Montanism In Vogue

It seems that Montanism is a church movement that is coming back into vogue (not really sure if it ever had been previously) as does, it seems, any church movements of a radical nature. Here is a short evaluation of some of the good and not so good that we find within Montanism:

Introduction

Montanism was one of the earliest schisms or heresies faced by the post-Apostolic New Testament Church. Montanus, around AD 170 in the region of Phrygia, Asia Minor, began prophesying and was subsequently joined by two prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla.[1] This prophesying, known as “the New Prophecy”, claimed that the Holy Spirit (or the “Paraclete”) was now speaking to the Church in a new and unique way, fulfilling in them Jesus Christ’s promise in John 14:16. In fact, such was the Montanist’s emphasis on Johannine themes, such as the coming of the Paraclete and of the subsequent imminent coming of the New Jerusalem, that it apparently caused some local church leaders “to question the authenticity of the Johannine Corpus.”[2]

The difficulties for the Church in dealing with the Montanist sect did not stop there. The key substance of the Christian faith was upheld by the Montanists. It was Epiphanius’ assertion that Montanists accepted both Old and New Testaments, as well as primitive orthodox resurrection and trinitarian doctrines.[3] In the Church’s war for orthodoxy at this time, then, the Montanists stood on the side of orthodoxy. Yet there were still movements and formal decisions against the Montanist sect, especially from councils of neighbouring bishops, refusing to recognise Montanist baptisms and even labelling the Montanist movement as “demonic”.[4]

Little is actually known about Montanus himself or his teaching, so what we do know comes from other sources. These other sources principally being their opponents from the catholic church, such as Hippolytus and Eusebius, as well as the later champion of Montanist principles, Tertullian. Tertullian’s role in the Montanist saga is a particularly intriguing one. His Montanist sympathies come across quite clearly from his writings, yet his Montanist conversion does not. Gerald Bray’s claim that “it seems unlikely that Tertullian’s involvement with Montanism amounted to anything which could properly be called a conversion”[5] (emphasis mine) may, however, stem from a commendable desire to see the works of Tertullian embraced anew by mainstream orthodoxy and goes against the grain of general consensus.

Prophecy

Clearly the foundational point of contention between the catholic church and the Montanists was that of prophecy. The Montanist claim was not that the “New Prophecy” superseded the authority of Scripture, but rather that it was an addition equal in authority to Scripture. The Montanist claim was that its teaching merely filled in any gaps of Scripture, although occasionally superseding its original teaching where that teaching was developed.[6] The catholic Church refuted both of these claims maintaining that the Holy Spirit no longer worked in such a way through prophecy, although He was still present and active in the church.[7]

The Montanists saw that the decline of the extraordinary operations of the Spirit within the church at large was due to its moral laxity and complacency over the imminence of Jesus’ return. As the Church had built its foundations upon such extraordinary workings of the Spirit, this was a point of weakness and embarrassment to the wider Church. As the Church was building the firmer foundations of its monarchical episcopate, it was also weakening its view of its eschatological hope.[8] Backed as it was with its charismata, it seemed as though the Montanist sect had the upper hand.

The Church, unsurprisingly, fought back, accusing the Montanists of unbiblical extravagances in prophesying while in the midst of their ecstatic states, rather than saying nothing until their normal faculties were regained, which was the manner of true prophets so the Church maintained. The church historian Eusebius was an eye-witness to some of these extravagances.[9]

The character of the Montanist prophets was also attacked. Apollonius questioned their receiving of gifts, personal adornment and worldly pastimes,[10] the excess of which were in opposition to the spirit of the Didache’s requirement for the prophet (e.g. Didache 11.6, 11.8, 11.11).

This however, was only the short-game attack of the catholic Church. Its long-game consisted of waiting for the non-fulfilment of the major Montanist prophecies, such as the prophetess Maximilla’s death bringing in the end of the world. This long-game proved to be the most fruitful for the Church as it settled into its long-lasting monarchical episcopate, with the Montanist sect eventually dying out along with its unfulfilled prophecies.

One further point is worthy of note: a claim of the Church, from figures such as Cyril of Jerusalem, that Montanus “had the audacity to say that he himself was the Holy Spirit”[11] seems more probably to have been a misunderstanding derived from Montanus speaking of the Paraclete in the first person. Later Montanists would also seem to identify Montanus with the Holy Spirit.[12] Either way, the Church would refute both Montanus as claiming to be the Holy Spirit and of Montanus claiming that the Holy Spirit was speaking through him.

Eschatology

A key factor of the Montanist prophecy was that of Eschatology – specifically that of Christ’s immediate return and particularly that of the New Jerusalem’s descension upon Phrygia. Additionally, all of the church’s doctrine was to evolve from this expectation of Christ’s immediate return, according to Montanus.[13] The Apostles Paul and Peter often spoke in similar terms, as have many later Christian teachers, such as Martin Luther.[14]

While the church around it was losing its own sense of intense and immediate apocalyptic and eschatological hope, the Montanist sect was finding it to excess. Predications of events, times and places were made. The Holy Spirit was claimed to have been dispensing its energies more powerfully and urgently the closer the end was deemed to be. Hippolytus offered a bold response from the wider Church by admitting that the Church “was not necessarily living in the last times.”[15] Time proved Hippolytus right but at the time this was a risky strategy. The church would have looked on in some nervousness as to see who would ultimately be proved right!

Ethical Standards

As the Montanists saw the rapid approaching of the end, and in opposition to the laxness of the wider Church, Montanism bore the fruit of an increase in its strictness of ethical practices. Tertullian insisted that the teaching of the Paraclete was not new doctrine, but the establishing of a “new discipline”.[16] As the end of the world was nigh, the Church of Christ needed to break away from the world in preparation, yet the Church at large was seemingly accommodating itself to the world in anticipation of possibly being around for a long time to come. The result for the Montanists was a stricter discipline over and above that which the Bible required.

It is at this point that Tertullian takes centre stage. He became the great champion and advocate for this stricter discipline. In an argument he was forming against the Church’s stance on forgiving major sins upon a suitable penance performed by the guilty, Tertullian argues that although there is biblical warrant for such an act (Matthew 18:18) yet he refuses himself to permit such forgiveness in case the newly restored Church member falls into the same sin again (On Modesty, 21.5).

Tertullian’s writings on the ethical standards that Christians should adhere to constantly show him going further than the Bible does in strictness of practice, which is representative of Montanist belief. Tertullian also took Paul’s reasoning that to be unmarried is preferable (1 Corinthians 7) and increased it to argue that to be unmarried is more spiritual, freeing the Montanists to receive the Spirit of the Paraclete (On Monogamy, 1.1,2). Paul’s original reasoning, of being freed up from familial responsibilities to allow for greater freedom to propagate the gospel, is completely missed. Other examples in greater strictness covers such things as fasting, restoration of those who fled from martyrdom and general church discipline.

The logic of the Montanist in this increase in ethical discipline, filling in the gaps of, and even going further than, the Bible, stems from their commitment to the imminent ending of the world. In the words of Allan Menzies, “the nearer the world draws to its end, the less can the weakness of the flesh be spared.”[17] The catholic Church, however, didn’t budge. Time, in proving the prophecies false, made the call for this increase in ethical strictness redundant. The Church never felt the need to catch up in this area at the time, allowing instead for worldliness to increasingly creep in through its own structures. The result of this was that in later years, with the asceticism of monasticism, the Church not all only caught the Montanists up in strictness but actually in places even overtook them.

Clergy

As already discussed, the prophetic leaders were dismissed as false prophets, with their prophecies being accused of being demonic in origin. Some church leaders, such as Eusebius, having travelled to Phrygia to witness these for themselves.

There was one other area that the Church disputed with the Montanists regarding its leaders, however, which was that of female prophets. Hippolytus goes so far as to apportion much of the blame for the false teachings of the Montanists to the very fact that women were allowed to prophesy and be given offices of authority within the sect (The Refutation Of All Heresies, Book VIII, 12.7,8). Given that female prophets are both found and permitted in the New Testament (e.g. Philip’s daughters in Acts 21:9), this is one time where the wider Church had seemingly gone further than Scripture, and not the Montanists.

Conclusion

As the catholic Church had found itself beginning to settle down for the long haul, and inadvertently in the process allowing for a connected worldliness and laxness into its life, the desire of the Montanists in response, to prepare itself, now more than ever, for the imminent return of Jesus Christ is, on the surface, commendable. The basis of this response, however, was the problematic factor.

In some ways, the Montanist sect was the earliest example of what is known today as the Charismatic branch of the Christian Church. It kept to the key substance of the Christian faith, regarding Scripture and orthodox doctrines of the resurrection and the Trinity. However, it also sought for a new and improved revelation, in addition to the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible, and it was at this point that the Montanist sect began to veer away from the orthodox faith. This was the analysis of the orthodox church of the time, and it is a judgment which has withstood the test of time.

The main point at which the Montanist claims would either stand or fall was on its prophecy. Their great claim was that the Holy Spirit (or Paraclete) was revealing to them and them alone the final important revelation before Jesus’ return. Through this “New Prophecy” from the Paraclete, a new and stricter way of life was drawn out, designed to ready its followers for this imminent second coming of Christ. When the particular prophecies, of dates and places, proved to be false, however, it was the end of the Montanist sect that was actually nearing its end.

The wider church had opposed the Montanist sect, its prophecies and claims, identifying the prophecies as being demonic in origin, and its revelations and teaching as being outside of the true church. Time proved to be the best friend of the opponents of Montanism, proving the Montanist prophecies false once and for all, proving the Montanist opponents right, and would prove to be the death knell for the Montanist sect.

Hultgren and Haggmark identify Montanism as “one of the earliest schisms to rock the church”,[18] perhaps explaining why the church was so under prepared to respond. Theological distinctions were still being made and lines of orthodoxy were still being drawn which perhaps explains the lack of Scriptural argument from both sides. Montanism claimed a few isolated passages, such as John 14:16, Joel 2:28-32 and parts of the book of Revelation. The opposition from the catholic Church didn’t seem to answer these biblical claims, but rather focused on trying to discredit the prophets and the prophecies themselves. Tertullian, in contrast, at least tried to use Scripture to justify the need for further revelation.[19]

The church also failed to see the warnings raised by the Montanist opposition. As worldliness crept into the church, and as the Montanist highlighted such worldliness, the church took to defending itself and its practices. When Montanism died away through its unfulfilled prophecies, the battle was won as far the church could see, but the increasing intrusion of worldliness into its life and structure was seemingly not recognised nor curbed, which would be to the church’s detriment long-term. The church also failed to see that as it saw the return of Christ further and further off, its own pursuit of the kingdom of God and His righteousness weakened. The Montanists, in contrast, had recognised this from its outset.

These are all lessons that the church today could learn from. It was Jesus Himself who warned His followers to always be prepared, watching and praying, for His return.

Finally, the Montanists’ extravagances, desiring to see new revelation, and desires to go above and beyond the call of Scripture can also teach the church today a valuable lesson. E. de Pressense pointed out that these desires, producing its obsession with apocalyptic visions and severe asceticism, produced a legalism that was more Jewish in spirit than it was Christian.[20] Instead of moving Christianity forward, it seems that Montanism actually moved Christianity backwards, which leaves the church with a lasting warning against the desire to go beyond and above the revelation of Scripture.

[1] N.R. Needham, 2000 Years of Christ’s Power Part One: The Age of the Early Church Fathers, (Grace Publishing, 2011), p.104. [2] Gerald Bray, Creeds, Councils and Christ, (Mentor, 2009), p.58. [3] E. De Pressense, The Early Years Of Christianity Volume III: Heresy and Christian Doctrine, (Hodder and Stoughton, 1890), p.103. [4] Stuart G. Hall, Doctrine and Practice In The Early Church, (SPCK, 1992), p.47. [5] Gerald Bray, Holiness And The Will Of God: Perspectives on the Theology of Tertullian, (Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1979), p.56. [6] Bray, Holiness, p.110. [7] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine Volume I, (University of Chicago Press, 1971), p.106. [8] Pelikan, p.98. [9] H.J. Lawlor and J.E.L. Oulton, Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History and Martyrs of Palestine Volume II, (SPCK, 1954), p.176. [10] J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church to A.D. 337, (SPCK, 1968), p.112. [11] Pelikan, p.101 [12] Arland J. Hultgren and Steven A. Haggmark, The Earliest Christian Heretics: Readings From Their Opponents, (Fortress Press, 1996), p.128. [13] Hulgtren and Haggmark, p.127. [14] Martin Luther, The Familiar Discourses of Dr. Martin Luther translated by H. Bell, (London, 1818), p.7. [15] Pelikan, p.106. [16] Pelikan, p.100. [17] Allan Menzies, The Church History Of The First Three Centuries, (Williams and Norgate, 1878), p.252. [18] Hultgren and Haggmark, p.127. [19] Bray, Holiness, p.110. [20] de Pressense, p.102.