Church History is cool
Earlier I wondered if there was significance in many of the current church controversies being ethical, such as the current Anglican controversies on homosexuality, when many of the early church controversies were theological, such as the Trinity and dual nature of Christ.
Turns out that maybe there isn't much difference after all. F. F. Bruce in The Spreading Flame records an incidence in the 3rd century A.D. where Callistus, bishop of Rome, had a little row with Hippolytus over the issue of readmitting church members who had fallen into serious sin. Callistus said that, given sincere repentance, the church should readmit those who had fallen. Hippolytus accused Callistus of false doctrine, took his toys (and followers) and formed a separate "true" church in Rome. Each side accused the other of being schismatic and considered themselves the only church.
The solution? In 235 A.D., the emperor of Rome exiled both of them to a forced labor camp in Sardinia, where they eventually reconciled before they died. Hippolytus even wrote his followers and told them to be reconciled to those of Callistus. And all was well.
Any application to the current Anglican controversy? Who knows ....
UPDATE: Kevin Courter points out that Callistus was dead by the time Hippolytus was exiled. I summarized Bruce too quickly: Hippolytus was actually exiled with Callistus' successor, Pontianus. I believe everything else is correct (at least to Bruce), though, with the exception that Hippolytus was reconciled to Pontianus instead of Callistus.
This is what happens when I blog during work.
October 28, 2003 11:45 AMIt looks as though Bruce may be confusing Hippolytus with Novatian, who was an anti-pope from 251-258. Much of Hippolytus' life and work has recently been called into question. It has generally been discounted that Hippolytus ever was an anti-pope. If it is true that he was exiled, it couldn't have been with Callistus since the latter had already been dead for at least 12 years. Hippolytus did oppose Callistus, along with the previous bishop of Rome, Zephrynus. He accused Zephrynus of being morally lax and of an embryonic form of modalism. He accused Callistus of full blown modalism and of a related heresy, patripassionism. It isn't known whether Callistus actually held to this position. He did excommunicate Sabellius, who definitely was a modalist. This either exhonorates Callistus of the charge, or it just means he made a political decision.
Moving ahead to Novatian, the specific serious sin that required readmission into the church was that of denying Christ during the Decian persecution. Novatian wrote to Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, to ask what to do about it. Cyprian advised that they should be allowed to repent. Novatian agreed. However, a year later, in 251, Cornelius, bishop of Rome, permitted re-entry into the church without adequate repentance. Novatian changed his mind and went to the opposite extreme. Repentance was not possible for these because they had lapsed into mortal sin. Eventually, Cornelius took Cyprian's position on the matter but Novatian still wouldn't budge. The resulting schism lasted for over 200 years. Though orthodox in doctrine (Novatian himslef was perhaps the most well-articulated trinitarian of the third century), this schismatic group was characterized by a refusal to forgive post-baptismal mortal sins.
There were ethical overtones in both cases. Zephrynus was accused of being morally lax, but there is no evidence that this became much of an issue beyond Hippolytus' accusation. The group that followed Novatian denied the possibility of forgiveness for any of the so-called "mortal" sins. Their characterization of these sins as "mortal" may have been wrong; however, there was no question on either side that sin had occurred. And this is, perhaps, the main difference between that and the current Anglican controversy. The one was a dispute over acceptance based on genuine repentance; the other is a dispute over acceptance based on a reevaluation of sin.
