A Few Early Extremist Christian Groups

We—we men and women isolated in this one time and one perspective—all too easily drift to extremes in faith. Extremes are not necessarily negative or harmful, but often become so, especially when applied not to the individual as a personal act of piety, but rather to others. Extreme views and practices are as old as the Church, and quite obviously, when we take even a quick glance at the various Christian churches around us today, there are plenty of extremes today, as well.

I should share a quick disclaimer: as long as I am writing about a particular tendency that you, the reader, would agree to be extreme, it is easy to readily agree. However, when I mention a tendency that hits a little closer to home, it will be much harder to see that particular tendency as extreme. I will finish this article off with Orthodoxy, to make sure and hit close to home for myself, too, and let you be the judge. And since these past several posts have focused on the application of history to our present circumstances, I will use some ancient Christian sects as the inspiration.

Montanism was a Christian sect which started up in the mid-second century. The Montanists were known for their rigid practice of the faith and also for their expectation of a near Second Coming of Christ. The chief issue with the Montanists, however, was their practice of prophecy. Of course, prophecy is not bad, but how do we know when the excitement of the moment goes too far? The chief temptation here seems to be the feeling of a close connection with God, but in reality slowly being deluded into spiritual pride.

As a bit of a side note, Tertullian, often referred to as a Church Father, fell into the Montanist movement. Though a mainstay of Roman Catholic theology, he remains little more than a warning to Orthodox Christians.

The Novatianists were similar in that they held to a rigorist point-of-view. Interestingly, their basic theology remained similar to that of the church at large, but their strict practice of their faith separated them from the communion of the Church. This tendency—the felt need to prove yourself right and impose your style of practice on others—is dangerous indeed. We have likely all experienced some form of strictness in practice or belief which ended in a break of some kind.

Then there are the Donatists, yet another group to practice a rigorous application of the faith. In this case, the disagreement arose when they refused to accept the new bishop of the area. Though the underlying issues were not quite as simple as I am stating it here, we still have an interesting case of not accepting authority. I think most of us independence-minded, modern Christians would not see the problem here, but refusal to follow leaders and accept authority over us is rarely a good solution. We must ask ourselves if we are acting out of rebellion or pride or self-centered interests. This is doubly difficult for Americans, who have grown up with a country that started a war over paying taxes. ...I know I make a few of you bristle with that last comment, but truly, it was not life-threatening, nor were they defending the faith in any way.

An individual Christian who is always in church, who prays long hours, or who cannot understand bending “the rules” for anything is one thing. It is quite another for the leader of a church to teach or impose such restrictions or rules on others. And rebellion or in any way separating ourselves for the sake of being right is rarely a healthy approach. It is not good for us; it is not good for others. St. Paul speaks to this in his first letter to Timothy:

If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.

The Orthodox Church, from the perspective of most of the rest of modern Christianity, would seem to fit into this group. And certainly, Orthodoxy is more rigorous: fasting periods each week and certain periods of the year, often more church services (and even on Saturday nights), conservative dress at church, and more. What complicates this judgment is that Orthodoxy did not change, become more rigorous, and move away from the Church; the rest of the Christian churches had these practices at one time and have since relaxed them. Again, I am not accusing the other churches, but only saying that is was not the Orthodox churches that pulled away.

I have certainly seen some local parishes that seem to be more or less rigorous. The important factor here is the discretion of the parish priest to lighten or alter some of these practices. And in addition, most of these practices are not required; just as with our doctor, we have various therapies and medicines at our disposal, and we take part to our benefit.

I do not have an underlying motive in writing all this. It is meant only to, potentially, take a look at our own life and practice from a different perspective, and possibly, as a warning to take care in how we apply our own faith.