Heresy and Schism
 
It was Dr. James I. McCord, former president of Princeton Theological Seminary who said: "If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy. For as a heretic, you are only guilty of a wrong opinion. As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Chose heresy every time." History will likely attribute this quote not to Dr. McCord but to the Episcopal bishop of Virginia, the Rt. Rev. Peter J. Lee, who wielded the phrase (unattributed) at the famous convocation which appointed the homosexual Robinson to bishopric office. With all respect, we must take issue with a couple of McCord's terms. We absolutely quake in our boots at the thought of "tearing and dividing" the Body of Christ, but the question here is: Who are the real schismatics? Are traditional neo-orthodox theologians the ones steering denominations away from the 2000-year-old, world-wide consensus regarding the appropriate interpretation and application of scripture (especially as seen in the current imbroglio over sexual ethics?) No, it is the progressives that do this while all-but-demanding that the traditionalists accompany them down the sewer, crying "Unity! Unity!" all the way. The progressives have long-abandoned the defense of the faith for a new set of coherencies to hold people together. They have exchanged God's glory for human harmony as the central core value of their religion. This is simple heresy, simple idolatry--if our center is anything other than the Word incarnate, crucified, risen and written--then we may as well be gnostics. Granted, at the time of McCord's utterance (at least 30 years ago) there was clear evidence of hundreds of years of protestant fragmentation, and persnickety fundamentalists found ways to divide the smallest denominations into two or three more. Pharisaism has always possessed parts of the Church, but that term cannot be applied when those who simply adhere to the core values and canon of orthodox or neo-orthodox Christianity. What would Dr. McCord have said about the Church of Scotland's divisions from the Church of England, The Church of England's division from the Catholic Church, or Calvin and Luther's strict admonitions against the Catholics--were these "schisms"? If so, how can he--or those who agree with him--in good conscience remain in a denomination that is itself the fruit of schism? Isn't that the perpetuation of schism? Would it be okay to create schism from a schismatic group in order to reunite with the Body of Christ? Of course it would. McCord would have said so himself. It is likely McCord turned in his grave when Lee misappropriated his quote. McCord was solidly reformed, and no more a member of the revisionist/ecstatic/progressive theological tradition than Pope Ratzinger. It is no longer a matter of different "opinion" that separates us; it is a matter of different unifying principles. Different Lords, different Gods--we are split already, only unified by property and polity. For some, these have become gods as well. We no longer worship the same Christ. We can not remain together. If it is true that we must "chose heresy every time," then schism is the necessary heresy we must now choose.
Monday, September 18, 2006