So I’m grading papers for church history. The question is on the 4th Century
Arian-Nicene controversy, where the matter of the nature of Christ was hotly
debated. A student writes that Arius “switched
his faith to Presbyterianism,” a statement so absurd I can barely speak it
without laughing. Not only is it
historically impossible (Arius lived in Egypt in the late third/early fourth
century; Presbyterianism evolved from the Protestant Reformation, specifically
having been crafted in the mid-16th century in Scotland.), but it’s
clearly a malapropism. Arius was a
presbyter, or church official. Probably because they were rushing to get a paper done, possibly because they didn't understand the material -- for whatever reason, the student clearly associated the word “presbyter” with
the “Presbyterian” denomination.
So Arius “switching his faith to Presbyterianism” was my
joke for the day, until I realized it’s not at all funny. As I spoke with the student (who balked at
failing the exam and insisted I’d told them all they needed to do in order to
pass was to footnote properly – which, of course, they didn’t do) as I spoke
with the student I realized their focus was not on learning anything, nor on
gaining any perspective, but solely on the grade they were to receive.
Which led me to wonder how many “preachers,” for whatever
reason, fail to completely understand what they read and/or study? How many, instead of learning an appropriate
historical context, simply make stuff up?
When one considers the possibilities, Arius the Presbyterian is no
longer humorous, but dangerous. How many other absurdities come out of our mouths while in the pulpit?
The Arian-Nicene controversy had, at its core, concerns
about the nature of Jesus. Arius the
Converted Presbyterian speaks to the nature of those who would preach the
Gospel – are you truly filled with the Holy Spirit? Has God truly inspired you to speak that
Word, or does it simply “sound good,” or have a hook that “will preach?” Does it in some other way appeal to our human
senses, rather than to our spiritual realities? Are you bringing us a Word from the Lord, or just telling us what you think or feel?
Arius’ thoughts about Christ (that the Logos was of a
similar substance or homoiousia as God) were pronounced anathema, then
accepted, then finally pronounced anathema by most Christians (although
Mormons, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals (and a few of our Baptist brothers and sisters, if
they are honest) still cling to the thought of two separate natures of Christ,
or something other than “Fully human, fully Divine.”) From those who considered Arius’ thoughts
anathema, the Presbyterian church would evolve over a thousand years later. In class, we like to point out that the Arian controversy went on for centuries, and at its core, the two factions were separated by an iota. The fundamental difference was whether God and the Logos were of the Same substance (homo ousia) or a Similar substance (homoi ousia).
As I look around and see more and more preachers performing
inside the walls of their churches, and see more and people who are bound up by
hunger and drugs and other forms of oppression (almost exclusively OUTSIDE the
walls of the churches), I can’t help but wonder if their methods and actions
will ultimately be considered orthodox or anathema. I wonder about the power of the English letter "I" to keep the preachers separated from delivering the Good News to those who hunger and thirst for it?
Who knows? Perhaps they will all consubstantiate (or be sacramentally
united) within Arius, the converted Presbyterian…
