2 Timothy 4:3-4
3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
Paul, in his letter to Timothy, speaks the words that race ahead more than 2,000 years as though he's speaking directly to us. I recently read along with a text conversation on a social network between two young men. One young man, a Christian, was giving a very simple yet accurate description of God's saving work through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. The other young man, a ???, claimed that God was obligated to favor those who tried to be good people. Their conversation came to a fairly abrupt end at that point. The American church's unwillingness to take the unpopular position of confronting unorthodox beliefs has spawned heresies that began nearly 200 years ago and are now common in our world and growing! So let's take a look at what it means to be both Christian and orthodox.
When most narrowly defined, “Orthodox” means “Right belief.” However, this does not come close to telling the whole story when we talk about Christian Orthodoxy. Christian Orthodoxy is far more comprehensive than a simplistic idea limited to “Right belief.” Thomas Oden writes, “Orthodoxy…is ancient consensual scriptural teaching…For Christians it means the doctrine taught during the period of ancient ecumenical Christianity…The time-period for such teaching is generally assumed to be the first five centuries of the common era…By ‘consensual,’…I mean the teaching that has been duly confirmed by a process of general consent of the faithful over two millennia…For Christians this means the teaching of the same time-period—the creeds and early liturgies—confirmed by due process especially through the action of ecumenical councils that have been widely acknowledged and received as authoritative by the faithful worldwide.”[1] Donald Bloesch goes much farther when he writes, “Orthodoxy means firm adherence to the true faith, the faith of the apostles, the fathers and the Reformers. It includes humble trust in the power of the Spirit to illumine and inform but also profound respect for the great confessions of faith that have kept the church on the straight and narrow way through the ages[2]…Orthodoxy, right belief, is intimately related to orthopraxis, right action. There can be no apprehension of the gospel apart from obedience to the imperatives of the gospel[3]…Orthodoxy means fidelity to the promises of God and zeal for his glory. It combines steadfast trust in the reliability of the biblical witness concerning God’s truth with an earnest desire to share this truth with others who still wander in the darkness of sin and despair. It also involves purity in worship, for right doctrine cannot be maintained apart from right praise.”[4] Clearly, limiting “Orthodoxy” to the simple definition of “Right belief” doesn’t begin to capture the enormity and complexity of the concept in its entirety. Although the term “Heresy” is rarely used today in the political correctness of our American culture, it is the antithesis of “Orthodoxy.” If orthodoxy is right belief then by necessity, heresy is wrong belief. However like the complexities of orthodoxy as defined above, heresy can similarly not be limited to the simple idea of wrong belief. Therefore, considering these many complexities, how is one to know what is right and what is wrong?
The answer to that question lies behind a combination of what Oden and Bloesch had to say about the definition of orthodoxy. Oden refers to the consensual witness of the first five centuries and Bloesch refers to the great confessions of the faith. Interestingly, the great confessions of the faith were developed during the first five centuries. Specifically, they were developed in response to heretical teachings that had begun to circulate within the Church. At the heart of most of the early doctrinal disputes was the person of Jesus, the role of the Spirit and the understanding of the Trinity (See previous posting—Label: Theology—Title: “Defending the Trinity”—Date: 12/7, 13 & 28/2011). A clear and concise understanding and definition of these very important issues is what will be considered as orthodox and makes believers distinctively Christian. While most twenty first century Christians take the truth of today’s established orthodoxy for granted, Christians prior to the fifth century did not enjoy the benefit of hundreds of years of formal indoctrination on the person of Jesus, the work of the Spirit or the understanding of the Trinity. During the first five centuries, Christianity’s encounter with varying cultures during its dramatic growth created a multiplicity of doctrinal theories reflecting the Church’s cultural diversity. Unfortunately, many unorthodox or heretical doctrines began to circulate. Although many of these issues, such as the nature of Jesus, were inherently understood in the Early Church Era (from Jesus to 430 A.D.), it was critical that the catholic Church develop and articulate a formal doctrine with respect to its Christology or doctrine of the person of Christ to combat the growing popularity of heretical teachings. History would record that while developing the Church’s Christology, the foundation for the development of many of today’s essential Church doctrines on which its Soteriology, or doctrine of salvation, would be built. As a result, developing and articulating a clear understanding of these issues, particularly as they relate to the person of Jesus, was crucial in developing the parameters that make a believer “Christian,” but more importantly, it specifically and accurately delineates the essential elements that define a Christian’s salvation. For example, it was during this era that the Church formalized its understanding of these foundational issues with the consensual development of the Nicene Creed (see right hand column for the Nicene Creed). To illustrate, D. H. Williams writes, “Since the end of the fourth century, Christians have always drawn on the language and theology of the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) and its later expositions that the Son shares the same substance as the Father. The point is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God the Son who possesses the very same divinity as God the Father. This is what makes the salvation offered through Mary’s son a truly divine gift that can restore us to the divine image.”[5] The process of developing the foundational principles that create the boundaries of orthodoxy, boundaries that put the “Christian” in Christianity and draws the Christian map of salvation, was far from easy or quick. Nevertheless, the process was necessary in order to combat the rise of heretical teaching within the Church. The boundaries of orthodoxy made it possible to clearly determine teachings that were antithetical to those boundaries and as such could be confidently deemed as heretical. To illustrate the complexity of that process, let’s take a closer look at some of the major heresies the Church had to deal with during the first five centuries of its existence and how the development of boundaries of orthodoxy served to address those heresies.
Philippians 2:6-8
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!
This Christology, taken from Paul’s letter to the Philippians, was written sometime around 61 A.D. Bruce Shelley was correct when he wrote, “The Event—God in Flesh—has always struck man as religious nonsense.”[6] Very early, the Apostles and early Church fathers would encounter heresies dealing with the person of Jesus. The first was known as “Ebionitism.” This group taught that Jesus was “justified” and became the Messiah through the meticulous observance of the Law. Another teaching was known as “Docetism.” This group taught that Jesus was a “spectral appearance” (a ghost) and that he only “seemed” to suffer and die. Most likely, these very early heresies were dealt with by the Apostles or early Church fathers through direct teaching or written correspondence. Williams writes, “We must not underestimate the importance which the preservation and transmission of the apostolic memory had for the churches of the post-apostolic period and into the third century. The impartation of Christian teaching to inquirers and learners was a constant in the life of these churches. Allusions to this process of instruction in ethical and theological exhortations demonstrate that catechesis ‘served as a control with considerable effect on the understanding of the Christian faith.’”[7] However, these early heresies were just the beginning of numerous teachings that would be deemed heretical and that could not be resolved by ethical or theological exhortations. By the middle of the fifth century, the Church would encounter some very complex and divisive teachings on the person of Jesus.
Because of early Christianity’s explosive growth and the fact that it was so dispersed geographically, it was of paramount importance that a coherent organizational structure be instituted to properly manage and edify the Church. This was Paul’s objective in appointing elders or presbyters (also known as Bishops or pastors respectively), in churches he planted during his missionary journeys. After Paul, Ignatius of Antioch further elevated the office of the Bishop. Under the direction of the Bishop would be presbyters and deacons. Although it took some time, this clerical structure was adopted everywhere. This leadership development would formally be known as the development of the episcopacy. The early Church mirrored the administrative structure of the Roman Empire. The provincial town of the Empire became the “Episcopal” town of the Church which would be the Bishop’s “Diocese.” Within the Diocese would be numerous churches (parishes) served by priests. All this is to say that it was through the office of the Bishop that the church would find its unifying force to stand against the heresies of the day and those to come.
The most controversial dispute, the dispute that would finally tip the scales and force the Church to develop and articulate the boundaries of orthodox Christianity, was centered in the provincial town of Alexandria in Egypt. Arius, an Egyptian, was pastor in one of the churches in Alexandria. A dispute arose between him and his Bishop, Alexander, over the deity of Jesus. Arius’ Christology deemed that Christ was a “created” being and not eternal. Arius taught that Christ was not fully God, and not fully human but instead something in-between. Arius was a gifted communicator and recruited some very influential Bishops to help further his cause, which would be titled Arianism. Arianism expanded throughout the Empire and served to incite riots in the streets between his followers and those who opposed him. Civil unrest was not tolerated by the Roman Government. Emperors went to extremes to ensure the “pax Romana”—the Roman peace.
The Empire was at this point under the imperial rule of Emperor Constantine who claimed to be a Christian. As a result of the riots, Constantine ordered the first church council (Ecumenical Council) to convene at his summer residence in Nicea. In 325 A.D. more than 250 Bishops arrived at Nicea to address the Arian controversy among other matters. Both sides presented their respective case before the council. The Arian position was represented by Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia and Arius. The opposing position, later called Nicene, was represented by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his protégé Athanasius, a pastor in Alexandria. The council subtly condemned Arianism through the development of a formalized document setting forth the official position of the Church. This would henceforth be known as the Nicene Creed as previously notated. While some of the fringe elements of the creed have changed slightly, it is still being used today. Thereafter, the Ecumenical Council would be the formal mechanism by which the Church would address such matters and continuously define what would be considered orthodox for the catholic Church. The work done at the Council of Nicea further laid the foundation for the development of the Doctrine of the Trinity which would become the Church’s official position at a future Ecumenical Council.
No sooner had the Council of Nicea settled the matter on the divinity of Christ when his humanity came into question. A pastor from Laodicea named Appolinarius developed an idea that at the Incarnation, God displaced the humanity in Jesus. In essence, God was captive in a shell of the human body of Jesus. Jesus’ body became the “host” for God. Opposition quickly arose and the second Ecumenical Council was convened at Constantinople in 381 A.D. where Apollinarianism was quickly dismissed as heretical. The outcome of this council would be the development of the Doctrine of the Incarnation and the Church’s official adoption of the Doctrine of the Trinity introduced at the Council of Nicea.
At this point, technically, the matter of Jesus’ full divinity and his full humanity was settled. Practically, however, the rulings of Nicea and Constantinople did not address how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. That issue is what led to the next series of conflicts. Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, while holding to the view of the full deity of Christ, regarded the union of God and man in Jesus as a merging of wills as opposed to a union of the person of God and the person of man. Nestorius could not accept that God could be “born” of a woman. Nestorius’ argument inevitably led to defining Jesus as two “beings” in one body. Nestorius drew the ire of Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, for his teachings and also for undermining Cyril’s authority by sympathizing with certain clergy that Cyril had disciplined. Consequently, at the next Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 A.D., convened by then Emperor Theodosius II, Nestorius was deposed. Unfortunately, the issue of the union of God and man in one Jesus was not adequately resolved and would resurrect again in a different kind of heresy.
Eutyches, the leader of a monastery, defended the “one nature in Christ” teaching which would be known as Monophysitism. Eutyches combined the two natures so completely that Christ’s humanity was “lost” in his deity. When Eutyches refused to recant his views before Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople, he was deposed and condemned as a heretic. However, Eutyches found support in his views from Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria. Dioscorus asked Emperor Theodosius II to convene another Ecumenical Council to review the matter. In 449 A.D. another council was convened at Ephesus. Eutyches was summarily reinstated without the support of the rest of the church. Pope Leo I labeled it the “Robber Council”. Pope Leo I called for a new council and the successor to Theodosius, Emperor Marcian convened the fourth official Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451 A.D. Dioscorus was indicted for his actions at the “Robber Council” and the council established a supplement to the Nicene Creed known as the Chalcedonian Creed.[8] This creed clearly communicated the Church’s position that Christ had two natures in one person. This would come to be known as the “Hypostatic Union.” Although the Church would struggle with many issues in the coming centuries, by the end of the fifth century it was firmly rooted in its Christology. Theologically, the Church had formally and officially established the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy that has guided and directed the Church to this day.
Finally, carrying with it the bulwark of this long heritage of Christian orthodoxy, how should the Church relate to other organizations claiming to be “Christian?” First and foremost, a clear distinction must be made between organizations that do not share the same Christian “traditions” and those whose teachings are clearly inconsistent with the boundaries established by orthodoxy. For example, Roman Catholics, Protestants and the Orthodox Church have differing church traditions but all would freely confess the truths outlined by the previously notated creeds. However, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientists, even though they have confiscated the language of Christianity, would not confess those same truths. As such, they are not part of the “Christian” Church regardless of how much they adorn themselves with the language of Christianity. From a practical standpoint, engaging with organizations that are distinctly Christian yet differ in tradition is analogous to dealing with family members that have differing lifestyles, ideas and opinions. As Williams writes for example, “Being Protestant is not synonymous with being anti-Catholic in the sense of rejecting the faith as developed prior to the Reformation. For that matter, being Protestant is not the antithesis of being Roman Catholic, though certainly it is in distinction to Roman Catholicism.”[9] Interaction with Christians from other traditions should be mark by love and tolerance. Engaging with Christians from other traditions is not a matter of accepting what they believe about all things as correct but instead accepting the fact that they believe in and are saved by the same Christ that has been Lord of the Church universal throughout its history—it is a continuity of the faith shared by all believers.
With respect to non-Christian organization claiming to be Christian, the Church need not be afraid to engage with these organizations or individuals socially or in the context of Christian ministry in the same way that the Church would engage with any other non-Christian provided it does not compromise its message of the Good News as understood in the context of the orthodox guidelines confessed by the Church throughout its history. Refusing to engage in a cooperative effort to serve those in need, if such an opportunity should present itself, only serves to deprive those who need help. It does nothing to defend the honor or distinctiveness of the Christian faith. Those in need are primarily interested in having their needs met not whether those who are serving them have reached a consensus on the definition of the “Hypostatic Union.” As the French poet, Jean de la Fontaine, once said, “A hungry stomach has no ears.” It is by serving those in need, either independently or as a cooperative effort, that the Church builds upon an existing firm foundation that can never be shaken. Ultimately, most of the major non-Christian organizations that masquerade as Christian were all invented during the 19th century by some self-proclaimed prophet/charlatan that preyed on people’s theological ignorance. The true Christian Church, however, towers over these other organizations like Mt. Everest over an anthill with its rich heritage that reaches back to Christ himself and has established the boundaries of orthodoxy that have defined Christianity for the Church throughout its history and will serve to defend Christianity until Christ returns.
Guarding Christian Orthodoxy
Looking back over the last few centuries of the Church generally and the American Church more specifically, a very disturbing trend has emerged. Specifically, it has become acceptable for ministry professionals to forego formal seminary training. The popular argument is that seminary is unnecessary if God has called someone to vocational ministry insisting that if God calls someone to ministry, He will also equip that person for that ministry. While I think there is some historical biblical precedent for this position, I believe that generally speaking, God does not operate this way. For those of you who think I am a proponent of a seminary education because I have a seminary degree, I can assure you that even some seminary students don't think a seminary education is necessary for someone called to vocational ministry! I experienced this personally when, during a particular class on leadership, I voiced my belief that everyone who has been called to vocational ministry should be seminary trained. There were no fewer than 6 fellow students who reacted as though I insulted their mother in some way! I wasn't necessarily surprised by this attitude in light of another experience I had early on during my time at seminary. One of my professors, and now a good friend, asked the class an interesting question. He asked for a show of hands of those who were attending seminary because they believed it would advance their careers both positionally and financially. Now, one of the things Laura and I talked about before I started seminary was the impact vocational ministry would have on our family. We recognized that ministry, most of the time, meant giving up the pursuit of position and financial gain. We accepted the fact that we would probably be going backwards in that respect. So you can imagine how shocked I was when at least 80% of the class raised their hand to the professor’s question! This attitude that seminary is unnecessary or simply a means for personal gain are part of the problem with the Church. The problem is compounded when those in the pews don't really care if the one leading them is seminary educated either. To me, this is unconscionable! Think about this for a minute--if you are sick or hurt and need medical attention, how many of you simply assume that your attending physician is a trained medical professional? No one would accept an explanation from a doctor that since they have been called by God to be a doctor that they therefore don't need formal medical training. That notion is completely ludicrous. Yet we blithely accept that explanation from a ministry leader! Why? Well if we were really honest, it's because our physical well-being is very important because our pain or sickness is tangible while our spiritual well-being is rather abstract. Yet we know that our bodies will eventually die while our souls are eternal! So, at a minimum, we should care for our souls at least as much as we care for our bodies if not more. Therefore, we should require those who care for our souls to be at least as qualified as those who care for our bodies. This is true for all those who pursue vocational ministry—from senior pastors to children pastors. It is amazing how many children and youth pastors have no seminary education. Using the same medical illustration, we would never leave one of our children in the care of a pediatrician that is not highly educated yet we don't think twice about leaving our kids with a children or youth pastor that has little or no seminary training!
There is another negative consequence when we don't insist that our ministry professionals be seminary educated, it leaves those watching us with the impression that we're not really serious about our faith. And if we don't take it seriously, why should anyone else. Furthermore, failure to insist on seminary trained ministry professionals increases the likelihood of having heretical teachings creep into our churches. I previously mentioned three cults that are prolific in our culture today: Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness and Christian Scientist. In each of these three cases the founders of these movements were untrained people who deceived others with their heretical teachings. While it's not a fool-proof solution, would these same cults be as prominent today if it was generally accepted that only ministry leaders with a formal seminary education are qualified to be ministry leaders? Unfortunately, we can't change what has already happened. However, that doesn't mean that we should keep making the same mistake in the future. Therefore, I want to challenge you to insist that all your ministry professionals be seminary trained. Insist that any new hires have a seminary degree and pay for your current ministry professionals to go get their seminary degree. Also, graduating from a bible college, while beneficial, is not the same as being seminary trained. For example, my youngest daughter is pursuing a calling as a physician’s assistant. When she finishes her undergraduate work in applied health along with 2,000 clinical hours, she will already have many of the basic tools she will need as a physician’s assistant. However, until she completes the very specific education of a graduate degree specializing in the area of physician’s assistant, she can’t practice her calling.
Do not accept the argument that seminary is very expensive and ministry professionals don’t make much money. Sorry—that’s not a good excuse! I’ll go back to my medical illustration. How many people would accept that excuse from someone wanting to be a doctor? How much money one makes in a given field is irrelevant as to whether they should be properly educated to faithfully carry out their calling. I think you'll find very quickly who is serious about the responsibility to fulfill their “calling” to vocational ministry if you insist that they be seminary trained. This is a serious matter—let's treat it with the proper level of gravity. Remember, if we don’t take the matters of our faith seriously, why should anyone else!
[1] Thomas C. Oden, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy, (HarperCollins, New York, NY, 2003), p. 29
[2] Donald G. Bloesch, A Theology of Word and Spirit, (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1992), p. 139
[3] Ibid., p. 141
[4] Ibid., p. 142
[5] D. H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism, (Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1999), pp. 27-28
[6][6][6] Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plan Language, (Word Publishing, Dallas, TX, 1982), p. 50
[7] Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, p. 77
[8] Chalcedonian Creed: We then following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God of Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
[9] Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, p. 174
No comments:
Post a Comment