Whatever word we use, the focus on personalities is undeniable: it is why the same half dozen to a dozen names appear as keynote speakers at the conferences and on the videos which are central to this movement. Call them `leaders’ rather than `celebrities’ but you still have a personality driven movement

Donatism is an early church heresy that seems to be making something of a comeback in the modern church. Put simply, in its original context, the debates about Donatism in the ancient church swirled around the issue of rebaptism for those who had fallen away and sacrificed to pagan gods during times of persecution.

One can have sympathy for many Donatists at this point: if you had suffered for your faith during the persecution and the local bishop handed over the sacred scrolls to the persecuting authorities, it would no doubt have been more than merely irritating to see him resuming his former duties once the pressure on the church was removed.

Still, the Donatists were wrong, as distasteful as that may appear: the power of the word and the sacraments does not depend upon the moral quality of the person preaching or performing the baptism; and it is vital that that is the case.

It is vital for the minister, because which honest pastor can really look into his own heart and be confident that his state of sanctification is sufficient to make his sermons effective? And it is vital for the congregation for similar reasons.

While at college, I sat under the excellent preaching of a man who probably taught me more about Christianity through his sermons than anyone else. I later discovered that during the whole time I was at his church he had been engaged in a secret homosexual life. Was what he taught me therefore invalidated? By no means. To the extent that he preached God’s word, to that extent his preaching was powerful and authoritative.

The current resurgence of interest in expository preaching and reformed theology (in the broadest sense – forgive me, Gabe) is a great thing; but there is a worrying focus within the various movements associated with this revival of theology on particular strong personalities. I have been chided, explicitly and implicitly, by friends and foes for referring to these personalities as celebrities. I think the word is appropriate but I am not going to go to the stake for it, if you will pardon the expression.

Whatever word we use, the focus on personalities is undeniable: it is why the same half dozen to a dozen names appear as keynote speakers at the conferences and on the videos which are central to this movement. Call them `leaders’ rather than `celebrities’ but you still have a personality driven movement. And a movement built on big events which, presumably, have at least to break even, must use big names to sell tickets. To use my favourite classroom phrase, `Certain social and economic conditions must apply.’

Yet the problems this potentially generates are serious. First, it can lead too many to put their trust functionally in the men, not the message. Again, this can be denied; but the passions particular men evoke in their followers would seem to indicate that this is the case.

Secondly, it can lead the leaders to take themselves too seriously. I do not necessarily mean that it makes them self-important or pompous or proud. What I mean is that it can perhaps unconsciously lead men to think that the movement depends somehow on their perfection, or near perfection. Paul’s qualifications for eldership require not perfection but a high standard of credible public profession of faith, the ability to teach, and a good reputation with those outside the church. No perfection necessary.

Ministers will always be subject to the temptations of leadership in the same way that all men everywhere will always be subject to lust. There are things which lead to ministerial suspension and even to expulsion, and rightly so; but simply being a sinner is not in itself to merit these. Ministers who struggle with lust have a job to do in the same way that husbands who struggle with lust do; lack of perfection in itself should not be an issue.

Donatism is, as it always was, a form of perfectionism and a means of investing power in the charismatic individual and not the Word of God. The new celebrity culture of the church lends itself most readily to new forms of this old heresy, and ones which could be very damaging to both pastors and people.

Carl R Trueman is Departmental Chair of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. He has an MA in Classics from the University of Cambridge and a PhD in Church History from the University of Aberdeen. This article is reprinted from the Reformation 21 blog and is used with their permission.