During the Trinitarian controversy of the 4th century, the label “Arian” was attached to those who espoused and defended the teaching of Arius of Alexandria. Arius denied that the Son of God was co-eternal with God the Father, and thus taught that the Son had been created by the Father before the creation of the heavens and the earth. In the Arian perspective, Jesus is a created being, not the Creator of all things.
The Church councils of Nicaea and Constantinople in AD 325 and 381 settled the matter on paper and defended biblical Trinitarianism as the orthodox faith of the Church, but the theology of Arius did not disappear. In some places, those who held to Arianism lived alongside Trinitarians for many years. Arianism lasted for centuries in some areas, before fading as a prominent expression of early Christian heresy.
Since that time however, the designation “Arian” has been used to identify false teachings of certain figures or groups in Christian history that repeat or resemble the unbiblical errors of Arius. Instead of getting into the weeds of explaining the nuances of Trinitarian errors and misunderstandings, it is extremely useful to be able to identify certain teachings as Arian or akin to Arianism. For example, although Jehovah’s Witnesses do not resemble the kind of worship or ecclesiology in which Arius existed, it is easy and useful to say that the Christology of Jehovah’s Witnesses is essentially Arian, since they believe Jesus was the first and greatest creation of God.
In our current moment, there is another controversy and heresy ravaging the Church, but it is not over Arianism. It is the rejection of biblical teaching on sexuality and gender. I suggest that, given the usefulness of the shorthand label “Arian” for historical errors on the nature of Christ, we need to adopt a new shorthand label for the current errors on sexuality and gender. The unabated creeping of this thinking into prominent Christian circles reveals that the debate is not over, and we cannot just relegate it to the usual suspects of liberal mainliners. Just a few months ago, renowned evangelical theologian Richard Hays co-authored a book with his son which argues that God has changed his mind on sexual ethics and that Christians ought to affirm and celebrate homosexual relationships. Around the same time, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby revealed during an interview that he believes committed same-sex relationships are good, despite the official doctrine of the Church of England condemning them. In 2016, former Calvin College professor and esteemed philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff publicly affirmed his belief that same-sex marriage is good. Recent events in the orthodox Anglican world include a number of ACNA parishes embracing this view and leaving the province. And I could share personal anecdotes of formerly faithful, seemingly orthodox friends and mentors adopting this heresy.
Recent voices, though I cannot recall whose, suggested that the most prominent theological controversy of the early Church was the nature of Jesus, during the Reformation it was the nature of salvation, and today it is the nature of humanity, including sexuality. The question that our current moment in history raises is, how should we think about people who affirm the creeds, the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the sacraments, pray, and live with charity towards their neighbors, yet believe and defend errors on sex and gender?
For example, Richard Hays was one of the most respected Protestant theologians in America. He knew the content of the Scriptures, he understood the depths of theology, and I am confident he could and would have taught accurately about the Triune nature of God, the mystery of the Incarnation, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the implications of these truths for the lives and missional living of Christians today. All of these things would be correct, except that he also came to believe and teach the errors of LGBT ideology. Similarly, during the early Church, those who believed and taught the errors of Arius had the Scriptures, ecclesiology, liturgy, doctrine, creeds, missionaries, and church architecture. Some of these things would probably be indistinguishable from biblical orthodoxy by modern Christians, but the foundation underlying all of it was a falsehood about the nature of Christ.
The Church today needs a new -ism to easily designate the acceptance and encouragement of sexual sin. “Arian” fit the situation of the past because people embraced Arius’ theology. In our day, to repeatedly say “LGBT-affirming” or “homosexuality” or “gender ideology” does not always cut it. What this new heresy really is, is a repudiation of historic, Christian sexual ethics. People who accept modern sexual teaching do not still believe in the necessary bond of marriage for correct sexual expression. Can we imagine hearing a UMC pastor or Episcopal bishop counseling two homosexual men to practice abstinence until they get “married”? Many of these people promoted sexual sin before the legal framework was even in place to allow for this hypothetical scene. I personally know a couple who cohabitated during their engagement, while both of them were employed by two separate liberal churches, and saw no incongruence between their ministry and their living arrangement. No, modern sexual ethics are a rejection of biblical and historic sexual ethics, which either embrace or ignore cohabitation, fornication, lust, pornography (it’s consensual!), homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism.
For this reason, I suggest that the Church adopt the simple designator “Pornism.” In Greek, porneia is the general term for sexual sin. Well, the new ideologies embrace sexual sin. What could better fit their broad outlook than a broad term? As early heretics embraced Arianism and, thus, were Arians, our modern heretics embrace Pornism and, thus, should be called Porneans. With this simple designation, someone could immediately identify a pastor, theologian, writer, scholar, or church as one who, while maintaining much (perhaps very much) orthodox life and doctrine, would teach the goodness and acceptability of sexual sin, in contradiction to the Scriptures and the historic Christian consensus.
Just like how, when suggesting books or study aids, someone might say, “You might find this book useful, but keep in mind, the author was an atheist,” to let his friend know what perspective they will encounter, so with this designation we would easily be able to say, “Rowan Williams is a brilliant scholar, but keep in mind, he’s a Pornean.”
This is important because, by using a definite label to identify the presence of heresy, biblically orthodox Christians will state plainly that sexuality and gender are not adiaphora, and that we will not pretend that someone can celebrate sin and still be viewed as holding truthfully to biblical Christianity. Instead, their error will be clearly named. As painful as it may be to think of beloved people or influential leaders having a heretical designation attached to their name, we must speak honestly about the seriousness of their error and our commitment to not capitulating to these modern, unbiblical, historically innovative lies. If the Gospel is the Good News that Jesus Christ is the King of God’s Kingdom, and the Lord Jesus warns that sexually immoral people will not enter his Kingdom (Rev. 22:15), then this is not a secondary matter. Therefore, we should label Pornism and denounce it with the same decisiveness and clarity as we do other historic heresies.
