Christian Heresy – the Donatists

Happy New Year to everyone. Recently, I am enjoying a good book by Rose Publishing called 'Christian History Made Easy'. And one of the topics it deals with is how the early Church has dealt with controversies and even (gasp) heresies. And so, today's post is on one of the major early heresies dealing with the Donatists (DAW-na-tists).

First, let me explain the importance of this issue through a real-life example – FACT EXAMPLE 1 – Suppose there was a strong believer, a natural leader, who makes a real, heartfelt commitment to the Lord. No one doubts his commitment to Jesus and his fellow believers. But he slips. When the going gets tough, he denies Jesus several times to others. The question raised by his denial is this – should this person be allowed back into Christian leadership?

Now back to the heresy of the Donatists. Imagine, if you will, the party that took place in the Rome as it celebrated its thousandth year birthday. This is what took place in AD 247. Roman orgies are still famous to this day, and so I know that I do not want to go into the details of what took place at Rome's 1,000 year birthday. But because the Roman pagan gods were part of the celebration, the early Christians did not take part in the Roman celebration. No problem, right? Yes, until a major plague broke out in Rome right after the 1,000 year celebration. And guess who got blamed? You got it – the Christians were blamed by the Romans for not taking part in the celebration. The plague was punishment of the gods. Emperor Decius (DEE-see-us) launched an empire wide persecution against the Christians. The Emperor required people to sacrifice to the Roman gods. If people were willing to sacrifice to the Roman gods, they received Sacrifice Certificates. Without the Certificates, people were imprisoned and tortured.

An actual Sacrifice Certificate, AD 251: "To: the Sacrifice Commission

From Diogenes, aged 72 years, with a scar over my right eyebrow.

I've always sacrificed to the gods. Now, in obedience to the emperor, I've sacrificed again, poured out a drink offering, and eaten meat offered to the gods. Please certify this below.

I, Syrus, saw Diogenes and his son sacrificing." (paraphrased from Harvard Theological Review 16 (1923), as quoted from 'Christian History Made Easy', 35).

Many prominent bishops of the Church, including Origen, were imprisoned and died during these persecutions, for failing to sacrifice to the pagan gods, or for not having the required Certificates. The persecutions continued until Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, AD, 313. But here is what caused a schism in the early Church – what should the Church do with the priests, bishops and elders who forged false Certificates? Or what should be done with those like Bishop Felix who turned over copies of the Scriptures to Roman authorities? A Bishop named Cyprian of Carthage ruled that those Christians who obtained forged Certificates could be re-admitted if these people showed outward signs of repentance, through prayer and fasting. But this caused the schism with the Donatists who believed that those who complied with the Romans were 'false converts', and should not be re-admitted to the Church. The issue came to a head in AD, 311 when Felix (who turned over the Scriptures to the Romans) with two other Bishops consecrated a successor Bishop in Carthage – Caecilian. And the Donatists refused to recognize Caecilian's ordination to Bishop because of Felix's previous failings. The Donatists, being more strict believers, considered martyrdom rather than cooperation as the only proper response for a true Christian leader. So what should be done with sacraments performed by "lapsed" priests or Bishops (like Felix's consecration of a successor Bishop)?

Through this, the Church developed the sacrament of the sacraments of confession and penance, enabling those who had committed serious sins after baptism to receive absolution and enter into full communion. At the same time, it established the principle that even sinful priests could dispense valid sacraments. The Donatists eventually died out. But was the right decision made? Several places in the New Testament describe the qualities a Christian leader (or elder) should have. If you want to see an example of what traits are needed when selecting an elder/Pastor, see Titus 1:5-9. And it is safe to say that lacking faith in persecution is not what we want in our leaders. But should repentant leaders who made a serious mistake be allowed back as leaders? This leads me back to how I started this Post, with FACT EXAMPLE 1 (above). Of course, this describes the Apostle Peter, the first leader of the early Church. To me, a strong understanding of the importance of God's Grace in a Church leader, is the most important trait to have. If we expect perfection in our leaders to be perfect, we will be disappointed. But as long as the leaders are wrestling with sin, not wanting it in their lives, then their mistakes should be expected and their heart-felt repentance accepted. So I say, yes the right decision was made in accepting back the repentant "lapsed" priests and Bishops.

I think Luther hits a homerun with his description of the Christian life as "simultaneously saint and sinner". I believe there is a greater danger of the leader who leans toward self-righteousness and pride, more so than a leader who has humility with a teachable heart, who understands their daily need of a Savior. But yes, the Church scandals of failed leaders gives all in the Church a black-eye,. My hope is that we be more accepting of imperfections in our Church leaders, and pray for their (and our) continued growth in the faith and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. If you have any thoughts on this, please share them. Have a great New Year! /s/Tom Wolff