“Non-theological factors” always play a role in the rise of reform movements in the church. By “non-theological factors,” I mean social, economic, political, and cultural elements that are not directly derived from received interpretations of the truth of the Gospel. Political, cultural, and economic factors can play a very significant role in shaping the direction a given movement takes, as well as the way the movement is received by the church.
Sometimes interpretations of popular movements which lean heavily on the importance of these non-theological factors can be dismissive of substantive Christian convictions. However, this need not be the case. We should expect that reform movements are influenced by social forces, and indeed that they should form their particular Christian convictions in dialogue with social forces at play in their time.
This is an important part of the church’s missionary engagement with the world. There are no “purely” theological convictions, because theology is always worked out in the course of the church’s life in history, and it is bound to be affected by social, political, and cultural factors. Therefore, we should not fall into the trap of assuming that non-theological factors determine of the rise and shape of reform movements, but we should examine the way that Christian convictions interact with non-theological factors in the history of particular movements, and evaluate the role of non-theological factors on the basis of this interaction. It is the interaction of specifically Christian convictions with non-theological influences that produces the vitality and volatility of the reform and renewal movements.
Montanism, a popular second century movement which upheld a rigorous vision of Christian discipleship, and was marked by prophetic spiritual gifts, is an interesting case-in-point.
.jpg "Phrygia map from Heinrich Kiepert via wikimedia commons")
A number of non-theological factors played a role in the history of the Montanist movement. The movement took root in Phrygia in the late second century, where it would seem that the tradition of prophecy had continued to exist alongside the priestly office (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. V.17). The continuing existence of a prophetic office made it difficult for the bishops and clergy of that region to deny the Montanist prophecies, in spite of the eccentricities and excesses of the Montanists. W. H. C. Frend suggests that the Montanists were a threat to the clergy, and as such the rivalry between priest and prophet caused the Montanists to be resented, and contributed toward their rejection by the established church (Saints and Sinners in the Early Church, 69). No doubt the prominent role played by women would have also created concern among clerics.
It seems that the Montanists raised no serious doctrinal challenge to the established church, but their somewhat strange and extreme positions and their threat to established leadership led the church to push them out of its fellowship. While it is difficult, on the basis of the evidence, to evaluate the established church’s decision, it does seem that the church might have benefited from the continuing vitality of Montanism, and its excesses might have been kept in check, had the Montanists been given a continuing place in the established church’s life.
After the movement was officially rejected by the clergy, it continued to flourish in the Phrygian countryside, but also spread to North Africa. This move was aided by the fact that the movement found fertile soil for a rigorist morality in that context. A significant political factor inNorth Africawas the persecution of Christians, which led to a spirit of defiance and apocalyptic hope among the Christians there, even before the spread of Montanism. The persecutions inNorth Africaled to an anti-imperial protest ethic among the Christians, with martyrdom and confession being valued above all else. In this political environment the strict Montanist discipline appealed to Christians like Tertullian, who had faced the prospect of dying for their faith. The rigorist morality also reinforced the social distinctions between the Montanists and the rest of North African society, distinctions which again were made quite apparent during times of persecution.
Thus we can see that some non-theological factors influenced the Montanist movement in various ways. The tension between prophetic and priestly roles in the Church caused difficulties with the clergy which influenced the rejection of Montanism. The rural regions ofPhrygiaproved more fertile soil culturally for the rigorist morality of Montanism, and the persecutions inNorth Africaalso supported the rigorist and apocalyptic currents of the movement, leading Montanism to grow specifically in those regions.
However, it is also obvious that such non-theological factors alone cannot be credited with bringing about the rise or Montanism, or determining its character. Ultimately the Christian convictions of the Montanists themselves were more significant in shaping the movement’s existence.
First of all, the conviction that the Spirit was speaking directly through the Montanist prophets led members of the movement to embrace a radical obedience and adherence to the discipline that was derived from their prophetic utterances. So Tertullian ridicules the Catholic criticism of Montanist fasting by noting that Catholics will fast at the request of the Bishop, yet the Montanists fast at the direction of the Spirit (On Fasting, XIII). Further, after the movement was rejected by the church, one can understand why many members continued to adhere loyally to their leaders, since they believed that the church had rejected the Spirit in rejecting the Montanists. Likewise, the apocalyptic anticipation of living on the cusp of a new age would encourage radical adherence to the movement and generate a significant following.
Finally, we can note that a strong conviction concerning the holiness of the church shaped the Montanist relation to other Christians. In On Modesty, Tertullian is enraged that the “Pontifex Maximus” has issued an edict indicating that the sins of adultery and fornication could be forgiven with proper repentance.
“But it is in the church that this (edict) is read, and in the church that it is pronounced; and (the church) is a virgin! Far, far from Christ’s betrothed be such a proclamation!” (On Modesty I).
The pardoning of adulterers is parallel to the pardoning of idolaters in Tertullian’s mind. The Church’s holiness is seen in the integrity of her discipline, and it is this conviction concerning the Church’s holiness that drives Tertullian’s adherence to Montanism.
I would argue that, while the non-theological factors certainly played a supporting role in Montanism’s rise, the leading role in shaping the movement came from the central theological convictions that its members embraced. More specifically in North Africa, it was the encounter of these strong convictions about the divine origin of Montanist discipline and the integrity of the Church with the political condition of government persecution which produced the enthusiasm and vitality of the Montanist movement.
James Pedlar 
Hey nice post. I read a little about the montanists before and how they somehow prefigure some aspects of modern charismatic/pentecostal movements, with emphasis on the authority of the Spirit. I’d like to explore more theologies in this direction: In the Reformation, the emphasis of authority shifted from Church to Scripture. What about the movements that shift from Scripture to Spirit? I know there’s a lot of problems with that, subjectivity and all, but it has a lot of appeal.
Yes, the Montanists are similar to what we would now call pentecostal / charismatic movements. I like the way you’ve summarized the shifts in authority from Church (Catholic) to Scripture (Reformation) to Spirit (Charismatic), though it’s all about relative emphasis for each group. I think the Pentecostal tradition has something to contribute here…the Reformers tended to tie Word and Spirit together, and the Catholic tradition tends to tie Spirit and Church together, with some exceptions. I think we should leave room for the Spirit to speak in surprising ways, not only through the Word or Church, though always carefully testing it. It can be dangerous to affirm direct inspiration of the Spirit, but I don’t want to exclude the possibility either!
Thanks for stopping by! I’ve added you to my reader.
I just looked up monergism to see how viable it would be as a tag and I came across your recent post, which was what led me to this one. Currently reading Olson’s new book, “Against Calvinism”, which is a good introduction to Arminian theology for me. I got you on my Google reader so I look forward to reading more!
Interesting to know how you found me. Olson is great – one of the few theologians who is able to offer a clear and fair defense of the Arminian position.
Pingback: Considering Pneumacracy « camostar
This is silly. Theology is not the content of the Bible. Theology is interpretation. And interpretation always takes living conditions and such into account. There is therefore no such thing as a non-theological factor. After all this is God’s world — he made it — so everything that happens in it has a bearing on theology. If you say otherwise, you must be a Marcionite!!!
I think you’ve misunderstood my point here. Where did I say that theology is the content of the Bible? I’m talking about the way social and cultural influences shape life of the church’s life. I agree that, in a sense, everything is theological. But there are times when the behaviour of people in the church is shaped by cultural forces, rather than theological convictions. So, for example, when divisions in the church are supported by ethnic differences between the two parties.
But those supposedly cultural forces form theological convictions. Take for example the eucharist controversy — any eucharist controversy. You’ve got these guys saying its Transubstantiation, these ones rejecting that because its Catholic but not wanting to reject it too far so they say Consubstantiation, then these guys so no its Spiritual Presence, and finally another set no its pure symbolism. By your standard, the Transubstantiationist alone would be said to be basing their position on theological convictions (the literal text of “this is my body”) and everyone else would be basing theirs on “non-theological factors” — the logical consideration that Transubstantiation is ridiculous because William Tyndale saw a mouse eat the host or saw it grow mold, well that’s a “non-theological factor” — Tyndale’s position is merely based on culture and not theology! (Do you see how absurd this is?)
Nope. That is not what I’m saying. Your example suggests that the use of logic is “non-theological” by my standard. I’m not sure where you’re getting that from. All theology involves the use of logical reflection, and interprets scripture using rational reflection and in the light of historical conditions.
I’m talking about situations where things like race, ethnicity, political and socio-economic differences influence the way Christians relate to one another and think about their faith (often in ways that the people involved aren’t aware of). So, in my post, I’ve noted that rigorist forms of discipleship tend to flourish in times of persecution – the political situation (which I’m calling a non-theological factor) influences the way people approach discipleship. Of course, I recognize, as I said above, that everything is theological in a sense, and there is no “pure” theology apart from such conditions. But my point is that the conditions themselves are not theological convictions held by the people involved; they are social conditions that affect people’s convictions. I think it’s helpful to flag these issues, so that people don’t assume that all the divisions in the Christian church are the result of doctrinal differences (as some have, in the past assumed).
Maybe you should explain what you think the difference is between ‘historical conditions’ and ‘race, ethnicity, political and socio-economic’ which could be labeled ‘historical conditions’.
But no, you completely have the wrong idea. Because montanism developed in Phyrgia you make it racial. Orthodoxy developed in Rome. So what? The location where something started does not necessarily equal “only for one race.” Montanisms true impetus was neither racial, ethnic, political, nor socio-economic. It was that they didn’t want to admit that Mark 16 is a big fat lie. “Ye shall do greater miracles for I go to the Father” is written in John I think, and in Mark 16 the whole “these signs will follow those that believe.” Maybe the rest of the church could be content with saying “yeah, these signs will follow those who believe until 170 when God changed his mind” or whatever, but the Montanists didn’t want to go that route. And you make that racial? Seems theological to me.
It could also be said that the Montanists interest in going through persecution rather than turning tail and running, and their interest in not putting an end to the whole “these signs will follow those that believe” demonstrates that Biblical inerrancy type thinking first came about in Phrygia. The supposedly ‘orthodox’ of Rome and Asia Minor at this point apparently did NOT believe those passages about suffering persecution for Christ and being faithful to the end nor the passages about believers performing miracles. So, I supposed, we can say the Montanists were the first to accept the idea of the inerrancy of the New Testament (despite the fact that accepting its inerrancy made them reject its all-sufficiency since it itself points to the prophetic office and miracles being worked by the believers). So again, all theological.
If you read what I said in the post, you’ll see that I identified the non-theological factors as *contributing* to the rise of Montanism, but said that their theological convictions were more significant. So I am not simply saying Montanism “is racial” as you suggest. From the final paragraph: “I would argue that, while the non-theological factors certainly played a supporting role in Montanism’s rise, the leading role in shaping the movement came from the central theological convictions that its members embraced.”