The NT asserts both freedom and authority. This is perhaps clearest, simplest in individual Christian life. But true also in the field which we are considering. Paul argues in Rom. 14.5– ‘let each be convinced in their own mind.’ But he also claims authority and anathematizes preachers of a false Gospel. Heresy exists and it leads to schism. So also John.
Increasing size leads inevitably to structure and institution. How can this be continued with Mk. 10.43 ‘ouk outos’? and Lk. 22.26? Can the person in authority in the church do it (noting the later Lukan form)? In any case such authority should not be necessary. All Christians should believe alike. All believe truth is given in Jesus. All Christians should be unity– the one distinguishing mark of discipleship is loving one another. Yet for 1900 years power structures have flourished and developed, heresy and schism have been rife, discipline has been practiced, and all of this can already be seen in the NT.
We glance through subsequent history not to see the whole story but to pick up hints for the present. Gnosticism which now know not only from its enemies(like Irenaeus) but through its own documents. It involved speculative Christianity attuned to the times. How did the majority church react? Should it have comprehended? In fact it retreated behind familiar boundaries–ministry, creed, canon. Such actions were badly conducted– pick out the worst aspect of the opponent and lampoon it. But Gnosticism was there, and John could use it creatively [this is debatable, since at most there was only proto-Gnosticism in the first century– BW3]. Perhaps we should not blame others for being less particular theologically. But should we play for safety or live dangerously as John did. This is an important and recurring question.
Trinity and Christology. And now over a dipthong? Gibbon’s folly. What we have to notice is a mixture of motives. The rivalry of Alexandria and Antioch plays a part. But heresy was defined in terms of theological principle. What does ‘Lord Jesus’ become when understood in terms of Greek metaphysics. Semantically the ‘homo’ is right not the ‘homoi’ [i.e. of one substance, not of similar or like substance]. But the ‘ousia’ was assumed, the homo distributed. Schism was defined in theological terms but other factors contributed. And now, since Constantine power in a new form was available. Healthy lay influence became caesaropapism.
‘Filioque’ a theological pretext for a sociological separation? This raises in a distant way the issue of national churches. Do different traditions and sensibilities justify schism?
Reformers. Luther was not a heretic and did not seek schism. Yet he was regarded as a heretic and split the church. Would it have been possible to return the church to the Gospel without causing schism? Did Trent, Vatican II do this? Others attempted without success, thus not sufficiently radical– theological. Note the disruptive and creative power of theology. Is schism better, less evil than heresy? This depends on what error is involved. This was destructive Pelagianism.
And we come to ourselves, or rather to two things. The Revival which is familiar enough and the Enlightenment both rational and anti-supernatural. In the Revival was nothing heretical and yet it led to schism? Why? Or should we ask who was in schism? What determines schism– error or convinced disobedience? Wesley unlike Luther was not a good enough theologian to see the theological points– points of a kind that some authorities in some circumstances might love their authority. Deism did not lead to schism though some like Butler attached it. This can only mean that non-theological criteria was being applied. So orthodoxy led to schism, whereas heresy did not.
What does this story mean? A record of right things, and a desire for truth applied in the wrong way?
The NT knows that there must be structure (see Mk and Lk) and also discipline, but they must be controlled by critical ethical theology. Too often this control has been lacking. Is this critical theology itself controlled in any way? Are there limits to freedom? What is the nature of authority? Both centered on the principle of ‘solus Christus’. In the NT only this leads to schism. Divergent organizing never does. Law-Gospel does. Gnosticism does. But we start with rational presuppositions about God, not with Christ alone.
As we approach the present we may say that Methodism and Enlightenment remain the issues. This does not exclude ‘ratio’ but the ‘ratio’ is employed with a view to Scripture. There is a twofold issue for Methodism– a) getting the job done, and b) semper Reformanda. What form best reflects and spreads the Gospel of solus Christus.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In