Last November I reviewed The Myth of God Incarnate (see Nov. 4 issue, page 34). Four months later the initial excitement has died down. The book was not a work of profound scholarship. It will not stand the test of time. Yet it raised issues that remain. The one I take up this month is the question of heresy in the church. Those who deny the Incarnation were formerly regarded as “heretics”; now the very concept of heresy is thought by many to be outmoded, and those who would previously have had to bear that stigma are left alone (at least in some churches) to enjoy their positions of influence in peace and honor. Is this right? What can be done?
Let me begin positively. Our concern for God’s truth should not make us hesitant to affirm the importance of three matters. 1. Theological exploration. The fact that God has revealed himself in Christ and in Scripture does not rule out intellectual exploration. The theologian is no more inhibited from theological research because God has revealed himself in Scripture than the scientist is inhibited from scientific research because God has revealed himself in nature. Both are limited to the data (which, to oversimplify, are nature on the one hand, Scripture on the other), but within the limits that the data themselves impose, the Creator encourages us to use our minds freely and creatively.
If, therefore, by the myth of God Incarnate were meant the mystery of the Incarnation, we would have no quarrel with the concept. The church has always acknowledged that the Incarnation is a mystery beyond the full comprehension of human minds. A humble, reverent exploration of what God has revealed of himself in Christ is the essence of true Christological scholarship.
2. Contemporary questioning. The kinds of questions that are being asked in that book are perfectly valid. We should emphatically not wish to suppress or sidestep genuine intellectual inquiry. For example, is a development of conviction about Jesus discernible within the New Testament itself? What development took place subsequently? Can modern psychological understandings of human personality throw any light on the self-consciousness of Jesus? Is the Chalcedonian definition, which used Greek concepts of person and natures, satisfactory for our own day? This is only a random sample of legitimate questions.
3. Academic freedom. The contributors to the book all hold academic posts in Oxford, Cambridge, or Birmingham universities. Some of them occupy positions of leadership in the church as well. Their double role raises a further issue. In a secular university setting, in which the divinity department is regarded as equivalent to other departments, full academic freedom must be preserved. No subject can be protected from the most rigorous scrutiny, and all inquiry must be open-minded and open-ended. If, therefore, the contributors to The Myth of God Incarnate were only academics, and if their purpose in writing were only to promote academic discussion, then the publication of the book could be defended. But the book attempts to have both an academic and a popular appeal, and in consequence it falls between the two stools.
Some Necessary Distinctions
It is important to make the following distinctions. 1. The distinction between university teachers and church leaders. It would be wrong to require any lecturer in a secular university to make an a priori commitment of any kind except to intellectual integrity. But clergy give a solemn, voluntary undertaking before they are ordained to uphold and expound in their teaching the fundamental doctrinal standards of their church. Their integrity, therefore, will be expressed in loyalty to these standards.
2. The distinction between questions and denials. It is one thing to question and explore a Christian doctrine because one desires one’s understanding of it to be clearer, fuller, deeper, fresher, and more closely integrated with the rest of one’s understanding of reality; it is another for such questioning to lead to a denial of the doctrine. Again, to pass through a temporary period of agnosticism about some doctrine is one thing; to reach a settled conviction about its falsehood is another.
3. The distinction between Scripture and tradition. Anglican evangelicals, I think, have a growing respect for tradition because we have a growing confidence in the work of the Holy Spirit. We believe that he has guided the church to express its mind in the catholic creeds of the early centuries. These creeds have continued to enshrine for all churches many essentials of biblical revelation. We think it extremely improbable that they will ever be shown to be mistaken. Nevertheless, both they and the reformation confessions, because they belong to the realm of tradition, must be left open to continuing scrutiny in the light of Scripture. Only Scripture itself, being God’s Word, is not open to revision, although it calls for continuous interpretation.
Ecclesiastical Discipline
I now broach the sensitive question of church discipline. What should the church do with false teachers, and in particular with those who deny the Incarnation? 1. The fundamental issue. The real issue is neither linguistic (whether the word Incarnation is mythical, metaphorical, or literal), nor cultural (how far the biblical or Chalcedonian formulations reflect the concepts of their day). The ultimate question is absolutely plain, even to the man in the street to whom semantics, culture, and theology are all closed books. It is this: is Jesus to be worshiped or only to be admired? If he is God, then he is worthy of our worship, faith, and obedience; if he is not God, then to give him such devotion is idolatry.
2. The necessity of the Incarnation. The first chapter of The Myth of God Incarnate poses the question whether there could be a Christianity without the Incarnation. This question must be answered with an unambiguous no. There is no possibility whatever of reconstructing Christianity without having at its center Jesus the God-man who is “ever to be worshiped, trusted and adored.” A reconstruction of Christianity without this would be a destruction of it.
3. The denial of the Incarnation. If the worship of Jesus as God is central to Christianity, and thus the Incarnation is essential, then it follows logically that those who deny the Incarnation by not worshiping Jesus are not Christians in the sense in which the term has always been understood.
4. The special case of clergy. At their ordination clergy place themselves freely under the authority of their church, and promise to teach its doctrine. If a time comes when a clergyman can no longer conscientiously teach something central to his church’s doctrine (such as the personal deity of Jesus), which he has solemnly undertaken to teach, then surely the only honorable course open to him is to resign any post he occupies as an accredited teacher of his church.
5. The responsibility of the bishops. What should be done if such a clergyman refuses to resign? Bishops (and their counterparts in other churches) are in a very difficult position. They are rightly concerned for the peace of the church as well as for its truth. In order to avoid a public scandal they prefer where possible to take action privately. They have no wish to make martyrs. Nevertheless in the last resort (a) if a central Christian doctrine is at stake, (b) if the clergyman concerned is not just questioning it but denying it, (c) if he is not just passing through a temporary period of uncertainty but has reached a settled conviction, and (d) if he refuses to resign, then I myself believe that the bishop or other leader concerned should withdraw his license or permission to teach in the church. I further believe that to allow such a man to continue as a practicing clergyman would damage his own conscience in addition to harming the church and lessening its credibility in the sight of the world.
The most effective way to restrain and correct error, however, is not by a resort to repressive measures but by a convincing commendation of the truth. We should not be fearful either for the truth or for the church. The living God is well able to look after both, because both are his. Only one force can overcome error, and that is the power of truth. So we evangelicals should accept our responsibility to engage in more constructive theological work ourselves. For God calls his people now as always both to defend and to proclaim his Gospel.
JOHN R. W. STOTT
