This is a lecture given by CKB in June 1985.
In fairness this lecture was in mind before the appointment of the new Bishop of Durham, and his ‘shocking’ remark. Not that this talk is irrelevant. Remember the words of the litany–along with envy, lust, malice, and all uncharitableness, plague, pestilence, famine. Really? Do all these matter so much. Consider the heresiarchs in Canto VII of the ‘Inferno’. Is there not a change visible in history? Even in our own short history? So much for heresy. What of schism? Of course we are against it, and wish to end it. But how? By treating the walls as elastic and comprehending everything? I do not mean to suggest there are no serious questions here. Most have cropped up in the Methodist period.
a)Biblical criticism, historical critical approaches, recognition of subjectivity in the Biblical writers. Tendenz kritik, see more below.
b) The Enlightenment. What are the criteria of truth–revelatio or ratio? If we do not abandon revelation, must we modify it? Who is to judge?
c) In a converse sort of way the ecumenical movement, which is more sensitive to schism but less to theological questions.
So we meet practical questions– how much diversity can we tolerate in our church? What errors prevent us from ending schism? Or positively– what is orthodoxy, and how much does it matter? How much of ecclesial structure and institution is implied in the Gospel? How far did the church exercise Discipline? Was it different for clergy as opposed to lay persons? These are not original questions I have thought out. We all ask them which is why it is good to bring them out for a discussion. But how? I shall proceed as follows:
a) heresy and schism in the NT
b) Structure and discipline in the NT. A heavy stress in the NT, so it is vital to lay out the ideas here, and this is where I am more or less at home. Moving on and giving the impression of omniscience (it won’t last).
c) What has the church built on this foundation in 1900 years? What of our own Methodist contribution to church history? What should we be doing now?
HERESY AND SCHISM IN THE NT
W. Bauer, 1934 argument orthodoxy was just the side that won. There is much to this especially in the second and third centuries — Gonsticism, Montanism, adoptionism, but will it do?
What of Paul? Did he not love? In the NT he profited from a partisan biographer, but did he not leave out and misrepresent? Could Paul have accepted the Decree? Was he thrown out at Antioch? Disowned at Jerusalem and also at Rome? Was he later connected with the Gnostics and misunderstood by Marcion?
What of John? Taken up by Gnostics rather than the orthodox.
What of Jesus himself? Here I recall the opening story in E. Kasemann’s Call of Freedom. Was not Jesus a genuine liberal? And has not his freedom often been confined within a straight jacket. Here I am not speaking of Christological orthodoxy and heresy.
What then do we say about the NT? Undoubtedly a book of variety— e.g. Paul and his opponents all thought themselves Christian, and each other as servants of Satan, false apostles. This is little less than excommunication. The points at issue however are not speculative theology but Gospel, resurrection, faith, works, ethics.
To judge from 2-3 John the issue was docetism. But was John a docetist? Did his Gospel come into the NT by the providence of God? Here we touch schism of a formal kind— the elder and Diotrephes.
The Synoptic material cf. Mt. 5.7 with Paul. and note the prophets (who must be Christian prophets) who are distrusted. Also Matthew’s concern (Mt. 18) for reconciliation.
The Pastorals show a clear command to disown a contentious heretical church member. What is the outcome of this variety? Can we trace lines between orthodoxy and heresy? Between church and world/ schismatics. The main concern is with the Gospel, and the Gospel is the set of facts of redemption Paul at least is prepared to allow independent interpretations of those facts but note there is no private interpretation of Paul for 2 Pet. 3.16.
The facts are alleged to be unique and therefore there is no final interpretation or explanation. In the interpretation the OT is indispensable as nothing else is. Does this mean there is no orthodoxy? As metaphysical formula, yes. Are there no limits– cf Rom. 10.9. But what is the relationship between preaching and doctrine?
In the next post we will share Barrett’s thoughts on Structure and Discipline.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In