Reprise: Enlightened ignorance

Let us not, as Christians, mistake each other for heretics, bringing a charge against God's elect. That makes the devil laugh.


Because for centuries our know-it-alls have divided Christendom with their differing formulas for orthodoxy, I hold out no hope for any catechetical or confessional solution to disunity. As soon as you subscribe to a confession someone will find fault with the fine print. For every catechism there is another that, while not heretical exactly, does not quite match yours.

The best hope I see for real, worldwide Christian unity is something I have before now called "enlightened ignorance." This is the stance that says that I endorse every thought God has, but I do not quite understand them all and I do not have an exhaustive list of them, either. Sure, I can see the broad outlines of God's thinking, like treating my neighbor well and giving to the poor, loving the brethren, fearing God, honoring the king and so on. There is a great deal, too, that I do not see. Things go on behind the scenes in God's kingdom that I am but dimly aware of and there may be more happening besides that is beyond my ken altogether.

It's the unseen details that foul us up on the unity issue. How is Christ with us in Holy Communion? There are several views, generally compatible in the abstract but causing arguments. How this multiplicity of views arose is a matter of sad history, but I'm pretty sure we shouldn't be fighting about it now.

Instead, let's try enlightened ignorance. Christ is gloriously and fully with us in the breaking of bread, just as he promised us. Everything he said of it is true of it, one way or another. If, to some minds, that is not saying enough, then argue about it after church. In church, simply be glad that the Lord shares this with you.

I notice that the talking points that divide us are post-apostolic; they originate later than the era of the apostolic community that gave us the New Testament. Presumably we agree with what the apostles believed. Indeed, it is more than presumable. If we reject their witness we lose our claim to be Christians of any stripe.

Our differences over later doctrine are not so significant as we say they are. What was saving faith in the first century is saving in the twenty-first, and for as long as this world shall stand. To say otherwise is to make out the apostles to be liars, with their talk of whomsoever, anyone, everyone, and all who.

If we are not guilty of denying the first century gospel, we are not guilty of very much. It is God who justifies, then as now. If we are of the apostles' faith we have done well. That faith is a good deal simpler than the denominational formulas of the present day. Today we feel we have to define many things left implicit in the earliest records. But why not leave them implicit? Wouldn't that be better than faction arguments about the true nature of Holy Communion, the right mode of baptism and the correct understanding of the exact relationship between justification and sanctification?

Let us not, as Christians, mistake each other for heretics, bringing a charge against God's elect. That makes the devil laugh. If a Christian is not claiming special enlightenment that overrides the true gospel, finding a moral loophole or effacing the message of God's grace, just how heretical can he be? Those are, broadly speaking, the three main heresies that have dogged us in different forms from early days: Gnosticism, antinomianism and legalism. New versions are rampant today and can crop up in any era, but the apostles have left us with measures against them, and God's help we can be assured of. If we are going to fight and argue, let's make sure it is about the right things.

If someone is basically sound in his belief, but he has in some ways a flawed and imperfect understanding of Christianity, compared to yours, you should feel pleased with yourself not angry with him. You should, out of love, persuade him by your superior example, not burn him at the stake. Or, perhaps, you might ponder that your own understanding may be imperfect in some respects.