Schism and Sectarianism — Advancing the Kingdom or Not: Spotlight on the Galatian Controversy and It

copyright: www.romancatholicman.com

Abstract

This dissertation proposes an alternative interpretation of schism in the Church as a double edged sword — as a force for radical transformation but also as a hindrance to the advancement of the Kingdom of God here on earth. This will be done through investigating how God has historically used schism and sectarianism, in spite of their inherent vicissitudes to further His agenda on earth. The same approach will be used to reflect on how schism has impacted negatively on the church and how it has tended to hinder rather than advance the Kingdom of God.

In pursuing the case for and against the notion of schism, this dissertation will base its core argument on the Galatian controversy. In the Galatian context, Christian values are threatened by dominant prevailing traditions of Judaism and the two approaches are shown to compete for the attention and complete control of the believer. Of particular interest to the research will be the confrontation at Antioch and how that confrontation changed the whole discourse and thrust of the narrative between the Jerusalem church and the Gentile churches under the leadership of Paul. The arguments for and against will be discussed using the Bible, New King James Version (NKJV) and other sources. More light will be shed on the current and present manifestations of the church narrative and how the church in recent history has dealt with schism and whether they can still be shown to advance the kingdom or hinder the same.

Using social science notions of space, this dissertation will put forward the idea of Third Space as a progressive solution to the two contending approaches for spiritual space. Third space will be presented as the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom mitigates in both quality and narrative what the contending approaches lack.

Key Words : Schism; Kingdom; Third Space; Galatians; Judaism; Christianity; Controversy

Introduction

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines schism as “a breach of the unity of the visible Church; the division, either of the whole Church or of some portion of it, into separate and mutually hostile organizations; the condition of being so divided, or an instance of this.” This is the popular interpretation of schism and it is clearly a negative one. Lewis and Lewis (2009, p. 61) define schisms as differences that are publicly acknowledged within religious groups and goes on to add,

In defining schisms in this broad manner, the point is not just that schisms result from differences of opinion over an issue, but also that these differences have been elevated into identity producing divides.

This assertion suggests schisms as an everyday occurrence that many find easy to live with. The only problem arises when the schism becomes a term of reference by which one group identifies another and divides them according to the known references of their dissociation.

Depending on what ideological space one inhabits, whether as insider/outsider, Catholic/Protestant, oppressor/oppressed, native/immigrant etc., the terms sectarianism and schism are either a scandal, a blot on Christendom’s copybook or at times an inevitable opportunity for advancing or hindering the building of the Kingdom of God here on earth. In support of the scandalous nature of schism, the locus classicus is the prayer for unity in the Gospel of John.

I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me (John 17:20–23).

The status quo of divided Christendom since both the East–West Schism (11th century) and the Great Western Schism (16th century) in binary terms runs the risk of perpetuating divisions between them and us. This dissertation attempts to explore a more nuanced approach that disavows the oppressor/oppressed, insider/outsider, mainstream/marginal, orthodox/heretic, superior/inferior, hegemony/subservience etc. binarisms. The dissertation proposes the concept of the Kingdom of God as Third Space through transgressive border-crossing hermeneutics informed by selected spatial theories such as Edward Soja’s Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-imagined Places (1996), Homi Bhabha’s The Location of Culture (2004) and Henri Lefebvre’s The Production of Space (1974).

The centrality of Christ in the founding and establishing of the Christian faith as a stand-alone religion attracts a lot of debate because of its connection to the other Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam, especially the former. The schism emanating from interpreting the man Christ and his teachings will be demonstrated as a key element in the rise and fall of Christianity and Judaism as a practice. The church in the 21st century will be shown as still grappling with the vagaries of ceded autonomy that led Paul to claim his message to be supreme in relation to the message that came from Jerusalem. The impacts of such authoritarian approaches to leadership have tended to influence a decline in church membership when met with strong contrasting opinions. This dissertation will also explore leadership entitlement and spiritual authority born out of racial inequality.

While not presuming to have a panacea to the scandal of schism, this dissertation goes on to justify the reason why the suggested Third Space would be the most ideal model of circumventing the undesirable impact of the downside of schism.

CHAPTER ONE

Christianity as a Schismatic Sect from Judaism

Introduction

This chapter examines the nature of Christianity as a schismatic sect within Judaism. It argues that whatever Jesus did or said was going to be counter-cultural because of his dual origin as Son of God and of the tribe of Judah; hence schism was inevitable.

Christ the Jew

The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew frames Him as purely Jewish and this heritage claims him complete soul, spirit and body. Nolland in the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical and Theological Research (1996) laments how the Mathean genealogy in the first chapter of Mathew is interrupted by insertions of different descriptions throughout the line and makes the point that certain emphasis was relayed with insertions.

Jesus is further identified in v. 16 as who is called Christ. Another kind of disturbance is also found at the end of the genealogy in v. 16 where in connection with the origins of Jesus, the passive of the verb referring to reproduction is used: Jesus was produced (Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical and Theological Research 1996, p. 115). It is against such a background that Jesus would try to establish a different cultural approach to life and Godliness. The inevitable backlash is recorded in the Johannine Prologue as follows: “He came to his own and His own did not receive Him” (John 1:11). Moessner (1988, p. 21) examines the build-up of tension in Luke against Jesus within Jewish circles saying,

“Thus Luke builds his carefully connected narrative of Jesus (1.1, 3) to the decisive showdown: the expectant enthusiastic people of Israel –who from the first days in Galilee have been ‘hanging on’ every word of Jesus (e.g. 4.37 - reports everywhere in the surrounding region: 5.26 - amazement ceased all; 6.17-18; 7.11; 3.21;19.48) - pitched against a recoiling leadership that also from Galilean ‘springtime’ had been scheming to end Jesus’ public influence.”

It was to this world that Christ came in person and made his abode, but this world organised in rebellion ejected and moved Jesus to another space other than home. Papadopolus (2002, p. 10) defines home as,

"A place, a region, or state to which one properly belongs, in which one’s affections centre or where one finds refuge, rest, satisfaction."

In games we are reminded, home is the place in which one is free from attack, the point which one tries to reach; the goal.

Davidson (2009 : 281) talks about the attraction of power to diasporan communities who often find themselves in very unfavourable conditions far away from home.

For one thing, diaspora assumes an open-ended absence from the land and, therefore, speaks to continued existence in foreign contexts. Timothy Laniak views diaspora as making a peripheral identity, since diasporans live outside of the cultural norms of their host countries.

The designation of diasporan on the character of Jesus who came to his own from a different realm in the spiritual sense is fitting but also in a social sense where the alienation he experienced at the hands of his own made him an outsider and foreigner. The platform that Judaism offered Jesus was too limiting and very shallow for the mission that John accorded to Christ in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” One only needed to be born a Jew and a Levite to qualify for priesthood into the Jewish religion but Jesus had the whole world in mind. As Hebrews 7:14 says, “For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood”. Davidson (2009, p. 281) alludes to the attraction of diasporans to centres of power when he says, “A social location on the periphery of foreign context raises issues of access to power as a means of communal survival.” The survival mode applied in the life and ministry of Christ found expression in a way that made him very radical and forthright.

And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, “Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him (Mark 6:2-3).

In my view, no matter what Jesus would go on to do with his life as long as it was not aligned to Judaism it was bound to be frowned upon. His departure from the mainstream of Judaism as already demonstrated by the rejection he suffered is further compounded by his non-conformity.

Christianity as a sect

The natural progression and development of Christianity as a product of its background is not deniable and neither does it make Christianity less unique. Judaism is based on the Old Testament where also the New Testament draws its foundations. The revelation of Christ in the New Testament is a subsequent development in a progressive story. The point I am making is that to call it a schismatic sect is not to suggest that it is lesser or necessarily a crude renegade from an original but rather that God used the schism to advance his agenda. Fergusson (2003, p. 2) agrees with this position when he says the parallels between the two religions do not need to be explained away in a sense that seeks to sanitise the authenticity of Christianity and bases his conclusion on the fact that, “Perhaps the first to observe is that there are only a limited number of options in any given historical setting.” In this regard Christianity is a historical religion set in an actual geo-political and social environment.

Federow (2012 : p xxiii) contrasts the two religions and begins with the basic approach to monotheism saying, “The beliefs of Judaism and Christianity are diametrically opposed to each other and Jews and Christians disagree on the most fundamental beliefs of their respective faiths.” To further this point, he goes on to say, “Jews believe that God is one and indivisible. Jews do not believe in a Trinity” (Federow 2012: p xxiii). The differences that are put forward as stark and irreconcilable are what for me present the point of departure from Judaism and these differences whether considered as error or heresy depending on which side one bases their argument are what makes the two religions strong and different.

There is an ongoing narrative in the themes of Christianity which find meaning and basis in Jewish history such as the doctrine of salvation and redemption. Without the historical exodus from the oppressive rule of Pharaoh in Egypt the Christian perspective would be less meaningful. In Hebrews 3:3-6, reference is made to Moses and the work he did is viewed in the light of what Christ is accomplishing for the believer.

For this one has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house more honour than the house. For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God. And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward, but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.

The history of the Jewish story adds a solid background on which Christianity rests its foundation. In Romans Chapter 4:1-3, the apostle Paul calls Abraham the father of the Christian faith and draws lessons from his life and trials and these lessons become the basis for the Christian’s trust in God,

"What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does scripture say? Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

There is a lot of mention in the Old Testament about a future Messiah and the prophecies all pointed to a very special child whose mission was to save the world. Jesus identifies himself as the fulfilment of the Old Testament when he says in John 5:39-40, “You search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you’re not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” This declaration is consistent with what appears to be God’s interaction with humanity in that God is seen throughout scripture pursuing a relationship with humanity. Limbaugh (2015, no page) agrees that the bible story is one.

In my view, however the overarching theme of the Bible is crystal clear: from first to last, it is Jesus Christ. Though the Bible comprises many diverse books with different stories, it is ultimately one story of God’s redemptive plan for man……. The thirty-nine books of the Old Testament are united by a common thread centred on God’s promise to redeem mankind.

The Birth of Christ as the culmination of Old Testament Promise

The long thread of history that ties Christian experiences and beliefs to Judaism can be witnessed especially in the celebration of the Passover. This celebration in the Jewish history is so key an element of their experience of God as ultimate Saviour. The charge to always remember the Passover was committed to families to teach their children in Exodus 12:25-26,

“It shall come to pass when you come to the land which the Lord will give you, just as He promised, that you shall keep this service. And it shall be, when your children say to you, What do you mean by this service? That you shall say it is the Passover of the Lord, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered your households. So the people bowed their heads and worshipped”.

The Old Testament lamb symbolised Christ and prophetically prepared believers for his coming. The Passover is then introduced to the Gentile believers in 1 Corinthians 11:25, Paul repeats what Jesus had done with his disciples before his crucifixion and the identical reminder as carried in Exodus is not to forget to pay attention to the Passover,

"In the same manner He took the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes."

The evolutionary progression of the lamb from animal to man is decidedly achieved when John the Baptist reveals the lamb to the world in John 1:29, “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” This defining central attribute of Christ as a Messiah who comes to save is also carried in the prophecy of the Servant of God in Isaiah Chapter 53:7,

"He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth."

It is very clear that there can be no New Testament without the Old Testament and No Christianity without Judaism.

Christ the priest

The priesthood of Christ is another direct derivative of Judaism that was altered but remained with all the basic elements of the Old Testament requirements and conditions. The departure from the laid tradition is that the Christian high priest is not taken from the Levitical tribe. In Hebrews 7:11 we read,

"Therefore if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?"

and in this instance the writer of Hebrews is quoting an Old Testament Messianic prophecy, Psalm 110:4, “The Lord has sworn and will not relent, You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” Vanhoye (1969, p. 11) sheds more light on the author of Hebrews’ intent and defends his design as aimed to show the different type of priesthood that Christs is from that of Aaron’s, at times he insists on the differences, and stresses more markedly that in the New Testament we pass to a higher plane. Resemblances, differences, superiority; such are the three relationships that must be noted in regard to Christ’s high-priesthood when compared with the ancient worship.

Conclusion

This opening chapter set out to argue that the origins of Jesus as both Son of God and as descended from the tribe of Judah sets up the possibility of conflict between the Judaism he was born into and the new Ekklesia he set up in which there is “neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female” (Galatians 3:28) as we shall have occasion to see in the following chapter which focuses on the Galatian controversy.