Getting It Right

This is a post I wrote for my old blog, back when I was in seminary the second time and taking a church history class. I am currently in seminary for the third time and taking a Christology class which, it turns out, is in many ways quite similar–and I found myself thinking similar thoughts this time around as well.

Theology Thursday

Getting It Right

I recently read if Athanasius hadn't been so consistent and persistent in his pursuit of the truth, Christianity wouldn't have survived. I feel that God will preserve what He wants to preserve, but on the other hand, maybe this kind of attempts to unravel God ARE important . . .

I recently read if Athanasius hadn’t been so consistent and persistent in his pursuit of the truth, Christianity wouldn’t have survived. I feel that God will preserve what He wants to preserve, but on the other hand, maybe these kinds of attempts to unravel God ARE important . . .

I’m sort of studying for my church history mid-term, only I think I’ve kind of forgotten how, and also? I’m not anywhere near as Type-A as I was in high school and college. (Maybe I was never really Type-A, but I was definitely very driven by grades.)

I’m hoping writing this post will help me get my head around some things and will, in a sense, be a way of studying. (At least, it makes a good excuse, doesn’t it?) I feel like I’m still stuck on heresies.

I don’t really have a problem with the idea that there is orthodox belief and heterodox belief. Unlike most postmoderns, I do believe that there is a Truth, that ultimately that Truth is Jesus Christ and affects the whole universe. I believe that you can be living more in line with the Truth, or less in line with it. But, like any good postmodern, I guess I’m not always sure I understand how we know it. I guess what I’m struggling with is not so much that the church leadership in the third and fourth centuries needed to create creeds and formulas by which to evaluate faith and life. I agree that they needed to decide on a Biblical canon, and I feel that their choices of books to go into the New Testament were right, and the things that were left out were left out for good reason.

I’m just kind of wrestling with the whole process of how they got there. My professor says (in his CD lectures–I’ve never actually met the guy) that, for example, in the case of the Biblical canon, the Holy Spirit, having inspired the canonical books, infused them with a certain authority, and that “canonisation is a recognition of what has already taken place.” I think this is true, but how did they know it had already taken place? How did they know that Athanasius’ list of 27 New Testament books was correct, and Marcion’s edited Matthew, Luke and 10 letters of Paul were not? (The fact that he edited them himself might have been an indicator, I suppose, but still–I’m just saying.)

Or how about this? Arius, a presbyter in Alexandria, started teaching that “there was a time when the Son was not”–that is, that the “Son” part of the Godhead had had a beginning, and that Jesus was this dude that God put His Spirit on and basically adopted into the Godhead, but who had not existed eternally like the Father. Athanasius said this was bunk, and that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were co-eternal. Over the course of the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople (dudes–I can even tell you the years of those!), Athanasius’ view was vindicated and Arius’ was defeated, but what the lectures didn’t tell me and the textbook did was that they went back and forth on these issues a few times, with both Arius and Athanasius being condemned and exiled multiple times (although I think Arius died first and got condemned posthumously a couple of times, too).

Or what about the Council of Ephesus? I’m not even talking about the Robber Synod that came on its heels. I’m talking about how the Antiochene bishops got to the council late and the Alexandrian bishops (and presumably any others–if there were any others) met already and decided that they (the Alexandrians) were in the right in their views on the dual nature of Christ and the title of Mary. The Antiochene bishops were understandably upset, so they came up with this compromise called the “Symbol of Union” which sort of agreed more with the Antiochenes about Christ’s dual nature, and sort of agreed with the Alexandrians about Mary’s title. You can decide these things via a compromise? What if they compromised on the wrong parts? When told of the issues before being told of the results of the council, I frankly thought the Alexandrians were more correct about the nature of Christ and the Antiochenes were more correct about the title of Mary. What if I’m right and Pope Leo or whomever, was wrong?

Or what if I’m wrong? How wrong do I have to be before I am considered a heretic? If I love Jesus and trust Him to get me to the Father and to have died for my sins and forgiven me and to be gradually transforming me more into His likeness, do I still have to fully understand how He is both fully divine and fully human, or how God is One and a Trinity, or whether the Spirit proceeds from just the Father or both the Father and the Son? What does that even mean?

I feel like there’s heresy all over the place, still, today, and often I recognise it when I see it, but I don’t always. I don’t think anybody does always. How much of our salvation depends on our recognising it? Especially if our salvation is dependent on grace and not works? I think it all does come back to the work of the Holy Spirit. I think He does confirm what He has already accomplished or established. But so many people claim to be speaking for the Holy Spirit. How do you really know the difference?

7 thoughts on “Getting It Right

  1. I figure if after 2000 years of struggling with this in earnest, people still don’t know… we’ll never know. The main thing is… let go of the hubris of certainty. It’s not one of the gifts God gave us. And pay attention to doing justice, loving mercy, and walking with the lord our God. (Which means that abusing heretics is right out.) 🙂

      • Sorry about framing my response as … well, an admonishment. It wasn’t meant that way. Just sharing what I finally came up with, after puzzling over stuff for a long time.

        IMO, Christians made a bad turning when they went from living it (house churches, mutual aid, sharing) to arguing about who is right about stuff that cannot be determined one way or another with any degree of useful certainty. Humility went out and ego-bound narcissistic power-hogs came flooding in… 😦

        Which brings up the question of grace vs works. All God’s gifts are grace. We earn none of them. But to bring about the kingdom of God on Earth Jesus prayed for and preached about… we gotta live it, embody it. My 2 cents. Cheers!

  2. No worries–I wasn’t offended–and I’m grateful for the dialogue. Sometimes comments are few and far between over here!

    I tend to agree with you. I guess I’ve mulled this over to the point where I think somebody needed to work out some of this stuff, but you’re right that living it trumps the ivory tower mentality–and the “I’m right/you’re wrong” mentality. And I completely agree with the grace-and-embody-it bit. If Jesus really was God incarnate, then that just sorta proves your point . . . He preached it, yes, but He also embodied it. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . “

What's your story?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s