This topic has swirled around in my mind ever since I took a seminary class on the evolution of theology in church history. Not church history, but how different doctrines rose and fell and divided Christianity into thousands of factions over 2000 years. It was perhaps the only class I found to be truly novel, and surprisingly honest about the inconsistent and messy business of practicing theology (see “practicing” here in the same way you would see practicing medicine, it’s important, but not always as certain or settled as we like to believe). The gaping hole in the course is that it quickly diverged to only track doctrinal development in the western church of Catholics and eventually Protestants, which automatically cuts out a full 1/3 of historic Christianity, but it was still eye-opening.   

While a number of things have prompted me to begin this series lately, a headline I came across this week finally made me pull the trigger. The headline read, “Kirk Cameron’s Position on Hell Is ‘Unorthodox’ but Not ‘Heresy,’ Says Apologist Wesley Huff.”  Now, my point here isn’t to get into the weeds of that discussion in this installment. Rather, I think it’s interesting that somehow Wes Huff, whom I appreciate, especially for his sometimes surprising candor regarding the overstated facts by conservative apologists on manuscript transmission and textual criticism, has become the voice of pronouncing what is orthodox, unorthodox, heterodox (I left this one out of the title – too wordy), or heretical (see below for a definition of each).

Here is why this type of assessment has always sat uneasily with me. The challenge with declarations about what constitutes orthodoxy or heresy is that there is no transcendent, divinely inspired rulebook that draws clear lines for all Christians as people wrestle with the implications of Scripture. Terms like orthodoxy, unorthodoxy, heterodoxy, and heresy often exist in the eye of each group’s doctrinal beholder. Thus, they are human assessments, yet often presented as divine declarations.

For example, the Protestant “orthodoxy” of salvation by grace through faith alone is deemed a damnable “heresy” by the Catholic Church, as articulated at the Council of Trent. The same holds in reverse in the polemical writings of the Reformers and in confessional statements such as the Augsburg Confession. So one group’s orthodoxy becomes another group’s heresy. But in the end, it is still people rendering judgments about other people, arguing from the same Bible through differing dogmatic paradigms.

The same could be said of original sin. The Eastern Orthodox Church, one of the oldest expressions of Christianity, regards the Augustinian view of original sin as a heretical error (they use different terminology, but the idea is the same) and not represented in apostolic teaching. Personally, my issue with Augustine is that I find him more informed by Stoic-Platonism than Judaism, but I digress. Anyway, if you trace Augustine’s reasoning for the version of original sin he promoted (see especially City of God XIV), it is rooted in the idea that Adam’s first sin, after eating the fruit, was an involuntary erection. Yes, you read that right.

Augustine believed that before the fruit, Adam and Eve possessed perfect rational control over their bodies. Bodily functions, including sexual arousal, were fully subject to the will, and sexual union occurred calmly, deliberately, and with reason over passion. After sin, such mastery was shattered, and libido took charge. For Augustine, the first experiential consequence of Adam’s sin was the emergence of bodily movements that no longer obeyed rational command. The most vivid and humiliating example of this loss of mastery was involuntary sexual arousal. Adam felt lust for his wife, had an involuntary erection, and acted on both. From this, shame follows immediately, hence Adam and Eve covered their nakedness.

Thus, his conclusion – from this wildly Freudian speculation (see his Confessions, especially books II, III, VI, and VIII to get perhaps the real genesis of his take on Genesis) – was that original sin is transmitted through sex. I have seen some reading into the white lines between verses, but this is as bad as the time I heard a pastor tell people to write the word “Rapture” in the white space between Revelation 3 and 4, a book of the Bible that literally warns of judgment on anyone who “adds to or takes away from the words of its prophecy.” Yet this is the genesis of our Western orthodoxy, which in the East is regarded as heresy.

I say all of this simply as a reminder that while we may use categories like orthodox, unorthodox, heterodox, or heretical, these labels do not speak for God with the level of certainty they sometimes imply. They function more as internal tribal benchmarks set by one community to caution against what they perceive as doctrinal error in another, and often rush to “we are extremely right = orthodox” and “you are extremely wrong = heretical.” This, in and of itself, should give us pause, given how much theological evolution has occurred over 3500 years of Scriptural interpretation and wrestling. Besides, we Protestants are the Johnny-come-latelys after all.  

So to conclude Part One, let’s end by defining the terms, which I am sure some people will push back on because, well, that is the very point I am making about there being no single papal voice that defines everything for everyone. But I have to offer something. Then, in Part Two, we will dive deeper into how to navigate these trigger words and how to better measure the merits behind their use.

Orthodox: Beliefs, teachings, or practices that align with the accepted, official, or historically affirmed doctrine of a particular religious tradition.

Nuance: Considered “right belief” (from Greek orthos = straight or right, doxa = belief or opinion). Functions as the doctrinal center or boundary marker. What counts as orthodox depends on the group (Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, etc.).

In short: Inside the group’s doctrinal fence, but with points that sometimes differ from those of other groups. Usually, fine-tuning subcategories beyond the historic Christian Creed.

Unorthodox: Beliefs or views that differ from standard or traditional doctrine but are not necessarily condemned.

Nuance: Can be innovative, speculative, or unconventional. May raise eyebrows but not alarms. Often tolerated as minority opinions, theological exploration, or non-essential disagreements.

In short: Outside the norm of the group, but not against the historic Christian Creed.

Heterodox: Beliefs that deviate from established orthodoxy in more serious or substantive ways, though not always formally condemned.

Nuance: From Greek heteros, meaning other or different. Seen as doctrinally problematic or theologically risky. May conflict with core teachings but stop short of outright denial of essential doctrines. Often used in academic or ecumenical dialogue.

In short: Significantly off-center of the group, concerning but not universally rejected by the historic Christian Creed.

Heresy: Beliefs or teachings that directly contradict essential, defining doctrines of a faith and are formally rejected or condemned by that tradition.

Nuance: Denies or distorts core tenets (for example, the Trinity or the divinity of Christ in historic Christianity, think contrary to the Nicene Creed). Historically, subject to church discipline, excommunication, or conciliar condemnation. From Greek hairesis, meaning “choice” or “sect,” later used for a divisive doctrinal faction.

In short: Outside the historic Christian fence entirely that all groups universally see as the center.