Learning from the Early Church

[Josh]

I'm going to start this thread out on the Ponderings and move it to a more suitable place later.

Part of what we'll be studying in the coming weeks has to do with "learning from the early church".

There is currently a strong current among "evangelicals" to draw inspiration and take lessons from the example and witness of the early church (by that I mean the post-new testament church up through basically the fall of Rome, ie. 100 AD- @500 AD).

This was evidenced to me afresh when I received the latest Christianity Today issue in the mail last week, entitled, "Lost Secrets of the Ancient Church- How Evangelicals started looking back to move forward". I'm pretty excited about this trend and I'm glad we as a Church have already spent quite a bit of time in our past investigating this kind of thing.

So, here are some questions I'd like to pose you all to help our studies over the next couple weeks. Any answers you can give to any of these questions would be much appreciated:

1) Do you have any questions about the Early Church period? (from basic factual info to more complex, any questions are good)

2) If you've studied the Early Church to some degree, what lessons have you learned from that study about Church life and what it means to be a Christian?

3) Do you have any concerns about this trend or about looking to this time period as an example for the way we live out our faith today?

[Douglas]

THis has been a topic that has entrigued me for some time. There is alot to learn from the fathers.

One of the dangers that i have seen though is a tendency to yank early christian theology and practice out of its context and apply it directly to 21st century life. This seem to be something that most evangelicals (i am including myself here) love to do. I believe that we can and should learn from the great men and woman of the past but must be careful to see them in their own context recognizing it as different from our own.

This being said i am very excited dig into this topic.

[Josh]

Douglas, I share the concern to some degree but I'm going to have to beg you (or someone else) for a concrete example. What might be ripping something out of context to one person might be totally different to another. And since this has profound implications in the way individual church communities do their business, I think it's good to talk about some 'test cases'.

[Douglas]

Good point, let me think about it and get back to you.

[Douglas]

Ok a coupe of examples. This is a very long discussion so will touch on a few and hope that i do them justice. This related in many ways to the discussion that i started on western christianity.

First church practice: This ranges from issues like:

• infant baptism,
  
• the tradition of a head preaching pastor
  
• many gender distinctions, including head coverings
  
• the place of sign gift such as tongues in the service
  
• The centrality of the Eucharist in the service.
  

There is a lot here. And i can only touch on a couple.

In my own church and many other infant baptism is practiced. Why? There is often an attempt to defend this practice from scripture but in the end all is inclusive because we have no direct biblical teaching regarding it. The fall back is Christian tradition. Infant baptism has been practiced in the majority of western Christian churches since the 3rd century at least. Yet just because it was practiced then does not mean it is correct today. I am personally convinced that this practice was more a product of the context, high infant mortality, different family authority structure, etc.

The issue of gender is another much more difficult topic. This is often seen very clearly in very traditional churches where the woman are required to where head coverings in church. More than this early Christianity was build on a specific understanding of gender roles with in the family and by extension within the church. How much of these roles was a product of society and how much was from scripture. What would the church look like in a matriarchal society such as we sometimes find in Africa? Would we have to impose a patriarchal system as the biblical ideal?

As well the traditional model of a single preaching pastor is one that has come down to us over the ages. There were elder led churches very early but withing several centuries and for most of church history the single head pastor of priest has been the norm. There is much debate over this today. Perhaps the answer contextual. We need to find what works best for us today in whatever context we find ourselves.

The celebration of the eucharist is huge as well. In most early services and even today in the catholic, and eastern orthdox traditions the celebration of the Lords supper is the center of everything. The entire service and every service for that matter revolves around this tradition and its spiritual significance. In contrast in most protestant services the preaching is central the altar typical in early/catholic/orthodox services was replaced with the pulpit. In other churches worship is the center. I suggest that while we ought to contemplate the practice of early church we must construct a worship service that is a reflection both of our historical faith and of our 21st century context.

A great example of this is a the deadness of most European traditional churches. They still celebrate the Eucharistic but the life is gone. The churches that are growing in Europe right now are mostly pentecostal and pastored by Africans and Latin Americans. They have found new life in the worship of God in song and spirit.

Another key area is that of Greco-roman influence on church thought and structure. This touches such areas as the

• authority structure of the church
  
• clean separation between body and spirit, heaven and earth.
  
• ethics
  
• Individualism
  

In regard to authority structure with the conversion of Constantine and the fall of Rome the church began to appear more and more similar to the roman system. This is the system that you now see in place in Roman catholicism as well as the old orthodox protestant churches, Lutheran, Methodist, ect. At the time it worked, in that context especially with the fall of Rome the world was in need of such a structure but ought we to continue to put it into place? This is more a questions for the catholics and old orthodox. But the question is still valid because the old system is still being put into place today.

The separation between material and spiritual is a huge one. This has had a huge impact in western theology and thought. The Greek saw two separate spheres, the question was "if and if so how and to what measure they interact." For the Africa, the Chinese, the Latin American and many others the two were never separated to begin with. I believe that the paradigm of the 3rd world is much closer to the original ancient jewish paradigm that we in west are.

Much of our understanding of christology, eschatology, ecclesiolgy, soteriology and a host of others that i cant remember are deeply influence by this classic divide. I am not saying that these are wrong in doing so but i think that we have a lot to learn from the paradigm of the rest. Many that i know (including myself in the past) idealize the theology of the church fathers as the highest pinnacle of Christian thought. Yet it seems to me now that all this is only part of something larger. It needs to be seen in its context and believe and applied in the context of the whole church experience.

There is a lot more but this is way long. I hope that i have given some examples that we can work with.

[christopher]

Here's one concrete example that I have trouble with. This is taken from the Creeds of Christendom (volume 1, the seven ecumenical councils).

The entire Orthodox Greek or Oriental Church, [See Note #90] including the Greek Church in Turkey, the national Church in the kingdom of Greece, and the national Church of the Russian Empire, and embracing a membership of about eighty millions, adopts, in common with the Roman communion, the doctrinal decisions of the seven oldest œcumenical Councils, laying especial stress on the Nicene Council and Nicene Creed. These Councils were all summoned by Greek emperors, and controlled by Greek patriarchs and bishops. They are as follows:

I. The first Council of Nicæa, A.D. 325; called by Constantine M.
II. The first Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381; called by Theodosius M.
III. The Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431; called by Theodosius II.
IV. The Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451; called by Emperor Marcian and Pope Leo I.
V. The second Council of Constantinople, A.D. 553; called by Justinian I.
VI. The third Council of Constantinople, A.D. 680; called by Constantine Pogonatus.
VII. The second Council of Nicæa, A.D. 787; called by Irene and her son Constantine.

The first four Councils are by far the most important, as they settled the orthodox faith on the Trinity and the Incarnation. The fifth Council, which condemned the Three (Nestorian) Chapters, is a mere supplement to the third and fourth. The sixth condemned Monothelitism. The seventh sanctioned the use and worship of images. [See Note #91]

Note #91

Worship in a secondary sense, or douleia,including aspasmos kai timçtikç proskunçsis,but not that adoration or alçthinç latreia,which belongs only to God. See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Bd. III. p. 440.

I've heard both Catholics and Orthodox folks try to explain the difference here, but the lines are so blurry to me that it's hard for me to distinguish this practice (now resurrected in some emergent churches today) from idolatry.

[christopher]

Here's another I have a problem with. Also from the Creeds (vol 1):

§33. The Vatican Decrees, Continued. The Infallibility Decree.

II. The First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (constitutio dogmatica prima de ecclesia Christi).
It was passed, with two dissenting votes, in the fourth public session, July 18, 1870. It treats, in four chapters—(1) on the institution of the Apostolic Primacy in the blessed Peter; (2) on the perpetuity of St. Peter's Primacy in the Roman Pontiff; (3) on the power and nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff; (4) on the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.
The new features are contained in the last two chapters, which teach Papal Absolutism and Papal Infallibility . The third chapter vindicates to the Roman Pontiff a superiority of ordinary episcopal (not simply an extraordinary primatial) power over all other Churches, and an immediate jurisdiction, to which all Catholics, both pastors and people, are bound to submit in matters not only of faith and morals, but even of discipline and government. [See Note #299] He is, therefore, the Bishop of Bishops, over every single Bishop, and over all Bishops put together; he is in the fullest sense the Vicar of Christ, and all Bishops are simply Vicars of the Pope. The fourth chapter teaches and defines, as a divinely revealed dogma, that the Roman Pontiff, when speaking from his chair (ex cathedra ), i.e., in his official capacity, to the Christian world on subjects relating to faith or morals, is infallible, and that such definitions are irreformable (i.e., final and irreversible) in and of themselves, and not in consequence of the consent of the Church. [See Note #300]

Anybody care to guess what "Vicar" means? Think "vicariously" or "in place of".

This may seem an obvious thing to avoid, but I believe it can be argued that it all started with a well-meaning and seemingly harmless decree by Ignatius that the "bishop" (unbiblical term BTW) must be present at all baptisms and weddings for them to be valid. Many Protestant denominations have something like a superior "bishop" as well.

[aimee]

So, I have a question, as I haven't studied early church history, a question that has always presented itself as I am reading the New Testament, is:
Did the churches the Apostle's created have a pastor/leader of the church? I have always been under the impression that it was more of a community and less about one person leading, with a rotation of people speaking. However, I am curious to find out how it was really layed out.

[Josh]

That's a great question Aimee. I think it even deserves it's own thread. So I'll start one. Here's a link:

Leadership in the Early Church

[Josh]

I'm chomping at the bit to get to the stuff you guys posted, but, just a note, Chris:

"bishop" (unbiblical term BTW)

The term "bishop" comes from the Greek "episkopos" (overseer/ guardian) and is used in Scripture to denote a title/position in the church (1 Timothy 3:1, Titus 1:7, see also 1 Peter. 2:25 for it's application to Christ)

[christopher]

Right you are.

But the reason I say it’s “unbiblical” is because the word “bishop” is not the English translation of the greek word episkopos which is derived from two words:

Epi – over (NT:1909)
Skopos – seer, watcher, etc (NT:4649). Which is where we get the word “scope”

So overseer, not bishop, is the correct translation. The NIV and NASU are correct and the others are diluted from something other than Greek. Bishop carries connotations of high church government, pointy hats, and long flowing robes. Whereas overseer simply suggests someone who is watching over the church and it’s affairs. Very different sounding terms IMO.

So then where in the world does the word “bishop” come from? Good question. Until tonight, I never really researched the etymology of that word. I just knew it wasn’t the direct translation.

It turns out that it’s derived from the Vulgar Latin in the middle ages…there is an evolution here.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bishop

Greek – episkopos
Latin – episcopus
Vulgar Latin – biscopus
Old English – biscop
Modern day – bishop

So then why do we have our English translations (KJV, NKJV) translating Vulgar Latin into English rather than from the Greek? After all, didn’t Erasmus and company supposedly create the TR from Greek Manuscripts rather than the Vulgate? NOT. The word “bishop” by that time had already come to have the meaning of a high church official and they certainly couldn’t give that up by softening that title. Could they?

I guess it's just one of my pet peeves when I find a word in my bible that is not directly translated from the original language, but for some reason was given another name. It smacks of translator bias to me.

Hell is another one of those.

[Josh]

That's why you should be reading the NIV like me ;D ;D ;D

[Josh]

You guys brought up so many good topics I'm just going to slowly plow through them with some thoughts. First up: infant baptism.

First off, I'd like to say that "learning from the early church" shouldn't be equivalent to "finding proof-texts from individual early church fathers that support my agenda".

The topic of infant baptism is a great test case because even into the third century different Early Church Fathers (ECF) held a divergence of opinions on the subject.

Tertullian in 198 prefered delay of baptism until kids were older:

"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children.

Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral. Sound faith is secure of its salvation!"

BTW, that's a very interesting passage also in that he clearly sees salvation as separate from baptism.

On the other hand of the debate, Irenaeus (180) and Cyprian (250) offer up good arguments for infant baptism (though ultimately I disagree with them). Their argument basically runs that God's salvation is because of Himself, not based on us, and if it is a free gift, then why withhold it from an infant? If we don't withhold it from the 'greatest sinners', why would we withhold it from an infant. *

Though later the Church hunkered down on a fixed practice of infant baptism, the true early church period (pre-Constantine) offers us great points and counterpoints which we can still learn from.

*Take this in light of the fact that most early christians did believe in the possibility of losing your salvation through rejection of Christ's sacrifice= in other words, whether baptised or not, baptism is not what ultimately saves a person.

[Douglas]

I dont want to distract from other more weighty matters, and you are very right that there are early divergent opinions on infant baptism.

The point that i wanted to bring out was rather that most of the believers that i personally have talked to use its early practice as a strong defense of it practice today. They lean on its early beginnings and tend to ignore the other witnesses against it. They assume that because the practice is old it is therefore good and right.

This brings out a good point, that the fathers (and mothers) of the church were not always on the same page when it came to specifics of faith and practice. We need to be careful to examine the divergent opinions as well.

[Josh]

Worship in a secondary sense, or douleia,including aspasmos kai timçtikç proskunçsis,but not that adoration or alçthinç latreia,which belongs only to God. See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Bd. III. p. 440.

I've heard both Catholics and Orthodox folks try to explain the difference here, but the lines are so blurry to me that it's hard for me to distinguish this practice (now resurrected in some emergent churches today) from idolatry.

I actually don't find the official Catholic teaching on douleia- especially in regard to saints (as opposed to the icons themselves)- to be very objectionable. I think it actually has precedent in the Old Testament and made some logical sense as an adaptation for new cultures and illiterate masses. Question me on this further if you like. That'd be a good discussion.

What I have more of a problem with is the Roman Catholic Church's astounding lack of effort to help its members distinguish between douleia and idolatrous and syncretist worship of saints and icons. And it does seem that such confusion is rampant.

[Josh]

As to your earlier comments about papal infallibility, I will simply say that, yes, I think that it's ridiculous, but that's a doctrine that was only officially enshrined in the 19th century, as you noted. I think linking the doctrine of papal infallibility to Ignatius is a bit precarious. One might as well link the doctrine back to Paul himself when he instituted overseers in the first place.

You guys have anything good to say about the early church?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D



or shall I name this, "The Early Church=A Shameful History of Perplexies"?

Where's the love, folks?

[apollos]

David Bercot has some interesting messages covering 'What the Early Church believed about ...' and then a subject. I don't agree with all of it, but it's a good place to start.