"In testing such spirits and rejecting them, the spirits of the Fathers must themselves stand trial. The Montanists' renewal of prophecy suffered at the hands of a church preoccupied with closing the ranks, drawing clear lines of demarcation and safeguarding its heritage, an exercise in which apostolic was often synonymous with traditional. The condemnation of Montanism was a decisive point in the evolution of that kind of churchly Christianity which cherished office and order and had little room to 'welcome the charismata".
("Why Were the Montanists Contemned?" by David F. Wright)
Both Wright and Robert Bradshaw argue that Montanism, deemed a heresy by the Church and by most historians, was not tolerated because of its threat to the stability of the Church's growing hierarchy. Specifically, Bradshaw argues that it was Tertullian's view of a spiritual church within the visible church which posed the greatest threat.
This sad case study (from which the church has apparently not learned!) should be re-examined periodically, especially by movements as they "come of age". I invite you to be a part of this process and ask the tough questions!
3 comments:
The stability of the church/establishment always seems to be a the root of the quelling of genuine movements. The establishment is lead by those who once lead a movement, or whose parents/grandparents did, an then they subsequently close the door behind them, refusing to allow life or growth/change that may come through the advent of a new movement. The Montanists looked to ages past, and sought to be lead by the Spirit, to be a true church. The Church around them had a lot to lose if just any person, regardless of social/ecclesial location, could hear from and speak for God.
Movements exist to challenge, resist, renew the established.
Let us not forget that the Prophet must have someone to prophesy to. There is no need for a revolution if we are all revolutionaries. The thesis must have an antithesis.
There is in some weird way the need for a tension between the mainstream and the marginalized, the ancient and the contemporary, the institution and the prophetic. Every Pope needs a Luther.
This has been somewhat of a critique of liberation theology as well. What happens when the downtrodden are truly freed? They become a part of the system they hated. Liberation occurs and the liberator becomes unnecessary or even worse becomes a bureaucrat.
Seeing Pentecostal Churches feel so comfortable around mainstream fundamentalists, is like when a saw a Ramones T-shirt at Best Buy. Pentecostalism and fundamentalism go together like Punk music and commercial marketing. It's just wrong. We need a Montanus, a Tertullian, an ecclesial Johnny Cash.
It is an endless cycle of challenging the previous paradigm. We must embrace it and make room for the Prophet even (especially) when he/she won't play by our rules.
Sorry if I babbled.
Wow, what a fascinating tidbit of history. I didn't know anything about this movement, but it seems like a sad chapter of church history indeed.
What unnerves me most is that, as a participant of 'ecstatic utterances', I would have been condemned as a heretic by the establishment of the time. How hard it is to accept change, once we've become convinced that our way is the 'right' way. And yet, I'm guilty of similar prejudices, some conscious, some subconscious.
Time for us all to treat the role of the Spirit seriously, and to be open to His instruction, tempered by reason, scripture and tradition, of course - but not quenched by them.
Post a Comment