“Words are the building blocks of theological
thought, and understanding the basic vocabulary is important”
writes Donald K. McKim.
Implicit in McKim’s observation is that without a shared
theological vocabulary, a set of words in which the meaning of
each word is agreed upon by all involved, theological
conversation is impossible. Apart from such basic
understandings, what may be called a “dialogue” is
really nothing more than alternating monologues.
In recent years, such masquerading monologues have become a
common form of theological discourse in mainline
denominations. With words such as “church,” “salvation,”
and even “Jesus” having been given diverse and even
mutually exclusive definitions, mainline members have spent
much time talking past, not to, each other.
Now, with the explosive growth of confessing church movements
in mainline denominations, the definition of yet another word
is being reimagined: schism.
Schism in Scripture
Schism is a harsh word. It comes from the Greek
schizo,
which means “to split, tear apart.” Only rarely is
the verb
schizo (or the noun
schisma) used in
Scripture or secular Greek in the more muted sense of “to
divide, separate.”
In the New Testament, these words consistently convey a
forceful sundering. Luke recounts Jesus’ parable, “No
one
tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an
old one. If he does, he will have
torn the new
garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old”
(Luke 5:36). John writes that the soldiers who crucified Jesus
said of his garment, “Let’s not
tear it”
(John 19:24).
Mark uses the terms at the beginning and end of his gospel. “As
Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being
torn
open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove”
(Mark 1:10). “The curtain of the temple was
torn
in two from top to bottom” (Mark 15:38).
Capturing the flavor of this verb, Joel Marcus says of Mark
1:10, “God has ripped the heavens irrevocably apart at
Jesus’ baptism, never to shut them again. Through this
gracious gash in the universe, he has poured his Spirit into
the earthly realm.”
Schism and the Church
Schism is first found as a technical theological term in the
second-century writings of Iranaeus. Historically understood
as a “formal and willful separation from the unity of the
Church,” schism has a long history. But not all
ecclesiastical divisions constitute schism.
An essential element of the nature of schism is articulated by
the
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, which
notes that “schism is distinguished from heresy in that
the separation involved is not at basis doctrinal; whereas
heresy is opposed to faith, schism is opposed to charity.”
This distinction is clearly seen in the Roman Catholic
tradition, wherein a schismatic bishop legitimately may ordain
priests and a schismatic priest may continue to celebrate the
Eucharist. However, such actions by heretical bishops or
priests are not considered legitimate.
In what Church historians now term The Great Schism, the
Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches began a process of mutual
excommunication in 1054. Coming a half millennium later, the
Protestant Reformation was treated rather differently.
The 16th-century Roman Catholic hierarchy did not consider
Martin Luther, John Calvin and the other Reformers to be
schismatic. Rather, it branded them heretics. The Reformers,
in turn, insisted that it was Catholicism that had descended
into heresy. Indeed, Calvin argued that the Roman Catholic
Church was no longer a true church, since it lacked both the
right preaching of the Word of God and the right
administration of the sacraments.
The issues in the Protestant Reformation were nothing less
than the foundational Christian doctrines of salvation,
specifically the role of Jesus, and the nature and authority
of Scripture. The separations that resulted from the
Protestant Reformation were not schisms, but the inevitable
consequence of heresy.
A brief history of heresy
Heresy may be defined as “the willful and persistent
adherence to an error in matters of faith on the part of a
baptized person.” Derived from the Greek
hairesis,
which originally meant “choice,” it came to refer to
a way of belief chosen by individuals or groups.
(The word “apostasy,” also much discussed of late,
literally means to move away from a stand that had been
taken.)
Since the writings of St. Ignatius in the late first century,
the word “heresy” has been used in the Church to
describe theological error. This usage, although obscured in
modern English translations, is firmly rooted in the New
Testament, notably the letters of Peter and Paul.
“The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual
immorality, impurity and debauchery… selfish ambition,
dissensions, factions [heresies]” (Gal. 5:20).
“But there were also false prophets among the people,
just as there will be false teachers among you. They will
secretly introduce destructive
heresies, even denying
the sovereign Lord who bought them – bringing swift
destruction on themselves” (II Peter 2:1).
As K.W. Rice observes, “The concept of heresy is grounded
in the conviction that there exists one revealed truth, and
that other opinions are intentional distortions or denials of
that truth. In the absence of such conviction, ‘heresy’
becomes little more than bigoted persecution. But the
Christian belief that truth has been revealed means that
heresy becomes, not merely another opinion, but false teaching
which leads people away from God’s revelation.”
Characteristic of the postmodern intellectual milieu is the
foundational belief that all religious opinions are of equal
value and that it is not possible, nor is there any reason, to
choose between them. (The obvious exception, of course, is
historic Christian orthodoxy, which must be summarily rejected
as false because it claims to be true.)
Those in the mainline who have become postmodern
fundamentalists reflexively reject the possibility of heresy.
Yet they are faced with the fact of denominational division.
Now lacking the vocabulary to describe their experience, they
take an old word, give it a new meaning, and charge orthodox
Christians with fomenting schism.
Schism or heresy?
The charge cannot be sustained. By definition, schism does
not tear apart the fabric of the faith. It may divide an
ecclesiastical institution, and it surely represents a
lamentable lack of visible unity. But schism does not divide
the Church. For the Church is the body of Christ, and Christ
is not divided.
In contrast, heresy is divisive precisely because it elevates
human choice above God’s self-revelation. And to choose
to reject what God has revealed is to place oneself against
the Church.
That “schism” and “heresy” are part of
our theological vocabulary is unfortunate but unavoidable. On
a more positive note, if mainline Christians recover the
meaning and usage of these terms, we just might find it
possible to engage once again in genuine theological dialogue.