Clement of Rome, Fathers, Listen to your Fathers, Theology

Lenten Series – Reflections on Atonement

Leave a comment

One of the reasons that the practice of Lent is so important is due to our great skill at self-deception. We can justify ourselves and vilify others, but have a terrible time looking squarely at our own sinful condition. Yet without this reflection, what becomes of the “Good” in Good Friday? Spending time in ashes, in repentance, in a bare faced look at our fallenness leaves us longing for redemption, for forgiveness, for atonement. This is what Christ offers us on Good Friday as he the perfect and spotless Lamb becomes sin, is made sin for us, that we might be the Righteousness of God in Him.

Since we are so skilled at self justification, there are few words as repugnant as “atonement.” Of course, our currently popular humanism which assumes the general goodness of man, must reject atonement, least it acknowledge a sin from which mankind is incapable of delivering himself. This irrational and unfounded belief in the general goodness of man leads 19th century theologians like Adolf Von Harnack to emphasize Greek Thought in the development of Christianity and to ignore almost completely the Judaic influence of sacrifice, and blood, and atonement. In fact, reading through his magnummagnum-opis opus Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, the missing connection between Christianity and Judaism is bewildering. This work however, becomes so influential, that Patristic scholarship is swayed for generations. In fact, I was specifically told by my Professor during a New Testament Backgrounds class, that the Early Church Fathers did not have any concept of Substitutionary Atonement. That this was a later development of Christian thinking. Fortunately, I was at that moment working on a paper about the first Apostolic Father, Clement of Rome. Actually, I had the very text in my lap and was able to quickly thumb my fingers over to chapter 16 of St. Clement’s letter to the Church at Corenth where he writes:

This one bears our sins and suffers pain for us, and we regarded him as being in pain and in torment and in affliction, but he was wounded for our sins and was made to suffer for our transgressions. The punishment of our peace was upon him, by his wounds we were healed. We all wandered about like sheep, each one wandered about in his own way and the Lord delivered him up for our sins, and he, due to his affliction, remains silent.  Like a sheep he was brought to slaughter, and like a lamb silent before his shearers, so he remains silent.  In his humiliation, his justice was denied. Who shall describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth. For the transgressions of my people he entered into death.

So the idea that Christ becomes the sacrificial lamb of atonement, a substitutionary atonement suffered in our place for our sins, is in fact known to the earliest Christians. Most readers of this text will recognize the scriptural language here, because the Church has always read Isaiah 53 as referring to Christ. This is why the writers of the NT preserve this understanding in texts such as Romans 4:25 and 1 Corinthians 15:3.  This prophetic text also mentions the suffering servant being like a lamb who is silent before his shearers, not opening his mouth. This is preserved in Acts 8:32. as the idea of Christ being the sacrificial lamb for the sins of humanity is taught in places like John  1:29, and 1 Peter 1:19.

What shall we do then? Let us listen to our Father St. Clement. Let us reject the voices that say we can redeem ourselves, that make Christ’s death of no effect. We should instead take an honest look at our condition and our inability. Let us therefore confess our sins to almighty God this Lent, and look forward to the “Good” in Good Friday, where we celebrate the substitutionary atoning sacrifice of Christ on the Cross for us. Then we can truly worship Easter Sunday, the utter defeat of sin and death brought about by the Resurrection of Christ which prefigures our own resurrection and eternity in a new heaven and a new earth. Let us benefit from a Holy Lent, not afraid to look upon our sin, because it is only through this that we can clearly see our glorious redemption.

 

Daily Office, Ecclesiology, Spiritual Formation

Lenten Series – Ash Wednesday

Leave a comment

Ashs

“Then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and pleas for mercy with fasting and sackcloth and ashes. I prayed to the Lord my God and made confession, saying, ‘O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments,  we have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and rules.'” (Dan.  9:3-5)

This article begins a short series for the season of Lent. This season of reflecting and prayer, fasting and denial begins with Ash Wednesday and the imposition of ashes on the forhead. The fact that this sounds and feels strange to us makes the solemn occasion that much more important. You see, if you are like me, I need to be shaken out of my myopia. Only then am I in a mind-set to confess my sins and prepare for the somberness of Good Friday, and the glorious expectation of the Easter vigil.

While the history of Ash Wednesday does not go back to the earliest periods of the church,  it does show the positive development of doctrine and praxis as the Holy Spirit continues his work in the Church. We read the words of the Prophet Daniel above as he laments sin and seeks God with penitence. Recognition of our true condition is often a grace that indicates the Spirits work in us towards salvation.

Fairly early on in the Christian church, those who were seeking baptism became known as catechumens and penitents. They were trained in the faith and also entered a spiritual journey that begins with their situation without God, recognizing that we are but dust and ashes.  Soon, this group was joined by those who had sinned after baptism and were under discipline and seeking readmission to the fellowship of the Church and the grace of the eucharist. We have from at least the ninth century the liturgical practice of placing ashes on the forehead. This is the same spot where the believer, either as part of baptism, or during confirmation, is anointed with oil and marked as Christ’s own. That mark is a fore sign of the true end of penitence, because our God’s plan is one of forgiveness, blessing, and redemption for all those who seek him. Lent lasts for 40 days symbolizing our Saviors fasting and temptation in the desert. But how does Christ’s fasting (who knew no sin), relate to our fasting in recognition of our own sinfulness? St. Ireneaus tells us in Against Heresies, Book 5 Chapter 21, where he discusses Christ’s 40 day fast and says

Fasting forty days, like Moses and Elias, He afterwards hungered, first, in order that we may perceive that He was a real and substantial man-for it belongs to a man to suffer hunger when fasting; and secondly, that His opponent might have an opportunity of attacking Him.  The corruption of man, therefore, which occurred in paradise by both of our first parents eating, was done away with by the Lord’s want of food in this world.

This is why Lent precedes Easter. First we recognize our condition and see the need for atonement. We look forward to the substitutionary atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Christ redeems our failure as St. Irenaeus shows. Where our parents sinned through taking food, Christ redeems us through his rejection of food in his fast, and then by being himself the sin offering to God that would atone for our sin. God’s redemption creates beauty from ashes, and makes that which is corruptible into that which is incorruptible.

I pray you have a blessed and holy Lent this year, and look forward to celebrating the unfathomable work of Christ this Easter.

 

Let us Pray:

Almighty God, you hate nothing you have made and forgive the sins of all who are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we, worthily lamenting our sins and acknowledging our wretchedness,  may obtain of you, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, One God, forever and ever. Amen.

Listen to your Fathers

Listen to your Fathers -Theodoret of Cyrrhus on Traditioning Christology

Leave a comment

 

Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus
Paul the blessed Apostle writes in 1 Corinthians 3 that “what I received I passed on to you as of first importance” and he goes on to give a brief regula fidei. The word for “passed on” here is παρέδωκα handed down or in latin trādō  or “traditioned.” What Paul received as being of first importance, he traditioned to the Church. Likewise, Theodoret, by God’s grace bishop of  Cyrrhus (Located 70km north of Aleppo on the Syrian-Turkish border) was encouraged by Pope Leo to guard the victory won at Chalcedon. This he does well. Listen as Theodoret of Cyrrhus explains how the teachings regarding the divinity and humanity of Christ came faithfully through the church from generation to generation until his time. He is in direct opposition to the popular story of orthodoxy, told by Walter Baur (1877-1960), and his many proponents today. Listen to the words of +Theodoret, and hear also the echo from +Irenaeus about traditioning in  Book 1 Chapter 2.

 

He is without father as touching His humanity; for as man He was born of a mother alone. And He is without mother as God, for He was begotten from everlasting of the Father alone. And again He is without descent as God while as man He has descent. For it is written The book of the generation of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham. His descent is also given by the divine Luke. So again, as God, He has no beginning of days for He was begotten before the ages; neither has He an end of life, for His nature is immortal and impassible. But as man He had both a beginning of days, for He was born in the reign of Augustus Cæsar, and an end of life, for He was crucified in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar. But now, as I have already said, even His human nature is immortal; and, as He ascended, so again shall He come according to the words of the Angel— This same Jesus which is taken up from you into Heaven shall so come in like manner as you have seen Him go into Heaven.This is the doctrine delivered to us by the divine prophets; this is the doctrine of the company of the holy apostles; this is the doctrine of the great saints of the East and of the West; of the far-famed Ignatius, who received his archpriesthood by the right hand of the great Peter, and for the sake of his confession of Christ was devoured by savage beasts; and of the great Eustathius, who presided over the assembled council, and on account of his fiery zeal for true religion was driven into exile. This doctrine was preached by the illustrious Meletius, at the cost of no less pains, for thrice was he driven from his flock in the cause of the apostles’ doctrines; by Flavianus, glory of the imperial see; and by the admirable Ephraim, instrument of divine grace, who has left us in the Syriac tongue a written heritage of good things; by Cyprian, the illustrious ruler of Carthage and of all Libya, who for Christ’s sake found a death in the fire; by Damasus, bishop of great Rome, and by Ambrose, glory of Milan, who preached and wrote it in the language of Rome.The same was taught by the great luminaries of Alexandria, Alexander and Athanasius, men of one mind, who underwent sufferings celebrated throughout the world. This was the pasture given to their flocks by the great teachers of the imperial city, by Gregory, shining friend and supporter of the truth; by John, teacher of the world, by Atticus, their successor alike in see and in sentiment. By these doctrines Basil, great light of the truth, and Gregory sprung from the same parents, and Amphilochius, who from him received the gift of the high-priesthood, taught their contemporaries, and have left the same to us in their writings for a goodly heritage. Time would fail me to tell of Polycarp, and Irenæus, of Methodius and Hippolytus, and the rest of the teachers of the Church. In a word I assert that I follow the divine oracles and at the same time all these saints. By the grace of the spirit they dived into the depths of God-inspired scripture and both themselves perceived its mind, and made it plain to all that are willing to learn. Difference in tongue has wrought no difference in doctrine, for they were channels of the grace of the divine spirit, using the stream from one and the same fount.

Ph.D. Journey

Ph.D. – The Other Side of Comps, and why the Long Journey (taught program) is Valuable.

Leave a comment
Preparing for Comps
Preparing for Comps

Normally, I’m not writing autobiographical blog posts on this site, but I needed something to explain my long absence. Wow, it feels really good to be back and writing on here again. Time is a strange phenomenon in our normal lives, but there are times when it feels more like we are living in a time warp. For the better part of a year, I’ve been preparing to take my comprehensive exams for a Ph.D. in theological studies. Also during this time I managed to injure my hip (which required sugery), and now my spine (probably also sugery), just to add to the fun. Even though my research interest is in St. Irenaeus, the program I was in required examinations on things like the development of doctrine, the development of biblical interpretation, and other areas that covered giant spans of time. In fact, the entire study guide for the entering exam said “Be prepared to discuss any significant controversy in the history of Christianity.” Helpful guide for what to study? Not so much.

After three years of coursework, you basically go into a deep hole, and remove all other distractions from your life, and just study. Things break around the house, they stay broken. Other things on the research and writing docket get put into a drawer and locked away. Outside the necessity of work and trying to spend a little time with family, nothing else exists. It now seems like it will take me around a solid year to get every ball I dropped, back where it needs to be. I know what some of you are thinking, “that’s why I want to get a research degree in the UK.” Well, it might work, but there are problems with what I call the short track approach.

First of all, if you really want to be able to engage scholarship at a professional level, you need breadth and not just depth. This is also true if you want to teach. My friend in the program with me went on a short term missions trip with a friend getting a research only degree. The difference was obvious. Whatever my friend was asked to teach at an undergraduate level, he felt comfortable. In fact, he felt comfortable at all the basic biblical and theological topics for instructing at the graduate level. His friend on the other hand, felt really good in the area of his research topic, and rusty on most other areas. The bottom line is that you must pay the piper. If you want to succeed in the academy, then you must add to your deep knowledge of your subject, a broader and richer knowledge of language, philosophy, history, and the development of interpretation, and so on. You have to do this, it is not optional. Either you do it during your program as I did, or you dig in and do it afterward on your own accord. Right now, I still need to get much deeper in my dissertation topic, but I’m glad I’ve had to do the hard work of, for example, reading and engaging with six different systematic theologies from differing denominational perspectives. All I can say is, you don’t even know what you don’t know. Actually, when we began this program, I realized in the first course that I did not know how to read a book, but this is a topic for another post.

I was told this up front, before I entered the program I chose. That the breadth of the program would feel like it was killing me (which it did), but the greatest strength was being able to teach on any topic a first year prof was asked to teach on. While this was appealing to me, the more personal goal was related to ministering in the church. You see, I study primarily the second century, then secondarily the first 500 years of Christianity. Without context, it is very difficult to impossible to bring this into the church so it can be edifying. While on the other had, if you have an understanding about how our current situation developed. How the current problems that plague the Church can be historically located. Then you are able to provide the Church today a healing balm, a spiritually helpful guide to the teaching of our early church fathers. Because what you find is the problems they addressed are similar to ours, and because they did not live in our cultural context, their argumentation cuts through the baggage involved in our situation, and offers clarity and depth we so desperately need. That is why this site’s tagline is “listen to your fathers.”

By God’s grace and many many prayers from my Church, family, and friends, I’ve passed my written and oral comprehensive exams, and right now I’m being voted on for admission to candidacy. This means that I’ve reached the coveted position of ABD (All but Dissertation). At this point I could be hired to teach an an academic institution.

I’m very excited about my dissertation, which of course involves listening to our father St. Irenaeus, specifically in relation to his reading and interpretation of the Psalms. His struggles with his Gnostic opponents has immense potential to help us with many issues we face today. I’ll give more details on this in another post. Any way, It is great to get back, and I have several ideas to discuss with you on how we can enrich our minds and our lives by listening to our Fathers.

ChurchOfEngland, Ecclesiology, Episcopal/Anglican

Census 2011: Christianity still majority in UK, but the number of Jedi is rising.

Leave a comment

While the headline on the CoE site” England remains a faithful nation” is perhaps a stretch, it is encouraging to see the numbers on the loud atheist minority compared with the fiction of public opinion. Quoting from the CoE site:”The death of Christian England has been greatly exaggerated. Despite a decade of nay saying and campaigning by atheist commentators and groups, six out of ten people in England self-identify as Christians”…”Doubtless, campaigning atheist organisations will attempt to minimise the significance of the majority figures for faith and Christianity. In fact, these figures draw attention to the free ride that had been given to these bodies whose total membership would barely fill half of Old Trafford. For instance there are an estimated 28,000 members of British Humanist Association – the same membership as Union of Catholic Mothers, whilst the National Secular Society has an estimated 5,000 – the same as the British Sausage Appreciation Society.” Neither number comes close to the apparent number of Jedi roaming the UK.

Worth looking into in some more detail are two issues that will influence the religion question. First, the number of younger people who were not as interested in completing the census form. This seems to be a fairly widespread problem among the younger population. This is obviously crucial for determining the direction of religion in the UK. Actual data on these demographics were not helped by the “Jedi campaign” where seven people per thousand wrote “Jedi” in the “other religion” box, some 390,000 in total.

Also contributing to the current numbers on religionis the change in international populations:

  • In 2011 13 per cent (7.5 million) of usual residents of England and Wales were born outside the UK; in 2001 this was 9 per cent (4.6 million).
  • The most common non-UK countries of birth for usual residents of England and Wales in 2011 were India, Poland and Pakistan. Poland showed by far the largest percentage increase in the top ten countries of birth, with a nine-fold rise over the last decade and following its accession to the EU in 2004.
  • There were 4.8 million non-UK passports held by usual residents of England and Wales in 2011, accounting for 9 per cent of the resident population. Of these, 2.3 million were EU (non-UK) passports.
  • Around half (3.8 million) of all usual residents of England and Wales on census day who were born outside the UK last arrived in the UK between 2001 and 2011.
  • All regions in England and Wales showed an increase in usual residents born outside the UK between 2001 and 2011; the largest numerical increases were in London and the South East. London had both the largest proportion of usual residents born outside the UK (37 per cent of its resident population) and non-UK nationals (24 per cent of its resident population).

The 2011 census report on religion is available as a pdf download here, and a video summary is available here.

Ecclesiology, Episcopal/Anglican, Thought of the Day

+Justin Welby: 105th Archbishop of Canterbury!

Leave a comment

UPDATE…

Well, it looks like we DO have a new Archbishop of Canterbury.

On March 21st, Justin Welby will be enthroned at Canterbury Cathedral.

The announcement was made this morning and the popular opinion was correct, the recently installed Bishop of Durham, the former oil exec Justin Welby. He is a relative newcomer, and not much is know about his stance on several key issues. People that know him from before and after he took Holy orders are not surprised at his election, and competent seems like a universal description of +Welby.

He has been described as more conservative than Rowan Williams, but is also in favor of women’s ordination. It seems like there is not as much clarity on his views regarding human sexuality and marriage. There has been a bit of bother about his being from Eton but on the other hand, he chose to leave big oil and follow a vocation after the death of his daughter. This seems to indicate that his values are in the right place. We do have indications that while conservative, He is also a negotiator and peacemaker of some significant experience, having traveled often to Africa and even been in some physical danger. These traites could well serve to make him an effective leader of the CoE and the worldwide Anglican communion.

While information is still a bit scarce, a short interview from his appointment to Durham last year, and a radio piece from BBC provide a good bit of background info. Those of us in the USA are especially interested in how the next Archbishop of Canterbury deals with the nature of communion with TEC and former TEC parishes. Hopefully, he selects good advisors on canon law and is as quick a study as early reports seem to indicate.

Thanks be to God and let’s continue to pray for ++Welby and his new role which carries such a burdon of leadership in these troubled and dangerous times.

Creeds and Canons, Episcopal/Anglican, Fathers, Listen to your Fathers

Ecumenical Councils: Accusing A Bishop

Leave a comment
Ier concile oecuménique de Constantinople (381)

What does it mean to be an Anglican? How is this distinct from other forms of  ecclesiology? Why does this matter? Well, unless you are throughly postmodern, terms have meanings. In the US, the province of the Anglican communion is called the Episcopal church. This very name seems to have a pretty strong connection with episcopacy, that is with Bishops. In fact, seventy five percent of Christianity today functions in a episcopal type structure with Bishops. These are largely composed of Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican communions. They each claim to preserve the historic episcopate which inherently means that the Holy Spirit directs the catholic church through her bishops individually and jointly.

Historically, bishops function as the main ecclesiological authority in a given location. This structure has sometimes expanded to include archbishops, and in the Roman communion, the primacy of the Roman see. America termed her Anglican church Episcopal because it valued the diocesan bishop as the cheif ecclesiological authority. Being very independent minded after just removing themselves from monarchial rule, they called the bishop who organizes the provincial meetings the “Presiding bishop.” This term reflects that the office is not a “metropolitan”, that is someone with archbishop like authority. Why is this so? Because the bishops are Anglican by virtue of their letter of invitation to the Lambeth meetings, called by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Without this, you are not part of the Anglican communion.

In distinction to this, the membership in the Episcopal Church in America is a voluntary organization. Why? Because there IS no Metropolitan to whom communion must be preserved,  just an elected officer who organizes and oversees the national conventions.

Granted, there is much confusion on this topic of late, and many who think that the church is subject to anyone clever enough to reinvent the rules. This thinking would deny any reason to listen to either Canterbury, or the historic episcopate, or the ecumenical canons.  What are these canons we speak of? Well, there is in fact, another authority higher than a bishop, and this is an ecumenical council of bishops. In fact, the more ecumenical, the more historically binding the decrees. This idea is catholicism at its best. While an individual bishop may err, the Holy Sprit works out restoring and preserving the church through time in the community of bishops. This is especially evident in the case of the seven ecumenical councils of the Church, where a truly catholic voice is heard and we acknowledge this when we recite the Nicene creed every week. We do not invent the faith, it is given to us. We do not choose what to confess, we confess what the church has taught, what has been handed down from Christ, to his apostles, and to the bishops they select to run the churches. This is what makes the church truly catholic, and also demonstrates that the councils of bishops that met during the conciliar period are considered as normative today. If then, the Holy Spirit works in the Church through councils, not only are the creeds and confessions authoritative  but also its canons.

What would it take to overturn a canon decreed by an ecumenical council before the East/West schism in 1054, or the Protestant Reformation? Another truly ecumenical council?

Let us therefore listen to our fathers. Let us be slow to correct or accuse bishops. Let those who bring accusations be tested themselves, as to their life, conduct and doctrine. Then, if these are found to be in keeping with the faith of the Church, proper investigations ensue with fear and the desire for unity and healing as paramount motives. Be afraid, because whatever the issue, it is not as bad as rending the body of Christ. May the fear of God produce a wise discernment in how His Bishops are brought under accusation. Let us read and heed the canon of Constantinople on this:

First Council of Constantinople

Second Ecumanical Council (381)

Canon 6:

There are many who are bent on confusing and overturning the good order of the church and so fabricate, out of hatred and a wish to slander, certain accusations against orthodox

bishops in charge of churches. Their intention is none other than to blacken priests’ reputations and to stir up trouble among peace-loving laity.

For this reason the sacred synod of bishops assembled at Constantinople has decided not to admit accusers without prior examination, and not to allow everyone to bring accusations against church administrators —If the charge brought against the bishop is of an ecclesiastical kind, then the characters of those making it should be examined, in the first place to stop heretics bringing charges against orthodox bishops in matters of an ecclesiastical kind.

(We define “heretics” as those who have been previously banned from the church and also those later anathematised by ourselves: and in addition those who claim to confess a faith that is sound, but who have seceded and hold assemblies in rivalry with the bishops who are in communion with us.) In the second place, persons previously condemned and expelled from the church for whatever reason, or those excommunicated either from the clerical or lay rank, are not to be permitted to accuse a bishop until they have first purged their own crime. Similarly, those who are already accused are not permitted to accuse a bishop or other clerics until they have proved their own innocence of the crimes with which they are charged.

But if persons who are neither heretics nor excommunicates, nor such as have been previously condemned or accused of some transgression or other, claim that they have some ecclesiastical charge to make against the bishop, the sacred synod commands that such persons should first lay the accusations before all the bishops of the province and prove before them the crimes committed by the bishop in the case. If it emerges that the bishops of the province are not able to correct the crimes laid at the bishop’s door, then a higher synod of the bishops of that diocese, convoked to hear this case, must be approached, and the accusers are not to lay their accusations before it until they have given a written promise to submit to equal penalties should they be found guilty of making false accusations against the accused bishop, when the matter is investigated.

If anyone shows contempt of the prescriptions regarding the above matters and presumes to bother either the ears of the emperor or the courts of the secular authorities, or to dishonour all the diocesan bishops and trouble an ecumenical synod, there is to be no question whatever of allowing such a person to bring accusations forward, because he has made a mockery of the canons and violated the good order of the church.

Irenaeus, Listen to your Fathers, Media, Theology, Thought of the Day

Evangelical Responses to “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” (Thought of the Day)

1 Comment
(C) KAREN L. KING 2012)

I know, I know, another article about this story, but wait a tic and bear with me. This is not so much about a little square peice of parchment as it is about defining the real argument. It is important to know where the disagreement is in order to properly engage it, and not lose the main argument by granting your opponents assumptions, then piddeling over details. This I offer, is what many of the responses to this fragment have done.

Now, there have been amazingly fast responses by Bock, Wallace, Watson and others. These have provided helpful information about the nature of New Testament Studies, Textual Criticism and so fourth in hopes that Jane Q. Reader will be assured that there is no reason doubt her faith.

It is also amazing to note how fast empty speculation travels when the content is something salacious to the Christian faith. Such is the case with Dr. Kings presentation at a coptic conference–– not typically covered by the news. The media was very well coordinated with this timely release, note the rapidity of the conversation about Kings article being published, as well as the Smithsonian’s broadcast show about this find. Evangelicals have been quick to respond, but often these responses focus on the text itself with little address of the argument behind the presentation. Heck, Dr. King herself says that she is not arguing that this document proves Jesus had a wife. If however, this is not the thrust of her argument then what is?

The Real Argument Located

Who’s “gospel” is this and why should we consider it Christian? In a rare snippet of editorial precision in the media, Cynthia Bourgeault says in her Washington Post article:

But what this new discovery does do is to provide additional confirmation for a body of evidence already mounting from those other recently discovered early Christian sacred texts—specifically, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and the Gospel of Philip—that a group of very early Christians remember a version of their history quite different from what eventually became the officially sanctioned story.

This is the real argument put forward by King. This is a popular narrative in contemporary scholarship that arises out of several academic feilds who share and promote the same view, one that does indeed have “great explainitory power.”  Great explanatory power however, does not equate to truth. What this news story does I propose, is exactly what Dr. King wants. She wants this narritive not only promoted, but advanced in such a way as to undermine orthodox Christianity. Let me explain.Precisely, it is that anyone who self-identified as Christians in the first few hundred years of Christianity should be granted the title, and their view of Christianity should be considered equally valid. This is the great thing about our Dr. King. She is fairly straight forward about her agenda. In her book about her study of the Gnostic groups (some of which used the Gospel of Thomas related to this parchment), King writes

I am actually doing what I am critiquing: writing the origins and history of Gnosticism in order to ‘subvert the game’…So too, one way to conceptualize this study is to see it as an attempt to subvert the game of orthodoxy and heresy as it is played out in the academic field of religious studies” King, What is Gnosticism, 243–44.

The narrative in short, is that originally Christianity was very diverse and that different groups believed different things, and each one did their own thing. This is a really cool environment, especially if there is no Truth and any assertions of a capitol “T” Truth are just considered violent assaults on someone else. Pluralism is the highest value of man, and defining yourself as those Christians who come to be called ‘Orthodox’, against groups of the ‘other’ that you exclude is mean and un-pluralistic. With dirty politics like unto colonial imperialism, these ‘Orthodox’ eject the minority and take over power structures, and eventually destroy most of the documents of the oppressed people. This allows the victors to rewrite history and make themselves out to be ‘Saints’ and the others to be ‘Heretics’. This is a great theory unless of course, you hold that Christianity is actually true, and that Christ is truely according to his revelation, which was preserved in the Church despite the failings of men. If you hold THAT narrative, then King’s view is actually the one trying to rewrite history and convince an easily duped public of a different story. This little parchment everyone is discussing is textually associated with the Gospel of Thomas. How do these other “gospels” like the  Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and the Gospel of Philip fit into the story? Well, I’m glad you asked. These documents are later writings from groups of people called Gnostics. The dominate theory explained above holds that these are the writings that were wrongfully excluded

The Real Argument Lost

Holding King’s view, and subscribing to this narrative means rejecting and discarding the the opposing narrative. This is where the true conflict lies. If you grant that the Gnostic groups are indeed Christian, then you introduce some pretty interesting and different views about God, Christ, Creation, Knowledge and a bunch of other things as well. Was Christ the son of God who is both human and divine, or is Christ the by-product of a lower deity who teaches man about a divine spark?
Granting the assumption of King and others, and even using their language of “Gnostic Christians” cedes the main point of contention. Can you say anything at all about who Christ is and by using the name of Christian warrant equal treatment for your teachings? If so, then Christianity is simply a term with no meaning. In fact, Christ is something for each person and group to define for themselves. If there is no ultimate truth, this is fine and dandy. But on the other hand, if there is a God who revels himself to man with some definition, as a triune God of Father, Son and Spirit, then you really are not free to muck about with this revelation. In fact, when Evangelical Scholars grant the term “Gnostic Christianity” they have instantly lost the battle, and are spinning academic wheels debating a tiny piece of parchment. I’m not saying we don’t study the parchment, but just let’s not cede the main point of contention from the start. Here again is a place we can learn from the Fathers who actually lived with these groups. How did they respond? They saw the faith as something once for all delivered by Christ to the saints, and preserved by the Spirit from the Apostles and Prophets, through the generations of faithful ministers in the Church, until Christ’s return. Irenaeus knew of these groups, and the alternate versions of the Christian narrative. He does not welcome every conflicting account as wonderful examples of diversity, but rather introduces five volumes that attempt to overthrow this “false knowledge” saying:

In as much as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, ‘minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith,’ and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Adv. haer. I.p

So we have a choice, to listen to and adopt the narrative of the Weststar institue and its Fellows like Karen King, or to hear the narrative told from the perspective of the star that rises in the East, of the incarnation of God with us in Christ Jesus, whose only teaching regarding his bride is that she is the Church.

Ecclesiology, Episcopal/Anglican, Theological Method, Theology

Series: The Faith of the Church. Part 3

Leave a comment

Christianity and Other Religious Cultures

Jarsolav Pelikan

What does it mean when Christ is revealed, not only as the messiah, but God made flesh? This radical notion caused a seismic shift from the monotheism understood by the Jews and in distinction from the pluralism of the Greek and Roman pantheon. The question posed by much modern scholarship is do we understand this shift from the miraculous revelation of Christ, or from a creative appropriation of the surrounding culture? The (now) famous pagan Celsus charged Christians with falsifying the nativity story and argued for the impossibility of God assuming human flesh.1

Part of this question has to do with the use of language. Judaism had no language to express philosophically what the witness of the early church claimed. Yet in the context where these early groups lived, a rich tradition of Greek philosophy contained the ideas and terms to express this newly understood revelation. Hellenism is often thought to be the source material for not just the expressions, but the ideas later described as essential Christianity.2

Another rich source for claims of Christian appropriation is from ancient Gnosticism in the early church. Various theories of gnostic influence include both sacramental practice, and syncretistic teachers like Clement of Alexandria, who reflects both Platonic and Gnostic influences.3 These historic shifts that reflect a real struggle of identity and expression present challenges to the argument that there was any essential Christianity that preceded later corruption. Walter Bauer famously argued that heresy came first, and “orthodoxy” is a later, development.4

This thesis has been widely accepted and used, even while refuted by many following works, including an immediate and devastating review by Walter Völker, which sadly was not translated into English.5 Although problematic in separate areas, and as an overall thesis, Bauer’s model had the benefit of great explanatory power, and is thus broadly accepted by adding qualifications like “generally correct.” Several of the contemporary theories of doctrinal development owe the foundations of their presuppositions to the works of Walter Bauer and Adolph von Harnack. These arguments are especially helpful in framing modern views of the early Church with proclivities towards colonial imperialism and social exclusivism.

Contemporary Theories of Doctrinal Development

History of doctrine has expanded as an academic category since Harnack’s influential work, and there are many sub-categories for the different assumptions, methods and styles which are being published. Bingham offers four high-level patterns of contemporary works on doctrinal development.6

Basically, these can be described as devolution, coalescing, trajectories, and hybridity. Adolf Harnak’s model is one of devolution, where original orthodoxy existed, but is quickly and continually corrupt. This model assumes monotheism and views an original “gospel” that is unchanging over time, if hidden by historical accretion. His counterparts in the history of religions school, reject any metaphysics and view development through human effort and achievement where an original disparity, coalesces into an authoritarian orthodoxy.7

This view is also represented in Bart Ehrman’s “Lost Christianities,” where following Bauer, the diversity is seen at the outset, but is crushed in the third century by the “proto-orthodox.”8 In the third view, there is an initial plurality of belief and practices that historically develop their own streams of doctrine. Koester notes for example “at the close of the first century we find at Ephesus several rivaling Christian groups (not several separate churches): the originally Pauline church, supported by the Qumran-influenced Paulinist who wrote Ephesians, but also represented the author of Luke-Acts who in his own way accommodated the tradition of the great Apostle to the expediencies of the church.”9

This was the situation pre-canon, and Koester sees the New Testament as even a “new theological departure.”10 Finally, there is the hybrid model, which seeks to appreciate different expressions without negative concepts that depreciate the “other.”11 Both Koester and Lieu credit Walter Bauer for the ability to move past antiquated constructs like an original Christian identity. The question then should be asked, are these presuppositions and methods valuable when they contrast the self identity of the historical community? How is the “other” as members of a Christ following faith community being appreciated without divisive and polemical terminology?

Key Philosophical Shifts for Doctrinal Development

All of these models of doctrinal development share at least one thing in common. They all make certain philosophical presuppositions that establish boundaries for what can be considered as legitimate development. While the philosophic influences of Stoicism, Platonism, and Gnosticism on the early church receives detailed treatment, very little work has been done by historians regarding their own philosophical foundations. Historical-critical scholarship is rather construed as proceeding from no theological assumptions and following a method that is scientific and objective, only dealing with empirical evidence.12

Adopting an Aristotelian separation of subject matter from spiritual function, tends to deny both an initial deposit of faith, or any legitimate apostolic ecclesial function. Yet the belief that objective method is even possible, defined earlier modernism. Yet this perspective has been refuted by arguments from the philosophy of science for over sixty years.13 This disconnect between transcendent and natural is foreign to the reception history of Christianity, and creates a cognitive dissonance in understanding even the biblical writers and early church fathers themselves.14

Pelikan demonstrates the well established critique of objectivity when he writes that there is “no such thing as an uninterpreted fact and that therefore an exegesis free of presuppositions is impossible.”15 Further, the claim that scientific method removes subjective bias like privileging self claims is refuted by Kuhn, who gives a detailed description of how community and presuppositions influence theory choice in all practice of science.16

Academically, the move past modernist certainties has been acknowledged in some areas of the humanities like literature and history. Yet in biblical studies and the history of Christian doctrine, orthodoxy and its presuppositions represents the current heresy and thus have little voice. Köstenberger suggests that the serious challenges presented against what he now terms the Bauer-Ehrman thesis have become paradigmatic because it “resonates profoundly with the intellectual and cultural climate in the West at the beginning of the twenty-first century.”17

Recognizing our own limits and cultural situatedness, at least moves conflicting models into a discussion where the traditional views can be heard with new appreciation. In the next post we will look with new appreciation at the earlier constructs for doctrinal development, and surprising find that they allow for development and diversity within a congruent unity.

  1. Judith Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World(Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004). ↩
  2. Adolf von Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums: Sechzehn Vorlesungen vor Studierenden aller Facultäten im Wintersemester 1899/1900 an der Universität Berlin gehalten (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1900); Cilliers Breytenbach and L. L.Welborn, Encounters with Hellenism: Studies on the First Letter of Clement (Boston: Brill, 2004). ↩
  3. Herbert Schmid, Die Eucharistie ist Jesus: Anfänge einer Theorie des Sakraments im koptischen Philippusevangelium (NHC II 3) (Boston: Brill, 2007); Salvatore Romano Clemente Lilla, Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism, (London: Oxford University Press, 1971). ↩
  4. Walter Bauer, Robert A Kraft, and Gerhard Krodol, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). ↩
  5. Walter Völker, “Review of Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 54, no. (1935): 628–31. ↩
  6. D. Jeffrey Bingham, “Development and Diversity in Early Christianity,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 1 (2006): 45–66. ↩
  7. Ernst Troeltsch, Die Absolutheit des Christentums und die Religionsgeschichte: Und zwei Schriften zur Theologie, Siebenstern-Taschenbuch, vol. 138. (München u. Hamburg: Siebenstern-Taschenburch-Verlag, 1969). ↩
  8. Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). ↩
  9. Helmut Koester, “Gnõmai Diaphori: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity,” Harvard Theological Review 58, no. 3 (1965): 279–318; James M. C. Robinson and Helmut Koester, Trajectories Through Early Christianity, (Fortress Press, 1971). ↩
  10. Koester, Origin and Nature, 318. ↩
  11. Rebecca Lyman, “2002 N.A.P.S. Presidential Address: Hellenism and Heresy,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 11, (2003): 209–22; Judith Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004). ↩
  12. Historical criticism is the dominant model of Biblical and historical research. Its methodological skepticism is influenced in part by Decartes “Discourse on Method.” René Decartes, Oeuvres de Descartes, ed. Charles Adam and Paul Tannery, vol. 6 (Paris: J. Vrin, 1964). ↩
  13. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Intellectual, ed. Ruth N. Anshen, Religious Perspectives, vol. 14 (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 104. ↩
  14. Nygren argues that one “cannot understand what the author says unless he grasps also what the author means without saying it.” (Anders Nygren, “The Role of the Self-Evident in History,” The Journal of Religion 28, no. 4 {1948}: 235–41). ↩
  15. Pelikan, Christian Intellectual, 104–7. ↩
  16. Thomas S. Kune, “Objectivity, Value Judgement, and Theory Choice,” in The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977). 320–339. ↩
  17. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity has Reshaped our Understanding of Early Christianity (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010). ↩

"Listen to your Fathers"