 Schism or heresy? By Robert P. Mills The Presbyterian Layman Volume 34, Number 6 Posted October 5, 2001
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. |
||
| Theology
that Matters index Respond to this article |
||
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||
