The Early Church: A Dynamic, Progressive, Organic Community?

 As I mentioned in my last post (something I’m sure many of you know), there is a huge movement in the broader American/Western church which rejects all church authority.  The Jesus-figure in The Shack clearly hints that office and authority structure in the church get in the way of one’s relationship with himself.  Evangelical church-goers also sometimes have the same mindset, saying that one finds God outside of the church, that elders and pastors are of no real help to the Christian. 

What’s worse – probably – is that some of these “church-institution-rejecters” cite the early church as their model, as if the early church was a homey, dynamic, organic commune with no real leadership structure.  They blame later bishops and pastors for foisting a hierarchy on the church, which made it institutional.  Well, to be blunt, that is just wrong.  The early church didn’t float around without officers, elders, bishops, and deacons.  For one example, 1 Clement, one of the earliest post-NT epistles, was written from Christians in Rome to Christians in Corinth (c. 95 AD). 

In the opening, the church at Corinth is praised for her piety, hospitality, and love of truth.  Then, they are commended for living “in accordance with the laws of God, submitting yourselves to your leaders and giving to the older men (presbuterois) among you the honor due them” (1 Cl 1.3).  Later in the letter, the Roman Christians address some sort of revolt/schism that happened in Corinth (about which scholars arm-wrestle).  Here’s their advice.

“You…who laid the foundation of the revolt must submit to the presbyters (presbuterois) and accept discipline leading to repentance, bending the knees of your heart.  Learn how to subordinate yourselves, laying aside the arrogant and proud stubbornness of your tongue.  For it is better for you to be found small but included in the flock of Christ than to have a preeminent reputation and yet be excluded from this hope” (1 Cl 57.1-2).

Notice that last line, which is huge.  It is a commentary on Hebrews 13.17 – to not have leaders watching over one’s soul is not a good thing; there is not much hope outside of the elder-led flock.  One more:

“Let the flock of Christ be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters (presbuteron). ….These are things that those who live as citizens of the commonwealth of God – something not to be regretted – have done and will continue to do” (I Cl 54.2, 4).

Later, Cyprian would say similar things, just to name one other father who knew what church order and institution meant.  I find it quite odd that these “leave-church-as-institution” people always talk about kingdom, but fail to realize that kingdom is polis langauge, and where there is a King, there is order, leadership, and submission.  This is God’s order, not something foisted onto the church by some unChristian brutes a long time ago.

NOTE: For similar authority language as 1 Clement above, see Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians, 2.2, 4.1, 5.3; Ignatius’ Epistle to the Magnesians ch. 2, 13.2; Ignatius’ Epistle to the Trallians ch. 2; and his Epistle to Polycarp 6.1.  Finally, check out Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians 5.3b.

(Above quotes taken from Michael Holmes’ fine editorial work in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Third Edition [Grand Rapid: Baker, 2007])

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Turing From Idols: Ancient Syriac Documents

In volume 8 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), there are some ancient Syriac documents which “made the cut” and are included, though the authorship, date, and occasions are not always known.  It is also clear that some of these Syriac documents have additions and subtractions.  However, they do preserve for us at least in general what a part of the early church looked like.

One fascinating document from this group is the Acts of Sharbil.  Sharbil was supposedly a pagan high priest (possibly in the 2nd century AD under Caesar Trajan – c. 112, in Edessa of the Parthians) who was converted to Christianity.  A bishop, a certain Barsamya, along with an elder and deacon in the church told him to repent of his horrible idolatry and believe in the eternal Son of God, to worship Him alone.  To make a long story short, Sharbil was convicted of his sin and repented; he was received in the church and asked for prayers of strength as he was about to renounce his pagan priesthood.  In some areas of Rome in the early church, of course, worshiping only Jesus was not a matter of “private values,” for it meant a clean break from the habits and customs of the Empire.  Saying “Christ is Lord and King” meant “The State or Caesar is not Lord and King.”  And Caesar usually didn’t like that.

So Sharbil was put on trial for refusing to participate in pagan sacrifices.

The judge said, “How is it that thou art not afraid of the emporers, nor moved to shame by those who are listening to the trial, that thou sayest, ‘I am a Christian?’  But promise that thou wilt sacrifice to the gods, according to thy former custom, so that thy honor may be great, as formerly – lest I make to tremble at thee all those who have believed like thyself.”

Sharbil’s answer: “Of the King of kings I am afraid, but at any king of earth I tremble not, nor yet at thy threats towards me, which lo! thou utterest against the worshipers of Christ: whom I confessed yesterday, and lo! I am brought to trial for his sake today, like as he himself was brought to trial for the sake of sinners like me.”

Much of the rest of the discourse is about idolatry – how Sharbil refuses to acknowledge false gods or sacrifice to them.  The judge responded with insults and much torture.  He accused Sharbil of being so “intoxicated” with Christianity that he lost his mental capacity.  Sharbil, despite great pain, stood firm.  “I will not again confess idols, which I have renounced; nor will I renounce the King Christ, whom I have confessed.”

Near the end, Sharbil holds up the cross (as it were).  “This cross of Christ is the great boast of Christians, since it is by this that the deliverance of salvation has come to all his worshipers, and by this that they have had their eyes enlightened, so as not to worship creatures along with the Creator.”

The judge responds with something that sounds so familiar today.  “Let thy boasting of the cross be kept within thy own mind, and let incense be offered by thy hands to the gods.”  Of course, Sharbil said it was impossible to worship Christ privately and do something else with the hands.  He stood firm in his confession.  As the story goes, Sharbil was sawn until he was almost dead; then his head was taken off with a sword.  He died asking Christ to forgive him of his idolatry and receive him like the penitent thief on the cross.

Again, though the precise authenticity of this story is debatable, the point for now is that stuff like this happened.  Christians said “no” to the world, the state, the King, and they were treated like the scum of the earth.  Though Hebrews 11 is mostly about the Old Testament pilgrims, we might think “of whom the world was not worthy” as we consider some of our brothers and sisters who have died because they would not renounce Jesus.

The above is taken from ANF VIII.676-685.  This whole document is available on the web – Google “Acts of Sharbil” if you want to read it yourself.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Cyprian, Martyrs, and Jesus

It is hard to speak about martyrdom for a few reasons.  First, we don’t want to sugar coat it or make it something to necessarily strive for.  Second, we don’t want to avoid it and act as if it is not a real thing that Christians have been and are being disemboweled just because they are Christians.  Third, it is tough to speak about martyrdom because very few of us have any idea what it entails; we haven’t the foggiest idea the soul-fight that it would take to confess Christ even when a knife pierces our kidneys.

This being said, it is something we should speak about from time to time, and of course we need to pray for those who are being persecuted today for naming Jesus.  These things have been on my mind as I’ve been reading some epistles of Caecilius Cyprian (who was himself martyred around 258 AD).  Some of these epistles that Cyprian wrote while fleeing persecution, holed up and hidden, are an amazing testimony to Christ’s persevering love.  In fact, Cyprian said it this way: “It is not martyrs that make the gospel, but…martyrs are made by the gospel” (ANF V.301).

Cyprian wrote to several presbyters and other churchmen concerning their terrible suffering, commending them for their faith, and encouraging them to continue to confess Jesus.  They (namely, Maximus, Moyses, Nicostratus, and others) wrote back:

“Your letter has shone upon us as a calm in the midst of a tempest, and as the longed-for tranquility in the midst of a troubled sea….  What more glorious, or what more blessed, can happen to any man from the divine condescension than to confess the Lord God, in death itself, before his very executioners?  Than among the raging and varied and exquisite tortures of worldly power, even when the body is racked and torn and cut to pieces, to confess Christ the Son of God with a spirit still free, although departing?” (Ibid., 303).

One thing these men also struggled with was what to do with those who did profess faith, but when tortured, denied Christ.  What do we do with the lapsed, in other words, if they come back to a church after denying Jesus?  Many of Cyprian’s (and the other church leaders) letters deal with this.  Basically, Cyprian says: if they repent of their horrible sin, give them some time (with lots of Christian charity) and then readmit them to the church and to the Holy Supper.  It seems as if there was some sort of “paperwork” or something that the bishops would use so the “lapsed” and then restored believer could be admitted to the Supper (but that’s another topic).  In summary, there is much to learn from these fathers of ours.  It is a fruitful study (for polity, church discipline, being a soldier of the cross, and so forth) – and it is an edifying study that teaches Jesus’ words, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church.

Here are some good OT/NT commentaries with selections from the church fathers that some of you may be familiar with.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Hippolytus (d. 236 AD) on the Psalter

Hippolytus (bishop in Rome around 220-236 AD) wrote quite a bit for the benefit of the early church; many of his writings have been recovered and translated.  One particular fragment I found fascinating is his short introduction to the Psalter (found with other writings of his in Ante Nicene Fathers, V.199ff).  I’ll summarize his brief discussion here – notice how he wrestled with many of the things we still wrestle with today.

1) Authorship.  Hippolytus disagreed with some in his day that David wrote all the psalms.  He notes a tradition that Esdra “collected in one volume, after the captivity, the psalms of several [persons]….”  In other words, “as they are therefore the words of so many thus collected together, they could not be said by any one who understands the matter to be by David alone.”

2) More on authorship.  He suggests, following a Hebrew scholar he does not name, that when one psalm has an inscription (i.e. of David) the “inscriptionless” psalms following it were also written by that author.  This, he posits, is how the collector put the Psalter together.  Hippolytus does write that he isn’t certain here, but says it is plausible.

3) On the inspiration of the Psalter: “It is entirely the voice and utterance of the most Holy Spirit.”

4) On the number of psalms (150):  He says the three 50’s reflect the Sabbath of Sabbaths – that is, the new beginning, the eighth, “of a really new rest that remains above the Sabbaths.”  The 50th, the 100th, and the 150th psalm, Hippolytus notes, all contain clear gospel praise reflecting the fulfillment of the Sabbath.  He also suggests that the 5 book division of the Psalter reflects the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible).

5) On the order of the psalms: They “are not found in regular historical order.”  Instead, the collector/redactor ordered them for a higher purpose than historical chronology, namely, the theology reflected in the numbering and content of the psalms.

6) On music: David was a gifted singer and composer, Hippolytus writes.  The psaltery’s (Hebrew: nabla) sound was “high” and came from the upper parts of the instrument, which was fitting for the psalms, because they lift our minds beyond the music to heaven.  Thus we should not “suffer ourselves to be borne down by the pleasure of melody to the passions of the flesh.”  In a beautiful way, he reflects the order and glory of psalm-praise to the beautiful melody of Christ’s sinless life. Christ “maintained in all things, as it were, harmony towards the Father” (he quotes Is 53.9 and John 3.31).

There are quite a few implications of Hippolytus’ remarks on the Psalter.  First, these things should be consulted and discussed by OT critics/scholars of every stripe.  Second, this small fragment of an intro to the Psalter reminds us that many of these church fathers were brilliant scholars who would make many of us look like twittering school children!  Third, these writings are a great testimony to the Word of God.  The early church had a 5-book, 150 psalm Psalter which they understood to be written ultimately by the Spirit of God as a Christian collection of praise to God for the gospel.  There are more implications; these are just three.  Any more come to mind?

Speaking of early church history, I just noticed that T. Oden edited a sort of devotional that contains brief portions of the early church fathers.  It is called (fittingly), Ancient Christian Devotional: A Year of Weekly Readings. Click the link and you’ll be able to see a preview of the book – looks pretty good.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Patristics and Systematics

I’m sure many of you – like myself – have heard a hundred critiques of systematic theology.  They go like this: it is totally modernistic, it is rationalistic, it is cold and dry like a brick wall, it is a product of the scientific branch of the Enlightenment, it imposes a dogmatic aspect upon Scripture that is not there, it ignores exegesis, and so forth.

Of course, we have to be careful not to “over do” systematics.  Most of the critiques of systematics should be considered so that it remains robust but does not do more than it should methodologically or topically.  One critique that I do want to answer and hopefully take much steam out of is the critique that systematic theology is a product of the Enlightenment’s scientific method.  To be sure, the Enlightenment hurt systematics in a lot of ways and helped it in a few ways.  But most certainly, organizing Scripture around certain scriptural teachings or themes was being done before the Enlightenment.  In fact, we can see it in the church fathers (though I’d also argue that Paul did it to some extent, but that’s a different post).  I’ll give a few examples from the fathers that I’ve been reading in the Ante Nicene Fathers set from Hendrickson.

Justin Martyr (2nd century): His two apologies were written to the Emperor and the Roman citizens.  In these two works, Martyr answers objections and accusations that many  were leveling against Christianity.  Martyr – in a logical order – refutes these objections/accusations, which include sections on Christology and ethics.  In fact Martyr even lists his responses out in numerical order (Apology I.xxiv-xxvi for example).   Of course, these are not systematics as we may be used to, but they are systematic, logical, and orderly.

Hippolytus (d. 236) wrote a massive essay refuting almost all Greek (and other) heresies of his day (titled Refutation of All Heresies).  Basically, he lines up all the heresies and, in order, explains each one, exposing their heretical nature.  Interestingly, at certain points (what we’d call chapters) Hippolytus even gives a quick a, b, c, d, summary of the topics covered up to that point.  It is clear in this that Hippolytus intended the work to be a systematic rendering of false theology compared with the true.  Much of the same can be said of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, which is similar to Hippolytus in many ways.

The Teaching of the Twelve Apostle’s (a.k.a. Didache) is another good example.  It is basically sort of an a, b, c, d, church instruction or church order written by some in the early church (c. 2nd century).  The Teaching is a purposefully systematic rendering of biblical teaching for instruction.

One more to consider is The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (c. 4th century).  This writing is very clearly a structured ecclesiological treatise written for instruction in the early church concerning church things.  The first part is for the laity, the second for the pastors/bishops, elders, and deacons.    The third part is a structured explanation of widows’ needs and baptism.  The fourth is about ministering the poor while the fifth part is on martyrs and other churchly matters.  There are a total of five “books” to this treatise, each an orderly presentation of church life and doctrine.

Finally, and probably most notable, is the Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles (“same” as in same as the constitutions mentioned above).  This also dates around the 4th century, and is is basically a numbered list of canons concerning church functions and tasks.

In conclusion (this is just the tip of the patristic iceberg, so to speak – consider also the Ecumenical Creeds, which were highly structured!), we can say that while many features of systematic theology are unique to the “modern” period, systematizing the teachings of scripture is not unique to our period, or to the reformation, but was clearly in use way back there in the patristic writings.  The value of systematics ranges from refuting heresies (heresies in some sense gave rise to systematics), teaching new converts the main truths, and helping churches maintain apostolic standards.  While we may question some modern systematicians on certain things, we cannot question them on the topic of systematics in general.

Criticizing systematic theology as a product of the Enlightenment is ironically an Enlightenment attitude, assuming our point in history is one which has a higher judgment seat over those in earlier eras.  “Systematic Theology is baggage of the Enlightenment” is entirely an Enlightenment creed.  It is part of human nature and reason (not Enlightenment rationalism) to want to summarize and order teaching/writing for knowledge, belief, and living.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Justin Martyr on the Resurrection of the Body

I’ve finished one section of my patristics reading, namely Justin Martyr.  Last week I posted a bit by him on worship in the early church.  This time, I’ll quote a bit of what he said concerning the resurrection of the body, which was a great read.  The piece (actually not the complete one) is called “Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection” in ANF I.295.

To set the context, this was written in the early to mid 2nd Century AD.  Apparently, some then still said there was no resurrection of the body; others said that Christ never had a real body but “the appearance of flesh,” as Justin describes it.  He first contends with those heresies and then sets forth the biblical teaching on the resurrection of the body for believers.  He talks about the body’s relation to sin, saying that the body itself isn’t bad, as some philosophers suppose, but Christ loved his people in body and soul and came to save both.

“…He has even called the flesh to the resurrection, and promises to it everlasting life.  For where he promises to save man, there he gives the promise to the flesh.  For what is man but the reasonable animal composed of body and soul?  Is the soul by itself man?  No; but the soul of man.  Would the body be called man?  No, but it is called the body of man.  If then, neither of these is by itself man, but that which is made up of the two together is called man, and God has called man to life and resurrection, he has not called a part, but the whole, which is the soul and the body.  Since would it not be unquestionably absurd, if, while these two are in the same being and according to the same law, the one were saved and the other not?”

Here’s how he closes this treatise.

“But if our physician Christ, God, having rescued us from our desires, regulates our flesh with his own wise and temperate rule, it is evident that he guards it from sins because it possesses a hope of salvation, as physicians do not suffer men whom they have hope to save to indulge in what pleasures they please.”

This treatise is not too lengthy (7-10 pages or so); it would make for a great and edifying study when thinking upon 1 Corinthians 15 or those confessional references to Christ’s resurrection and ours.  It was my favorite work of Justin, right up there with his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.  Next on my patristics list: Novatian (I’m skipping around a bit).

As a side note, I just noticed the relatively new five volume IVP set, Ancient Christian Doctrine, which is an edited patristic commentary on the Nicene Creed (actually, the church fathers included go up to the mid-8th century AD).  Bray and Oden are involved; the set looks promising.  Feel free to comment if you know more about it.

shane lems

sunnyside, wa

Sunday with Justin

Martyr, that is.  I’ve begun a long and awesome trek through the 10 volume Ante-Nicene Fathers (Ed. A. Roberts & J. Donaldson [Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004]).  I wanted to invest in a good theology/history set and “covenant” with myself to read it straight through, so the patristics won over Barth for now.  The next few months, I’ll be coming back to these fathers from time to time here on the blog.

Right now, I’m reading Justin Martyr (2nd century AD), specifically, two of his apologies and his “Dialogue with Trypho, A Jew.”  I am enjoying it in every way (though “Dialogue” is quite lengthy).    One reason I chose to read the fathers is because it is quite edifying for me to see the historical side of Christ’s bride, that the saints in the early church gathered around Christ’s word and sacrament much like we do today.  Here’s one example from Justin’s First Apology (LXVI and LXVII), where he mentions the Eucharist and weekly Sunday worship.

“And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.”

“On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or  the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president (I’d love to see the Greek word here!) verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.  Then we all rise together and pray, and as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings…and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given…”

Justin goes on to note how the alms are then collected for the poor, orphans, ill, widows, etc.  Then he explains why they meet on Sunday – because it is the first day, reminding them of the first day of creation and the first day of the new creation, Christ’s resurrection.

This is fascinating because this is one of Justin’s apologies (defenses) written to the government of his day, basically saying that Christians are not a crazy, immoral, flesh-eating cult but reasonable, moral, and worshiping followers of Jesus.  One other thing I found Justin repeating is that those who persecute Christians and don’t repent will certainly face the coming judgment of God (Justin speaks of hell for the wicked quite boldly!).  Anyway, I could go on, but needless to say, the church has a history.  People like you and me were reading the Scriptures and worshiping the Triune God 1800 years ago.  The gates of hell shall never prevail against the church!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Justification by Faith Alone in the Early Church

In 1 Clement 32.3-4 (probably written just before 100 AD), we get a great Pauline statement on justification by faith only.

“All (the OT saints) therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous actions that they did, but through His will.  And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified (dikaioumetha) through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety (eusebeias), or works (ergon) that we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith (dia tes pisteos), by which the Almighty God has justified (edikaiosen) all who have existed from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

This is a great statement.  Earlier in ch. 32, the author was talking about God’s gifts given in the OT era (Jacob, Levites, etc).  He ties the OT saints to the NT (and beyond) saints saying they were all justified by faith, not works or piety.

Cited from The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Third Edition ed. M. W. Holmes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Augustine, Pelagius, and Kids

This book, Augustine of Hippo, is one of the better biographies of the great church father (Peter Brown’s new edition w/epilogue [Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000]).  This is a longer book (just over 500 pages), but it is well worth reading for an extensive and readable account of St. Augustine.

Here’s a summary of Brown’s section on Pelagius and Augustine.

“The basic difference between the two men…is to be found in two radically different views on the relation between man and God.  It is summed up succinctly in their choice of language.  Augustine had been fascinated by babies: the extent of their helplessness had grown upon him ever since he wrote the Confessions; and in the Confessions, he had no hesitation in likening his relation to God to that of a baby to its mother’s breast, utterly dependent, intimately involved in all the good and evil that might come from this, the only source of life.”

“The Pelagian, by contrast, was contemptuous of babies.  ‘There is no more pressing admonition than this, that we should be called sons of God.’  To be a ’son’ was to become an entirely separate person, no longer dependent upon one’s father, but capable of following out by one’s own power, the good deeds that he had commanded.  The Pelagian was emancipatus a deo; it is a brilliant image taken from the language of Roman family law: freed from the all-embracing and claustrophobic rights of the father of a great family over his children, these sons had ‘come of age.’  They had been ‘released,’ as in Roman Law, from dependence upon the pater familias and could at last go out into the world as mature, free individuals, able to uphold in heroic deeds the good name of their illustrious ancestry: ‘Be ye perfect, even as Your Father in Heaven is perfect’” (p. 352-3).

shane lems

sunnyside wa