I mentioned elsewhere that a Church of Ireland Rector had referred to sectarianism as "the work of the Devil". Yet when I tried to list it as an evil, I was told that House Rules do not prohibit sectarianism. But those of us with knowledge of Ireland (and of Glasgow) realise that if there is a Devil he is surely rubbing his hands with glee at all the violence, hatred, even death caused by sectarianism. Not to mention the way it brings Christianity into disrepute. So my question is, was the Church of Ireland Rector right?
It really depends on lots of factors. It's hard to generalise. Sectarian violence is to be condemned but I would take issue with the fact that it brings Christianity into disrepute. What brings Christianity into disrepute are false Christians and false churches posing as the real thing.
It may just be a slight confusion of meaning in your sentence, but if I take it as written... No. (How very Barth!) The sight of Christians maiming and killing each other in the name of the Prince of Peace brings Christianity into disrepute, I'm pretty sure of that as a fact. Perhaps that isn't what you meant to suggest, but you cannot 'lovingly' commit violence against a person.
I did not suggest that one should go out and commit holy violence against dissenters. What I meant is that sectarianism, in itself, does not bring disrepute. After all, doctrine is divisive but essential. The early Christians were indeed sectarians: not only towards their fellow-citizens ,who were Pagans, but also against unorthodox currents within the Church claiming to be Christian, like the Gnostics, the Marcionites or the Arians.
I won't say it is (lacking fuller context), but I will say it can be and usually probably is. When Christians divide into miniature groups, it does bring scandal. If those groups become vile or violent, they are doing the work of the devil.
I did wonder if you might have meant that, but your sentence was misleading. Actually I think history suggests that 'the Church' in toto was not so sectarian, because on the whole they probably weren't a coherent group until the Constantinian settlement- with much interpenetration with other cultures and ideas, a mixture of liturgical rites and even scriptural texts. Many in the Church would have had Gnostic ideas, most people in the Church were Arians long after Nicea, some would continue to worship Sol Invictus as well as Jesus Christ. Christianity was more or less open ground for lots of groups to claim and ultimately one of them gained sufficient ascendency to quash the others and ret-con their history to some extent. Meanwhile many Church Fathers (Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria) were at great pains to show how non-subversive and capable of integration Christianity was with the pagan empire. For a good long while the Donatists and Catholics lived side by side in Northern Africa in relative peace. Needless to say, all the Greek and Latin Fathers are deeply indebted to Greek Philosophy, particularly Neoplatonism. Undeniably though, the Fathers that have come down to us have endeavoured to maintain an idea of 'orthodoxy' and they are keen to differentiate themselves- but what is one of their key claims to show they are the 'true' Christianity? Why it's their very catholicity! That they share the apostolic doctrine and the order of bishops. Ask them if they think Schism is anything other than deeply wounding to the Body of Christ and I suspect you will find yourself in something of a minority opinion! But what did those silly old early Christians know anyway? If they eat vegetables, cast them from your fellowship because they're clearly wet liberal idiots!