67

WAS MONTANISM A HERESY? by Erich Nestler*

Introduction

Throughout its history Christianity has faced two forms of major conflict: schism and heresy. In general heretical groups tended to become schismatic. But could it be that a group would be branded schismatic, without really being heretical? According to Bonwetsch, Schaff, de Labriolle, Evans (Henry), and Robeck, Montanism is an example of a group that became schismatic without being heretical in doctrine. Primary sources on Montanism are few; to the greater part they have been preserved through the writings of their enemies. Among many historians, in the past, this has caused an adoption of the views of the enemies of the movement. Nonetheless a critical examination of the material handed down to us, can enable one to avoid the biased condemnation of older historians.

°Erich Nestler completed the Master of Arts in Biblical Studies at the Assemblies of God Graduate School in 1978. He is currently pursuing further studies in Europe.

Scholars who in recent times have adopted a more favorable view, of this early revival movement, generally evaluate it under two points: doctrine and practice. They conclude that montan- istic doctrine should be considered orthodox, but the practice as legalistic and extreme. The present writer tends to think that in the case of Montanism practice is an outgrowth of doctrine and therefore it should be examined under the aspect of doctrine rather than of behavior. Prophetic utterances from leading men and women of the movement brought about most of the specific doctrines in the area of ethics. Therefore, much of montanistic teaching had its origin in practice, namely the practice of the gift of prophecy. Mainstream Christianity of the late second century branded this teaching new and foreign to the tradition of the church. In order to defend themselves the Montanists, namely in the person of Tertullian, tried to prove that they were not standing in contrast to the Scriptures. They developed a new hermeneutic which would show that they were in line with biblical teaching. 68

Three areas may be looked upon as vital for an understanding of the "New Prophecy" as their enemies called the movement: 1) The manner of prophesying 2) Teachings resulting from prophetic utterances 3) The adjusting of hermeneutics Charismatic prophetic experiences were the dynamo. They brought about the new teachings. In order to harmonize the new doctrines with the Bible, a tremendous amount of"rational- ization" had to be invested. Out of this a new biblical hermeneutic was construed. Not every prophecy or doctrine of Montanism will be discussed in this article. Those instances will be selected which seem to be rather vital for an evaluation of the movement.

The Manner of Prophesying

The greatest stumbling block for the Catholic church seems to have been the behavioral side of the prophetic manifestations, besides doctrinal questions. That the church did not condemn the " New Prophecy" from the beginning is a sign that there must have been elements which were part of the experience of second century Christianity. Otherwise it probably would have flatly rejected Montanism. Schaff writes: "The Catholic church did not deny, in theory, the continuance of prophecy and the other miraculous gifts, but was disposed to derive the Montanistic revelations from Satanic inspirations, and mistrusted them all the more for their preceeding not from the regular clergy, but in great part from unauthorized laymen and fanatical women.2 A certain Anonymous writer describes the prophesying of Montanus, the founder of the movement, in the following words: "And he became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the church handed down by tradition from the beginning."3 The same author says about Priscilla and Maximilla, two of the leading prophetesses beside Montanus: "And he stirred up besides two women, and filled them with the false spirit, so that they talked wildly and unreasonably and strangely, like the person already mentioned. And the spirit pronounced them blessed as they rejoiced and gloried in him, and puffed them up by the magnitude of his promises. But sometimes he