Heresy and schism: an unfolding conversation

Just today I've discovered Dave Belcher and his blog, where he blogrolled me and linked to Marshall and I (and I think others, earlier) on our discussions on heresy and schism, and he has made his own contribution as well. Here is the relevant post. I began replying but found that my response was turning into a post in its own right, so here most of it is, with a few little changes.

Since so much of this is response, it really is important to go and see his original post and the distinctions he draws within it. It is a helpful illumining through the lens of Augustine and the Donatists. I will quote sections I am responding to below:

1) It is worth reinforcing that in my original post I was trying to find a common source for schism and heresy in human pride, rather than trying simply to equate (or conflate) the two.

2) As I have thought about it, though, it certainly seems as if they are related. I'm not at an end of my thinking, but I would say that it seems as if schism is a form of heresy. I have in mind, here, John 17:20-23, where Jesus is saying that our love and unity (effected by the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit) witness to the love and unity of the Son and the Father. For us to be rent asunder -- and that deliberately leaves ambiguous who rends and who is rent -- as schism does, separates the members of the Body of Christ, and in a real sense contradicts the truth of the unity of Father and Son (which I would take to be heresy).

Dave says: Augustine's point against the Donatists' conception of the necessity of right performance is that faith (moral purity) without an intentionality towards unity (caritas) is meaningless. In other words, if the minister and the recipient of Baptism are both pure in faith, but have no intention towards catholic unity (if they do not know how to love), then that faith is dead (James 2:26). This does not mean that dead faith is the same thing as heresy, however. Heresy is a strict contradiction of the faith (and here it is important to note that in early Christianity, especially in connection to Baptism, faith is often used to signify the Creed), whereas "dead faith" is a faith that does not lead to the "works" of charity (and the absence of charity--love--is the absence of unity...schism). The issue for me, here, is that if schism ruins one's faith in addition to the loss of charity, then what have those to give them hope? Is there not hope even for the one without faith? (recall that heretics are always instructed and disciplined in order that they might be brought back into reconciliation) Is there not hope even for the one without love? (and also recall how often Augustine lamented over the Donatists, and wished in all sincerity that they would return to unity--even as he severely demonstrates the errors of Petilianus' ways, for instance) But, without faith and love is there any place from which to reach out? To whom are we then reaching out? To those who have rejected unity, but in so doing have lost the gift of faith that first granted them Baptism? Are they then to be rebaptized? Is it not faith (and thus also the Creed) that first gives us the possibility of love (and thus also unity)?

3) As for your first point, drawing on Augustine, I may not fully grasp your point -- and if so, please inform me. But it seems to me that if faith without intentionality towards love is meaningless (that is, that faith implies and is expressed fully in love), then contradicting the faith (heresy) implies a lack of love (schism). To put it another way, the lack of love just does mean a lack of faith. (I need to be explicit here that I am taking a slight ambiguity in your entry, on faith (moral purity, creed) and bringing the two into close connection. I'm uncomfortable with the notion of 'creed' or 'faith' being only a matter of certain notions or propositions -- certainly they are at least that, but they are also much more!)

Dave's second (last) point: But, really, the issue is this: If we are indeed all schismatics, then doesn't that also make us all heretics? And if that is the case, what is necessary for unity? Simply a (re-)affirmation of faith? A wholesale rebaptism of all of Christianity? And at this point are we not rejecting the efficacy of all baptisms by virtue of the power of the Holy Spirit ("ex opere operato")?

4) And for your last point, which has some existential bite to it, I don't have an answer. I think it is worth letting ourselves be interrogated a bit, let ourselves doubt, not take refuge in conventional pieties solipsistic self-assurances*: maybe we are all schismatics, maybe we are all heretics? This isn't much different than many of us would confess already, that we are all schismatics and some of us are heretics, is it? Perhaps both the purity of truth and the fullness of love are only meant to be manifested eschatologically, that the optative mood in John is not meant for now but for the eschaton**, and our heresy and schism, while not acceptable, are nevertheless part of our present reality, living as a 'broken sign'.

There is of course more, much more, to be said, and I haven't even had a look yet at Marshall's latest post.


*(not that I'm saying you would, in particular, Dave -- I think it is a temptation for us all, at times.)
**I think this unlikely, but what if?

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.

Schism and Heresy

I was talking informally with someone a couple of weeks ago and he mentioned that there was a bishop in the Episcopal Church (USA) who said that schism was worse than heresy.* In response to that he scoffed, finding it risible.

I don't want to speculate too far on my conversation partner's point, as he did not elaborate. I think it fair to say, though, that most likely he would have prioritised it the other way around: schism is warranted on grounds of heresy, or at least far less serious than heresy.

But after considering it awhile, I don't think they can be prioritised in that way. It seems to me, rather, that they are both awful, both to be resisted. Or, to put a somewhat finer point on it, they are simply two species of the same thing: human pride.


* The identity of the bishop and my interlocutor are unimportant to my point.