Church History 12 – Eusebius of Caesarea (263AD – 339AD)

Butterfly Bush

The big idea this week is how the church began to change after Constantine came to power.  Surviving documents seem to indicate that the church thought more highly than it ought of Constantine.   Below is an excerpt from Eusebius of Caesarea’s ‘Church History:'

‘But Constantine, the mightiest victor, adorned with every virtue of piety, together with his son Crispus, a most God-beloved prince, and in all respects like his father, recovered the East which belonged to them; and they formed one united Roman empire as of old, bringing under their peaceful sway the whole world from the rising of the sun to the opposite quarter, both north and south, even to the extremities of the declining day.  All fear therefore of those who had formerly afflicted them was taken away from men, and they celebrated splendid and festive days. Everything was filled with light, and those who before were downcast beheld each other with smiling faces and beaming eyes. With dances and hymns, in city and country, they glorified first of all God the universal King, because they had been thus taught, and then the pious emperor with his God-beloved children.’

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.toc.html

It was Eusebius and his teachers who wrote down the history of the early church.

Gonzalez:  ‘Without it, a great deal of the story that we have been telling would have been lost.  It was Eusebius who collected, organized, and published practically all that is now known of many persons and episodes in the life of the early church.’

But it is not so simple to judge Eusebius.  Consider the quote above from his ‘Church History.’  The lens with which he viewed the world was scarred.  Persecutions and church burnings were the norm heretofore.  When Constantine came to power Eusebius’ worldview changed.

Gonzalez:  ‘From the point of view of Eusebius and his surviving companions, what was taking place was a direct intervention by God, something similar to the events of the Exodus…Constantine, and he alone, remained as God’s chosen instrument.’

I am reminded of how it must have felt for many black people in this country when Barrack Obama was elected President of the United States.   I sat next to a beautiful young black woman on a flight from somewhere near the end of the campaign.  While I did not support Obama’s political views, I was struck by how meaningful his election would be to this woman. 

From time to time, I have caught glimpses of what is must be like to be black in this country.  While things are much better than the 1960’s racism still exists.  I have seen black men pulled over by the police who in my view did not deserve to be pulled over.

 All this to say, that the lens with which many people view Barrack Obama is shaped by how they have been treated in history is the same in my view as how Eusebius viewed Constantine’s rise to power.

Gonzalez goes on to say that since Eusebius viewed Constantine as an instrument of God, ‘he did not hesitate to support the emperor.’

In his thinking and writing, Eusebius certainly had an agenda.  He did not simply seek to state the facts of history. 

Gonzalez:  ‘What Eusebius then did was to bring together these various ideas, showing them at working in the verifiable facts of the history of both the church and the Empire.  This history that thus resulted was no mere collection of data of antiquarian interest, but rather a further demonstration of the truth of Christianity, which is the culmination of human history.’

Gonzalez:  ‘He seems to have been aware of some of Constantine’s shortcomings, especially his irascible and sometimes even bloodthirsty temperament.  But in order not to weaken his argument, Eusebius simply remains silent about such things.’

And so we are reminded of these things to see how according to Gonzalez ‘Christian theology was being shaped by the new circumstances, even to the point of abandoning some of its traditional themes.’

Gonzalez gives three examples to show this line of thinking.

‘First of all, it is clear that, in the New Testament…it was affirmed that the Gospel was first of all good news to the poor, and that the rich had particular difficulty in hearing it and receiving it….But now beginning with Constantine, riches and pomp came to be seen as signs of divine favor.

Eusebius described with great joy and pride the ornate churches that were being built.  But the net result of those buildings, and of the liturgy that evolved to fit them, was the development of a clerical aristocracy.

Finally, the scheme of history that Eusebius  developed led him to set aside the fundamental theme of early Christian preaching:  the coming of the Kingdom of God…there was a tendency to set aside or to postpone the hope of the early church, that its Lord would return in the clouds to establish a Kingdom of peace and justice.’

There was a giddy feeling among Christians during the early years of Constantine’s rule.  Gonzalez says, ‘Eusebius is not the creator of what we have called ‘official theology,’ but rather the mouthpiece of the thousands of Christians, who like him, were overawed by God’s mercy in finally delivering the church from persecution.’

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

Church History 11 – 'Opportunity and Danger'

Purple Cone Flower

If we recall, early converts to Christianity were rigorously prepared sometimes taking three years of study before being allowed full participation in communion.  Moreover, a life application test was applied.  In other words, one was tested to see if one acted like a Christian when one wasn't in church.   These same standards didn’t apply to Constantine. 

After his vision at Milvian Bridge, where he said he believed the Christian God spoke to him, Constantine didn’t receive the direct tutelage ordinary converts would have gotten.  He sort of played both ends against the middle.

On the one hand, he brought images of gods into the new capitol of Constantinople.  He did this to appease the old guard.  Perhaps, even like us, he had a hard time letting go of his own image of God.  On the other hand, he clearly had a hand in the development of the church.

Gonzalez:  ‘Constantine reserved the right to determine his own religious practices and even to intervene in the life of the church, for he considered himself ‘bishop of bishops.’  Repeatedly, even after his conversion, he took part in pagan rites in which no Christian would participate, and the bishops raised no voice of condemnation….The reason for this was not only that the emperor was both powerful and irascible, but also that, in spite of his policies favoring Christianity, and his repeated confession of the power of Christ, he was not technically a Christian, for he had not been baptized.  In fact, it was only on his deathbed that he was baptized.’

‘Such a person could receive the advice and even the support of the church, but not its direction.’

Does this sound like us in many ways?  Is this the point in history that the purity of the early church was lost forever?

To move forward with our story, Gonzalez states that Constantine though ‘cannot be seen as a mere opportunist who declared himself in favor of Christianity in order to court the support of Christians.’

Christians in fact had nothing to offer Constantine in terms of helping him.  We know that the early Christians subsisted predominately from the bottom of the economic totem pole.  They didn't hold high government positions and didn't have military leaders among them.

Gonzalez:  ‘The truth is probably that Constantine was a sincere believer in the power of Christ.  But this does not mean that he understood that power in the same way in which it had been experienced by those Christians who had died for it.  For him, the Christian God was a very powerful being who would support him as long as he favored the faithful.  Therefore,, when Constantine enacted laws in favor of Christianity, and when he had churches built, what he sought was not the goodwill of Christians, but rather the goodwill of their God.’

Constantine was not an immediate convert but it does appear he began to leave behind the pagan ways as he became more familiar with Christian ways.  Still he presided over festivals and high days associated with the pagan gods for some time.

Even though he allowed the worship of pagan gods to continue, Constantine had an enormous impact on Christianity.  The most obvious impact was the cessation of persecution.  But not all of the imperial support was for the betterment of the faith.  During this early period of favor, many Christians sought to capitalize on the idea that God was on the side of Constantinople now.  A church state if you will.

Gonzalez:  ‘Others took the opposite tack.  For them, the fact that the emperors declared themselves Christians, and that for this reason people were flocking to the church, was not a blessing, but rather a great apostasy.  Some who tended to look at matters under this light, but did not wish to break communion with the rest of the church, withdrew to the desert, there to lead a life of meditation and asceticism.’

Still, there were a number of Christians who tried to remain mainstream faithful.  They did not fall hook, line and sinker for all things imperial.  Nor did they feel it necessary to ditch the church and head to the desert.  These folks had to stay and do battle with ideas.  It seems that every time in history when there was relative peace for Christians, some group or another came along to distort the original teachings.  This period was no different.  This time it was Arianism.  Arianism was essentially false doctrine about the Trinity…more on this to follow in latter posts.

Another big change for the church was that big churches began to be built.  Thus the nature of the worship service began to change.

Gonzalez: ‘Christian worship began to be influenced by imperial protocol.  Incense, which was used as a sign of respect for the emperor, began appearing in Christian churches.  Officiating ministers, who until then had worm everyday clothes, began dressing in more luxurious garments….the custom was also introduced of beginning services with a procession.  Choirs were developed…the congregation came to have a less active role in worship.’

Gonzalez summarizes this time for Christian leaders as a time of opportunity and a time of danger.  ‘Since both danger and opportunity were great, these leaders faced a difficult task.  Perhaps not all their decisions and attitudes were correct; but in any case, this was an age of giants who would shape the church for centuries to come.’

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

Church History 10 – Constantine Bests His Rival

Canna and Day Lilly

‘Ambition often puts Men upon doing the meanest offices; so climbing is performed in the same position with creeping.’ A. C. Benson

Constantine didn’t just win the battle at Milvian Bridge and was suddenly crowned as sole emperor over the Roman Empire.  But with the battle won, he controlled the west.  Eventually, Licinius gained sole control in the east.  Game on.   Constantine made some moves.

Gonzalez:  ‘Constantine offered his half-sister Constance in marriage to Licinius, and he may also have made a secret agreement with his future brother-in-law.  This would seem to cover his flank….The Empire was then divided between Licinius, who ruled over the entire area east of Italy, including Egypt, and Constantine, who controlled Italy as well as Western Europe and North Africa.  Since the two emperors were related by marriage, there was hope that the civil wars had come to an end.  But the truth was that both Licinius and Constantine sought to rule the whole Empire, which, in spire of its vastness, was too small for both of them.  For awhile, each of the two rivals devoted himself to consolidate his power and to prepare for the inevitable conflict.’

Constantine and Licinius barbed back and forth for many years.  In 314AD, Constantine won a big battle against Licinius garnering more territory.  The main reason the two guys didn’t get along was ambition according to Gonzalez.  Apparently, Constantine had more ambition and more savvy because in 322AD he finally defeated Licinius and became the sole Roman Emperor.

I am struck by some similarities between the lives of Constantine and King Solomon of the Hebrew Scriptures.  Once Solomon was named King, he had his rival Adonijah killed.  It is conspicuous that even after Constantine had defeated Licinius in battle and his sister Constance pleaded for her husband’s life, Licinius was murdered.

‘Ambition breaks the ties of blood, and forgets the obligations of gratitude.’ Sallust

Constantine at once went on a building spree like King Solomon.  Constantine decided to make a new capitol of the Roman Empire. 

Gonzalez:  ‘Now, as absolute master of the Empire, he set out on a bold course; he would build a ‘New Rome’ an impregnable and monumental city, which would be called Constantinople- that is, ‘city of Constantine.’

Constantine diverted resources from everywhere in the empire to build the ‘New Rome.’

‘King Solomon conscripted forced labor out of all Israel...at the king’s command; they quarried out great, costly stones in order to lay the foundation of the house with dressed stones.’  1 Kings 5:13, 17

Gonzalez: ‘Years later, Jerome would say that Constantinople was dressed in the nakedness of the rest of the Empire.  A number of statues of pagan gods were taken from their ancient temples and placed in such public places as the hippodrome, the public baths, or the squares.

On of the most ornate items was a statue chiseled by Phidias that stood over 125 tall.  Originally this statue was of Apollo but it was reconfigured so that the head was now in Constantine’s likeness.

‘In the fourth year the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid…He was seven years in building it….Solomon was building his own house thirteen years.   1 Kings 6:37 – 7:1

For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart after other gods.’ 1 Kings 11:4

Not long after Constantine settled on the ‘New Rome’ the old one was sacked by barbarians.  The ‘New Rome’ and territories under Constantine became known as the Byzantine Empire and was a world power broker for 1000 years.

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

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.