“I Am He”: Recognizing Sorcery and Femme-Pagan Practices In and Out of the Church (Part III)

Since learning about a woman who composed and led a group of people to recite/spell-cast the heretical “Sparkle Creed” several weeks ago, I’ve been trying to wrap my head around how to speak about this in some meaningful way. In my mind, I think of many angles by which one might try to grab hold of this slimy, slippery, multi-headed beast of a thing–many of which other siblings in Christ have already thrown their lassos rightfully out upon in various online responses to this (somewhat) recent viral video…

For those who may have missed “I AM HE”: THE PRONOUNS OF YAHWEH (PART I) and “I AM HE”: HUNDREDS FELL BACK BEFORE HIS SINGULAR PRONOUN (PART II) of this series, you may want to start there before engaging your mind with this Part III here.

It wouldn’t be a good use of my time (nor yours in reading) if I can’t add something additionally specific to this “conversation.” Later in this piece I will link just one of existing worthy responses to this sorcery.

“Sorcery” you ask? What does sorcery have to do with any of this?

That’s a good and reasonable question.

(Above) From Wikipedia


Before I attempt to answer that (the question of whether the writing/reciting of this unholy creed is connected to sorcery which Wikipedia describes as an “application of beliefs, rituals, actions…evocation of demons…practice of ‘magical skills'” and Merriam Webster states as “ the use of power gained from the assistance or control of evil spirits especially for divining“), let me lay some groundwork.

First of all, it mystifies me how any mature believer who has a sound understanding of scripture would not immediately recognize the ideas embedded in this pseudo-Christian creed as heretical. Any Spirit-led Christ-follower should immediately have a sense of being sucker-punched in their gut upon reading this woman’s words and especially, upon the audio hearing of them being spoken aloud by a large number of gatherers and in the presence of young children.

One of my initial reactions was to try to respond to this by methodically laying out some attempt at apologetics to specifically identify the embedded heresies.¹ I now think this is not the place to start. If a believer in Christ cannot immediately recognize the content as essential heresy then it begs the same question found in the book of Galatians, “Who has bewitched you?”

“ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.  But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!  As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.”

– Galatians 1:6-10

But for those who also want to intellectually understand where the heresies lie, at the end of this piece I will copy/link to an extensive (but certainly not exhaustive) list of heresies¹ (i.e. doctrines of demons) that can be found in Wikipedia, for starters. If any reader is curious my opinion on which specific heresy that “The Sparkle Creed” most closely resembles, I don’t seem to be able to name just one. As I read and re-read the statements made, it appears to describe a conglomerate of heretical ideas that assault the trinitarian Godhead and describe Jesus and humans in a pantheistic/polytheistic fashion. While I want to say it is some blend of gnosticism, modalism and more, I refer to my opening statement here: this is a very slimy, slippery, multi-headed beast that is difficult to slip a lasso on to any of its “plural” heads/identities (i.e. “pronouns” of the creature/s).

Instead, as my title of this segment reflects, I want to hone in on the femme-pagan elements that those who affirm the statements found in this creed have been bewitched by.

To begin my line of thought, we must first understand what can be known of the Rev. Rachel Small Stokes:

“Rachel began her life in the United Methodist Church, and felt called by God to the ministry at age thirteen. She served in leadership and chaplaincy positions through high school and college, and preached several times for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Wesley Foundation. Her gifts for ministry were highly affirmed, and after college she accepted a call to become a United Methodist US-2 Missionary.

During that time, she also became more and more aware that she was a lesbian. After her mission service, she went to the UMC seminary, Candler School of Theology at Emory University, and prepared herself to become a closeted clergywoman. However, as she saw the anger, rancor and hate in the upper echelons of her beloved denomination, that choice became untenable. She eventually made the very difficult decision to leave the United Methodist Church and to join the United Church of Christ, a denomination that welcomed her and many others with open arms. Hers is a story with a happy ending for everyone but the UMC. She was ordained in the UCC in 2009, and married her partner of seven years in 2012.”

– Rachel Small Stokes

“The Rev. Rachel F. Small Stokes, Pastor
A native of West Virginia, Pastor Rachel has lived all over the country and has worshiped with, led, played with, and been transformed by people of all stripes. She first served us for 18 months as our Designated Interim Minister, and in 2019 was called to be our settled Pastor.

Pastor Rachel brings to us a deep spirit, an openness to all, a sense of joy, creativity and humor. She has a respect for our UCC traditions and a vision for where we can go next. She and her wife Les (a native Louisvillian) have two very energetic sons, Jack and Everett, and two less-energetic cats (Cheeto, and Angel). They loving being a rainbow family! 🏳️‍🌈”

– Our Staff

It should be noted that in the following two viral/online videos available of the audible/visual recitation of “The Sparkle Creed” that the woman leading is not the author of this “creed” but is Anna Helgen,” co-pastor at Edina Community Lutheran Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, leads the congregation in the “Sparkle Creed.” (Source)

“Anna Helgen received the Master of Divinity degree from Luther Seminary in 2016 and the Bachelor of Arts degree in math and religion from St. Olaf College in 2009. She served previously in youth ministry at Christ the King, White Bear Lake, and at St. Timothy, St. Paul, and most recently served as an associate pastor at Mount Olivet, Minneapolis. Anna’s love for people and for creation was shaped while working as a camp counselor at Christikon near Big Timber, Montana, and as a canoe guide at Wilderness Canoe Base near Grand Marais. She feels a profound sense of God’s call to serve others and seeks opportunities to form relationships and build community. She currently lives with her husband and two children. Anna loves canoeing in the Boundary Waters and spending time with her family at Lake Kabekona.”

– Edina Community Lutheran Church Staff and Leadership

At minute 14:33 in this next video, we get an expanded understanding of this woman and that service as we hear the children’s sermon. In terms of the various commentary as to the obviousness of heresy and dangerous false teachings/indoctrinations of children and adults, this link is also worth listening to in full.

I also came across some Catholic commentary (next, below) on this service from June 2023 which is interesting because it includes extended footage of the entire service which was full of “WOKE” ideologic infusions into the veneer of a “Christian” service. Worth watching in full, in addition to the above video which contains the children’s sermon.

The next focus here needs to be on the word femme. This word came to mind when I planned my title for this segment but honestly, I needed to look up the word to make sure that is what I intended. As are many linguistics these days, there seems to be a murkiness of terms. However, as I read further I came across this article from “The Affirmative Couch,” which seems to confirm that my selection of the word femme for this piece is correct.

“Although femme and femininity are closely related, they aren’t interchangeable. Femininity refers to the socially constructed idea of what is feminine and isn’t necessarily queer, whereas femme is, in a sense, the queering of femininity – not just identifying as queer, as I’ve already discussed, but the embodiment and embracing of queerness in the full meaning of the word. This key differentiation is why it’s so important for femme to stand on its own (Tonic, 2016).

As Cassie Donish clarifies, “The term ‘femme’ does not simply mean ‘feminine’; it is used in queer circles to designate queer femininity, in a way that’s often self-aware and subversive. It’s both a celebration and a refiguring of femininity” (Donish, 2017).

“I see femme as the rebellious teenage daughter of femininity,” distinguishes Chung. “Femme is the process of taking the feminine words that were placed in my body, words like ‘soft, weak, quiet’ and transforming them into: ‘wild, loud, confident’… When I broke up with femininity and embraced femme, I felt strong and confident and powerful…” (Chung, 2016).”

– Are you Femme? What Femme Isn’t and What it is.

“Femme is a term that refers to a queer person whose gender expression is considered to be feminine. It was originally used to distinguish feminine lesbian and bisexual women from butch women, and it is still one of the main uses of the term. It is common for trans and nonbinary individuals to use the term to refer to their identity or expression even if they do not identify as lesbian or bisexual women.^[1] However, this last usage is has been gatekept by trans-exclusionary members of the lesbian community.^[2] A common definition of femme is someone who queers or subverts femininity, as opposed to a butch person, who rejects femininity.^[3] Femme is also sometimes used as a gender in itself.^[4]“

– Nonbinary Wiki

Recently, I was surprised (yet not surprised) that a female clergy member that I know, who shares expressions of various social justice movements on social media, shared something from a page called “Sacred Sisters Full Moon Circle.” The post appears to have been removed since then, but when I noticed it last week my attention immediately went to the implied spiritual content of her shared link, and I read over various things on that page that are clearly connected not only to paganism/New Age/Wicca but with a specific emphasis on females.

I took note of the current cover image on this Facebook Group and specifically, the 4th figure from the left (see below). While I may be noticing something that is not what I think it might be, I think it is worth saying that this dancing figure may be representative of a female wearing a chest binder, or worse yet, post-mastectomy bandage-wrap. I notice that the other four figures are portrayed with curves indicative of female breasts, while this figure appears nearly flat-chested. If you do not know anything about chest-binders used within the “trans” movement or the horrific mutilations taking place, this piece has more information.

It should be noted that in witchcraft and paganism, the role of blood-letting is central by those who practice the demonic. These pieces I formed last summer/last fall (AN ARMY OF GIRLS WITH PHANTOM BREASTS) and (YES, THOSE ARE TWO PILES OF BLOODY, SEVERED BREASTS), gives some thoughts about the practice and push for blood-mutilation of young girls/women (and also extends to medical mutilation of young boys/men as well) as we are seeing through the seemingly relentless thirst the controlling entities of our nation have for the blood of our young, especially, that is oddly named, “Gender Affirming Care.”

I feel almost bad to include the following information from search results on this topic–a Reddit article requiring either log-in or to state that you are over 18 years old–which speaks of these practices. To understand/connect why those who follow Satan and the occult seek power and control of others and the world through blood sacrifice would be beyond the scope of this piece to delve into the biblical role of blood atonement for sin and specifically, the “blood that speaks a better word than that of Abel”–that is, the ultimate atoning blood of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. (Hebrews 12:24)

As with the heresies embedded in “The Sparkle Creed,” the connection of blood in the practices of paganism should be readily understandable (as inherently and deeply demonic) to those who know Jesus and follow biblical Christianity and scripture.

(Above ) Source

(Above) From Wiccan Views of Divinity

__________

Throughout the history of the Church, there have arisen various pagan-related heretical movements driven specifically by various doctrines relating to the Feminine as Divine, so-to-speak. I came across the interesting story of Guglielma in my readings/contemplations. Laying aside elements of this story relating to the Catholic Church’s specific way of quelching heresy in the middle ages, we should take note about the underlying details. If we are to take seriously the numerous references throughout Old and New Testament to paganism and the occult (worship of false gods, doctrines of demons, sorcery), I think there are some indications that these spiritual influences continue to manifest themselves throughout time and can easily be seen in current culture/ideologies/movements.

Note that “Guglielmites” were women-oriented and had formed their own creed, producing “fervent disciples.”

“Their creed declared that Guglielma’s resurrection would herald a new church led by women. For obvious reasons, this attracted the attention of the Inquisition. In 1300, thirty Guglielmites were charged with heresy. Guglielma herself was posthumously condemned on the basis of a confession almost certainly extracted by torture from Andrea Saramita, one of Guglielma’s most fervent disciples during her lifetime.“

– Guglielma (Wikipedia)

__________

Now that I have laid an amount of groundwork concerning a way we might view/read/understand “The Sparkle Creed” as a form of sorcery with femme-pagan roots, I want to point out some things about this pseudo-Christian creed. But first, I would like to paste below images of my initial attempt to get some social media responses through a kind of methodic comparison to the two most well-known historic Christian creeds when put alongside this other creed and other Jesus. (I do not hold creeds of same value as scripture, but I do believe they generally represent essential biblical truths, and for good reason.)

While I only have 400 or so Facebook friends, I was surprised that not one of the many I know who are active followers of Jesus felt inclined to make any comments whatsoever. I had one single friend who had the brave boldness to make a remark, and her insightful question actually took my thinking on the entirety of this to where the “conversation” should rightly end up (I’m adopting the current linguistics of many who are flirting with, if not outright promoting, a variety of false teachings in the Church)–they seem to want to call it some kind of (unending, deconstructing) “conversation” we can all have to the purpose of “reimagining the Church” and things along other ideas of deconstruction, post-modernism and social justice theologies…I dislike this because I actually like a good conversation and now I feel the word has been hi-jacked. For those interested in an excellent addressing on such “conversations” in the Church, I highly recommend this sermon Biblical Justice vs. Social Justice | Voddie Baucham.

In fact, in my last segment of this four-part series, I am going to put forth what I believe to be the answer to the question she raised:

“I need significant time to digest what she just said. Why in the world would she do this? Why not just leave the church? I need time.”

– only comment in response to my social media conversation-starter regarding “The Sparkle Creed”

__________

And now, to take a very close look at what the full text of “The Sparkle Creed” seems to be communicating:

• “I believe in the nonbinary God, whose pronouns are plural.”
  • I think we can rightly conclude that since these words were not aligned with those inspired by the Holy Spirit, but from a lesbian woman (and any associated spirits of influence), that her stating “her god” is “nonbinary” with plural pronouns indicates the possibility that this other “god” (created in her image) may consist of two females. This is a reasonable conclusion based upon the earlier biographical information regarding the author.
    
    If one searches “pagan gods associated with lesbianism” the following information comes up and confirms that those who pursue “nonbinary” or homosexual ideologies they attempt to associate with the God of the bible actually have connection to historic, pagan deities. Note in the last quotation made by a representative of Wicca (a contemporary sorcery/occult movement and the fastest growing religion in the US) states the essential nature of Wiccan theology is that of a “polytheistic religion.” And this would seem to support my reading of the very first statement of The Rev. Rachel F. Small Stokes in her heretical creed.
    • LGBT themes in mythology
    • Xōchipilli
    • LGBT history in Mexico
    • LGBT themes in mythology
    • LGBT themes in Greek and Roman mythology
    • Does Wicca have any homosexual deities?
      • “Wicca is a polytheistic religion, and while it’s fun to say we have “A God and a Goddess”, each tradition, coven, grove, clan, etc. actually may work with *different* God/Goddess pairings. The names of the primary Gods of any one working group are usually oathbound to initiates at an upper level. Our Gods are Old Gods. We may have a primary God/Goddess pair, but this does not preclude us from working with other gods, and of those, there are many. And yes, quite a few of them are “queer”. Most of the Greek and many of the Roman deities are sexually fluid in some way. Cross-dressing and gender-fluidity is a common theme in Norse lore. In Hindu lore, Gods changing gender and loving members of the same sex is a given. Almost all trickster gods are in some way sexually fluid, often gender fluid, and sometimes even more than one sex at once.” – Catherine OBrien/Traditional HPs & coven leader
      • Oddly, as I was trying to find some type of featured image for this blog piece, in my search for potential “queer paganism” related imagery, I came up with yet another link that connects the “queering” movement to such. A Queer Pagan Reading List (2015) – I am sharing such things here for informational purposes, that faithful followers of the true, biblical Jesus can begin to recognize the darker roots of that which is aggressively infiltrating our churches and begin to better exercise and teach discernment of such.
      • And again, here, in this terrible glimpse of information we Christians need to wake up to the reality of: Study: Pagans Most Pro-LGBTQ Religious Group

• “I believe in Jesus Christ, their child, who wore a fabulous tunic, and had two dads and saw everyone as a sibling child of God.”
  • In this second statement of unbiblical belief, The Rev. Rachel F. Small Stokes states nothing orthodox about the deity nor role/atonement of the biblical Jesus, but rather asserts that he is “the child” of her “plural-pronouned-god” (described in statement 1) which if that god consists of at least “two females” (and paganism also connects birth to females) then we must wonder if the reference to “two dads” is somehow inter-connected in her darkened thought processes. I mean, I’m just throwing every possibility out there; since this is all of a heretical nature then we really do not know the extent of the pagan-fueled doctrines of demons involved in the distortion of the truth.
  • The idea that “everyone else” is a “sibling” of this false Jesus, alludes to a number of other heretical teachings about both the nature of Yahweh and the nature of mankind.
• “I believe in the rainbow spirit who shatters our image of one white light and refracts it into a rainbow of gorgeous diversity.”
  • This heretical idea about the “divinity of mankind” continues and now seems to be superimposed, to some degree, on to the third person of the Trinitarian Godhead (the Holy Spirit). There is then the expected, ridiculous attempt to co-opt the rainbow (the sign of God’s covenant with Noah) with the agenda of the “diversity” movement. Additionally, there is a lot that might be drawn out from her metaphor of “shattering” our image of many things–and not limited to both the oneness and the threeness of the Trinitarian Godhead (and the natural understanding to link “white light” somehow with God, with the subsequent implications). As I said earlier, the very beginning of the heretical ideas within this so-called creed first revolve around a clear assault on the doctrinally sound deity of Christ, and His relationship within the Godhead. To state that there is some “other spirit” that shatters “white light” and turns it into an endless spectrum of color would need a lot of “unpacking” as the deconstructionists like to say. Since this statement also follows a statement about all humans being “sibling children of god” it might portend, once again, heresies involving “humans as divine gods.” The list/variations of heresies are basically endless–since humans have the capacity to keep creating new ones. It should be noted that scripture tells us that only through Jesus has any human been given the right to be named a “child of God.” (John 1:9-13, NIV: “The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.  He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.  He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.  Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.”)
• “I believe in the church of everyday saints, as numerous, creative and resilient as patches on the aids quilt. Whose feet are grounded in mud and whose eyes gaze at the stars in wonder.“
  • While the idea/phraseology of “everyday saints” may sound superficially compelling, this too would need a lot of unpacking to discover what The Rev. Rachel F. Small Stokes really wants us to believe. It is noteworthy that it seems to be a bastardization of God’s promise to Abraham (Genesis 22:15-18); and the fulfilling of the Abrahamic covenant through the atonement of Christ on the cross is really the central tenet of Christian faith and sound doctrine. It should be noted also that traditionally, a recitation of one or more historic creeds in liturgical worship settings serves to function as a profession of faith the believers make prior to receiving the Lord’s supper within various assemblies/denominations of believers.
  • Here is God’s promise to Abraham from Genesis 22:15-18 (NIV): “ The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time  and said, “I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,  I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies,  and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”
• “I believe in the calling to each of us that love is love is love, so beloved let us love.”
  • It should go without saying that the phrase “love is love is love” is a reference to cultural campaigns to redefine marriage as being beyond the uniting of one biological man and one biological woman. Here again The Rev. Rachel F. Small Stokes reminds us of her unbiblical, demonically-fueled, paganistic agenda that she makes a feeble attempt to veneer in a reference to the book of I John (“so beloved let us love.”)
    • I John 4:1-21
      On Denying the Incarnation
      • “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.  This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,  but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.  They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them.  We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
    • God’s Love and Ours
  • Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. ⁹ This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
    
  • This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit.  And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.  If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God.  And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
  • God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.  This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
  • We love because he first loved us.  Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.  And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.
• “I believe, glorious God, help my unbelief, Amen.“
  • This last statement made by The Rev. Rachel F. Small Stokes I find somewhat curious. As mentioned elsewhere, “creeds” are typically a confession of faith and in specific, often used as a form of unified, cleansing confession/profession of the deep, saving faith that believers are to hold to when approaching the shared taking of the body and blood of Christ. We are told in scripture to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith, and we are told that if we take the Lord’s supper in an unworthy manner, we will experience judgement.
    • I Corinthians 11:27-32(NIV) “So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.  For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.  That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.  But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment.  Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.”
  • So what is she trying to say? And, trying to lead others to profess? She makes a reference to the story in Mark 9 regarding the casting out of an unclean spirit which had tormented a boy since childhood.  Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” (v.24) see also accounts in Matthew 17 and Luke 9. If I were to speculate with the most generous interpretation of her statement, I might wonder if on some level The Rev. Rachel F. Small Stokes doesn’t fully believe her own distortions of the Word of God and in some sense, is indirectly begging for deliverance from her own demons? However, if I were take a much less generous view of this statement–even linking it to some form of sorcery and incantation she is leading others in–this statement could be viewed as one where her “followers/disciples” who are “not quite yet there in this thinking” are being led in prayer to the demonic entities to somehow “help their unbelief” and strengthen the deception.

To wrap this up, as I have been thinking on these matters since first coming across this bizarre “Sparkle Creed,” at times I have wondered if taking the time to expound upon this one of many false teachers/false doctrines is really worth the effort. Or rather, if it simply doesn’t take much effort–just a lot of time. Basically, it is such low-hanging fruit of heresy that I find it hard to imagine that any believer that is honestly seeking to walk in biblical truth would embrace such notions. Which in part may explain why no one else on social media even cared to “unpack” any part of this theological stunt. And which brings me toward the conclusion of this series to come which actually seems to be the most important matter: “I Am He”: Why Don’t They Just Leave the Church? (Part IV)”….stay tuned….

_________________
Footnotes:

¹Below is a List of Christian Heresies that I copied from Wikipedia:

1st century[edit]

Heresy	Rejected by	Description
Docetism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	The belief of Docetism holds that Jesus Christ did not have a real physical body, but only an apparent or illusory one.[2]

2nd century[edit]

Montanism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	A movement that emphasizes the importance of prophecy and ecstatic experiences.[3]
Adoptionism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	The belief that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God from eternity, but was adopted by God at some point in his life.[4]
Universalism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	The belief that all people will eventually be saved. Universalists believe that God’s love is so great that no one will be excluded from salvation.[5]
Valentinianism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	A Gnostic heresy that taught that the world was created by a series of emanations from the supreme being. Valentinians believed that salvation came from knowledge of the true nature of the universe.
Sabellianism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	The belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three distinct persons, but are simply different manifestations of the same divine being.[6]
Gnosticism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	A complex system of thought that teaches that the material world is evil and that salvation can be achieved through knowledge (gnosis).[7]
Marcionism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	A heresy that arose in the 2nd century AD. Marcionists believed that the God of the Old Testament was a different god from the God of the New Testament.[8]
Monarchianism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	A heresy that taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all the same being. Monarchians were also known as Unitarians.[9]
Modalism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	Modalism is the belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three different modes of God, as opposed to a Trinitarian view of three distinct persons within the Godhead.[10]
Patripassianism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	The belief that the Father and Son are not two distinct persons, and both God the Father and the Son suffered on the cross as Jesus.[11]
Psilanthropism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	The belief that Jesus is “merely human”: and that he never became divine, or that he never existed prior to his birth as a man.[12]
Sethianism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	Sethianism was a 2nd-century Gnostic movement that believed in a supreme God, Sophia, the Demiurge, and gnosis as the path to salvation.[13]
Basilideanism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	Basilideanism was a Gnostic Christian sect founded by Basilides of Alexandria. Basilidians believed that the material world was created by an evil demiurge and that the goal of salvation was to escape from this world and return to the spiritual realm.[14]

3rd century[edit]

Novatianism

Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.

A movement that arose in response to the persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire. Novatians believed that Christians who had lapsed during the persecution could not be forgiven.[15]

4th century[edit]

Arianism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	The belief that Jesus Christ is not fully divine, but is a created being.[16]
Donatism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	A movement that arose in North Africa in the 4th century AD. Donatists believed that the Catholic Church had become corrupt and that only the Donatists were the true Christians.[17]
Monophysitism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	A heresy that arose in the 4th century AD. Monophysites believed that Jesus Christ had only one nature, the divine nature.[18]
Apollinarianism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	The belief that Jesus did not have a human mind or soul, but only a human body.[19]
Tritheism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	The belief that there are three gods, rather than one God in three persons.[20]
Collyridianism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	The belief is that the Trinity consists of the Father, Son, and Mary and that the Son results from the marital union between the other two.[21]
Binitarianism	Catholic Church, Orthodox Church and mainline Protestantism	Binitarianism is a Christian heresy that teaches that there are only two persons in the Godhead: the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is not considered to be a separate person, but rather an aspect of the Son or the Father.[22]
Subordinationism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	A heresy that teaches that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not co-equal with the Father. Subordinationists believe that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to the Father in either nature, role, or both.[23]
Anomoeanism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	A heresy that taught that Jesus was not fully divine, but was a created being. Anomoeans also believed that Christ could not be like God because he lacked the quality of self-existence.[24]
Antidicomarians	Catholic church, Orthodox church	Antidicomarians also called Dimoerites, were a Christian sect active from the 3rd to the 5th century who rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary. They were condemned by St. Epiphanius of Salamis in the 4th century.[25]

5th century[edit]

Nestorianism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	The belief that Jesus Christ was two persons, the divine Son of God and the human Jesus of Nazareth. Nestorius said that the Virgin Mary is not the Mother of God (Theotokos) because she gave birth to the human part Jesus, not the divine Son of God, and called her Christotokos. Nestorianism was condemned as a heresy by the Council of Ephesus (431)[26]
Pelagianism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	The belief that humans can be saved by their own efforts, without the need for God’s grace.[27]
Eutychianism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	The belief that Christ is in one nature and of two, with the humanity of Christ subsumed by the divinity.[28]
Monophysitism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	The belief that Christ has only one nature, which is divine.[29]

6th century[edit]

Three Chapters

Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox church

The “Three Chapters” were three “Nestorian” writings (The person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, some writings of Theodoret of Cyrus, and an epistle by Ibas of Edessa to Maris). The Byzantine Emperor Justinian desired to reunite the Miaphysite and Chalcedonian churches throughout Byzantium, and so anathematized the Three Chapters and commanded Byzantine bishops (which included at the time the Pope) to do so as well. Pope Vigilius however believed doing so would undermine the authority of Chalcedon, and so initially refused to do so. Eventually, after incarceration and deportation to Constantinople, he agreed to anathematize the Three Chapters and concur with the Emperor in December of 553.[30]

7th century[edit]

Iconoclasm	Catholic church and Orthodox church	Iconoclasm was a movement that arose in the Byzantine Empire in the 7th century. Iconoclasts believed that the veneration of icons was idolatry. The iconoclastic controversy lasted for centuries until the Council of Nicaea II in 787 when the veneration of icons was officially restored.[31]
Monothelitism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	Monothelitism was a heresy that arose in the Byzantine Empire in the 7th century. Monothelites believed that Christ had only one will, which was divine.[32]
Paulicianism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	Paulicianism was a heresy that arose in the 7th century. Paulicians believed that the material world is evil, and the only way to salvation is to reject it.[33]

12th century[edit]

Catharism

Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.

Catharism was a Christian dualist or Gnostic movement between the 12th and 14th centuries which thrived in Southern Europe, particularly in northern Italy and southern France.[34]

15th Century[edit]

Stephanism

Oriental Orthodox Church

The Stephanites were a sect in Ethiopia which rejected veneration of icons, saints, and angels. The sect was subject to suppression on account of its rejection of the legendary origins of the Solomonic Dynasty. It greatly resembled later Protestant movements in Europe.[35]

16th century[edit]

Socinianism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	A heresy that denied the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ. Socinians believed that Jesus was a human being who was inspired by God.[36]
Protestantism	Catholic Church	Protestantism is a branch of Christianity that broke away from the Catholic Church in the 16th century. The Catholic Church condemned Protestantism as a heresy on numerous occasions. In 1521, Pope Leo X issued the bull Exsurge Domine, which condemned 41 propositions from Martin Luther‘s writings. In 1530, the Council of Trent condemned 20 propositions from the Augsburg Confession, the foundational document of Lutheranism. And in 1563, the Council of Trent condemned 10 propositions from the Calvinist confession of faith.[37]

17th century[edit]

Jansenism	Catholic church, Orthodox church and mainline Protestantism.	A religious movement within the Catholic Church that arose in the 17th century. It was named after Cornelius Jansen, a Dutch theologian who wrote a book called “Augustinus” that argued that human beings are incapable of saving themselves by their own efforts and that salvation is entirely a matter of God’s grace.[38]
Quietism	Catholic church	A religious movement within the Catholic Church which held that Christians should do nothing so as to not impede God’s active will, and that men ought to remain silent.[39]

18th century[edit]

Febronianism

Catholic church

A religious movement within the Catholic Church that sought to make Catholicism more relevant to local cultures, reduce the power of the Pope, and reunite with Protestant churches.[40]

20th century[edit]

Americanism	Catholic church	A political and religious outlook attributed to some American Catholics and denounced as heresy by the Holy See.[41]
Feeneyism	Catholic church	The rejection of the doctrines of Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood, on the grounds that they grant justification but are not sufficient for salvation. Named for Leonard Feeney, a Jesuit priest from Boston.[42]
Modernism	Catholic church	The belief that all doctrines are subject to change, and that doctrines ought to change depending on the time and location. Condemned by Pope Pius X in the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis.[43]