Pope St. Victor I and his squabble with Bishop St. Polycrates over the date of Easter.

An Arrogant Theology

One of the better known theological squabbles in early church history took place in and around the year 190 A.D. between Pope St. Victor I and St. Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus. Polycrates and his fellow clergy believed that Easter which, of course, coincided with the annual Passover date must be observed always on the 14^th of Nisan of the Jewish calendar regardless of which day of the week it fell upon. Pope St. Victor I felt differently. He advocated that Easter must always be observed on a Sunday, since that was the day Christ rose from the grave. The problem was, according to Polycrates this arbitrary decision was not in accordance with tradition which had been to follow the Jewish calendar in matters such as these so he took issue with the Pope’s ill-informed and, in some ways, capricious decision. Tradition, in his mind, took precedence over papal preference. Because of his stance Polycrates and his cohorts were called the Quartodecimans, meaning the fourteeners. Of course, Victor being the Pope that he was (yes, the Bishop of Rome held primacy even in those early days) decided that it was his prerogative to set the day as he wished, which was to be without exception Sunday.

Well, to make a long story short, eventually the pope, it is alleged got so riled up about the disagreement that he promptly excommunicated the poor bishop. Whether or not the excommunication stuck or not is up for debate, but it does appear that as the old saying goes, “All is well that ends well,” because the Catholic Church has graciously canonized both Victor and Polycrates.

Now, to be perfectly honest with you, I am not sure as to whether or not setting the date to celebrate Easter is a matter which effects faith and morals, but apparently these folks did. What a tragedy. Keeping the unity of the faith, in my opinion, should certainly not come down to what day we celebrate Christmas or Easter or any of the other Christian holidays.

Yet, as I say, some feel differently.

My first impression is that what is basically wrong with the Church today is that we, too, have a theology of arrogance. “It’s my way or the highway” seems to be the prevailing attitude. Why can’t we be adult enough, not to mention gentlemanly enough, to have honest disagreements and then move on with life? I am not a Calvinist by any stretch of the imagination, but I have no right or mandate to set them straight to the extent that I consign them to everlasting darkness—or in the pope’s case, excommunicate them.

One of the cardinal rules that I have made in all of my doctrinal disagreements is to remain civil—for one thing, I have found that the first one to get mad is usually the one that is in the wrong.

Last evening, for example, I was asked by someone in a class that I teach whether or not good God fearing Jews would make it to Heaven? My response was that if they do it will have to be by the door provided—that is through Jesus Christ, the real Messiah. But, other than that, if God has some way around that with perhaps a second change after death that this is up to God. I do know the judge of all the earth shall do that which is right (Genesis 18:25). God, in my opinion, will certainly have a legitimate reason for judging as He pleases. I certainly believe that all the Old Testament saints (Jews and Gentiles alike) shall be saved, and if he so chooses, He can do it again. Furthermore, what was the cut-off date for some Jews to go to Heaven and the others left behind to struggle for themselves? Was it precisely at 3 A.M. when Christ died on the Cross? Surely God is not that arbitrary. As far as I am concerned God will take our situation into consideration. Were we born a Jew, and did we live a good faithful life? If so, can we be judged on ignorance? I’m willing to leave decisions like these up to judge of the whole earth, and I’ll guarantee you that He will not have to ask me or anyone else for approval.

So, I guess this makes me a flaming liberal according to some of my fundamentalist friends, but it is a charge that I will readily accept because I do not, nor have I ever, considered myself a policeman that acts as jailer, judge and jury. God does the sentencing, not me. My duty is to preach the good news—the Gospel. Besides that, why should I preach someone into Hell when I can preach them into Heaven? What they do with that good news is between them and God. Jesus offers a sure way out, and if I were them I would take it; but I am not them, so I will simply have to leave that decision up to the real judge.

So know, this goes for so much in life. We have a family friend who is gay, although he doesn’t flaunt it. The natural instinct for some I know is to shun such a person, or preach hell fire and damnation to them. We as a family have chosen a different path, we have chosen to continue to love him and treat him as we always have. He’s welcome in our home and at our dinner table. Surprisingly, this approach (it’s really not a tactic; it is the expression of a sincere love for the man) has opened the door to discuss the issue.

Now, on the other hand, we could have chosen to throw down the gauntlet and challenged him to a theological duel; but where would that have gotten us? I’ll keep you from guessing, it would have ended up in a big nasty screaming match that none of would have benefited from. Now, this stance does not just apply to the gay issue, it applies to all areas of our Christian behavior.

I find it interesting, for instance, that anyone can so adamantly oppose infant baptism, then turn right around and say, “Well, baptism won’t get you to Heaven, but it must be delayed until you are an adult and capable of making your own decision.” Really? If that be so, why quibble over baptism at all?

Equally enough I find it paradoxical that we Pentecostals quibble over whether or not “tongues” is the initial sign of the infilling of the Holy Spirit and continue to live fleshly carnal lives. It seems to me that the proper thing to do is to walk the talk then if there is any quibbling to do left over, then conceivably we will be better equipped to argue the theology.

And, friends, this is precisely what Paul had in mind when he wrote:

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

All the theological browbeating in all the world will not change that either.

Blessings, better yet, bless others.

JimR/