At the very beginning of discourse I of Against the Arians the great Athanasius answers those who argued that the Arians were still Christians. I think his response is brilliant, witty, and pithy. He writes the following,
For what have they discovered in this heresy like to the religious Faith, that they vainly talk as if its supporters said no evil? This in truth is to call even Caiaphas a Christian, and to reckon the traitor Judas still among the Apostles, and to say that they asked Barrabas instead of the Saviour did no evil, and to recommend Hymenaeus and Alexander as right-hand men, as if the Apostle slandered them. (I.2)
It doesn’t get more straightforward that that. Athanasius’ answer regarding whether or not Arius and his followers are still Christians despite being heretical is sarcastically, “Yes, if Caiaphas who had Christ killed is a Christian, if Judas is still an apostle, if choosing Barrabas was not an insult to Christ, and if the Apostle Paul wrongly framed those who persecuted him, sure, then he is a Christian.” I wonder if sometimes our desire to be “fair” and “objective” prevents us from telling the truth? Sometimes I wish I was more like Athanasius.
the archives near Emmaus 
Ouch, sometimes there just has to be boundaries set. Without boundaries, as Miroslav Volf says in Exclusion and Embrace, we just seep into total chaos.
Speaking of being fair, do you think that the situations (and actions) of Caiaphas and the Arians were comparable?
James,
Perhaps in the mind of Athanasius, they were at that time, as he understood it. I have read Girardian interpretation of Caiphas, that Caiphas’s statement, that Jesus must die for the many is a political statement, that the scapegoat for the people was to be Jesus of Nazareth, and I find that interpretation plausible as well. But I am not going to say it is more plausible than Athanasius. We are dealing with two different usages of the passage here. For Athanasius, he is “prooftexting” if you will in the Alexandrian fashion for theological reason. Girard (via S. Mark Heim in his Saved From Sacrifice) is interpreting history, then making a theological application. There is a clear difference.
@James,
If anyone is less to blame may it be the Arians for Caiaphas met Jesus in person.
@Rod,
I am sure that in the mind of Caiaphas this is exactly what he was thinking. Yet he didn’t realize the power nor the implications of his own words. The evangelist doesn’t seem concerned with Caiaphas’ intent as much as the truer, ironic meaning of his statement.
@Brian,
I would tend to agree.
This is called an ad hominem attack. Far from being “brilliant, witty, and pithy” it is a classic logical fallacy. Ad hominem attacks are generally the product of someone who cannot successfully respond intellectually to an argument and so resorts to attacking their opponent in an effort to discredit the validity of their argument by association. It is intellectually dishonest and, IMO, a shameful practice that true Christians avoid.
James,
You are correct in some sense but we must remember that this was more than a cordial, academic debate. This was life or death in their eyes. Truthfulness determines human destiny. And people did not separate other’s belief from their person like many of us do today. If Arius held heretical views he was a heretic. There was no difference between his error of thought and error of being.
While I likely would be hard pressed to say this of any opponent (at least in public) it shows to me that truth was taking very serious in those days. Sometimes I wonder if we refuse to do the same in the name of fair game.
Brian,
It is true that this was no cordial, academic debate. Both sides had engaged in decidedly unchristian conduct. As noted by Richard Rubinstein, “militant believers employed a wide variety of violent tactics and imaginatively conceived dirty tricks to do each other harm. Bishop Athanasius, a future saint and uninhibited faction fighter, had his opponents excommunicated and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped, imprisoned, and exiled to distant provinces. His adversaries, no less implacable, charged him with an assortment of crimes, including bribery, theft, extortion, sacrilege, treason, and murder.”
I, for one, while deeply interested in truth, do not find Athanasius a particularly exemplary model for anyone who seeks to call themselves Christian. We can be “fair and objective” and still speak the truth. Violent speech and actions are both unnecessary and dishonoring to our true exemplar, Jesus. (1 Peter 2:21)
This may be true but I think we continue to be slightly paranoid of Athanasius’ rhetoric in part because our own culture has mixed feelings about such language (e.g. some love Fox News or MSNBC because these networks use highly charged political rhetoric; some disdain these networks for the same reason). In his day this was common debate.
While I understand your point about Jesus’ example let us not forget that he called Herod a fox and he said plenty of not-so-politically-correct things to the Pharisees. He even told one of his closest disciples “Get behind me, Satan”. I am sure we can include Jude in here and Paul who wished his opponents would emasculate themselves. He called his beloved Galatian disciples “fools”. I think it is clear that Jesus and Paul both could say we should watch our words while seeing no contradiction in using very strong language against their opponents.
And yet:
Who [Jesus], when he was reviled, reviled not again (1 Peter 2:23)
nor revilers … will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthinans 6:10)
be … courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling (2 Peter 3:8,9)
Let your speech always be with grace (Colossians 4:6)
James,
I know of these passages. I am not denying their importance. What I am saying is that we must ponder what this means in light of how Jesus and Paul actually interacted with opponents.
Is this a “do as I say, not as I do” scenario? I don’t think so. I have a feeling that all of these statements must be understood in a context where these people thought this was compatible with strong language against their opponents.
hi