|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
One of the central and fundamental disagreements between humanism and Christianity lies in the very nature of humanity itself. Are human beings inherently good or inherently evil? Indeed, this conflict is almost as old as Christianity itself, with the humanistic position constituting one of the earliest and most pervasive Christian heresies ever. The term "heresy" comes from the Greek word "hairesis" which means "choice." This root is ironic in light of our current topic because it involves precisely that: choice - the ability of humans to choose to do good rather than evil.
Can we, as humans, choose a path of goodness and charity or are we destined to error and sin? Humanism takes a more optimistic approach towards such questions. Humanists propose that while humans are not perfect, they are certainly not automatically inclined towards evil acts. Instead humans are capable of both good and evil and, given the right circumstances and education, humans can generally be trusted to do the right thing.
Traditional, orthodox Christianity rejects such sentiments and has reached more pessimistic conclusions. For Christianity, human beings are born as sinners, grow up to be sinners, and are forever trapped by their sin. It is impossible for a person to not be a sinner and avoid doing wrong in some fashion. Without assistance from God, it is impossible for a person to truly do good and improve themselves. Although such attitudes are most clear and most common among very conservative fundamentalist and evangelical Christians today, they have long been a part of Christian teachings. Not all Christians, however, have accepted that orthodox teaching. One of the most famous and most maligned was Pelagius
Background
Not a whole lot is known clearly about Pelagius' life except what his detractors wrote about him. Pelagius was probably born either in Ireland or in Celtic Britain around 360 and came to Rome around 400. He seems to have been taught in the tradition of Romanized Celtic Christianity which emphasized good works and attempting to live a holy life. It is unsurprising then that he was not happy with the general moral laxity he discovered in Rome. Most of the Christians he regarded as little more than "conforming pagans" because after going through the process of conversion, then quickly went back to their old habits. It is important to note here that he was not concerned with esoteric theological points, but instead with very practical issues about how to live. This was typical for disputes in the West as opposed to the East. In the West, theologians and reformers focused upon practical issues like how to lead a Christian life while those in the East emphasized more mystical issues like the nature of Christ or understanding the Trinity.
Although his followers frequently referred to him as a monk and he certainly lead a monastic lifestyle, he never actually entered a monastic order. He himself rejected the title and believed that there was no fundamental moral difference between clergy and lay church members. Moral responsibility lay with all Christians and he emphasized this by encouraging all people to teach and preach when they felt the calling. An attitude had taken hold among Christians that people are inevitably weak and so there was little need felt to strive very hard or very far. He wasn't impressed with these excuses and was determined to show people that they were not powerless or helpless in their lives - that they could do good rather than evil.
At first, his ideas were not such a big deal. Early on while he was in Rome, his teachings were not only regarded as blameless but even constructive. Many were as eager as he to improve the practical situation of Christian ethics. Unfortunately, Pelagius wasn't given very much time in Rome because Alaric, leader of the Western Goths, attacked in 410 and sacked Rome.
Pelagius, along with some companions, fled to northern Africa. But in north Africa, a supporter and student of his named Celestius took it upon himself to spread and develop Pelagius' ideas. It was there in the logical consequences of Pelagian principles that the real controversy developed. And it was there that Pelagius came into direct contact - and confrontation - with Augustine, bishop of Hippo and chief architect of what was becoming Christian orthodoxy.
The two met face to face several times in Carthage, but were unable to find any middle ground. However, their ideological differences don't appear to have ever led to personal animosity. Pelagius always admired Augustine and forever intended to remain an orthodox member of the church, never wanting to actually foment discord, much less heresy. On the other side, Augustine had the highest regard for Pelagius' zeal on behalf of Christianity, not to mention his "...noble character and pure living. Here was a good man, who should be spoken of on all sides."
Eventually Pelagius moved on to Palestine where he aroused the ire of Jerome, famous translator of the Bible into Latin. Jerome called for a synod in Jerusalem to investigate Pealgius' ideas, but it referred the matter on to the pope while another synod at Lydda exonerated Pelagius completely. But the next year, in 416, Pelagius and his teachings were condemned at the Council of Carthage with Pope Innocent I confirming. Luckily for Pelagius, Innocent was ill and died very soon thereafter and the succeeding pope, Zosimus, retracted the condemnation and declared Pelagius orthodox. It was Zosimus' contention that if the essentials of the Christian Faith are followed, everything else was tangential.
Defenders of orthodoxy were completely unsatisfied with such an outcome and could not accept the idea of sanctioned dissent, so they appealed the matter to Emperor Honorius on the pretext that Pelagius' teachings were creating disorder in the empire. Pelagius' ideas left no room for nominal Christians and so he threatened the comfortable lifestyle led by most who claimed to be Christian.
In a scene that would be repeated for centuries to come, the power of the state was brought to bear against religious dissent and the Emperor declared Pelagius, his supporter Celestius and all followers to be heretics. In 418, a council in Africa reasserted the verdict of the previous pope and Zosimus was forced to confirm, writing a letter of excommunication to Pelagius. In 431 he died alone and mostly forgotten.
Augustinian Attitude
Although his ideas found root and spread wherever he went, condemnations from the defenders of orthodoxy forced him to keep moving. But what was the big deal about his proposal that humans are capable of choosing to do good? As indicated before, it was not so much this idea which caused so much disagreement but the implications of the idea - and no one seems to have seen those implications better than Augustine. The primary conflict was with the doctrines of Original Sin and the Fall from Grace committed by Adam
Whether read literally or metaphorically, the story of Adam and Eve produces the teaching that all of humanity inherited their sin and corruption, thus causing a tendency towards doing evil rather than good. This results in the doctrine of Original Sin whereby all humans are born sinners and do not actually have to do anything wrong themselves to merit being sent to hell. People might want to do good, but they are incapable of it without God's direct help, called grace. This is summed up in a passage of Augustine's Confessions:
I have no hope at all but in thy great mercy. Grant what thou commandest and command what thou wilt.
Augustine's insistence that humanity is helpless before sin and corruption was probably rooted in his own experiences, especially with sexuality. As hard as he tried, he found it to be depressingly difficult to avoid what he regarded as the worst sins - which, for him, primarily involved sex. He never saw himself as able to overcome his weaknesses but instead saw his victories as resulting solely from a total abandonment of the self to God. When he discussed sex, he wrote "Who can control this when its appetite is aroused? No one!"
Reacting to Augustine
Pelagius found all of this to be abhorrent. He reacted quite strongly and directly against that statement of Augustine's, saying in a letter "If I ought, then I can." The idea was that it would be impossible for a just and good God to command anything of human beings which they are not also capable of doing. He further wrote about Augustinian doctrines:
We ascribe to the God of knowledge the guilt of twofold ignorance; ignorance of his own creation and of his commands. As if, forgetting the weakness of men, his own creation, he had laid upon men commands which they were unable to bear. [...] we ascribe to the Just One unrighteousness and cruelty to the Holy One; the first, by complaining that he has commanded the impossible, the second, by imagining that a man will be condemned by him for what he could not help...
So what we see developing is the doctrine that no matter what God might want of humanity, it must be possible for us to actually accomplish it. Otherwise, this God can only be unjust, cruel and unrighteous. Indeed, the idea of humans not being able to choose to do good makes morality futile. There is no crime in sin if you are unable to do otherwise and no virtue in doing good if you could only achieve it with the help of God. Pelagius regarded the teaching that God does not know what he commanded to be the real blasphemy.
All of this brought him into very serious conflict with Augustine who promoted the idea of a god who could, would and did do things like require us to do actions we are totally incapable of achieving on our own. Augustine's teachings were of humans as slaves, totally and irrevocably dependent upon God for every good thing in their lives, every good thought in their heads, every good action performed.
In conflict with Pelagius, Augustine was particularly concerned with the chance that if it were actually possible for a man to always choose to do good on his own and based upon his own nature, then the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross would become unnecessary. Augustine rejected the idea that any human could, even in theory, live a sinless life on their own. Although Pelagius remained committed to this possibility, he was always reluctant to admit that anyone had actually achieved it.
And he had a point. Christian theology was centered around the idea that humanity - collectively and individually - needed to be redeemed by a pure sacrifice and free gift. However, a person who freely choose goodness became "right" with God and found salvation outside of Jesus, an intolerable situation under the exclusivist claims of Christianity. Pelagius essentially, if unwittingly, was reducing Jesus from Christ to role model.
Disagreement with traditional Augustinian doctrines continued throughout church history. Although people generally continued to disagree with Pelagius' teachings that humanity was good by nature, many believed that there was nevertheless some spark of goodness that could be used to strive towards God. This came to be called Semipelagianism and was propounded by a variety of people, especially those in monastic orders. Many were attracted to the movement as a reaction against the teachings of Augustine, especially those involving election and predestination. Without the possibility of personal effort actually amounting to anything significant, there was no point in monks continuing with their lives of self-denial. One of the leaders was St. John Cassian, a follower of St. John Chrysostom. Supporters, primarily located in Gaul and Britain, worked against both Augustine and the more extreme conclusions of Pelagianism. But even Semipelagianism was condemned in a synod at Orange in 529.
It is worth noting that although Eastern Orthodox Christians have traditionally regarded Pelagius and his followers as heretics, their early leaders were not very familiar with his works. As has already been shown, his trials in the East always resulted in acquittal whereas only his trials in the West caused him to be branded a heretic. He was, I think, more in line with the Eastern traditions of Christianity rather than the Western and may have simply had the misfortune to be on the wrong side of the geo-theological lines. Had he lived in the East, he may have had a better chance of reaching some sort of compromise with the ecclesiastical authorities.
Looking Forward
So, where does Christianity stand today? Currently, those who openly advocate the doctrine that salvation comes only as a free gift, regardless of what you as a person do or believe, are much fewer in number than they used to be. They are much more common among Protestants, especially conservative, fundamentalist, and evangelical denominations. Some, like Calvinists and Reformed Theologians, continue to advocate the extreme predestination first hinted at in Augustine.
It is, however, important to remember that strains of this run strong through all forms of traditional, orthodox Christianity even if it remains unstated or undeveloped. If you ask a Christian if they really think that it is theoretically possible for a human to always choose to do good without the added assistance of their God's grace, you are very unlikely to get a positive response.
It is this which a progressive humanism not only rejects as a productive outlook but also opposes as an ultimately harmful ideology - much like Pelagius did almost sixteen centuries ago. Pelagius may not have been a humanist in the modern sense, but it is clear that he placed the welfare and actions of human beings much more to the center of his concerns than did Augustine and other church leaders. We, like Pelagius, must reject any sort of god which would make unfulfillable demands from human beings. We must also reject any idea that humans are inherently and irrevocably corrupt. It is certainly unlikely that anyone will ever manage to live a perfect life, but we should hold out the possibility and use that as a goal to strive for.
Pelagius may have been condemned and persecuted for his views, but they never entirely died. The idea that we can choose to do what is right is an essential part of humanism and could have been an essential part of Christianity. Their loss is our gain.
-->