I do think it is useful. I often have heard Origen referred to as a heretic because of his way crazy ideas, but I hate to say that of someone who so passionately sought after Jesus.
I heard someo ne say (I forget who) that rarely (if ever) has someone been calls a heretic for being unloving. Yet that issue is central to Christian faith.

Being the resident pro-Church guy, i have to say that heresy is actually just the natural progression of rationalism. so it is a problem of the intellect. too much of it. all heresies were attempts to make since rationally of very irrational things. Christianity is the champion of the paradox.

Speaking from the standpoint of church history, heresy (lit. division/ difference in Greek) was originally a relatively neutral term. When the church began its bid for political power, the standardization of Christianity was both a method of consolidating power, and of getting even with those dissenting groups within Christianity (see Athanasius’ History of the Arians). In order to achieve this standardization, they used various techniques: geographical condemnation, condemnation by association, condemnation by scriptural analogy, and several types of name-calling (some based on scripture, some on natural analogy, some arbitrary). It is in this last category that the term “heretic” falls: it is an arbitrary form of name-calling based upon circular reasoning that defines insiders and outsiders based upon their identity as “us” and “them,” and identifying those who believe the Truth as those who agree with the heresiologist’s position (see Epiphanius of Salamis’s Panarion).

Seth, though modern heresy is usually “rational,” not all heresies were rationally based: some were schemes for financial and sexual manipulation (cf.Panarion 26), and others were actually movements of ignorance, or bids for power (cf. the First Arian Persecution) with the occasional use of “rational belief” as an excuse for the common adherent. Also, there is no less “rationalism” involved in Orthodoxy (review the records of the early Councils –esp. Nicea).

As the very advent of the persecution by the Arians (and its subsequent reversal) proves, orthodoxy and heresy are entirely based upon the beliefs of the person defining them, and are reinforced by political (or ecclesiastical) power.

Josh, I’d say it’s both. Sincerity, which I think a lot of us have, does not mean we’re on the right track. If we deny the deity of Christ but are sincerely trying to follow the Way of Jesus and our Father in Heaven, then by all means, we’ve blown it- regardless of that sincerity. So I think it’s both an intellectual and an attitude problem.

Funny, heresy is only mentioned one time in the New Testament, and when it is mentioned, it’s the Jews referring to The Way as being heretical (or as The Message puts it, a “seditious sect”).

I think the use is another example of trying to bring the old covenant into the new. Trying to store new wine in old wineskins. Yes, I think there are certain standards of belief that define what is and what is not Christian – but the idea that someone or some group is heretical is not a label given out of love.

i suppose one person’s heresy is anothers orthodoxy and vice versa.

it seems to be a power thing. someone above mentioned Arianism. the church went back and forth on that one a lot. each time what was heretical was redefined.

personally i think anyone who believes something different/threatening to my beliefs is a heretic. that way i don’t have to deal with them as a person.