholarship that tips itself too much to the Enlightenment may create its own side issues, because with Reason comes a set of presuppositions that themselves are not self-evident, nor final.

Alister McGrath is accurate when he reports that the orthodoxy - heresy dichotomy can be used for ulterior motives and in fact may have little to do with correct doctrine. I lived through that happening to the Southern Baptists in the 1980's. See Southern Baptist fight In the postmodernized West, skepticism about language and power (all subject to "violence"), transcodes claims of heresy to a thinly veiled grab for such power. McGrath, while acknowledging the validity of some of such skepticism, does still acknowledge the right and duty of the church to maintain orthodox doctrine.

Alister McGrath does make on very powerful argument based on the history of the early church, though he does not develop it much. In his analysis of Docetism, Marcionism, and Valentinism, he states

Yet what is particularly interesting about these three approaches to Christianity is that they emerged and were finally judged to be heretical before the church had evolved any permanent authority structures, before the emergence of creeds as personal or official statements of faith, and before the New Testament canon had been formally agreed upon. (p. 132).

Q: how did the church know these were heresies (which position has stood the test of time)? The heresies could not have been measured against proof texts (which did not exist in final form). They had to be measured against the OT, reinterpreted in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus, apostolic teachings, and the church itself as a called out group of individuals in whom the Holy Spirit dwelt individually and corporately. The OT writings and then NT writings, as interpreted by the apostles gave rise to a coherent Rule of Faith Rejection of these heresies that early in church history would suggest that orthodoxy and heresy may be clearer than a heavily reductionist criticism can accept.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very helpful treatment of heresy. McGrath's writing style was challenging for me and very rewarding for the work. He marshals a great deal of literature in this project in a fairly short book.

I think his observation that we're currently having a love-affair with heresy is spot on and useful in my context. Our sympathy for heresy keeps us from recognizing the danger of these malformed Christian ideas. I felt his closing challenge settle on my shoulders - that it is on the church to show forth the intellectually vibrant riches of orthodoxy. Whew, no pressure!

His treatment of the Bauer thesis (Heresy is simply a title that the powerful used to keep power over their opponents; Orthodoxy was a term developed to keep political power in Rome) is helpful especially as I find that that idea shapes how we understand Christian history (thanks a lot, Dan Brown). McGrath separates the conversations about heresy from political power in the early centuries of the church (after all, the church in those centuries didn't HAVE any political influence).
His treatment of what happened when Constantine became a Christian and Christians DID get political power was also more nuanced than the average retelling.

As we debate whether we should use the term at all today - is using the "H" word a kind of ad hominem? - his work in the history and development is vital for understanding what hersey is and is not.

To that end, McGrath relocates hersey as a development from within the church. As opposed to an invader from the outside, he shows how it's better to think of heresy as a genuine attempt to engage local contexts and new ideas with the Christian tradition. It is an attempt to keep Christianity relevant and engaged in the world, but one that ultimately proves to do the opposite by weakening/compromising the authentic Christian witness to the Truth of Jesus Christ.

Because the need to engage contexts with the Christian tradition and the good news of the Gospel is perennial, I wonder if it makes the category of heresy all the more important. Not as a weapon to belittle opponents, but as a way to thoughtfully assess modern developments in Christian engagement with the world. Now, if only we knew how to talk to each other...

[Lon Eriksson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Decent overview of heresies, but McGrath puts forward a definition of heresy that is tinged with Darwinism - an internal idea that is not fit to survive. Rather than arguing that the truth is primary and its survival is a necessary but not sufficient indicator, McGrath gets bogged down. This can partly be explained by his Protestantism, in which he renders any discussion of post-Classical era heresies essentially off limits. He recognizes that the splintering of Protestant sects makes it impossible for future heresies to ever be condemned by "the whole church" (the ill defined body he says renders such a judgment) because Protestantism lacks the mechanism to consider such questions.
More practically, although he does not state this, the logic is clear: it is unlikely that in a religious tradition with literally thousands of sects there would arise a situation in which agreement on more than the basics of Christianity would occur.

[Jason Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here McGrath turns his attention to a prickly subject. His concern is to dispel the myth that heresy is a heroic struggle against repressive orthodoxy whilst at the same time dismissing the orthodox misconception that it is grounded in personal power. He gives it a sympathetic hearing while noting that you can be sincere, but sincerely wrong , and shows how some of the major heresies from the early church are still with us today, and that their primary appeal is to human reason.

This is a subject so often used as a stick to beat the church with, and for populist effect by writers such as Dan Brown ( I know people who unquestioningly take the Da Vinci code as fact) that it’s useful to have it dealt with from a position from a position of orthodoxy. As McGrath says, quoting G K Chersteron, the church needs to discover the romance of tried and tested orthodoxy.

[John Medendorp · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked it. Good introduction to the history and complexity of heresy in the Christian tradition. I was frustrated by his citations sometimes, and I probably complain too much about how much I dislike endnotes but that's the publisher's fault. Great historical research that accessibly presents a complicated and nuanced history. Presents the development of heresy fairly without getting too caught up in the novelty of it. Presents a good historical alternative to the "orthodoxy is the abuse of power" narrative.

All in all a good read. Helpful and edifying.

[Caleb Falbo · Rating 4 out of 5]

McGrath gives a good overview as to how the historical church formulated its views of orthodoxy and heresy. He does so, in large part, by utilizing case studies of heresies which became problematic. Toward the end of the book, he analyzes how popular social trends can impact many of the ideas that creep into the church.

I would recommend this book to anyone looking for a good general understanding of the matter at hand. McGrath is very well researched, yet he does not provide historical facts without context (as is the temptation of many scholarly historians that I've read).

[Judith Kimsey · Rating 5 out of 5]

"A heresy is a failed attempt at orthodoxy" (31).

McGrath's generous and unafraid treatment of historical heresies demonstrates his intellect and perceptiveness. He leaves room for doctrine to develop as long as we "mandate theological vigilance" (195). He also succinctly describes and evaluates the major heresies.

If you want a clear picture of early Christianity as the faithful worked out doctrine, this is the book to read.

[Wbb · Rating 4 out of 5]

somewhere between a 3 and a 4. Good content--definition of heresy, historical view of how heresy develops, and how the church responds, including how it determines the tenets are heretical. Not too in depth, but that makes it not so overwhelming. Edition I read could use an editing--unless the repetition from one paragraph to the next is for emphasis.

[Alan Fuller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alister McGrath takes a look at the history and meaning of heresy. The origins of an essential social account of heresy can be traced back to early Karl Marx (1818–83). German scholar Walter Bauer (1877-1960) argued that "Orthodoxy" was simply the heresy that succeeded in suppressing its rivals. That's the idea followed by a few popular scholars like Erdman and Pagels, although some of Bauer's ideas have been refuted. Despite that, heresy is erroneously seen as intellectually and morally liberating in some of western culture. The naive idea that literal interpretation leads to orthodoxy actually leads to heresy. Most theologians today accept the idea of doctrinal development rather than a "faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

Orthodoxy was originally thought of as a search for Christian authenticity. Early Christianity was a politically weak, illegal religion before its acceptance by Constantine. The understanding of heresy changed over time.

"...church lawyers of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries succeeded in redefining the notion in terms of the rejection of ecclesiastical authority, especially papal authority." (p. 104). Kindle Edition.

"Gnosticism lives on today, not necessarily knowing its real name or even its history. Yet its spoor is unmistakable. Its echo is heard today in those who interpret Christianity as a religion of self-discovery, not redemption." (p. 232).

[Michael Vincent · Rating 3 out of 5]

Much good information and historical context concerning heresy and church teaching. I would have liked, however, for McGrath to speak more about the search for truth and given more application for the church today.

[Crystal Hunter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting. However, I'm not fond of books that seemingly contain more "notes" text that actual book text.

[Traci Rhoades · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book offers a tremendous amount of insight and wisdom. I especially appreciated its emphasis on seeking unity, not divisiveness for individual gain. Highly recommend.

[Barton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this work intellectually stimulating, though the author almost lost me at the conclusion. Most of the work seemed like a look from a proper distance at different ways of thinking.

[Melody Turner · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mentally daunting. But hopefully fruitful. My brain still hurts.

(240)

[Joshua McGrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helpful and provided a firmer grasp on Christian history through the 3rd Century. Having learned the basics of these heresies, I now better recognize them popping up in conversations around me.

[Chris · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a disappointment.

This book started out if not strong then at least adequately. McGrath did a service to the field by pointing out the completely untenable claim that orthodoxy was (and is) simply a matter of the exercise of authority by those in power while heresy is the position held by the plucky underdog. While that narrative appeals to people's post-modern sensibilities it runs counter to historical fact. This is especially true with Arianism, which was apparently favored by Constantine who is often invoked as exerting an undue influence over the development of the Church in the 4th century. Yet even he accepted the ruling of the Council Fathers at Nicaea. That's the exact opposite of heresy being the underdog (and the same holds true for other heresies that McGrath examines; orthodoxy has often been the position set at disadvantage). McGrath also makes an excellent point that heretical views are often simply uninteresting and anemic. It was the Council of Chalcedon, for example, that influenced a new surge in Christological speculation.

But after those insights (as good as they were) McGrath is intellectually spent. He never gets around to answering his question of who decides what is orthodoxy in any meaningful way. The Church! Great, but who, specifically in the Church does this and how? Nor does he ever deign to give even a working definition of "the Church."

His position that orthodoxy is what is accepted after a certain time by the entire Church is simply unworkable, regardless of how one conceives of the Church in the first place. He accepts that the early heresies he examines such as Arianism, Docetism, Donatism, etc. are heresies but, at least in the case of Arianism there is ample historical evidence to suggest that it was the predominantly accepted position for some time (the saying is "Athanasius contra MUNDUM," after all). Why should we await Nicaea's verdict if the position of Arius is already widespread? McGrath has no answer. Indeed, he doesn't even raise the question.

McGrath points out that heresies start, generally, within the Church although he points out that the "seeds" of heresy have at times come from non-Christian source he doesn't consider these "seeds" as being the *source* of heresy. But if those seeds didn't exist in the first place would the heresy they led to have developed? It seems not. Of course heresies are ecclesial in the sense that they are distortions of the faith, but I see no reason why the source of those distortions cannot be recognized as coming from outside the Church when that happens.

McGrath also seems unwilling to acknowledge the controversialist nature of much anti-heretical writings from the patristic and later periods. He favors an interpretation of their writings that make the Fathers simply wrong when they say that the heretics were trying to make a wreck of orthodoxy. Strictly speaking, most of the time this is not the case. But what about after the heretics have been confronted by Church authority on the matter and have refused to desist? McGrath is silent on the issue.

McGrath's treatment of the Protestant Reformation is tendentious, at best. He states that the theological condemnation of Luther's 95 Theses was "wrong." But no explanation is offered as to why that is. None. Not one word. He makes an assertion and simply moves on. Likewise he grants that much of the Reformers' positions (not all of them) were a rehash of heresies that had already been condemned but says that Protestantism should not be considered heretical. Why? He's just contradicted his own position in order to allow his theology to be considered orthodox (McGrath is a member of the Church of England). He also points out, without irony, the statement made by others that in Luther's thought "Augustine's idea of grace trump his idea of the Church." But the two are inseparable and there is no mention of Augustine's reverence for the authority of the Church of Rome to settle matters of theological dispute.

The topic of heresy in the middle age is overly concerned with the claim that positions were labeled because they contradicted papal authority. At the same time McGrath avoids ANY discussion of whether such authority rests on theological reasons, thus being part and parcel of orthodoxy itself. It's not that he disagrees with such arguments, it's that he simply fails to bring them up.

There are many more criticisms I have of McGrath's book but I don't have the time to list them. Let it suffice to say that anyone who says that G.K. Chesterton's case for faith doesn't rest PRIMARILY on truth has completely misunderstood the man and should refrain from quoting him to support a position he would find untenable.

[Jo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not simply a history of heresy, but ponders questions such as, What makes something heresy? Is distinguishing between “heresy” and “orthodoxy” just a matter of popularity (which one has more powerful supporters)?

There were several highlights of the book for me. One was McGrath’s definition of heresy--“A heresy is a doctrine that ultimately destroys, destabilizes, or distorts a mystery rather than preserving it” (p. 31). Contrary to the prevailing Christian narrative, heresy is not usually thought of by some evil person who wants to undermine everything about Christianity. It can often be an honest attempt to verbalize aspects of Christianity in a helpful way—but it turns out to be not-so-helpful. If the idea is then given up, minimal harm is done. However, when the person refuses to give up the idea even when it seems clear that it is not helpful, then it can become a heresy.

A second highlight was how McGrath brought out the idea that heresy often arises when people become over-anxious to mesh Christianity with the prevailing cultural climate. For instance, Pelagianism was mainly an attempt to “explain the Christian faith in ways that would resonate with prevailing notions of justice and entitlement within late classical antiquity” (p. 183). In trying to make the gospel more appealing the surrounding culture, those who promoted Pelagianism ultimately fell into error.

A third takeaway was this quote about apologetics from Austin Farrer: “For though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish” (p. 184).

Finally, I took away more of an appreciation for doctrinal framework that we have and for the work that was done in the past to establish it. In a place that I can’t find back right now, McGrath talks about how we take for granted the fact that some of the difficult doctrines, such as the Trinity, have been formulated in a way that takes into account the biblical evidence. That’s a lot of work!

Overall, a very thought-provoking book. I could have done without the last 60 pages, and I thought McGrath belabored some points a bit. But I liked it for some of the gems I gleaned.

[Paul Kurtz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is more or less a history of heresy and a study of how heresy is distinguished from orthodoxy and who does the distinguishing. While the author had many interesting things to say, I was disappointed with his apparent conclusion; that there is an ongoing evolution of Christian thought and that less adequate conceptions of the faith are cast aside as heresy. Not once did he mention the possibility that the Holy Spirit might have had anything to do with protecting and advancing true orthodoxy.

I did think McGrath offered an excellent definition of heresy:

“A heresy is a doctrine that ultimately destroys, destabilizes, or distorts a mystery rather than preserving it … A heresy is a failed attempt at orthodoxy, whose fault lies not in its willingness to explore possibilities or press conceptual boundaries, but in its unwillingness to accept that it has in fact failed.” (p. 31)

While I am a Protestant, I also thought he made a fair critique of the inability of Protestantism, with our commitment to sola scriptura and therefore recognizing no authority higher than scripture, to adjudicate between orthodox and heterodox interpretations of scripture. In my opinion, this is a serious flaw for Protestantism, but I still prefer it to the easily abused authoritarianism of Roman Catholicism.

[John Mundy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book outlining heresies of the patristic era. Bonuses: Readable, considers heresies effect on Islamic views of Christianity, presents a good Protestant take on heresy, includes thoughtful take on why later Christian sects (such as Lutherans, Calvinists, and Waldensians) weren't really heretics). His definition of what heresy is allows them that room (possibly).

He also is dead on in his critique of some of the Gnostic sympathizers like Elaine Pagels. It's much like I thought when reading Professor Pagels articles in the past.

Negatives: He's somewhat irenic in his view that heretics were mostly people with their hearts in the right place, while I'm sympathetic to that view for many of them including some of the progenitors, I think he attributes part of the patristic reaction to heretics to late classical hyperbole, rather than that they genuinely thought heretics were morally deficient. I'm not sure that's the case. Every time he made an assertion that I wanted to investigate further (i.e. an assertion that differed from my own impressions on the subject), it turned out that the footnote would be to some scholarly journal article written in German.

[Gary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very engaging. McGrath is an evangelical writing within scholarly conversations. And he does it well.

This book has a theses that is worth hearing: Heresy is not the path with all the free minds on it. Heresy is boring! He also establishes that we ought to stick to the older definition of what is a heresy: A theological explanation of the mystery of the faith which is found by the Church at large to be inadequate and, indeed, destructive to the core of Christian belief. Thus Protestantism cannot be called a heresy by the Roman church without that church abandoning the Patristic understanding of what is in fact a heretical belief/system. It also means that no church, in the absence of ecumenical councils, can really add to what is heretical officially. We can declare new versions of old heresies to be such, and we can say some new ideas are seriously erroneous, but no one branch of the Church can declare a totally new view heretical on its own.

Liked it a lot.