Schism: The Handmaiden of Heresy
Communion in Conflict: Schism: The Handmaiden of Heresy
Marshall Montgomery has been ruminating on schism and heresy, too. (Although, unbeknownst to me, before I did.)
He expounds on three theses:
Schism generates heresy.
Schism perpetuates heresy.
Schism reinforces heresy.
He takes a slightly different tack on it, but I quite think we are in basic agreement. While I maintain that they are both aspects of the same thing, he envisions something more of a cause-effect relationship. I don't think I object to seeming them complexly related as cause to effect, so long as the relation is not only in one direction.
In any event, he sifts through the issues well, and it's worth a read.
Marshall Montgomery has been ruminating on schism and heresy, too. (Although, unbeknownst to me, before I did.)
He expounds on three theses:
Schism generates heresy.
Schism perpetuates heresy.
Schism reinforces heresy.
He takes a slightly different tack on it, but I quite think we are in basic agreement. While I maintain that they are both aspects of the same thing, he envisions something more of a cause-effect relationship. I don't think I object to seeming them complexly related as cause to effect, so long as the relation is not only in one direction.
In any event, he sifts through the issues well, and it's worth a read.
Labels: church, ecclesiology, heresy and schism, theology
posted by Jason at 3:03 PM
2 Comments:
I confess I didn't really see how those 3 statements were supported by what he wrote.
But I appreciated the link.
Pamela and Bud,
I am taking some time to respond to this, so I will only say a couple things here, to clarify:
Bud says at one point: 'those whom you are identifying as schismatics' -- it bears mentioning that I haven't identified anyone in particular as schismatics. What I am saying is intended as commenting on schism in general. (How do we make sense -- theological or otherwise -- of the divisions of Christianity?)
And also, Bud, contrary to your hypothetical, these issues mean a great deal to me, as a priest, as a baptised Christian. (Although MM speaks eloquently enough for himself, I believe I can say confidently that they are vitally important to him as well.) What I/we are trying to do is to be discerning and faithful. If -- again, speaking in the abstract, and not about any particular proposed course -- both heresy and schism are ruled out as faithful options, then what? Not an easily answered question.
And I don't think we should be satisfied with easy answers, although I notice that many proponents of the various sides in our present debates (in the church and the world, not merely ECUSA) seem pretty happy with them.
Post a Comment
<< Home