Church History 9 - Power sharing, then the grab

Mimosa Tree

Rome was in trouble late in the 3^rd century.  Civil wars were breaking out throughout the empire.  The Emperor Diocletian decided to deploy a power sharing tactic.  Instead of one big guy in charge, he installed two with the title of Augustus and two underlings with the title of Caesar.  The idea was much like the new coach in waiting policy that is being used in college football today.  (Jumbo Fisher knew he would get the top Florida State job when Bobby Bowden retired.) The empire was divided this way.

Gonzalez:  ‘Diocletian himself in the East, and Maximian in the West.  Under each of them were a junior emperor…Galerius under Diocletian, and Constantius Chlorus under Maximian.’

This worked well for a little while and Christians had a peaceful existence.  But because there were constant battles being fought in some quarter of the empire to keep out the Barbarians and the Persians, the empire needed a steady supply of soldiers.  Many Christians didn’t feel obliged to serve in the emperor’s army.  Galerius convinced Diocletian to put a new edict in place to remove Christians from any responsible position in the government.  This set in motion another period of trouble for our old brothers and sisters.  Churches and sacred writings were burned.  Similar to the time when Nero was in power, a great fire broke out in the imperial palace and Christians were blamed again. 

‘Gonzalez:  ‘Thus was unleashed the most cruel of all the persecutions that the ancient church had to endure. Following the example of Decius, efforts were made to encourage Christians to abandon their faith.  Accustomed as there were to the relative ease of several decades, many Christians succumbed.  The rest were tortured with refined cruelty, and eventually killed in a variety of ways.’

Around 304AD, Diocletian and Maximian lost power.  The underlings, Galerius and Constantius Chlorus took charge.  They promoted two ‘inept creatures’ to become Caesars below them.

Soon the power sharing tactic began to weaken.  I saw a story in the news today that illustrates why the best laid plans don’t always go according to plan. 

‘West Virginia football coach Bill Stewart resigned and coach-in-waiting Dana Holgorsen will take over, the school confirmed Friday.

The parting ends a week-long saga that saw Stewart investigated for trying to undermine coach-in-waiting Dana Holgorsen.’  USA Today

The emperors began to undermine one another.  In what would be monumental for the future of Christianity, the son of Constantius Chlorus, Constantine began to attract a following.  With civil wars all over the empire, Constantine began to plotting to do battle against his foes.

Gonzalez:  ‘Constantine gathered his armies in Gaul, crossed the Alps and marched on Rome….According to two Christian chroniclers who knew Constantine, on the eve of the battle he had a revelation.  One of the sources, Lactantius, says that it was in a dream that Constantine received the command to place a Christian symbol on the shields of his soldiers.  The other chronicler, Eusebius, says that the vision appeared in the sky, with the words, ‘in this you shall conquer.’

Many think that Constantine had an instant conversion to Christianity.  But the evidence is that Constantine still worshipped the gods for some time after this.  His faith came like ours, over time.

Constantine facilitated the ‘Edict of Milan in 313 AD which put an end to Christian persecution in the Roman Empire.   As we will learn, after Constantine came to power, Christians would have access to power for the first time in its history.

Gonzalez:  ‘Whether this was in truth a victory, or the beginning of new and perhaps greater difficulties, will be the theme of many of the chapters to follow…What would happen when those who called themselves servants of a carpenter, and whose great heroes were fisherfolk, slaves, and criminals condemned to death by the state, suddenly saw themselves surrounded by imperial pomp and power?  Would they remain firm in their faith?  Or would it be that those who had stood before tortures and before beasts would give way to the temptation of an easy life and of social prestige?

‘Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men.’ John F. Kennedy

Source:  Justo L. Gonzalez from ‘The Story of Christianity, Volume 1, the Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation’

They'll know you by your love

Hydrangea in full splendor

Gonzalez reminds us that while we don't have church bulletins from second and third century church services, there is still enough information to get a good picture of early Christian worship.

It is clear that while we have learned about a few early scholars like Irenaeus, most early Christians were regular working folks who were not part of the power structures. Interesting too, is the tone of early worship services and that every week communion was served.  They must not have had to be done in under an hour! 

Gonzalez:  ‘Those early communion services did not focus their attention on Good Friday, but rather on Easter.  A new reality had dawned and Christians gathered to celebrate that dawning and to become participants in it.’

It is also interesting to note that the primary event around the early worship service was communion and not a sermon.  Preaching did not take hold until much later.  So what was a typical worship service like?

Gonzalez:  ‘The most remarkable characteristic of those early communion services was that they were celebrations.  The tone was one of joy and gratitude, rather than sorrow and repentance.’

The services would likely been hosted in somebody’s house.  They consisted generally of scripture readings, prayers and communion.  Folks didn’t have bibles back then, so a communal copy of the gospel letters or epistles would have been read to the congregation.  Participants would have passed each other a kiss of peace and then shared in the communion meal which would have consisted of what participants were able to bring.  The communion would have been bookended by prayers of thanksgiving.

Gonzalez notes that only those who had been baptized were allowed as full participants in the services.  We can see here also a place of division among Christians.  The Methodist church which I attend hosts open communion.  Many other traditions, especially Catholics are rigid in their service of the Lord’s Supper.

The Christian calendar has been another area of tense debate within the church.  Early on, we have noted that Christians treated each Sunday as Easter.  Friday was a day of penance and sorrow.  As to the actual date the resurrection was to be remembered, this too has often caused division in our history.  Another date causing division was Christmas.  Early on Christians celebrated Jesus’ birth on January 6^th.  Later, the western church changed this to December 25^th.

It is also interesting to note, the significance that early Christians placed on being ready to be baptized.  Participants in baptism had a long road to travel.

Gonzalez:  ‘…As the church became increasingly Gentile, it was necessary to require a period of preparation, trial and instruction prior to baptism.  This was the ‘catechumenate,’ which, by the beginning of the third century, lasted three years.  During this time, catechumens received instruction on Christian doctrine, and were to give signs in their daily lives of the depth of their conviction.’

I’m glad our church offers open communion but at the same time, I wonder if we are not too lenient in that some may infer that just showing up to church once in awhile is good enough.  What if the pastoral staff inspected our daily lives to determine our conviction?  Would we prove good enough?

"You don't think your way into a new kind of living. You live your way into a new kind of thinking." — Henri J.M. Nouwen

It was also during the second and third century that the structure and organization of the church started to take hold.    The main leadership positions were bishop, elder and deacon.  While we know from the New Testament that women were indeed leaders in some congregations, during the late second century the leadership of the church came to be dominated by men.

Gonzalez: ‘What actually seems to have taken place is that during the second century, in its efforts to combat heresy, the church centralized its authority, and a by-product of that process was that women were excluded from positions of leadership.

Still women played an important part in church life.  Widows were looked after by the church.   Many of these widows made vows to dedicate themselves fully to the care of the church and congregation as a result. 

Gonzalez:  ‘Eventually, this would give rise to feminine monasticism, which developed earlier than its masculine counterpart.’

Finally during the second and third centuries, there does not appear to have been a formal system for converting others to Christianity like the missionaries our churches support today. 

Gonzalez:  ‘…the fact remains that most converts were made by anonymous Christians who witness led others to their faith.’

"By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)

Source:  Justo L. Gonzalez from ‘The Story of Christianity, Volume 1, the Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation’

'jk,' Can I have my old seat back?

Butterfly bush

In the third century, Christians alternated from being left alone to being persecuted.  Some Romans emperors had more on their minds than worrying about religion, like keeping the barbarians at bay.  Other emperors like Decius thought the woes of the Empire were at hand because people were not worshipping the gods like they once did.

‘What has been is what will be,
   and what has been done is what will be done;
   there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said,
   ‘See, this is new’?
It has already been,
   in the ages before us.’ Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

It’s funny that even back then people went back to the old playbook when things weren’t going well.  Even non-bible people blamed bad luck on gods.

Gonzalez:  ‘To a traditional Roman such as Decius, it seemed obvious that one of the reasons for all this (trouble) was that the people had abandoned the ancient gods.  When all adored the gods, things went better, and the glory and power of Rome were on the increase.  By neglecting the gods, Rome had provoked their displeasure, and had been itself neglected by them.  Therefore, if Rome’s ancient glory was to be restored, it was necessary to restore also its ancient religion.  If all the subjects of the Empire would worship the gods, perhaps the gods would once again favor the Empire.’

For these reasons, Decius became aggressive towards Christians.  In 249AD, he changed the official religious policy.  It was now mandatory to worship the gods.

Gonzalez:  ‘Those who complied would be given a certificate attesting to the fact.  Those who did not have such a certificate would then be considered outlaws who had disobeyed the imperial command.’

Not good news for our brothers and sisters.   Some of our brothers caved and sacrificed to the gods to get their ticket stamped.  Others got fake papers.  And some remained firm in not worshipping Roman gods.

Gonzalez:  ‘What the authorities did was to arrest Christians and then, through a combination of promises, threats, and torture, to try to force them to abandon their faith…This was no longer a sporadic or local persecution, but one that was systematic and universal.’

While the brutal tactics of Decius only lasted a few years, it presented a big challenge for the church.  What was the church supposed to do with the people who lapsed?

Some in the church hierarchy thought that once the policies of Decius were set aside, those who had lapsed should be readmitted to the church at once.  Other folks saw this as a problem and did not think the lapsed should get back in so easily.  This is one of the first schisms of the church. How long should the apostates have to wait?  Should they have to pay?

Gonzalez:  ‘The significance of these episodes is that they show that the restoration of the lapsed was one of the main concerns of the Western church from a very early date.  The question of what should be done about those baptized Christians who sinned divided the Western church repeatedly.  It was out of this concern that the entire penitential system was developed.’

There is going to be a lot more about schisms as we read our history.  I think this is a historical issue worth reflecting on.  Who doesn’t know someone who left a church because they got their feelings hurt?  Who doesn’t know about a church that split up because of some big controversy? 

‘This would be the first step in apostasy; men first forget the true, and then adore the
false.’  Charles Spurgeon

What is remarkable to me is that it is understandable that one would cave under intense torture or persecution.  John McCain did in Vietnam and I probably would too. 

What folks were trying to do back then was preserve the church.  It had been under attack almost since the beginning against false accusations and false doctrine.  People were abandoning their faith instead of getting beaten and killed.   Today we fight and separate over not getting the right part in the Christmas play or over who gets to cook Wednesday night supper.  Wouldn’t a deeper understanding of the bible and our history put these silly squabbles in perspective?

Source:  Justo L. Gonzalez from ‘The Story of Christianity, Volume 1, the Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation’

Church History - Attacked from within and without

We have learned that the Roman Empire persecuted Christians during the second century.  The Romans held odd notions of what it meant to be Christian.  It was during this time that Christian thinkers began to develop arguments to dispel false notions of the faith.  These defenders were known as apologists.

Gonzalez:  ‘Many of the rumors that the apologists sought to dispel were based on a misunderstanding of Christian practices or teaching.  Thus, for instance, Christians gathered every week to celebrate what they called a ‘love feast.’  This was done in private, and only initiates (those who had been baptized) were admitted.’

Christians also called each other brother and sister.  These practices led unadvised Romans to make all kinds of wild assumptions about what Christians were doing behind closed doors.  Christians were accused of having wild sex crazed parties, eating flesh of newborn children and all kinds of nonsense.

The smart Romans could not get their arms around Christian beliefs.

Gonzalez:  ‘Although it attacked Christianity on numerous accounts, this criticism boiled down to a main point:  Christians were an ignorant lot whose doctrines, although preached under a cloak of wisdom, were foolish and even self-contradictory.  This seems to have been a common attitude among the cultured aristocracy, for whom Christians were a despicable rabble.’

A Roman guy named Celsus provided a glimpse of Roman elite thought process towards Christians:

‘In some private homes we find people who work with wood and rags, and cobblers, that is, the least cultured and most ignorant kind.  Before the head of the household, they dare not utter a word.  But as soon as they can take the children aside or some women who are as ignorant as they are, they speak wonders.’

Gonzalez notes that this sounds an awful lot like class warfare.  “Their main objection was that Christianity was a religion of barbarians who derived their teaching, not from the Greeks or Romans, but from Jews, a primitive people who best teachers never rose to the level of Greek philosophers.  If anything good is to be found in Jewish Scripture-they said-that is because the Jews copied it from the Greeks.’

These antagonistic Roman views ridiculed what Christians believed.  They mused, how can one worship an all powerful God who worries about each person and who came down to earth in person only to suffer death on the cross, only then to be resurrected?  The Romans did not think this made any sense at all.

Celsus:  ‘What could be the purpose of such a visit to earth by God?  To find out what is taking place among humans?  Does He not know everything?  Or is it perhaps that He knows but is incapable of doing anything about evil unless He does it in person?

That Christians will be resurrected after death and that Christ will come again to judge every person were just plain nonsense to the Romans.

Well fortunately Christians were not all cobblers.  We had a few thinkers too.

Aristides, Justin the martyr, Titian, and Theophilus were some of the early Christian writers who came to the defense of Christian faith during the second century.  These guys began the process of developing the theology of the church.

Gonzalez:  ‘By reading all these apologies, historians can see what were the main objections that pagans raised against Christianity, as well as the manner in which the most cultured members of the church responded to them, and how Christian theology developed in the very act of responding to pagan objections.’

Our main boys back then had to stand firm against worshipping other gods.  This would not do.  They also thought that serving in the Roman military and worshiping the emperor were equally bad ideas. 

Gonzalez:  ‘To be a Christian required a commitment to the sole worship of God, and any deviation from that commitment was a denial of Jesus Christ, who in final judgment would in turn deny the apostate.’

One apologist named Tatian main some pretty strong arguments against those who said that the Greeks created everything that was worth knowing and that all Christians were barbarians.

Gonzalez:  ‘All that the Greeks have that is of any value-so said Tatian-they have taken from the barbarians:  they learned astronomy from the Babylonians, geometry from the Egyptians, and writing from the Phoenicians.    And the same is true of philosophy and religion, since the writings of Moses are much older than those of Plato, and even than those of Homer.  Therefore, any agreement between that culture which is supposedly Greek and the religion of the Hebrew and Christian ‘barbarians’ is the result of the Greeks having learned their wisdom from the barbarians.  And what makes matters worse is that the Greeks, in reading the wisdom of the ‘barbarians,’ misunderstood it, and thus twisted the truth that the Hebrews knew.  In consequence, the supposed wisdom of the Greeks is but a pale reflection and caricature of the truth that Moses knew and Christians preach.’

If it were not bad enough that the Romans dissed Christians during the second century, there were people inside the church that got the Christian message all mixed up as well.

The first groups of these were known as Gnostics.  These guys put forth the notion that they had the inside scoop on what Christianity really meant.

Gonzalez:  ‘According to the Gnostics, they possessed special, mystical knowledge, reserved for those with true understanding.  That knowledge was the secret key to salvation…Gnostics rejected the notion that Christ had a body like ours.’

‘Gnosticism was a serious threat to Christianity throughout the second century.  The main leaders of the church tenaciously opposed it, for they saw in it a denial of several crucial Christian doctrines, such as creation, incarnation, and resurrection.’

There was also a guy named Marcion who distorted the Christian message.  Marcion did what Thomas Jefferson would do centuries later; he left out parts of the bible he did not like. 

Marcion did not use Hebrew Scriptures.  At the time, there was no New Testament.  But there were all four gospels in circulation as well as Acts and the Pauline Epistles.  Maricon used only the texts that suited his beliefs.

Marcion ideology then:

Gonzalez:  ‘This God requires nothing of us, but rather gives everything freely, including salvation.  This God does not seek to be obeyed, but to be loved….Jesus was not really born of Mary…at the end there will be no judgment, since the Supreme God is absolutely loving, and will simply forgive us.’

Marcion attracted a following and established his own version of the bible and church that rivaled the Orthodox Church for several centuries.

The ideas put forth by Gnostics and Marcion can be seen in hindsight as being off the mark by modern Christians.  But I wonder if this is really the case.  It seems to me that for all of history people have been trying to make ‘God’ in the image that suits them.  Today, we have plenty of people who think they have secret insight to the truth.  Others celebrate the Prosperity Gospel which is so popular because it is so undemanding and wants everybody to ‘be happy.’

For all its failings, which will be many in the years to come, it is really the second century leaders of the church that kept the Christian faith from falling into the abyss and being swallowed up by any old idea that came along.  This is pivotal in mind in showing the work of the Holy Spirit in looking after her frail church.

In response to the dangers posed by the Gnostics and the Marcions, church leaders began to emerge that drafted dogma that would guide the church through these turbulent times.  Many often think the bible and the church were conspiracies that were crafted by those trying to protect their power positions.  But in truth the church was born in weakness and persecution and false ideas all around.  It was a few dedicated and faithful followers that prevailed in the arena of Christian ideas.

These early leaders crafted the New Testament canon.  They included four gospels where Marcion only liked Luke.  In later centuries, people pointed out inconsistencies between gospel texts.  But the early Christians already knew this. 

Gonzalez:  ‘They did this as a direct response to the challenge of Maricon and Gnosticism.  Many Gnostic teachers claimed that the heavenly messenger had trusted his secret knowledge to a particular disciple, who alone was the true interpreter of the message….Against the secret traditions and private interpretations of the Gnostics, the church had recourse to an open tradition, known to all, and to the multiplicity of witness of the Gospels….Next to the Gospels, the book of Acts and the Pauline epistles enjoyed early recognition.  Thus, by the end of the second century, the core of the canon was established:  the four Gospels, Acts and the Pauline epistles.’

We also learn that our second century church fathers established belief statements to combat the heretical teachings of the Gnostics and the Marcions.  Gonzalez says the basic outline of the Apostles Creed was in place by about 150 A.D.   

Gonzalez:  ‘It was then called a ‘symbol of faith’…one of the main uses of this ‘symbol’ was in baptism, where it was presented to the candidate in the form of a series of questions:

Do you believe in God the Father almighty?

Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Ghost, and of Mary the virgin, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose against at the third day, living from among the dead, and ascended unto heaven and sat at the right of the Father, and will come to judge the quick and the dead?

Do you believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy church, and the resurrection of the flesh?’

These questions later became the Apostles Creed and they were written in direct response to groups that tried to morph the Christian faith into something that it was not.

It is also interesting that the term holy church was listed as something to be believed in.  It is at this point in history that the church begins to establish herself as an entity of authority.  The term catholic church originally meant the ‘universal church.’  It is only later that it will come to mean anything to do with Apostle Peter.

Gonzalez:  ‘Over against Marcion and Gnostics, the church at large claimed to be in possession of the original gospel and the true teachings of Jesus.  Thus, what was debated was in a way the authority of the church against the claims of the heretics….at this point; the notion of apostolic succession became very important.’

The early church fathers were in fact taught the gospel by the disciples.  When they heard false teachings they knew it and put forth arguments that saved the church.

Church History - 'Nero fiddled while Rome burned'

Popular Tree Tulip

In bible times, people died for their faith.  Christ, Stephen and James were all killed for their beliefs.  At first, it was mostly the Jews that perpetrated these acts because they felt their religion was being hijacked.  We can see ambivalence by the ruling power of Rome during the crucifixion of Christ.  Pilate tried to hand over the criminal Barnabas to the mob but they would have none of it.  For the first few generations following Christ, Rome saw the squabble between Christians and Jews as a matter between rival groups and stayed out of the fray.  But mid way through the first century this attitude changed. 

It changed when Nero came to power in 54 A.D.  At first he was a nice guy interested in the arts.  But,

Gonzalez:  ‘Ten years after his accession to the throne, he was despised by the people as well as by the poets and artists, who were offended by the emperor’s claim that he was one of them.  Soon after the rumor began circulating that he was mad.’

In 64 A.D. a great fire broke out in Rome.  Large sections of the city were burned down over about a two week period.  During the fire, Nero is said to have taken up station on a rooftop and played music, danced and sang while the devastation unfolded.  As bad luck would have it, two of the districts not burned were predominantly Christian areas.

Since Nero was not well liked and because people observed his behavior during the fire, the word started to circulate that Nero started the fires to entertain himself.  These rumors persisted and the only way Nero could think to stop this talk was to blame the Christians for starting the fire.  A Roman historian captures the moment.

Gonzalez:  ‘Tacitus tells the story….In spite over every human effort, of the emperor’s largesse, and of sacrifices made to the gods, nothing sufficed to allay suspicion nor to destroy the opinion that the fire had been ordered.  Therefore, in order to destroy this rumor, Nero blamed the Christians, who are hated for their abominations, and punished them with refined cruelty.  Christ, from whom they take their name, was executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.  Stopped for a moment, this evil superstition reappeared, not only in Judea, where was the root of the evil, but also in Rome, where all things sordid and abominable from every corner of the world come together.  Thus, first those who confessed [that they were Christians] were arrested, and on the basis of their testimony a great number were condemned, although not so much for the fire itself as for their hatred of humankind.’

‘These words from Tacitus are of great value, for they are one of the most ancient extant indications of how pagans viewed Christians.’

It’s interesting that Tacitus thinks the emperor started the fire but he still had great disdain for Christians.

Gonzalez:  ‘This last charge makes sense if one remembers that all social activities-the theatre, the army, letters, sports-were so entwined with pagan worship that Christians often felt the need to abstain from them.  Therefore, to the eyes of a Roman such as Tacitus, who loved his culture and society, Christians appeared as haters of humankind.’

‘Tacitus goes on:  Before killing the Christians, Nero used them to amuse the people.  Some were dressed in furs, to be killed by dogs.  Others were crucified.  Still others were set on fire early in the night, so that they might illumine it.’

There are not many Christian names to associate with the Nero persecutions.  But Gonzalez says that it was ‘very likely that both Peter and Paul were among the Neronian martyrs’.’  It was under false pretenses that Christians first started being persecuted.  Soon it became so just because they were Christians.

Nero committed suicide in 68 A.D.  After a few failed administrations, Domitian became emperor in 81 A.D.

He passed laws banning Judaism.  In the Roman mind, a Jew and a Christian were the same thing so Christians started being persecuted again.  It was during the persecutions of Domitian that the book of Revelation was written. 

Gonzalez:  In the midst of persecution, Revelation displays a much more negative attitude towards Rome than the rest of the New Testament.

‘‘Come, I will show you the judgment of the great whore who is seated on many waters…And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus.’  Revelation 17:1,6

Domitian lasted until about 96 A.D. when he was assassinated.   

During the second century, a little provincial dictator named Pliny began renewed enforcement of the ban on Christianity. 

Gonzalez:  ‘The governor had the accused brought before him, and thus began learning of the beliefs and practices of Christians.  Many declared that they were not Christians, and others said that, although they had followed the new faith for a time, they had abandoned it.  Of those Pliny required only that they pray to the gods, burn incense before the image of the emperor, and curse Christ, something they he had heard true Christians would never do.  Once they performed these rites, he simply let them go.’

Pliny wrote to the emperor Trajan and asked for clarification of the policy towards Christians.  Basically the emperor said the edict should stand.  He told Pliny not go out of your way to chase down the Christians, but if they are brought to your attention and they refuse to renounce their faith, they should be punished.

In spite of these adverse conditions, some stayed faithful like Ignatius of Antioch. 

Gonzalez:  ‘About A.D. 107, the elderly bishop of Antioch, Ignatius, was condemned to death by imperial authorities…Ignatius was sent to the capital so that his death would help amuse the people.  On his way to martyrdom, he wrote seven letters that are among the most valuable for our knowledge of early Christianity.’ (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html#P1093_206499)

Half way through the second century the edict against Christians was still in effect.  Germanicus and Polycarp were martyred.  In his famous refusal to renounce his faith before the court who tried him, Polycarp replied, ‘For eighty-six years I have served him, and he has done me no evil, how could I curse my king, who saved me?’

When told he would be burned alive, Polycarp said ‘the fire that the judge could light would only last a moment, whereas the eternal fire would never go out.’

As Polycarp burned at the stake he prayed:

 ‘Lord Sovereign Lord…I thank you that you have deemed me worthy of this moment, so that, jointly with your martyrs, I may have a share in the cup of Christ…For this…I bless and glorify you.  Amen.’

Because some people chose to renounce their faith and others did not, early Christians began to develop certain beliefs about martyrdom.

Gonzalez: ‘...early Christians who believed that martyrdom was not something that one chose, but something for which one was chosen by God.  Those who were so chosen were strengthened by Christ, who suffered with them, and for that reason were able to stand firm.’

Not all the emperors of Rome were Nero types.  Some were well educated and thoughtful men like Marcus Aurelius who took power in 161 A.D.  Aurelius once wrote the following:

‘Think constantly, both as a Roman and as a man, to do the task before you with perfect and simple dignity, and with kindness, freedom, and justice.  Try to forget everything else.  And you will be able to do so if you undertake every action in your life as if it were your last, leaving aside all negligence and the opposition of passion to the dictates of reason, and leaving aside also hypocrisy, egotism, and rebelliousness against your own lot.’

And yet for all his refinement, Aurelius still persecuted Christians.

We learn from our bible that human beings are broken.  Without the one true God in our life, we use the talent God gave us to protect our own interests.  We learn from history that Nero, Pliny, and Aurelius are just early examples of those who trusted only in themselves.

I think there is a huge point to be made here.  Later Christians will do the same things to other people that the Roman Emperors did to Christians.  Why are some Christians more like Ignatius and Polycarp while others are more like Pliny and Aurelius?   Brokenness and Suffering?

Questions we might reflect on:

-Why did Nero care one way or the other about Christian worship?

-Where do we see Pliny and Aurelius in ourselves?

-How can one have a biblical worldview and still be wrong?

Source:  Justo L. Gonzalez from ‘The Story of Christianity, Volume 1, the Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation’

Church History - What happened to the Apostles?

Easter Rose

I think the mark of a good historian is that he is not in the tank for the subject about which he writes.  Justo Gonzalez then in my view is a good historian.  He has spent a good deal of his life devoted to reading and writing about church history.

Gonzalez:  ‘I first met Irenaeus, Athanasius, and the rest, and as I have read their writings and pondered their thoughts and deeds, they have accompanied me through the many turns and twists of life.’

As dedicated as Gonzalez is to church history, he gives the best information available and then draws conclusions that may be unpopular for those who want only the best light possible shed on their history.

Gonzalez:  ‘Like contemporary friends, they have often been a joy, at other times a puzzlement, and even sometimes an aggravation.’

This is important because as we move away from information recorded in the bible some of the history we encounter may be different than what we thought we knew or different that what we wish it was.

We left off in our last post discussing the culture into which the Christian church was born.  We get a glimpse of what happened from the book of Acts in the bible.  The first Christians of course were the Apostles who were Hebrew Jews (James and Peter were the leaders.) 

The second group of Christians we learn about in Acts was the Greek Jews.  These were Jews who had become Hellenized if you will. 

These two groups were still Jews and tried to evangelize at the temple in Jerusalem about the risen Christ.  After a Greek Jew Stephen was stoned to death we learned that Jerusalem would not be the place where Christianity would take root. 

Gonzalez:  ‘By its ninth chapter, Acts becomes increasingly interested in Paul, and we less and less about the church in Jerusalem.  What was happening was that the ‘Hellenistic’ Jewish Christians were serving as a bridge to the Gentile world, and that Gentiles were joining the church in such numbers that they soon overshadowed the earlier Jewish Christian community.’

In Jerusalem, Peter, James and the others who remained were constantly harassed by authorities.  Some of them were killed.   In 70 AD Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and the temple.  Around this time, the church in Jerusalem was moved to the desert city of Pella.  There is not much information about this community. 

Most of what we know about the early spread of the church comes from the letters in the New Testament written by Paul.  But it was not only Paul who spread Christianity.

Gonzalez:  ‘Although the New Testament speaks a great deal of Paul and his journeys, there were many others preaching in various regions.  Barnabas and Mark went to Cyprus.  The Alexandrine Jew Apollos preached in Ephesus and Corinth.  And Paul himself, after complaining that some preach Christ from envy and rivalry, ‘rejoices that by all these Christ is proclaimed.’  Philippians 1:18

Gonzalez:  ‘This missionary task itself was undertaken, not only by Paul and others whose names are known-Barnabas, Mark, et al.- but also by countless and nameless Christians who went from place to place taking with them their faith and their witness.’

So what happened to the original Apostles of Christ?  The ones weren’t killed probably fled to the desert.  A few of them certainly went to other places.  As time passed, some of the newly formed Christian communities began to tell stories about the Apostles.

Gonzalez:  ‘From an early date, traditions began to appear claiming that one or another of the them had preached in a particular region, or had suffered martyrdom in one way or another.  Most of these traditions are not more that the result of the desire of a church in a particular city to claim an apostolic origin.  Others are worthy of credit.’

Peter was most certainly in Rome and died a gruesome death there.  There is a cryptic reference to his death at the end of the Gospel of John.

“Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glory God.  John 20:19

We don’t even know what end befell Paul.  He was left in house arrest in Rome when the book of Acts ends.

What happened to John is more complicated because it was a popular name (and a good one I might add).  The book of Revelation tells of its author John who was exiled on the island of Patmos.  There is another story about a John who was a great teacher in Ephesus who died around 100 A.D.

Stories that circulated about the Apostles after 100 A.D. just don’t have much basis.

Gonzalez:  ‘Late in the second century, a development took place that greatly hinders the task of a historian who seeks to discern the later career of the apostles.  What happened was that after the churches in every important city began claiming apostolic origins.’

For example, Mark was said to have started the church in Alexandria.  The church in Constantinople felt it had to gain credibility so it claimed Philip had started its church.

But there are a few places like Spain and India where it is credible that James and Peter visited.

Gonzalez:  ‘In conclusion, it is certain that some of the apostles-particularly Peter, John, and Paul-did travel proclaiming the Gospel and supervising the churches that had been founded…but most of the traditions regarding apostolic travels date from a later period….In truth, most of the missionary work was not carried out by the apostles, but rather by the countless and nameless Christians who for different reasons-persecution, business, or missionary calling-traveled from place to place taking the news of the Gospel with them.’

‘Our true history is scarcely ever deciphered by others. The chief part of the drama is a monologue, or rather an intimate debate between God, our conscience, and ourselves. Tears, grieves, depressions, disappointments, irritations, good and evil thoughts, decisions, uncertainties, deliberations --all these belong to our secret, and are almost all incommunicable and intransmissible, even when we try to speak of them, and even when we write them down.’ Henri Fredric Amiel

When we think about the roots of the church, we might ask ourselves if it matters how a particular church was founded.  Is it still a true church if it was not founded by an apostle?  As the years unfold, we will see division after division within the church.  It must be made clear at every turn that some churches did well and some did not.  I think we can tell the difference between a legend a particular church held on to for fondness sake but which still did the work of the Gospel and other churches that used the authority of the church to seek advantage over others.

As Ameil suggests, digging in to our history is about much more that facts.  We are challenged with the Gospel message using it as a guide to see where its promoters had it right and where others had it wrong.  And certainly more deeply where we have it right or wrong in our thinking today.

 
Source:  Justo L. Gonzalez from ‘The Story of Christianity, Volume 1, the Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation’

Church History - If you can't beat them, join them?

American Fringe Tree

“There are only two or three human stories, and they go on repeating themselves as fiercely as if they had never happened before.”  Willa Cather

The land of Palestine where the bible writers lived has been embroiled in turmoil seemingly since the beginning of time.

Gonzalez:  ‘As we read the Old Testament, we see that, as enemies came and went, they cast a covetous eye on that narrow strip of land; for this reason, its inhabitants repeatedly suffered invasion, bondage, and exile.’

There were lots of pesky enemies of the Israelites in bible times.  Some ‘ite’ or another was always jabbing at them for territorial control.  Their two major foes were the Assyrians and the Babylonians.  The latter destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.  The Persians came to power after the Babylonians and allowed some Jewish independence in religious matters including rebuilding of the temple.

There is a gap of about 400 years from the end of the Hebrew Scriptures to the first of Paul’s letters in the New Testament (350 B.C – 50 A.D.).  During this period, Alexander the Great used his massive armies to defeat King Darius III of Persia.  Alexander brought Greek culture to the region.  The Greek culture of that era was historically termed Hellenization.  Why was Hellenization such a big deal?

If we go way back in the bible to God beckoning Abraham, we remember that God called a people out of the mainstream society where you could believe anything you wanted and worship anything you wanted.  God said in effect to Abraham ‘I am the one who created the world; stop worshipping images on sticks; seek justice and mercy; strive to be holy like me.’

Abraham started the movement of a people then that believed in one creator and providential God.  Seemingly though at every turn, bible people still got involved with the ideas of the day and worshiped things other than God.  This problem of wanting to fit in with other cultures and ideas was made almost impossible to resist when the Assyrians destroyed the Northern tribes of Israel.  The smart or good looking Jews who weren’t killed were shipped off the live in other Assyrians cities.  The same thing happened when the Babylonians destroyed the Southern tribe and Jerusalem.  It was only the Persians who allowed the Jews to come back to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.  When this happened, some who went back like Nehemiah held prominent positions in the Persian government:

‘At the time, I was cupbearer to the king. In the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was served to him, I carried the wine and gave it to the king.’ Nehemiah 1:11-2:1

When the Greeks came to power, it was no different with them than with the other conquerors.  If you wanted to fit in you started to speak Greek.  If you wanted to get a good job, you learned to speak kindly of the philosophers.  If you wanted your children to marry well and get in to the best schools you went along with ideas about other gods.  This is really what Hellenization means to me. 

Gonzalez:  ‘In a way, the history of Palestine from the time of Alexander’s conquest to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 may be seen as the constant struggle between Hellenizing pressures on the one hand and Jewish faithfulness to their God and their traditions on the other.’

After the Romans routed the Greeks, there was a period of order and some autonomy for the Jews and early Christians.  But it did not stay that way for long.  The Romans liked many of the Greek ideas and thought they would implement some of them in provinces like Palestine.

Gonzalez:  ‘Herod made an effort to Hellenize the country, and had temples built in Samaria and Caesarea in honor of Roma and Augustus.  But when he dared to place a Roman eagle at the entrance of the Temple there was an uprising, which he suppressed by force.’

The Jews tired in various ways to get along with the conquering armies.  The Zealots, the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes all developed differing ideas of the Jewish faith.  But they were always fighting the idea in the ruling culture that there was more than one God. 

Gonzalez:  ‘…monotheism means there is only one God, and that this God requires, just as much as proper worship, proper relationships among human beings.  These various parties might disagree as to the exact shape of such relationship, but they all agreed on the need to honor the only God with the whole of life….All…firmly believed that the day would come when God would intervene in order to restore Israel and fulfill the promise of a Kingdom of peace and justice.’

There were attempts by some like Philo of Alexandria to suggest that the moral teachings of the Hebrews Scriptures were no different than those presented by the Greek philosophers.   

This was a lie then and it’s a lie still today.  We can’t reason things out.  We can’t on the hand have this idea that there is God but on the other hand still do whatever we want

There is only one way and that is stated early in the bible:

Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart. Recite them to your children and talk about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. Bind them as a sign on your hand, fix them as an emblem on your forehead, and write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. Deut 6:4-9

Might Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford or Tiger Woods have fared better if they had marked their foreheads accordingly?

Where are commanded early in the bible; in the end we are warned:

‘I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth. For you say, “I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.” You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.’  Revelation 3:15-17

We can summarize by saying that during the early Christian church Greek culture and strong Roman governments were synthesized into the worldview of the day.  When the Christian movement got underway in earnest, in some ways, the efficiency and order created by the Roman government were favorable to the spread of Christianity.

Gonzalez:  ‘But other aspects of those circumstances were a threat and a challenge to the early Christians.  In order to achieve greater unity, imperial policy sought religious uniformity by following two routes:  religious syncretism-the indiscriminate mixing of elements from various religions-and emperor worship.’

The Romans built the Pantheon which was a temple to hold all the gods.  Every time someone came up with a new god, an artist carved out an image and shipped it to the Pantheon.  If you wanted to fit in, you might pick the newest god to call your own. 

Gonzalez:  ‘In that atmosphere, Jews and Christians were seen as unbending fanatics who insisted on worshiping of their one God-an alien cyst that must be removed for the good of society.’

Questions we might reflect on:

-Would we have had the courage back in the day to be a part of a group that was considered an alien cyst by the mainstream society?

- In many ways, Hellenization was troubling to early Christians.  What aspects of Americanization trouble us today?  Does our best work get exported around the world?  (E.g. Lady Gaga, Just do it, grab some buds, and vitriol politics) Does anything shock us anymore? 

Source:  Justo L. Gonzalez from ‘The Story of Christianity, Volume 1, the Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation’