Restoring the New Testament Church By Looking Backwards

The term "restoring the New Testament church" is popular in our time.  Church plants often trumpet a vision around this theme, and that's not a bad thing.  It acknowledges that our present practice of church life is lacking something compared to what is described in the New Testament.  It's not difficult to get a group of Christians to agree to the question, "Should we build a New Testament church?"  However, agreeing to do this and actually creating such a church are very different things.

What is a New Testament church?

After agreeing to the first question, the next question becomes, "What exactly does a New Testament church look like?"

The fact is there is no single ideal New Testament church example that we can follow.  We see some variety, but more importantly we see failure mixed in with success.  The Jerusalem church leaders had trouble distributing the food to the widows and needed financial support from the other churches when a famine hit, the Galatian church was sidetracked by legalism, and the Corinthian church had chaotic meetings and members who sued each other.  The church at Sardis had a reputation for being alive but was dead, and the Laodician church was lukewarm.  Each one of these was a New Testament church, but when folks say, "Let's build a New Testament church," they probably aren't referring to these specific characteristics.

Some people see the New Testament church as one that emphasized evangelism, or practiced intimate community life among its members, or every member serving rather than letting a paid professional staff do all the work, or team eldership, or the full functioning of the spiritual gifts, or an emphasis on relational ministry rather than a focus on church buildings and programs.  Any of these goals are noble and would represent a step towards the original behaviour of the New Testament churches.

But getting agreement on the specific qualities of a New Testament church is still not the most difficult question.  That crown belongs to this question:

How do we actually build a New Testament church?

Answers to this question are harder to come by, at least by successful practitioners.  Critics are a dime a dozen, but leaders who have actually accomplished what they set out to do are fewer.  Setting out a vision and achieving that vision are very different things.

Many church planting methods are out there, and some of them actually work.  I have no desire to repeat or debate those -- others are better qualified at that than I am.

However, as we are busy restoring an aspect or two of the New Testament church, how do we keep from losing some of our existing church traits that are good?  How can we ensure we move forward in one area without taking a step backward in another?

I propose to tackle this question of restoring the New Testament church from a completely different perspective.

Learn By Looking Backwards

If we are lacking characteristics from the original New Testament churches, that means at some point along the journey the church lost those characteristics.  It seems therefore that if we understand why and how the church lost those traits in the first place, it may help us both to restore them and how to avoid losing them again in our generation.

So in coming blog posts, I want to try to answer questions such as, "How did the church ...

• ... lose baptism by faith and adopt infant baptism?"
• ... lose team eldership and vest church authority in a lone bishop?"
• ... lose symbolic communion and believe the bread and wine literally become the flesh and blood of Christ?"
• ... lose the priesthood of all believers and adopt a distinction between clergy and laity?"
• ... lose the independence of each local congregation and adopt a central hierarchy that imposed decisions on other churches?"

... and numerous other similar questions.

It's not always possible to answer these questions with absolute authority because historical church records were not written for the purpose of answering these questions.  Therefore, most of the time the answers will have to be inferred.  However, I believe we can glean enough information to understand what caused the church to lose these traits in generations past, and therefore understand what errors we need to avoid in our time.

Epistle to Diognetus

Despite all of the persecutions, internal conflicts and failures of the early church, some true Christian witness remained.  The Epistle to Diognetus is one such testimony.   It shows that about a century after the close of the New Testament, the key aspects of Christian behaviour and beliefs were still functioning and intact.

Broadbent sums it up this way:  "Amidst the confusion of conflicting parties there were true teachers, able and eloquent in directing souls in the way of salvation."  (The Pilgrim Church, p. 39)

The author of this letter is unknown, as is his recipient Diognetus.  The author refers to himself as "a disciple of the Apostles" and "a teacher of the Gentiles" (Diognetus 11:1) but nowhere gives his name.  Some sources call it the "Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus" but Mathetes is just the Greek word for "disciple" and it is unlikely that this was the writer's name.  The emperor Marcus Aurelius had a tutor named Diognetus, but it is unclear if this was the same person who received this letter.  The letter was likely written in the late second century A.D., but only a single manuscript from the 13th century survived.  That manuscript was destroyed at Strasbourg during the Franco-Prussian war in 1870, but by then other copies had been made.

The epistle is a response to Diognetus' questions about Christianity.  The introduction states:

Since I see thee, most excellent Diognetus, exceedingly desirous to learn the mode of worshipping God prevalent among the Christians, and inquiring very carefully and earnestly concerning them, what God they trust in, and what form of religion they observe, so as all to look down upon the world itself, and despise death, while they neither esteem those to be gods that are reckoned such by the Greeks, nor hold to the superstition of the Jews; and what is the affection which they cherish among themselves; and why, in fine, this new kind or practice [of piety] has only now entered into the world, and not long ago; I cordially welcome this thy desire, and I implore God, who enables us both to speak and to hear, to grant to me so to speak, that, above all, I may hear you have been edified, and to you so to hear, that I who speak may have no cause of regret for having done so.

The writer then goes on to tackle a number of Diognetus' questions.

The first one is the futility of idol worship, which Diognetus apparently practices.  Christians were viewed as abnormal for refusing to worship idols, but the writer turns the situation on its head and argues it is the pagans who are behaving abnormally by worshiping objects made of wood (subject to rot), iron (subject to rust) or silver (subject to theft) which clearly have no inherent divine characteristics.  The God of the Christians is not something invented by man.

He also contrasts Christians with the Jews, who while they worship the true God, they do so by keeping a myriad of rules and by offering sacrifices, which leads to boasting.  Christians do not worship God in this fashion.

So what distinguishes Christians then?  The writer tackles this eloquently in Chapter 5 of his epistle.

For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; ... But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives.

This passage gives an interesting glimpse into the pagan culture of their day.  Killing unwanted babies was apparently accepted, but not among the Christians.  Monogamous marriages were not the cultural norm, but for Christians they were.  (Lightfoot and Harmer's translation states, "They have their meals in common, but not their wives.")

It's also interesting to note that Christians of this period saw no need to distinguish themselves by outward appearances, such as clothing, as the Hutterites and Old Order Mennonites do today.  Their behaviour was what distinguished those early Christians from the rest of society, not the externals.

The writer appears to be familiar with the Gospel of John, as he refers to Christ as the Word and quotes from John 3:16 (Diognetus 10:2).  He also quotes a phrase from 1 Peter 3:18, "the just for the unjust" when describing Christ's sacrifice for our sins. (Diognetus 9:2)  He understands that it is not the organizational hierarchy of the church that preserves it, but rather through Christ "who is ever born afresh in the hearts of the saints" (Diognetus 11:4) that keeps the church enriched and "the tradition of the Apostles ... preserved," an apparent reference to the fight against heresies.

This letter is a very wise and gracious presentation of the Christian faith.  The writer is likely one of the earliest Christian apologists, other than the New Testament writers themselves.

Mani and Gnosticism

Mani (~216 - ~277 A.D.) was a Persian born in Babylon to a noble and religious family.  He was exposed to various religions as a child, including paganism, gnosticism, and an heretical Christian/Jewish sect called the Elcesaites.  By age 12 he claimed to have his first angelic visit and by age 24 he had a second revelation.  He espoused his doctrines to the Persian King Sapor I (or Shapur I) in 242 A.D. and was promptly run out of town.  He traveled through northern India and Turkestan founding communities that followed his new religion and had some success.  A few years later he got a favourable hearing from the Persian king's brother and once again got a chance to espouse his beliefs to Sapor.  Once again he became a fugitive and continued travelling and writing epistles to his communities to firmly establish his doctrines.  Sapor eventually imprisoned Mani, but Sapor died in 274 whereon Mani was granted release under the new but short-lived king.  The third king renewed Sapor's persecution of Mani's religion and had him crucified in either 276 or 277 A.D.

Manichaeism had some adherents in the western Roman Empire, but its main successes were in the near and far east.  Persia, India, Tibet, and even China had numerous Manichaen churches.  The Chinese Manichaens were still in existence as late as the 14th century.  In some areas, Manichaeism became more popular than any other religion, including the indigenous pagan beliefs.

Manichaeism's Beliefs

Mani cobbled together his religion from pieces of a number of different faiths.  He claimed that Jesus, Buddha, and Zoroaster's teachings were all incomplete and that he had been granted revelation that completed what other faiths were lacking.  He called his beliefs the "religion of light" but it was most commonly known by his name instead.

Manichaeism was essentially gnosticism.  At its heart was dualism, meaning good and evil forces battling it out in the cosmos.  The spirit world is good; the physical world is evil.  The spirit who created the world was the evil power, and therefore the Jewish and Christian God was deemed to be Satan in Mani's religion.

There were all kinds of expectations laid out for believers, but he established a sort of clergy and laity distinction.  Those who were committed to living out the requirements fully were called the "Elect" while the remaining attendees were called "Hearers."  The Elect were similar to priests or monks, expected to remain celibate, become vegetarians, and avoid all menial work and trades.  The Hearers, which made up 99% of the Manichaens, were responsible for feeding, caring for, and honouring the Elect with bended knee.  Mani's churches had equivalent holidays to other major religions, such as a festival at spring timed to coincide with the Christian Easter celebrations.

While not having anything to do with Christian doctrine in the least, some Christians were attracted to Manichaeism and church leaders taught strongly against its heresies.  For example, Augustine wrote an entire book dedicated to countering Manichean teachings, called De Moribus Manichaeorum.  

Donatus and the Second Church Split

While the first church split (the Novatians) centered on the issue of how to deal with believers who had lapsed during persecution that ended in 250 A.D., the second church split focused on the character of church leaders who appeared to cooperate with the persecutors during the persecution that ended around 305 A.D.  At the heart of the disagreement were two simple questions:

1. Should church leaders who demonstrate unethical, immoral, or just un-Christian behaviour be removed from their positions of authority in the church?  (Or be prevented from promotion into those positions in the first place?)
2. Do local bishops, priests, and believers have any say in who gets appointed bishop over them?

At the end of the discussions, the Catholic Church answered both questions with a resounding, "NO."

The Story of Donatism

The controversy started during the persecution under Emperor Diocletian (coin shown at right).  The punishments were not always equally applied across all regions of the empire.  Some were forced to sacrifice to idols or face death, and in other places holy books were handed over to be destroyed and that was sufficient demonstration of compliance with the Emperor's decree.  To the shock of some believers, some Catholic priests and bishops were seen willingly handing over precious Scriptures to the Roman governors in order to avoid being killed.  They were called "traditor" or "surrenderers."

An additional component of the controversy stemmed from the pain and grief from the loss of so many Christian martyrs.  This generated a lot of respect and honour for them among the surviving believers, so much so that some Christians actively sought the honour of martyrdom by trying to get themselves killed.  They would state they had some Christian documents (which they didn't) and then refused to hand them over to the authorities.  The result was a sure death sentence.

The church leaders rightly were concerned about this growing practice of "intentional martyrdom" and taught against it.  In North Africa, the practice was growing in popularity and Carthage Bishop Mensurius decided to send his archdeacon Caecilian to disperse the crowd who were visiting and encouraging the imprisoned Christians.  While some prisoners were likely those who had intentionally got themselves arrested, not all the prisoners were there voluntarily and the Christians were deeply upset at Caecilian's actions and the fact that he appeared to be taking the side of the persecutors.  Later when this incident was recounted, he was described as a "tyrant" and "butcher."  He obviously did not win a lot of friends that day!

To add insult to injury, after Mensurius' death Caecilian was appointed Bishop of Carthage.  This infuriated the believers, priests and bishops who were already angry with him.  They elected their own candidate for bishop, Majorinus, and the stage was set for a showdown.  As Majorinus died shortly after his appointment, Donatus of Casae Nigra (died ~355 A.D.), sometimes called Donatus Magnus, was appointed in his place.  As Donatus led the movement for a number of decades, the movement became known as Donatism.

A hearing was given at Rome and the verdict came down in favour of Caecilian.  Instead of theology being determined by the vote of the majority of bishops, as it had been in Novatian's day, this now was a minority overruling a majority.  The Donatists complained why an opinion held by 20 bishops should overrule the opinion of 70 bishops.  The decision was appealed and appealed again, and every hearing resulted in the same verdict.  Even Emperor Constantine got involved and delivered the same decision.  For the first time in history (but not the last) the head of government would rule on the theology of the church.

To complicate matters, a violent group of fanatical believers known as Circumcelliones roamed throughout North Africa dispensing their own brand of vigilante justice.  They harrased Catholic bishops and priests, vandalized Catholic churches, and even resorted to murder when it suited them.  They supported the Donatists, although the Donatist teachings did not condone such behaviour.  However, the punishments that the Circumcelliones brought on themselves were also dispensed to the Donatists in general.  Rightly or wrongly, their lots became intertwined.

While initially the Donatists were only considered schismatics, eventually they were declared heretics and their churches were to be confiscated.  At times and in certain places, such edicts were carried out, but because the Donatists outnumbered the Catholics in many places in North Africa, the Donatists survived as a parallel church system for centuries.  Donatus himself was eventually captured by the authorities and died while in exile.

The Theology of Donatism

At the heart of the debate was the issue of character and discipline.  Should church leaders model the behaviour they teach to others?  If a bishop recants his faith in the face of persecution, should he be allowed to return to his position of authority in the church?  If a fallen bishop ordains other bishops, are those ordinations valid?

To the Donatists, these questions were very clear.  Church leaders needed to demonstrate worthy, Godly behaviour to receive and continue in their offices of authority.  They created a separate group of churches that considered the Catholic Churches to be populated with unbelievers.  Converts from Catholicism to Donatism were often rebaptized.  They built their church on the basis of believers who demonstrated Christian faith, not just adherents to a religion.  

As the years passed, the original issues around the persecution faded into the background, but the issue of church leadership never did.  As Augustine waded into the debate decades later, he taught forcefully against Donatism while begging the Donatists to return to the Catholic Church.  He did not meet with much success.

The issue of fallen church leaders was subtle.  If a church leader fails or sins, does that invalidate the ordinations he performed?  What about the baptisms he performed?  Clearly it should not automatically follow that an ungodly priest or bishop makes everyone he has ordained or baptized ungodly too.  It implied guilt by association.

So there were two distinct issues at play:  1) Should character matter when choosing a church leader? and 2) Does the work performed by an ungodly church leader become invalid because of the leader's sinfulness?  The correct answers were 1) Yes and 2) No.  Unfortunately no one separated the issues.  The Donatists said everything performed by the ungodly leader was invalid because character was important, and Augustine said character was unimportant for church leaders as the power lay in the office and sacraments themselves.  Both extremes were destructive.  It ultimately didn't matter which camp won because both were going to harm the church.

The End of Donatism

The Roman Catholic Church established clearly in the time of Donatus that churches had no role in the appointment of their leaders, they had no freedom to disagree with those church leaders, and there was no requirement that church leaders should behave in a Christian manner.  The church was sliding down a slippery slope with increasing speed.

The Donatist issues were never resolved, just repeatedly overruled.  As coexistence was not permitted by the Catholic Church, persecution was the only method left.  A few Donatist churches survived until about 600 A.D. when the Muslim hoards solved the issue for them by destroying both the Catholic and Donatist Christians in North Africa with the sword.

  

Novatian and the First Church Split

The first significant church split occurred with the Novatians in Rome in 251 A.D. and quickly spread throughout the empire. Splits had occurred in the church before this, but it had always involved heresy such as with the Marcionites.  The Montanists tried to stay within the Catholic Church but were forced out, and while they were not exactly heretical, they had error mixed in with their desire for renewal and it muddied their situation.  Not so with the Novatians.  There was no heresy involved, just a disagreement over a theological issue.  They intentionally elected a separate bishop and created separate churches and they continued to be orthodox in all their doctrines.  That's what makes this situation such an interesting precedent in the history of the church.  It allows us to see the original response of the Catholic Church to a disagreement over theology and how that response changed over the centuries.

Novatian (~200-258 A.D.) was baptized on his death bed and then unexpectedly recovered.  He was a priest in Rome when Fabian, the Bishop of Rome, was martyred in 250 A.D.  Because of the intense persecution, the role of bishop was left vacant for a year.

When the persecution subsided with the death of Emperor Decius (his coin pictured) in June 251 A.D., a question arose among the churches all over the empire about those believers who had "lapsed" and sacrificed to idols in order to escape death.  Should they be admitted back into the church or not?  If yes, what should the process be for readmitting them?  Should all be readmitted or just those who relapsed under extreme torture?  Should the church practice forgiveness or should the church treat them as unbelievers?

During this same time, the churches were also dealing with the grief for those believers who had remained faithful in the face of persecution and lost their lives.  Believers honoured the memory of the martyrs by celebrating their "birthdays" into eternal life.  In Carthage, some believers felt the martyrs had access to incredible supernatural power when they faced death and that their excess merit was sufficient to cover the failures of others.  They even urged their bishop, Cyprian, to issue a blanket pardon for all those who had lapsed and sacrificed to idols based on this alleged power of the martyrs.  It was the earliest seeds of the modern Catholic practice of venerating saints.

Cyprian rightly declined this request on the basis that martyrs do not have the power to forgive sins.  However, the question of readmission of lapsed believers was a sticky one.  The traditional approach was that any serious sins such as apostasy resulted in believers being permanently excommunicated from the church.  Cyprian proposed a new and more moderate approach that they be readmitted based on the seriousness of the sin.  Leniency should be shown for those who failed during the worst kinds of physical torture, while those who willingly went to sacrifice to idols should be punished severely.  Additionally, sufficient remorse should be evident on the part of the lapsed.

This approach led the church leaders to establish a graded system of "penance," or actions that demonstrated repentance based on the seriousness of the sin.  After the required acts of humility and the required time had elapsed, the person was declared absolved of their sins by the bishop, readmitted to the church and could participate once again in the sacraments.

While there was agreement with Cyprian's solution among some churches and leaders, support was not unanimous.  Novatian in Rome led the opposition on the basis that only God can forgive men from their sins, especially serious sins like apostasy or murder.  Cyprian had simply moved that supposed power of forgiveness away from martyrs and gave it to the bishops instead, and Novatian argued it belonged to neither.  Further, the church had taught clearly against sacrificing to idols before and during the persecution.  They encouraged believers to face death with courage.  Now those same leaders were welcoming back those who had failed that test.  Wasn't this dishonouring the sacrifice of those martyrs who had proven faithful to Christ?  How would you feel if those martyrs included your family members?  Why hadn't those same church leaders taught this during the persecution?  Wouldn't that have avoided a lot of unnecessary deaths?  Did this mean the church leaders were admitting their previous teachings were wrong?  One can imagine the strong emotions that must have been present on both sides of the debate.  It was not a theoretical exercise -- it had intensely practical implications for each congregation.

Another priest in Rome named Cornelius took Cyprian's position and argued that bishops did in fact possess the power to forgive sins.  This set the stage for a showdown when the election for Bishop of Rome took place.

The majority of bishops sided with Cornelius and he was elected Bishop of Rome in 251 A.D.  However, Novatian and those who agreed with his position on the lapsed were not content to accept this change in church practice.  Just because a new bishop decrees a new practice in the church, did that mean the believers who disagreed with him had to adopt that practice even if it was contrary to the Scriptures?  What options did they have?

As a result, some priests in the Catholic Church elected Novatian bishop in open defiance of Cornelius.  We don't have any versions of this process from Novatian, only from his enemies, so it's unclear how much of their version of events is embellished, but Novatian may have engineered his election using some priests who were not entirely aware of what they were doing.  However, Novatian had a significant following and they immediately began establishing new churches under his leadership and appointed new bishops in other cities.  Suddenly there was a parallel network of churches and church leaders all over the Roman Empire.

While it is possible the Novatian schism was caused in part by a personality clash between Cornelius and Novatian, it could not be the main cause.  Cornelius was martyred just two years after becoming bishop, Novatian was martyred 5 years after that, and Cyprian was martyred the same year as Novatian.  By 258 A.D. all of the original players in the schism were gone from the scene, but Novatian churches continued to exist for centuries.  It is much more likely that the schism was primarily caused by differences of theology rather than of personality.

Initially the Catholic leaders called the Novatians a schism (meaning division) which is what they were, but over time leaders such as Cyprian changed their tone and declared them heretics.  Their only heresy was that they refused to acknowledge the power of the church to absolve sins.  This is strange, because that was a new teaching in Novatian's lifetime that was adopted by the Catholic Church leadership even though it had no Scriptural basis.  (Tertullian had opposed a similar issue decades earlier when a Bishop of Rome declared an adulterer forgiven.)  Novatian was declared a heretic because he did not accept a newly-invented doctrine that had been voted for by a majority of Catholic bishops and priests.  The definition of heresy now became anything contrary to what the Catholic Church taught.  Spiritual truth was determined by democratic vote.  Those in the majority were orthodox, while those in the minority were heretics.  It had nothing to do with what the Bible taught.  There was no room for multiple opinions on any matter of church life.  This definition of heresy has been used by the Catholic Church down to the present day.

In this short period of church history, the Catholic Church invented a brand new sacrament.  Instead of just baptism and communion, there was now penance and absolution of sins.  The church had gotten into the business of setting the price for and dispensing forgiveness of sins.  It began with trivial punishments and outward signs of humility, but it would be a small step in later centuries to make that price for forgiveness purely monetary -- indulgences would be the logical conclusion of this doctrine, and it would be one of the driving causes for the Protestant Reformation.

The Novatians called themselves "Cathars" from the Greek word for "pure," so in a sense they were the first Puritans.  Some of their churches also re-baptized converts from the Catholic Church, so in a sense they were the first Anabaptists.  They strongly opposed the teaching that the Catholic Church could absolve sins and they expected that Christians' lives should show evidence of their faith in how they behave.  Their bishops were admired for their Godly behaviour and Constantine invited the Novatian bishop from Constantinople to the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.  The bishop approved all the decrees that the council put forward but refused union with the Catholic Church.

Since the Catholic Church declared them to be heretics, Novatians were persecuted on and off for centuries, sometimes having their church buildings closed or confiscated and at other times being reluctantly tolerated.  The last reference to them is in Alexandria, Egypt around 600 A.D.

The Novatians were essentially orthodox in all the foundational doctrines of Christianity, but they rejected the un-Biblical ordinances that the Catholic Church had begun to adopt.  Their punishment was excommunication from the Catholic Church, but they didn't seem to care.

Marcion: The Man Who Rewrote the Bible to Fit His Heresy

Marcion (85-160 A.D.) was the son of a bishop in Pontus, on the shores of the Black Sea in northern Turkey.  He struggled with reconciling the God of the Old Testament with Jesus of the New Testament and concluded they must describe two separate gods.

Marcion showed up in Rome sometime around 140 A.D. and became a generous member of one of the congregations there.  In July 144 A.D., he was given a hearing with that city's church leaders about his belief system.  He did not win a lot of friends that day.  They were shocked, promptly rejected his views as heretical, excommunicated him from the church, and even returned the money he had given to the church.

From that point, Marcion went on a church planting spree all over the Roman empire.  After his death, these Marcionite churches continued to spread.  By the 4th century they had fizzled out in the western empire, but continued to exist in Syria until the 10th century.

The early church leaders and theologians were largely unanimous in opposing Marcion's teachings.  Tertullian, who was sympathetic to the Montanists, vigorously opposed Marcion.  In fact, he wrote a 5-volume treatise against his teachings.  While Marcion's own writings have not survived, one can infer his main doctrines from the works of his opponents like Tertullian.

Marcion's book was called Antitheses (Contradictions) and he described what he considered to be irreconcilable contradictions between the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.  He resolved it by deciding there must be two separate gods:  one who is good and who sent Jesus, and another who is just and cruel, who created the world, and who is described in the Old Testament.  To his credit, Marcion recognized that the Bible didn't support his theology in the least, but instead of concluding his theology was wrong, he concluded the Bible was wrong!  He promptly threw out the entire Old Testament, all of the Gospels except for portions of Luke, and a large part of the remainder of the New Testament.  He only kept 10 of Paul's epistles, and freely modified them when they didn't suit his purposes.

While he taught that Jesus was only spirit and not human (hence the need to get rid of the Christmas story in Luke), Marcion did not seem to share any other gnostic doctrines that were causing problems for the early church.  His particular brand of heresy was unique.

Despite Marcion's shameless arrogance in molding Scripture and God to meet his preconceived ideas, he did help speed up a process in the orthodox churches that had already begun:  the establishment of a canon of authentic and accepted books.  As Marcion rejected various books, churches clarified which books they accepted as authoritative.  As Marcion edited and modified books, churches preserved and reproduced the original versions of those books with greater urgency.  Marcion unknowingly helped establish and preserve the Bible that he so desperately tried to get rid of and modify.

While an ancient heresy like Marcion's may appear irrelevant to the church today, there are a few who are still drawn to his doctrines.  (See this website for one example, but don't believe everything you read there!)  The idea of creating God in one's own image is still very much in vogue.

As Broadbent states (p. 38), "Any error may be founded on parts of Scripture; the truth alone in based on the whole."

Montanus and the Prophetic

Montanus lived in Phyrgia (modern Turkey) in the 2nd century A.D.  He is one of the more difficult Christian leaders of the early church to get a handle on because he left no written records himself.  However, the renewal movement he initiated lasted long after his death, so it suggests his personality was not as important to the movement as were his teachings and methods.

What we do know is that sometime around 157 A.D. Montanus began teaching in Phyrgia and gained a following.  His main emphasis was on speaking prophetic messages from God while in a trance.  These ecstatic utterances caused a lot of controversy among church leaders, in part because they had a strong resemblance to pagan practices.  In fact, Montanus may have been a pagan priest for the god Cybele before his conversion, as that god was quite popular in that region.  Two women, Maximilla and Priscilla, also began giving prophecies with Montanus and they left their husbands to carry out this ministry.  He declared their revelations to be from God and called them "virgins of the church," which sounds eerily similar to pagan temple terminology.

By 177 A.D. all the bishops in the neighbouring region, as well as in Rome and France (Gaul), declared Montanus' practices to be heretical and his prophecies to be from Satan rather than from God.  However, that did not stop the spread of Montanism.  Where they were excommunicated from the Catholic churches, separate Montanist churches sprang up.  Even Tertullian defended and joined the Montanists and as a result was excommunicated from the Catholic church.

It seems Montanus' ecstatic methods of delivering the prophecies were the main source of the controversy in the church.  There is no record of bishops having any problem with the content of his messages (despite concluding they originated from Satan).  Montanists defended their ecstatic methods by pointing to uses of the Greek word for ecstasy in Scriptures.  One is Peter's vision in Acts 10:10 where he fell into a trance (ekstasis).  Their opponents pointed out that Peter still disagreed with God during the vision ("Surely not, Lord!") so he was not without control of his will.  By implication, Montanus must have been losing control of himself while in his prophetic trances.

The Bible is clear that when the Holy Spirit brings a message through a person, that person does not lose control of their will.  Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:32 that "the spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets."  The Holy Spirit never takes away control of our own behaviour even as He works through us.

The Montanism debate of the second century seemed to condense into two questions, which are still relevant for the church today:
1) How can one know if a prophet is actually receiving a supernatural message or is just pretending to?
2) If it is a supernatural message, how can one know if it is from God or from Satan?

In reality, those two questions boil down to one question:  Is the prophecy from God or not?  Whether a false prophecy is from the prophet's own imagination (i.e. they are pretending) or from Satan, we do the same thing with it:  we throw it out.  1 Thess. 5:19-21 says, "Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt.  Test everything.  Hold on to the good."  In the context prophecies, we are not to despise them but rather test them and keep what is good.  That means whatever is not good, we do not keep.  If a prophecy (or a part of a prophecy) does not line up with the Bible, we throw that part out.

But what about the prophecies that are tested and appear to be from God?  What authority do those prophetic words carry?  The Montanists believed they could add to and bring clarity to Scripture.  The orthodox bishops disagreed.  In fact, the Montanist debates showed that churches had already effectively closed the New Testament canon by the late second century in the sense that they had New Testament books they considered to be Scripture and other books that were not of the same authority.  The Montanists however used prophetic words to support their theological doctrines in addition to the accepted books of the Bible.

One reason the Montanist churches spread so far and wide was that their behaviour was very Godly.  They fasted regularly and celebrated more religious holidays than the mainline church.  Sometimes doctrinally they stayed true to Scripture where the Catholic church was veering into error.  For example, Tertullian and the Montanists opposed the emerging Catholic practice of bishops absolving people of their sin if they performed sufficient penance, arguing that God was the one to forgive sins and not bishops.  Broadbent states (The Pilgrim Church, p. 35) that "the Montanists constantly pressed for definite evidences of Christianity in the lives of applicants for fellowship" in the church, unlike the Catholic bishops who wanted as many adherents in the church as possible.

The story of the Montanists actually sheds some light on how the Catholic church was functioning by the mid-second century:
a) The Catholic church was already in need of renewal; and
b) The Catholic church was lacking the functioning of and direction of the Holy Spirit.

The Montanists sought to correct and strengthen the church in these areas, and like many movements of renewal throughout church history, they made some errors.  The Catholic bishops, in correctly identifying those errors, wrongly presumed that everything the Montanists did was therefore wrong.  As a result, the Catholic church lost the function of the gift of prophecy and sought to control the working of the Holy Spirit rather than follow Him.  Essentially they threw the baby out with the bath water.