Do you know what adjectives were conjured up in the minds of most of the early evangelicals when they heard the word "heresy"? Blasphemous. Scandalous. Horrible. Shocking. Venomous. Abomination. Infectious. These were just a few of the words used to describe the opinions of a man in the middle of the 16th century who, failing to acknowledge that his beliefs were filled with theological errors, was to be tied to a stake and burned alive for his transgressions.
Miguel Servetus was led outside the city of Geneva on October 23, 1553, and burned alive at the stake for the crime of heresy. As he walked to his death that day these fateful words fell from his lips, 'Jesus, thou son of the eternal God, deliver me!' And but for the transposition of a single adjective in that sentence, his life would have been spared. How careful and exacting were the theologians of old. Yet Servetus would not renounce his theological premise that the church's view of the Trinity was, from his perspective, a three-headed dog that guarded the gates of Hades in Greek and Roman mythology. He rejected the mystery of the Trinity, proving his heresy in his final breath that Jesus was not Eternal Son, he was merely human and became divine. Servetus' adamant grip on his theological misconceptions would not allow him to rescind and say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God from eternity!
It was said of Servetus by the judges in his trial, "you have promulgated false and thoroughly heretical doctrines, despising all remonstrances and corrections... .and with malicious and perverse obstinacy sown and divulged....opinions against God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in a word, against the fundamentals of the Christian religion, and that you had tried to make a schism and trouble the Church of God by which many souls may have been ruined and lost... you have neither shame nor horror of setting yourself against the divine Majesty and the Holy Trinity.... For these and other reasons, desiring to purge the church of God of such infection and cut off the rotten member....we now condemn you....to be burned with your books to ashes. And so you shall finish your days and give an example to others who would commit the like."1
Clearly, the judges believed that the extent to which his theological perspective had strayed from Christian theology could indeed potentially pollute the thinking of virtually every member of the Church. And so to stop the spread of this heresy, there seemed to be no other solution than to burn him alive with his writings.
Note the reasons again for the charges of heresy: ". . .sown and divulged opinions against the Trinity. . . against the fundamentals of the Christian religion. . . tried to make a schism and trouble the church. . . setting yourself against the divine majesty."
It was said that even while the now famous theologian and prosecuting attorney John Calvin pleaded with him at the end to denounce his 'rhapsody patched together from the impious ravings of all the ages', remarkably, there remained the hint of a question among those who witnessed the ensuing travesty. How could "[Servetus], a man so far from orthodoxy, be, nevertheless, fundamentally pious and earnest in the quest for truth?"2
In Should Heretics Be Persecuted?, Sebastian Castellio wrote, "there is no quicker way to dispose of an enemy that to accuse him of heresy. The mere word stimulates such horror that when it is pronounced men shut their eyes to the victim's defense, and furiously persecute not merely the man himself, but also those who dare to open their mouths on his behalf; by which rage it has come to pass that many have been destroyed before their cause was really understood ...."3
What does it mean to be a heretic in the twentieth century? How do we define heresy now, and what parameters do we insist its definition be limited by? According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, a heretic is one who "adheres to a controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine in some field." In this definition, there is no consideration or taking into account the degree of one's sincerity or piety, or depth of knowledge, or scholastic training prior to holding to this unorthodox opinion. Heresy is about one's opinions, not one's character. Heresy in terms of religion is about one's theological opinions, and how they differ from orthodox theology.
And just as the avoidance of the errors and consequences that accompany heresy should always have been the aim of the church, this same careful purpose was the very reason for the signing of the Westminster Confession of Faith on August 27, 1647.
Regarding the act of approval of the document, the signers of the confession agree that it was for
"a principal part of the intended uniformity in religion, and as a special means for the more effectual suppressing of the many dangerous errors and heresies of these times; the General Assembly doth therefore, after mature deliberation, agree unto, and approve the said Confession, as to the truth of the matter (judging it to be most orthodox, and grounded upon the Word of God)....4
Servetus was burned alive as a result of the desire to quell his theology, not change his character. No one cared that he might be sincere in his incorrectness! No matter how pious he might have appeared to be to some, or how diligent he was in his quest for truth, or how sincerely honest he was while in error, it was his adherence to an unbiblical doctrine that led to his being put to death. One is a religious heretic because of what one believes about theology.
1 Hans Hillebrand, ed., The Reformation, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1994), 290. Quoted from Hunted Heretic, Roland Bainton, pp. 207-209.
2 John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954), 176.
3 Hillerbrand, The Reformation, 291.
4 Shaw, Westminster Confession of Faith, v.
No comments:
Post a Comment