The Kingdom Come

Before a discussion or proposition can progress, it is important that we first define our terms. For the sake of this essay the word HYPER is used to mean anything that goes beyond the original intent & scope In the theological sense, hyper is used as a prefix to many otherwise legitimate theological perspectives. There are some groups claiming to be within historic Christianity that clearly have gone beyond the original intent & scope of Jesus, beyond His hand-picked apostles, & beyond 2000 years of Christian interpretation. Whether these hyper groups acknowledge they have gone beyond or not, it is still accurate to label them as hyper.

When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the “old dead orthodoxy,” and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they “differ from it only in words.” This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. They are almost never honest and candid as a party, until they gain strength enough to be sure of some degree of popularity. Thus it was with Arius in the fourth century, with Pelagius in the fifth, with Arminius and his companions in the seventeenth, with Amyraut and his associates in France soon afterwards, and with the Unitarians in Massachusetts, toward the close of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries [& hyperpreterists in the twenty-first century -- my addition because it fits so well in this list of heresies]. They denied their real tenets, evaded examination or inquiry, declaimed against their accusers as merciless bigots and heresy-hunters, and strove as long as they could to appear to agree with the most orthodox of their neighbours; until the time came when, partly from inability any longer to cover up their sentiments, and partly because they felt strong enough to come out, they at length avowed their real opinions.
-Samuel Miller, 1841

In this day in age we are told to be “moderates”, “bi-partisans”,  “independents”, “open-minded”, “tolerant” among other synonyms that all boil down to being a compromiser.  Ideas become nothing but mere opinions to be accepted or rejected with no more validity than the next.

If you adhere strongly to an ideology you will quickly be labeled “extreme”, “partisan”, “rigid”, “close-minded”,  “intolerant”, perhaps even “mean-spirited”.  Ideology becomes irrelevant & inconsequential in the face of so many ecumenicists.  Sure, people will wear their ideals like a boyscout patch but hardly will they ever push their propositions beyond the comfort zone.  Be it political or theological ideology it seems the days when ideals meant things is gone.  We are left with vague concepts that speak from the “heart” -- as if the heart & mind are disconnected.

THE WHITEFIELD & WESLEY EXAMPLE

One of the most often used examples of why we Christians should be ecumenical in our dealings with other people who advocate & support false doctrine while calling on the name of Christ is the relationship of George Whitefield & John Wesley.

For a little background, Whitefield & Wesley were Methodist preachers in the mid-1700s.  While Whitefield followed in the Protestant & Reformed theology which advocated God's predestination of believers & grace, Wesley adopted the Arminian concept of man's freewill & only God's foreknowledge but not fore-ordination of believers.  Perhaps this would not have caused such a problem except that as Whitefield went to America to preach, he left his ministry in England to Wesley & Wesley's brother Charles.

Sometimes when Christians take a strong stance in contending for the faith (Jude 1:3), especially against teachers & teachings that are clearly unchristian, they are accused of being motivated by "self-righteousness", "bitterness", "hate", or of being "heteric hunters".  One of the Church's most staunch defenders of the faith was a man named Athanasius of Alexandria Egypt.

Athanasius lived in the 3rd-4th century & is known for his fight against one of the very first heresies within the Church.  This heresy was called Arianism after a man named Arius.  In summary, Arianism taught that Jesus was not one with the Father & that Jesus was not divine & that the Triune nature of God was incorrect.

Athanasius would occupy almost his entire adult life with combatting the teaching of Arianism.  My question is, does this mean Athanasius was merely a bitter, heretic hunter? 

The Reformation Polka has been making its rounds on the Internet – first simply as the lyrics as originally written by Robert J. Gebel & then as a song set to music played on a traditional laud & sung by a man known simply as Fugli.  Later the song was set to a visual presentation first as a flash format & then as the youtube video.

Now I’d like to present a line-by-line explanation of the lyrics.  Important names, places & concepts will be hyperlinked for people interested in more detail.