Against Hymenæanism: The Charity of Intolerance
by Andrew Sandlin
Plain Text/Printer friendly Version
To charge as uncharitable those who expose, reprimand, and anathematize assaults on orthodoxy (we call these assaults heterodoxy or heresy) is to get things just backwards. Toleration of heresy is uncharitable, because it places antinomian sentiment above genuine concern for believers. Genuine charity is manifested in the desire to see Christians aspire to a deeper worship of God and adhere more closely to the law of God. Heresy, however, greatly detracts from worship and obedience. If unchecked, it leads straight to their opposites, sacrilege and disobedience, which ensure divine judgment. Therefore, to tolerate heresy under the guise of charity for the brethren is really to refuse to confront sins that culminate in divine judgment on the sacrilege and disobedience which heresy inevitably produces. This is not charity for the brethren, but perhaps its opposite.
The July, 1997 issue of the Chalcedon Report exposed and refuted the Hymenaean or so-called "full preterist" view. In varying degrees, this heresy denies the future physical Advent of Christ, the future final judgment, and the future physical resurrection of the just and unjust. It is unarguably beyond the pale of orthodox Christianity, and its adherents do not profess continuity with orthodoxy Christianity at these vital points. In this admission we appreciate their honesty.
Several figures prominently identified with the Christian Reconstruction Movement have been seduced by this eschatological heterodoxy. It has come to light that some others, while not embracing it, have developed a tolerance for it and firmly dissent from those of us who have exposed this pernicious assault on cardinal tenets of the Christian Faith.
In the past, the Christian Reconstruction Movement was torn by strife largely generated by personality conflicts and comparatively secondary doctrinal issues. The assertion by misguided friends or sniping critics that the present dispute is nothing more than characteristically acerbic Reconstructionists "not getting along again" instances a dangerous ignorance of the centrality of Christian orthodoxy to this movement. (I draw your attention to Rushdoony's masterly Foundations of Social Order.)
Regrettably, the present heresy springs from a particular historical antecedent.
In a letter under date of July 8. 1981, a young Christian Reconstructionist wrote to Rushdoony of a new cadre of writers:
We are innovative. Traditionalism has not retarded our movement in the past, nor shall it retard it in the future.... To be quite frank, some of the younger men in the movement are ready to make some fundamental innovations in the existing theonomy framework. No movement stays in the same mold forever. ______, ______, ______ and I are going to make our own independent innovations.... That's what progress in theology is all about. Young men innovate.
Unfortunately, this youthful theological innovation included, in at least one case, the published repudiation of the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone (never retracted), and, in several other cases, the adoption of the Hymenaean heresy. Energetic young men often not sufficiently grounded in ancient catholic orthodoxy are impatient with traditional formulations and conclude their fascination with theological innovation by reinventing the dogmatic wheel;and it is often a heterodox wheel at that.
To be sure, no one who carefully examines church history denies the fact of doctrinal development and theological progress (though, to be sure, not all development is progress); and we postmillennialists have a vested interest is supporting theological progress and creativity. This theological progress and creativity must occur within the strictures of orthodox Christianity, however, or it subverts the Faith. This fearful event has erupted right within our movement, among the "innovators." We have a name for innovation unencumbered by orthodoxy: heresy.
Recently a prominent Christian Reconstructionist chastised those of us forthrightly exposing this deviation from orthodox Christianity. He stated:
I am not a full preterist. Having said this, I am not at all impressed by the way critics of full preterism are arguing their case. I have challenged full preterists to present solid exegesis to support their position. They in turn laugh at attempts to refute full preterism by an appeal to the creeds and name calling. I've read some of the vitriolic language spewed at full preterists and it reminds of the way critics of theonomy treated ______. My new slogan is: "Show me the text!"
To this I rejoined:
Am I to presume from this that you do not believe that it suffices to posit Christian orthodoxy as a barrier to heresy, or that a historically unconditioned exegesis and therefore orthodoxy of some sort is an inevitability?
Do you consider the repudiation of a prime tenet Nicene orthodoxy a matter for exegetical discussion? Would you say the same of the rest of Nicene orthodoxy?
Let me put it another way: on what grounds would you oppose a case for antitrinitarianism ostensibly committed to the slogan "Show me the text!" (This is precisely how many patristic heretics argued.) Would you respond thus?:
"I am not an antitrinitarian. Having said this, I am not at all impressed by the way critics of antitrinitarianism are arguing their case. I have challenged antitrinitarians to present solid exegesis to support their position. They in turn laugh at attempts to refute antitrinitarianism by an appeal to the creeds and name calling. I've read some of the vitriolic language spewed at antitrinitarians and it reminds [me] of the way critics of theonomy treated ______. My new slogan is: 'Show me the text!'"
To this man's accusation that we orthodox uncompromisingly rely on appeal to the Christian creeds rather than on careful exegesis, I responded:
You criticize the Hymenaeans' confessional critics for insufficient exegesis. Whose exegesis would you prefer? I could proffer exegesis of orthodox Christians for the last 1800 years. It is not a question of a void of exegesis but of pitting a peculiarly modern and heterodox exegesis against the exegesis of the last 1800 years. Mark it down: every assault on Christian orthodoxy (like Hymenaeanism) by an appeal to a supposedly unconditioned modern exegesis does not pit the Bible against the creeds, but a warped, modern understanding of the Bible against an understanding of the Bible over the last 1800 on a points critical to the Faith.
Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that avoiding these facts is being faithful to the dictum of sola scriptura.
It is not.
We urge all our friends and supporters to stand fast in their affirmation of orthodox Christianity, including the future physical Advent of Christ, the future final judgment, and the future physical resurrection of the just and unjust. And I want to make clear that we do not implicate mild or partial preterists like Ken Gentry who have publicly repudiated the Hymenaean heresy and who stand squarely within the orthodox fold.
We at Chalcedon do not consider this Hymenaean heresy a secondary issue, nor one over which there can be "reasonable debate among friends."
Enemies of Christian orthodoxy are not our friends.
The great calling of Christian Reconstructionists in this hour includes reaffirmation of historic Christianity; a revitalization of creative theological development within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy; a re-commitment to unity and charity among the many faithful; a recovery of the Reformed doctrine of the covenant and a relentless exploration of all of its implications; a recognition of the centrality of ideas and potent intellectual forces in the battle against the pervasive evils of our time; a revival of proper individual, family, church, school, vocational, artistic, scientific, and civil governments; in that order; and a renaissance of full-orbed, patriarchal Christianity committed to subordinating every area of modern life to Christ and his law, found in the Bible.
To do less is to abdicate our calling.