I think Paul used the terms apostate and apostasy in describing wayward churches in the early years. We say churches, they were not the ornate heavily ritualistic contrivances we've come to know, more akin to open loosely structured revival meetings if anything, something we should get back to IMO, but that's a whole nother story. Point being, those churches that strayed from common belief could be described as apostate, they still declare some common beliefs but adopted new notions (or recycled old pagan ones) and interwove the two. Sound familiar? The ELCA recently went through this. I would term heresy to isolate specific acts, compile enough acts of rebellion against common beliefs and I think it can accurately be called apostasy. If a church does not punish wayward members from heresy, then they are condoning it, accumulate the disparate parts and I think you wind up with a majority apostate congregation. Perhaps I am harsh, I am no saint myself, but that is the way I see it. I am no harder on others than I am with myself, probably even more harsh with myself.