DIVISION
IN THE CHURCH
ID'S:
GNOSTICISM, VALENTINUS, MARCION,
IRENAUS, HIPPOLYTUS, SABELLIUS, PAUL OF SAMOSATA, NOVATIAN, CYPRIAN,
MONTANISTS, DONATISTS, ARIANISM, COUNCIL OF NICAEA
Generalization:
In some
ways,
dealing with heresy is as tricky as dealing with cancer. While
the early
church was able to develop diagnostic tools and surgical instruments
effective
in containing some forms of heresy, the church found other forms of
heresy much
harder to diagnose and treat.
I.
Introduction: the problem of division/heresy
Jesus
had prayed that his followers
would be united, in the words of what is sometimes called his
high-priestly
prayer, “That they may be one as we are one.”
At first, there was a remarkable degree of unity within the
church. Acts talks about the disciples
being of one
accord, dwelling together, and sharing their possessions.
But it wasn’t long before there were
challenges to this unity. Paul, Peter,
James, and Jude all had to take steps to restore and maintain unity in
the
churches.
In
the era after the apostles, the
unity problem didn’t go away: if anything, it became worse. Heretics, those who would cause division
within the church, were, is some ways, every bit as much of a threat to
the
continuation of Christianity as persecution by Roman authorities.
In
some ways, dealing with heresy is
as tricky as dealing with cancer. While
the early church was able to develop diagnostic tools and surgical
instruments
effective in containing some forms of heresy, the church found other
forms of
heresy much harder to diagnose and treat.
[Note
that the problem with
cancer is that anything strong enough to deal with cancer might also
lead to
the destruction of healthy tissue. A
surgeon might cut away too much. Chemo
inhibits healthy growth as well as the cancer. Treating heresy involves
similar
dilemmas.]
II. Gnosticism
One
of the heresies troubling the church in post-apostolic times was a
belief system we’ve already looked at, Gnosticism, the
problematic teachings that II Peter and Jude addressed. In the 2nd
century, the church had to confront to different forms of the Gnostic
heresy, one championed by a man named Valentinus, the other by Marcion,
both of whom attracted followers in Rome itself.
A. Valentinus
Valentinus’
teaching drew from the
teachings of Plato’s Timmaeus and on an allegorical interpretation of
the Old
Testament. Initially, emanating from the
ultimate god was the “pleroma,” fullness.
This in turn gave rise to the Ogdoad, a group of eight aeons (or
archons), essentially powers. Emanating from the ogdoad, still mora
aeons
including “Sophia,” wisdom. Wisdom
somehow fell, being entangled with evil matter.
But Christ brought secret knowledge into the world to redeem
fallen
wisdom. Valentinus affirmed the
inspiration of scripture, but he insisted it had a deeper meaning and
that the
surface meaning wasn’t important.
B. Marcion
Marcion
took a different
approach. He had been born into a
Christian family (his father was a presbyter) but he was uncomfortable
was much
of what the church taught. Marcion
shared with the other Gnostics the idea that the soul was good and the
physical
body evil. This led him to reject the
god of the Old Testament entirely. In
Marcion’s view, the Old Testament god was vindictive and unjustice. What kind of god would favor that licentious
bandit David? Further, it was that Old
Testament god who had mixed matter and spirit and who had created that
repugnant business of sex which ended up with even more good souls
getting
trapped in evil bodies. The Old Testmant god couldn’t possibly be the,
ultimate
god, the kindly father of Jesus.
To
support these ideas, Marcion had to
edit the Bible. He rejected, of course,
the entirety of the Old Testament. For the New Testament, he accepted
only Luke
and the letters of Paul, his heroes. But even in these books, there
were too
many things that seemed to accept the validity of the Old Testament—and
Marcion
blamed Judaizers for corrupting Paul and Luke.
A bit more editing.
III. The Church's answer
Now
how does one address problems of
this sort? Today’s scholars (e.g.,
Elaine Pagels) often champion the Gnostics: they were offering valid
forms of
Christianity. But the more honest (like
Pagels) admit Gnosticism could have destroyed the church.
And, like most heretics, the problem wasn’t
just corruption of doctrine, but bad teaching about personal life. Ireneaus talks about the way Marcus, one of
the Gnostic heretics, manipulated married women into sleeping with him,
and the
difficult problem of helping those women when they finally realized
they were
being used and abused.
So—time
for some surgical instruments
A. Development of Canon
Here’s
something we’ve already looked
at. As the church came to agreement on
what books were authoritative and what books not, it was easier to come
to
general agreement on accepted doctrine.
B. Development of Ecclesiastical Structure of
church
Notice
how much attention Eusebius
pays to the succession of bishops in each of the churches.
There is a reason for this! Eusebius
is in part writing an anti-heretical
work, and what Eusebius is doing is showing a line of transmission for
the
genuine teachings of the church. Having
a regular arrangement or bishops, elders, and deacons is useful in
working
toward general agreements. C.
Careful refutation of heretics
Several
church writers of this period
spent a good deal of effort getting to know in detail the doctrines of
the
various gnostic groups and answering them point by point.
One of the most effective was Irenaeus,
Bishop of Lyon (d. 202 AD?). Irenaeus’ Against
Heresies includes detailed descriptions of the beliefs of various
Gnostic
groups. Contrary to the slanders of many
modern scholars, church leaders *weren’t* trying to hide what the
Gnostics were
teaching. It’s almost exactly the
reverse. Gnosticism depended for its
appeal on its claim of a *secret* tradition from Jesus that the
Gnostics alone
possessed. This feeling of specialness
was only preserve by keeping their teachings at least partly hidden,
available
only to the elite initiates. Irenaeus
(and others) exposed Gnostic teaching to sunlight—very effective.
Also
effective, the Refutation of All
Heresies, usually attributed to Hippolytus (170-235 AD).
This book traces each of the heretical groups
to a particular school of Greek philosophy.
Here are the fundamental assumptions of this heretical group:
here’s why
these assumptions are wrong.
A
third anti-heretical writer:
Tertullian (AD 155-240?) who did a particularly good job refuting
Marcion.
D. Rule of Faith
Perhaps
the most effective of the
surgical instruments used to confront Gnosticism, what came to be
called the
Rule of Faith or the Rule of Truth. Want
to know what’s genuinely from Jesus and what’s not?
Look to the churches of apostolic
succession. Note what they have in
common. This will point us to the
genuine teaching of Jesus and the Apostles—and note that there is no
room here
for a set of secret Jesus teachings.
Here’s Irenaeus’s explanation of the Rule of Truth:
The
Church, though
dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth,
has
received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She
believes] in
one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea,
and all
things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who
became
incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed
through the
prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from
a
virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the
ascension
into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His
[future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to
gather all
things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race,
in
order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King,
according
to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things
in
heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every
tongue
should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment
towards all;
that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who
transgressed and
became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and
wicked, and
profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of
His
grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who
have kept
His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the
beginning [of
their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their
repentance, and
may surround them with everlasting glory.
As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching
and this
faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if
occupying but
one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of
doctrine]
just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she
proclaims
them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as
if she
possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are
dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For
the
Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down
anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those
in the
East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been
established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that
creature
of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the
preaching
of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are
willing to
come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the
Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach
doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master);
nor, on
the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict
injury
on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither
does one
who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any
addition to it,
nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.
All
this gave the church what it
needed to overcome Gnosticism. Gnosticism
survived, and re-emerged from time to time, but it never seriously
threatened
the church.
IV. Conflicts over minor issues, e.g.
Quartodecimians
The
Rule of Faith covers most major
doctrinal issues—and it looks like we’ve got a statement that the vast
majority
of Christians can agree too. But it’s
odd how much potential for division there could still be over the
(maybe) 2% of
doctrine and practice not covered by the Rule of Faith.
One example: the Quartodecimian controversy.
Quartodecimians
believed Easter should
be celebrated with the Jewish Passover, on the 14th of
Nissan. Others in the church wanted Easter
celebrated
on the Sunday following the Passover full moon.
The Apostle Paul had said such issues were unimportant: one
esteems one
day above another, another esteems all days alike. Leave this to the
individual.
But
the Roman church insisted on a
Sunday Easter: Quartodecimian practice wasn’t acceptable.
Why?
We
here the commercial about our strength
being in our diversity. That’s really
not the case. Our strength tends to be
in our unity. You can’t play man-to-man
if your coach wants the team to play a zone!
But
we can take the quest for unity
too far. It would be silly for a coach
to insist that each of his players adopt exactly the same foul shot
routine.
So:
where do we draw the line? “In essentials,
unity; in non-essentials,
liberty” says one slogan. But what’s
essential, and what’s not?
VII. Montanism
One
area where it was hard to decide
was over the teachings of Montanus (late 2nd century AD). Montanus emphasized the ongoing nature of the
gifts of the holy spirit, and especially the gift of prophecy. He believed Christ was coming back soon—and
would
establish the New Jerusalem and Pepuza, a city in Phrygia.
In many ways, the Montantists were a lot like
today’s Pentecostals. Nothing
specifically wrong with their doctrines—and they were rather heroic in
their
stand against persecution.
None
of the churches tools listed above
were particularly effective against Montanism. Scripture? The Bible
promised
that there would be signs following believers similar to those the
Montanists
displayed. Paul said to covet earnestly the best gifts, and that’s what
it
looked like the Montanists were doing.
Careful
refutation? Tertullian, one of the best
Christian
anti-heretical writers of the time, was a Montanist himself--and his
defense of
Montanism refutes the non-Montanists!
Sunlight? The Montanists didn’t make any of their
teachings secret, and detailed understanding of their doctrines wasn’t
going to
help.
The
Rule of Faith? Here, too, there was a
difficulty. The Montanists claimed that
they had received
their prophetic gifts in direct line from the apostles, and certainly
Phrygia
did have a tradition going back to the earliest church.
Christians
in Rome and elsewhere wavered
in their attitude toward the Montanists. They didn’t seem to be
teaching
anything contrary to orthodox doctrine. But belief in ongoing prophecy
can open
up the door to some strangeness—just as it does in Pentecostal churches
today—and
this was worrisome.
So
what happens here? Well, for the most part
the church treated
Montanism as benign: not something that would kill the church. And, eventually, it pretty much died out on
its own.
Interesting,
by the way, that the
Montanists believed in the “priesthood of all believers,” and that they
had no
difficulty with the idea of women serving as bishops and presbyters. They were pretty strict with clothing styles:
no ornamentation. Also strict with fasts
and other things.
V. Monarchian controversy
Another
potential problem for the
church during this period, Monarchianism.
You might think of Monarchianism as a kind of extreme
monotheism, or (at
least) an anti-Trinitarian view. Two
forms of Monachianism that created controversy, associated with two
different
figures:
A. Sabellius (early 3rd century Roman
priest)
Sabellius
taught what is sometimes
called modalism, the idea that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were just
different
modes of the same god, the same being where three different “masks.” God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Spirit are all the same “person.” It’s
hard in a way to see what’s wrong with this.
Still, Tertullian and other objected vehemently to
“patripassionism,”
the idea that God the Father suffered on the cross.
Around
AD 220, Pope Calixtus
excommunicated Sabellius: I suspect because doctrines like this tend to
be
advanced, not out of a search for truth, but as a result of a search
for
personal advantage. Sabellianism
survived and reappears from time to time.
Apparently, some of the Montanists adoped Sabellian teachings,
and the
Sabellians believed in ongoing spiritual gifts like those the
Montanists argued
were still available. Seems to be a lot
like “oneness” Pentecostalism of today.
In
any case, it seems another of those
teachings that’s mostly harmless.
B. Paul of Samosata (Bishop of
Antioch, c. AD
270)
Another
form of Monarchianism is that
advocated by Paul of Samosata. Paul’s
held to the idea that there was only one God, and Jesus was adopted by
God. God’s son, yes. The
messiah, yes. The savior, yes. But not
God: a uniquely inspired man.
Now
this was tough to deal with. The Bible
isn’t absolutely clear on this,
and, while Trinitarians can point to the first chapter of John’s Gospel
as
conclusive, one also has to consider the many adoptionist verses in
both the
Gospels and the various letters, e.g., “Thou art my son, this day have
I
begotten thee.’
Careful
refutation? Exposure to sunlight? Not so helpful here either.
Paul of Samosata’s position is attractive
precisely because it offers a picture of Jesus that, at first at least,
seems
every bit as reasonable if not more reasonable than more orthodox ideas.
Well,
what about appealing to the rule
of truth—the apostolic tradition. Take,
for instance, the teachings of the church at Antioch, the church where
the
disciples were first called Christians.
Maybe ask the bishop of Antioch what he things.
But—oh, wait. Paul is the bishop of
Antioch.
Now
most of the other bishops outside
Antioch wanted Paul gone, but Paul refused to give up his position, and
there
were some bishops who supported him.
Who would decide?
Well,
Paul’s opponents decided to
resort to an appeal to secular authority, asking the (pagan) emperor
Aurelian
to intervene! Aurelian ruled that, among
rival candidates for bishop, the one in communion with the bishop or
Rome got
the spot.
So—another
surgical instrument: appeal
to secular authority. A dangerous
precedent!
VI.
Conflicts over leadershi
Now
notice that, while doctrine is a
factor in the dispute at Antioch, there’s also going on a personal
power
struggle, with rival candidates wanting the prestige and authority that
goes
with church office. Very, very hard to
deal honestly and fairly with doctrinal issues when personal interests
are at
stake. Two related power-struggle caused
divisions, Novatian’ schism at Rome and Cyprians troubles in Carthage.
Novatian
(mistakenly called Novatus by
Eusebius) was a brilliant scholar and writer, and a candidate for
bishop of
Rome after the previous bishop was martyred (AD 250).
He was passed over for Cornelius: not nearly
as brilliant a man—but perhaps more of a people person.
A bit too lax for some, though. Cornelius
began readmitting the lapsed (those
who had denied Christ to escape persecution) to communion.
Novation and others at Rome thought Cornelius
was going too far, and Novatian’s supporters chose to regard Novation
as the
rightful bishop or Rome. History calls
him an antipope. Well, maybe.
But why not the true pope? Who will
decide?
One
obvious mediator, Cyprian, the
brilliant bishop of Carthage. But
persecution had created problems for Cyprian as well.
He had gone into hiding to escape martyrdom,
and, for some in Carthage, this seemed to be behavior unworthy of a
bishop.
Further,
Cyprian was having trouble with
a group called “the confessors.” These were Christians that had stood
up to
persecution and torture no matter what.
Lapsed Christians had been going to these confessors asking them
for
forgiveness and readmission to fellowship.
This
was undermining Cyprian’s
authority as bishop: he was the one supposed to be making this call. Cyprian, too, was faced with a rival claimant
to his position, a claimant supported by the confessors.
Cyprian
ended up supporting Cornelius
at Rome. And Novatian, unhappy at this,
supported Cyprian’s opponent.
In
AD 258, persecution flared up
again, this time under the emperor Valerian.
Both Cyprian and (probably) Novatian died martyr’s death.
Cyprian
and Novatian were excellent
writers, and both spoke beautifully against heresy and on the need for
unity. Novatian’s “On the Trinity”
offers a very convincing refutation of the Sabellian heresy and a
powerful
defense of the Rule of Faith as a key to unity in the church.
And
here’s what Cyprian has to say
about unity—ironically, in a treatise directed against Novatian!
And
this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert,
especially those of us that are bishops who
preside in
the Church,
that we
may also prove the episcopate
itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a
falsehood: let
no one
corrupt the truth
of
the faith by
perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is
one, each
part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church also is
one, which
is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of
fruitfulness.
As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of
a tree,
but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring
flow
many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the
liberality of an
overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source.
Separate
a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a
division of
light; break a branch from a tree—when broken, it will not be able to
bud; cut
off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up.
Thus also
the Church,
shone over
with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world,
yet it
is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body
separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole
world.
She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one,
her
source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of
fruitfulness:
from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit
we are
animated.
So
ironic that those who most prize
unity often inadvertently fan the flames of division.
Cyprian himself ended up on the “winning”
side of most doctrinal disputes, but, he, too, espoused a position
later
condemned as heretical. What does one do
with those who have been baptized by schismatics/heretics who now want
to be
part of the “orthodox” church? Cyprian
said baptism by heretics didn’t count: they had to be rebaptized. Ultimately, the church said no: so long as
the baptism itself was carried out properly, it didn’t matter who had
done the
baptism.
VIII. Donatist Schism
Novatian’s
idea that lapsed couldn’t
be admitted to communion and Cyprian’s idea that heretical baptism
didn’t count
bounced back after Diocletian’s persecution.
Once again, there were many who had denied Christ that wanted to
be
restored. And, once again, the issue of
baptism by heretics came up. A group
called the Donatists combined Novatian’s idea on the former, Cyprian’s
idea on
the latter. And long after the original issues made no sense anymore,
Donatist
churches and Orthodox churches were rivals in the same communities:
until both
were swept away by Islam.