(This post was replanted for convenience from the ‘Prayer to Jesus’ thread.)
This is getting off the subject (prayer to Jesus), but the image of a unified church until the East-West schism ignores the multitude of smaller groups which existed throughout the monolithic ‘Catholic’ period until the Reformation, and beyond. Some of these were reacting against the compromise within the imperial church (eg the Montanists). The Bogomils (10th - 14th century) eventually spanned the whole of Europe - something that the imperial churches of east and west failed to do.
I sometimes wonder, without reverting wholesale to the conspiracy theory of an apostate Catholic church as suggested by your links, whether the church was always intended to be one of organisational diversity within relational unity, whilst the effort has tended to be towards organisational unity through distrust of relational freedom. “His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places” - Ephesians 3:10, where ‘manifold’ means multi-coloured, rather than monochrome; diverse, rather than uniform.
In this sense, the church fathers, and the imperial church, take their place alongside many others - including, dare I say it, Pelagius, whose latterday rehabilitation is long overdue, Nestorius, and the ancient Assyrian churches whose missionary activity extending to China and the Far East leaves the western and eastern churches in the shade.
Equally, protestant faith traditions, which have tended to anathematise Rome, would do well to acknowledge the rich vein of spirituality which the Roman church has to offer, despite its absolutist pretensions which continue to the present day.
Peter,I'm gonna drive you
Peter,
I’m gonna drive you crazy with my rambling.
Yours is a very valid question if I am hearing you properly. For most of my Christian life, I have always been a free-churcher staunchly against “religion” of any sort. However after wrestling through the evidence, I cannot any longer deny the clear evidence that the apostles indeed functioned within and perpetuated an episcopal ecclesiology: One unified Oragnizational Church governed by an apostolically ordained college of Bishops. The evidence is undeniable IMO. As such when we examine the way the Church sits today, we must wrestle with issues such as what you have asked. I am still a protestant in that I attend a non-denominational Church. I cannot deny the blessing and presence of the Holy Spirit in the Protestant Church. But I see my Church as being organizationally very far from the NT Church in its ecclesiology. Their hearts are great. But their position is dangerous IMO as is mine and my families. How many protestants do you know that have been through more than one Church split? Many that I know wear church splits like badges on their chest. Been-there done that. How many Protestants do you know that teach goofy trends. The Protestant pastor often is stuck needing new material. Otherwise the sheep move on. Barna’s Revolution also demonstrates the radical independace that is infecting our corner of the Church. I meet with a guy once a week and play Golf and that is my Church/faith community??????? The further that any Church gets from the NT and post-apostolic model the more that they are in danger IMO. I believe that God’s heart is still for Unity. Physical, Visible, Organizational and of course above all Relational Unity. As such, as I always desire to be moving toward God, I likewise also hope to be moving myself and my family toward that ideal Unity that once existed and which Christ has prayed for. I do not deny that God moves among the fractured Church, in many places and ways. I do not deny the salvation of anyone. God judges. But personally I just believe that due to my conviction regarding the episcopal nature of the Church that the Apostles initiated, I must persue the Unity that Jesus prayed for. Tyhat means submitting to the historical Church and persuuing relational unity with thos who are now on the outer reaches of the endless fractures and also move myself closer to the remnants of that Church which IMO best embodies the continuity of the original Church.
Did I miss your point completely?
Did I miss your point completely?
No I don’t think you missed my point at all - but where is the ‘historical church’ which you feel you must submit to? Where is the evidence for “One unified Oragnizational Church governed by an apostolically ordained college of Bishops.”? How do you arrive at that conclusion from the New Testament?
Peter,I have a tall order
Peter,
I have a tall order here with defending Israel’s right to exist and reviewing early Church history, with evidences, at the same time. I think I’ll focus here for now. Although extreeeemly briefly as my daddy is visiting for the first time in over a year.
My first question back to you would be why I need to only support my case with the NT? The NT is very limited in its historical scope. The reason being of course that the One church already existed during the NT thus the references are only passing, assumed. But they are there. We must be careful to avoid the common protestant paradigm that sees the Church as having started with the NT and then suddenly picking up again in the 1500’s however. The Church that Christ founded, that the apostles established went somewhere. And we have her records. Its important to see where she went and what she looked like. So I’ll reference both NT and early Church stuff if I may. Its all historically valid record.
Also remember the important fact that the protestant reformation was guided by an inspiration to rediscover the past, not forge something new, but to go back. This study is very Calvinesque in that sense.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread (1 Cor. 10:16-17).
First of all, I adhere to the first seven ecumenical councils. In order for there to even be an ecumenical council, there must be a body that is capable of gathering together. The council of Acts 15 is the first example of such a council, though it is not called such. Who presided over the meeting? Was it one of the apostles? Nope. It was James, the brother of Jesus, the Bishop of Jerusalem.
The only real thing that needs to be shown in reference to One church is the establishment of apostolic susccesion. The apostles set up the Bishops in every city. In the New Testament, the terms bishop and presbyter are used interchangeably. This is evident from Titus 1:5-7 There are many other NT passages where the terms are used interchangeabley. But the evidence for apostolic succesion of bishops is replete in the NT and the early Church.
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier… . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Clement Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).
“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Hegesippius Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul – that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).
“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4).
“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life… . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
“[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church – those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).
“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8).
Tertullian
“[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).
“[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves … If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches – those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood” (ibid., 21).
“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men – a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (ibid., 32).
“But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory” (ibid.).
“Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith” (ibid.).
Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).
Jerome
“Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians” (Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).
Augustine
“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
Thats a start…
Hmm...
I have to disagree with you, Joel. You say that there are only passing references to the church in the NT, but that is not the case. The book of Acts is the birth of the church and it does detail how things works pretty thoroughly. On top of that, the Pastoral Epistles are quite thorough in their treatment of the authorities and roles of the leaders of said church.
I do not, however, believe that the church suddenly re-appeared in the Protestant Reformation. That is a simplistic answer to a much larger and more complex situation that has been perpetuated by people who don’t like the Catholic Church.
Here’s how I see things. As the Catholic/Orthodox organization got bigger and bigger, it absorbed more and more extra-biblical bits and pieces. Eventually it became unwieldy, but in the beginning it was much closer to what the NT intended. When it became too big for itself, it allowed for the influence of lobbying (although not in the modern sense) and corrupt leaders. The corruption is what the Protestants protested, not the church itself.
Martin Luther would not have left the church which he loved so much if the corrupt leaders he was opposing hadn’t ordered him out. Likewise, Henry VIII would have stayed Catholic if the pope, who was himself a fairly corrupt leader, hadn’t refused to give him a divorce. Clement VII had close ties with the house of Aragon, from which Henry’s wife Catharine came, and he had no intentions of allowing Henry to abandon this allliance with Spain.
I have always been of the opinion that Catholicism is not inherently evil but rather corrupted by politics and just plain evil men (the Medici popes come to mind). The Catholic Church of today is a shadow of what it once was, especially in the post-Vatican II days. Benedict XVI is probably more of an old-school, truly devout Catholic than the See has had in centuries. (John Paul II was most definitely a Vatican II kinda guy). Given enough time and the right resources, he may bring about more radical reform than the Protestant Reformation ever dreamed of.
But anyway, there is a certain historical precedent from extra-Biblical councils, and we need to carefully consider them as commentary on vital doctrines, but they should not override the clear teachings of the word.
The church's true foundation: Christ or Clergy?
Joel - I don’t quite know how we got onto two subjects at once, but to respond to the first: your knowledge of the church fathers is admirable. The conclusions you draw are, to my mind, open to question, which I will set out below.
1. Like you, I see no reason to distinguish between the roles of elders (Greek presbyteros) and bishops (Greek episkopos) in the NT. There is every evidence that the terms are interchangeable and synonymous, and no evidence that one term came to have precedence over the other, still less that there was or ever would be one monarchical bishop in one town, presiding over a diocese. Elders/bishops were chosen to direct the affairs of individual churches.
2. James is not presented as a presiding bishop or elder in Acts 15, nor in Galatians 2 or Acts 21 - though he seems to have developed some sort of leadership, one of the ‘pillars’ as he is described in Galatians. Too much is read into James’s role without supporting evidence. In fact what we do know of the gathering in Acts 15 was that Paul went there to see “the apostles and elders” - v.2, who then considered the matter - v.6, were addressed first by Peter - v.7, then by James - v.13. It was the apostles and elders - v.22, with “the whole church” who chose those who were to accompany Paul to Antioch.
3. Your extract from Clement does not seem to add to this picture of elders/bishops being chosen to lead individual churches
4. The only surviving evidence of the writing of Hegesippus is in Eusebius, who is not a reliable source to quote from in view of his evident role as propagandist for the developing imperial church after AD 312.
5. I’m somewhat lost in your references for extracts following the first from Eusebius; is Against Heresies the work of Eusebius or Irenaeus? Looks like Eusebius to me. There are many questionable statements in the extracts; Rome’s precedence over other churches was of course disputed by the other patriarchates - a dispute which continues to this day. Which is why the justification for the development of monarchical bishops is debatable - though the trend began, of course, before Eusebius, and may have been a centralising move to protect the church from Roman persecution, or from Gnostic heresy.
6. Tertullian provides very broad brush-strokes in his historical review - not always accurate. There is no evidence that the church in Rome was founded by any apostle; likewise the church in Antioch.
7. Augustine repeats the legend, unfounded historically, that Rome was ‘the see of Peter’.
8. The whole argument of ‘succession’ is disputed by ‘unofficial’ churches outside the Catholic fold after AD 312 which also claimed apostolic succession. More fatal to the doctrine of succession is the dispute which arose after the Diocletian persecutions, when those who had compromised during the persecution were taken back into leadership. This was the whole substance of the dispute with the Donatists - who argued for a purity of church leadership. They were suppressed with force - the first time that the church turned persecution inwards upon itself - setting an ugly precedent for the years to come.
So far I’m not convinced by your arguments. Incidentally, I didn’t choose the title for this thread. The ‘interdependent’ church would have been preferable to ‘independent’ - describing not autonomy, but relationship between churches; not hierarchical, centralised government, but collegiality. Authority in the NT was spiritual, not hierarchical; recognised, not imposed. Paul did not ‘pull rank’ on the church at Corinth, but reminded them of his role as a father, and the spiritual authority he had exercised.
Peter, Eric,This is
Peter, Eric,
This is quickly getting beyond the scope of what can be discussed on such a forum. At least in a way that does any justice to the subject. My knowledge of the fathers is not admirable. I’m an amateur at best. But we are living in an internet cut and paste world, and I am a cut and paste girl. Whoops I mean guy. I started singing Madonna’s Material Girl by accident. Eh emm….
The only issue that I was really trying to establish in my thread was the opinion of the early Church leaders toward apostolic succession. A Church with only a relational unity has no need for such. But if it did exist in a unbroken chian then we have to ask where it came from, what was its nature and purpose.
Eric, I agree that there is a bit of info in the NT about the Church but it is inconclusive. Every body seems to claim to adhere to a NT Church model. Yet they all do it differently. The reason for this is that the info is indeed inconclusive. Secondly the word episcopsos is almost universally misunderstood as to its historical meaning by most protestants. And again, the presence of apotolic succession combined with a proper understanding of the episcopos Bishops equals an organized Church. Of course each city under each Patriarch functioned fairly independantly as the Orthodox Church does today.
Briefly on the see of Peter. The issue is indisputable and is not disputed between the Orthodox and Roman Churches. Despite popular belief. The only dispute is the nature of that see. Absolute primacy or simply one who is greater among eqauls. The Orthodox Church fully accepts the primacy of the see of Rome. So be careful not to miscategorize something and again, react as a Protestant. This is really another issue, but just so that you know that Peter was indeed in Rome as the first Bishop and to also demonstrate that James was indeed the Bishop of Jerusalem:
Clement to James, who rules [oversees] Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere excellently founded by the providence of God, with the elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren, peace be always….He himself [Peter], by reason of his immense love towards men, HAVING COME AS FAR AS ROME, clearly and publicly testifying, in opposition to the wicked one who withstood him, that there is to be a good King over all the world, while saving men by his God-inspired doctrine, HIMSELF, BY VIOLENCE, EXCHANGED THIS PRESENT EXISTENCE FOR LIFE. — Epistle of Clement to James, “Ante-Nicene Fathers.” Translated by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. Vol. VIII. New York. 1926. P. 218.
Clement by the way was ministering during the apostolic period.
Unger’s Bible Dictionary states unequivocally that “the evidence for his [Peter’s] martyrdom there [in Rome] is COMPLETE, while there is a TOTAL ABSENCE of any contrary statement in the writings of the early fathers” (3rd Edition, Chicago. 1960. P. 850).
JEROME [On Illustrious Men, 1] states that “Peter, after having been bishop of Antioch, and after having preached to the believers of the circumcision in Pontus, &c. [plainly inferred from 1Pe 1:1 ], in the second year of Claudius went to Rome to refute Simon Magus, and for twenty-five years there held the episcopal chair, down to the last year of Nero, that is, the fourteenth, by whom he was crucified with his head downwards, declaring himself unworthy to be crucified as his Lord, and was buried in the Vatican, near the triumphal way.”
Also Peter, the Against Heresies quote was from Ireneaus not from quoted from Eusbius.
Moving on…
Muy Importante:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm
I know that I skipped almost everything, but like I mentioned, my Dad’s visiting. Gonna leave ya’all for now. Blessings
Monarchical bishops and apostolic succession
Part of the problem is reading backwards into New Testament (and even 1st century church) practice the catastrophic developments of the church under Constantine. The church fathers are not always reliable in their presentations of church history - as for instance their inconsistency over the dating of Revelation - which has huge a bearing on its interpretation. Neither were they authoritative in their theology - such as their belief that a millennial kingdom was about to be set up in Jerusalem.
Absolutism of any kind is always regrettable in church life, and this continues to be the Catholic church’s official legacy - not mirrored, thankfully, in many of its clergy and lay followers. Of course there are other kinds of absolutism - protestant, evangelical, orthodox - all of which are undesirable. The Catholic church has unfortunately sanctified absolutism into a system of government, and it is notable in church history that the more energetic and imaginative expressions of the church have been outside this system.
I'm hearing the Simon and
Peter, yes that is a very big problem. But I’m hearing the Simon and Garfunkle tune: “Still a man hears what he wants to hear and diregards the rest… la la la.”
AGHAST (and slightly drunken from Czech beer), Erik asks...
Are you implying that Peter is selectively reading your posts and not seeing what you’re saying?
Not that he's missing what
Not that he’s missing what I’m saying, but in this case, rather than actually interacting with, for instance Ignatius’ letter, or the very concept of Apostolic Succession, he’s chosen essentially to disregard the evidence, because some of the Fathers materials are not perfect, that thery are essentially useless to prove anything, after which point he simply threw out a few more negative cliches’ such as Constantinian Imperialism that I personally tire of hearing. Ultimately if someone is truly serious about discovering the nature of the early Church they may do so, but if someone wishes to continue viewing the early Church in the image of their own tradition, they will do so. But it does require a very selective and limited approach to the documents of the early Church.
Broad Stroke Rejection
Ahh, I understand.
Unfortunately the enormous amounts of information available to people is simply overwhelming. We choose to specialize, but like to have opinions about everything. This results in broad stroke rejection of positions we do not hold.
It’s just the way things work, unfortunately. I know that personally I don’t have the time to research the early church fathers to any great detail simply because it doesn’t interest me very much. I’m much more of an Old Testament history specialist.
Cool. Don't get me wrong
Cool.
Don’t get me wrong either. Nothing persoanlly against Peter. I’m probably very much the same way. We all have selective hearing etc. My wife will certainly confirm this of me at least.
Personally my interests are always morphing. My track has been interest in Jewish Studies, which morphed into Islamic Studies which morphed into Church History and then into Eastern and Ancient Christianity and different forms of prayer than I have ever really practiced. Hopefully I’m not theologically ADHD.
Broad brush strokes and mystical aloofness
I suppose I could maintain a dignified silence in response to the accusations of tendentiousness being made against me - maintaining an aura of mystique whilst the argument swirls around beneath me - but I should balance things out: Joel does make good points, well supported by the extracts from the fathers. I feel I have made some detailed points in response - especially about the validity of apostolic succession as a criterion for the establishment and continuation of episcopal office. Joel’s extracts from the fathers locate the establishment of these traditions quite far back into earliest church history. But I think he would agree that there must be critical interaction between scripture and church tradition (even tradition sanctified by the fathers), and that also there must be critical investigation of history - especially history written by the ‘victors’.
If it ever comes to the US, or appears in book form, you must see/read Terry Jones’s ‘The Barbarians’ - a series which concluded on the BBC last night. It is a marvellously revisionist interpretation of our common understanding of the Roman Empire as the torch-bearer of ‘civilisation’, and the ‘barbarians’ as the agents of destruction. Jones presents a contrary view - delightfully presented (he was one of the original Monty Python crew - yet is a recognised scholar in his own right). Jones suggests that it was the Romans who engaged in wholesale slaughter and destruction, and the barbarians who repeatedly spared Rome, for instance, from destruction. He provides evidence that the ‘barbarians’ (Celts, Goths, Vandals etc) were much more advanced than Rome in science and agronomy, and had sophisticated social models. Rome on the other hand made high-sounding noises about its motives for conquest, but these were actually motivated by greed as much as anything. Rome depended on plunder and rapine for its survival, and accomplished this by genocidal slaughter.
Anyway, this has a bearing on our discussion - for the history of the Roman Empire was preserved and perpetuated by its successor, the Catholic church, which in turn fashioned the understanding of ‘barbarianism’ (those outside the Empire) as we have it today. The cracks in this version begin to appear when we realise that Alaric, leader of the Goths, was Christian; likewise Geiseric, the Vandal king who established an ‘empire’ with its centre at Carthage. Geiseric was condemned for holding an ‘Arian’ version of Christianity (‘the wrong kind of Christianity’ as Jones says - sorry, that’s a joke only the English will get). But who was writing the history? At this time, it was of course the Roman Catholic church. The evidence suggests that Geiseric presided over a far more moral society than Pope Leo’s Rome - and that the ‘barbarians’ in general - Celts, Goths, Vandals had a far greater level of civilisation than has been recognised.
It does seem as if the Roman version of Christianity not only developed and perpetuated extreme physical duress with regard to its perceived opponents, but calumniated them through the preserved historical records. This holds true for all the forms of Christianity which have existed throughout the Roman period before (and of course after) the Reformation, within and beyond the Empire. The historical perspective tends to remain that of the Roman church. It is a sad fact that most of the writings of Pelagius, for instance, (an example of dissent within the state church), have been destroyed. Augustine, whose verbose ‘debate’ with Pelagius forms the basis of the prejudice against him today, never even met him!
This history of suppression of dissent and preservation of a distorted ‘official’ history goes back to earliest times in the Roman church - suppression of the Donatists taking place a mere five years after Christianity was officially recognised by Constantine. But who would deny that ‘purer’ forms of expression of the faith have been constantly appearing around the margins of the church - as they do today? Occasionally they were absorbed by the church - and their effectiveness diluted (as was arguably the case with Franciscanism). Normally they were brutally suppressed - but survived in the forms they take today - as with the Hutterites, the Mennonites and Anabaptists - to name a few. The influence of these groups can also be seen in main-line Protestant denominations today.
Luther made the telling point that ‘apostolic succession’ gave no validity to the church without apostolic teaching and practice.
I do not wish to demonise the Roman Catholic Church - and the church under Constantine has of course brought into being many vitally authentic expressions of faith. I have often been able to identify myself more with the attitude of Catholics than Protestants. I just doubt whether the Catholic church (or any other church for that matter), can with integrity substantiate its continuing, arrogant claim to embody the one true expression of faith. A humbler attitude, in which it took its place alongside many other faith expressions in the world would go down better, and might contribute more to the true unity of the spirit which is the basis of church unity.
Terry Jones
It was certainly not my intention in the “broad strokes” comment to somehow minimalize your opinions, Peter. I was simply trying to point out that it appears we all have specializations which prevent us from carrying on coherent discussion without getting bogged down in he said/he said.
Jones’ commentary on the Romans is nothing new to me. They were a biased people who viewed everyone outside their accepted groups as inferior. In many ways, they were much like Hitler’s Germany. They were motivated by a sort of “manifest destiny” to dominate the world (that may be a term only Americans can understand). But then again, so was EVERY conquering nation - whether it was colonial powers, the US in Hawaii, the Qin’s in Asia or the Russians in Muslim central Asia.
Did a certain amount of the “conqueror” mentality get incorporated into the church when it became tolerated and then official? Without a doubt, but I think Joel’s focus (and I could be wrong) is more on the ante-nicene church than the post-nicene church. I think everyone will agree that somewhere along the line, the church became corrupted and political and took on the appearance of an empire rather than an ecclesiastical agent. They were after all “the right kind of Christians” but they were far from the only kind of Christians.
The independents, in all their varieties from conservative to wacko, have existed alongside the larger behemoth that Catholicism became, often contributing and often being persecuted.
Anyway, my point about broadstrokes was simply that we, as theologians, choose certain points of view and research them to a certain extent until we are satisfied with our conclusions. We cannot allow that to shut us down from hearing others who may have researched the subject more thoroughly.
Personally, I am more of an ancient historian, as I noted above. I am currently preparing a manuscript for a life of David - Poet King - David in the Iron Age Levant. Even though I have studied a great deal about Egypt, Assyria and other ancient kingdoms and have my opinions, I remain open to what other, more specialized authors have to say. Men like Israel Finkelstein and David Alter have challenged my perception of the ancient Levant, even though I completely disagree with their broad strokes.
I say this simply to illustrate that we have much to learn by having open ears. Real life is not painted in broad strokes but in fine detail, and the history of the church is much more complex than just “Roman” and “Other.”
Pre and Post Nicaea
Erik (and Joel) I’m really no more than an amateur theologian and church historian commenting from the margins. Like Autolycus in Shakespeare’s ‘The Winter’s Tale’, (my speciality is really English literature) I’m a “snapper-up of unconsidered trifles” in these areas.
The church was demonstrating its oppressive and violent credentials before Nicaea - the turning point being when Christianity was made the official state religion. As regards Rome itself - Jones was highlighting and talking-up very current research on the ‘barbarians’: one interesting aspect of which was that there is virtually no evidence for the existence of the ‘Huns’ as a separate people in Europe. (They seem to have been a political grouping, with practices adopted by the German Goths, for instance).
Attila provided key leadership for the Huns, was not a Christian (unlike Alaric and Geiseric), but like them, spared Rome from destruction. The history of that event comes from the Catholic church, playing up the role of Pope Leo - but is far from likely to have been a truthful version. This formed a contrast with Rome’s policy in Germany, Dacia (Thrace) and Carthage, for instance (and many other conquered cities) - which was to put everyone to the sword - a legacy of characteristics which was eventually bequeathed to the church.
Joel has clearly made a speciality of pre-Nicene church history. I benefit from the learning he produces in his comments, as well as wanting to question them. I’m also hoping he’ll pick up the Israel thread sometime.
Specialists and generalists
The days of any one of us being able to master all that vast (and fast growing) mountain of evidence ‘out there’ is long gone!
Still, the substance of what the three of you have been so esoterically (and I do applaud your knowledge) arguing can’t get away from the facts and the fact is that there is and always will be only one body, for we have one Lord. The fact of the (fascinating?) mess that makes up church history cannot be allowed to detract from the higher reality.
I would ask again, in the context of emergent theology and an emerging ‘church’, what is it that we can do to bring about this part of the ministry of reconciliation? Such a ministry should never have been needed but it is very sorely needed indeed!
Live to serve : Serve to live