I’ve been reading a few books lately that have seemed to collide with this Easter morning. The first book is one that I picked up from the library entitled, “A Concise History of Christian Thought” by Tony Lane, and the second is a book that I bought while Lauren and I were on our honeymoon a year ago, “Simply Christian” by N. T. Wright. “A Concise History…” is written in textbook fashion, filled with dates and quotes. It is somewhat laborious to read, but it is serving the purpose I expected it to have– The book is giving me an understanding of Christian thinkers and the things that they taught since the beginning of the Christian church. The books offers insight to the writings and teachings of an individual along with enough context to understand why they might have said what they did. It is a concise history, though, so there are some obvious gaps. “Simply Christian” is an apologetic work which has an obvious thread connecting it with C. S. Lewis’s, “Mere Christianity.” “Simply Christian” sets itself apart because Wright is a scholar and Lewis often reminds his readers that he is not.
The beginning of “A Concise History…” is a section entitled “the Church of the Fathers to AD 500.” I have learned quite a bit in the 50 or so pages that I’ve read so far, but what has struck me the most is the defense of who Jesus was and is. It seems that the Christian Fathers wrote extensively to make sure that Christians understood who Jesus is. Many of the early Fathers wrote apologetic works to defend the faith against sects that were preaching things against what was originally understood to be true. For instance, the doctrine of the Trinity was not called “the doctrine of the Trinity” until around AD 381. In AD 381 the Council of Constantinople met and developed the Nicene Creed (which was not developed at the Council of Nicea, so that’s confusing). The Council of Constantinople developed the Nicene Creed as an effort to establish a ecumenical creed that the Christian churches could point to and say, “this is what Christians believe.” Trinitarian language was being defined at this council, but not developed. The doctrine of the Trinity was bing defined to help people understand how God the Father, Jesus Christ our LORD, and the Holy Spirit could be the same God, without being three separate gods or having them all be the same God with different levels of “godness.”
The thing that has stood out to me most out of the things that I have read so far is from a man named Ephrem the Syrian. He wrote these words in “Homily on our Lord 4.” Does it remind you of anything you might have heard in Sunday School?
[Jesus], the son of a carpenter, cleverly made his cross a bridge over Sheol [the abode of the dead], that swallows everyone, and brought mankind over it into the dwelling of life. because it was through the tree [in the Garden of Eden] that mankind had fallen into Sheol, so it was on teh tree [the cross] that they passed over into the dwelling of life. Thus the tree brought not only bitterness but also sweetness – that we might learn that none of God’s creatures can resist him. Glory be to you who laid your cross as a bridge over death, that souls might pass over it from the dwelling of the dead to the dwelling of life!
As I read this, I was struck with the similarity of this passage to the “bridge illustration” that is used so often today. The short version of the bridge illustration goes like this: Sin has separated man from God with a impassable cavern. Nothing that we can do, on our own, will get us to God. Because of this cavern, we will die apart from God. But, in God’s great mercy, Jesus gave up his life on the cross, took upon himself the punishment for our sins, and gave us a way to be joined with God again. The Cross is the bridge that allows us access to God.
I have often thought about how the bridge illustration was something thought up in the past 100 years, but after reading Ephrem’s words I have realize how timeless it is. After I read his words I was struck with the thought that this illustration could have been showing people the path to God for some 2000 years.
On to “Simply Christian.” I haven’t taken many notes throughout this book, not because there hasn’t been much of note, but rather because the writing has been rather fluid. As I have reached the ends of each of the sections I have found myself exhaling as if I read the whole section in one breath. Many of my reflections come from the last paragraph or two. Here’s one that I have dwelt on today.
Jesus exploded into the life of ancient Israel–the life of the whole world, in fact– not as a teacher of timeless truths, nor as a great moral example, but as the one through whose life, death, and resurrection God’s rescue operation was put into effect, and the cosmos turned its great corner at last. All world views are challenged to the core by this claim.
This reminded me much of a paragraph in Mere Christianity where Lewis writes:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher; but I don’t accept his claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sorts of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic–on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg– or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. you can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
All of these things point to the very important question that Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” Today, as the Christian church celebrates the resurrection of Jesus, we are still confronted with that question.
Who do you say that He is?
while good intentioned, i kind of haven’t ever really been to keen on what the “church fathers” have had to say. for a couple of reasons (and these are things i’ve thought before reading pagan christianity): by 500 ad and at the council of constantinople, roman paganism was already being thoroughly sewn into christianity, changing the jewish and jewish understood context of the bible, and of the things jesus and paul speaking of with a distinctly roman/greek understanding. while good intentioned, they’re not really right. they can’t help it, and they can’t know/think any other way, but fact is, everything in the bible is aimed primarily at a jewish people.
second, at the fall of jerusalem, christianity changed hands from jews to gentiles. this mostly relates to the first one and might not even deserve a second divisor, but jewish knowledge was no longer being applied.
third, all these councils seem to generate are abstractions. it seems rare that they generate practicality. great, wonderful, we have a creed, but what about doing things Jesus said to do? those seem to be relatively creedless. moreover, didn’t Jesus already lay out the highest creed you could have? how are we going to top or make more clear that which was made crystal?
lastly is the fact that the church fathers were the people in position, which means what they show isn’t going to be accurate of the actual climate. much like today. are the majority of christians really as vapid and 2d as the books in christian family would have you believe? no. i think much the same holds for these different councils. while i couldn’t even begin to guess what the “laity” (laity in a great priesthood of believers? how could that be?) were actually thinking/struggling with, but my guess is that it was loosely related to various councils at best. unfortunately, we’ll probably never know since most couldn’t read/write, so there won’t be a wealth of blogs and journals for people to find like there will be with ours.
all this, but i don’t know any better than they did. i just know that i kind of don’t care what they said. i don’t say this lightly, i realize that saying this is about as big as saying “Jesus was a big fake” in a lot of circles. to say the church fathers were wrong is tantamount to outright heresy.
i’m currently seeking a rabbi of some sort so that i can gain the jewish eyes with which to see my world.
cuyler-
I know, from previous conversations, that you haven’t been “too keen” on any kind of authoritative church history or leadership, but I was wondering what are some of the pagan influences that you have seen developed through out the church? I guess I’m not quite sure what you mean when you say that. Is it the same line of arguments that argue against celebrating Christmas and Easter? I would be interested to hear more of you thoughts on that.
I agree that your first and second point are much the same, and I would offer that the shift from a Jewish centered to Greek centered gospel was inevitable. While the Old Testament shows us the history of the true God and his relationship with his people, there does become of shift in the New Testament. I think that much of this has to do with the revelation that God’s people are not limited to the nation of Israel anymore, but that through Jesus’ sacrifice we gentiles are adopted into God’s family. Paul sets out to preach the good news to the gentiles, using Greek language because that what was what they were speaking.
You said that, “but fact is, everything in the bible is aimed primarily at a jewish people.” and I think I will have to disagree with you here. I think that we could separate the Old Testament from the New and say that the Old speaks to the Jewish people and the New speaks to the gentiles (or perhaps, to a more universal audience.) but I think that everything in the Bible is aimed and God’s people. At times the words are guided towards the Jewish nation and other times it is spoken to a Greek audience, but is always being spoken to God’s people.
I realize that I often sound like I think I have everything figured out, I’m sorry if that has been the tone of my reply. It’s not what I intended. I am interested in your thoughts on the pagan influences.
things like easter and christmas i could care less about. people can argue those until they die and i won’t be compelled to care anymore or less. what i mean by pagan influence is (and i’m being careful to speak on stuff that i felt/saw before reading pagan christianity that has been confirmed by other sources, so as to not hold up a single book as the mark of sole truth on the matter) things like the hierarchy of clergy, division between the laity (a phrase i might not have used if i hadn’t read PC, but mainly because it wouldn’t have occurred to me as the phrase to use), the EXTREME veneration of saints and icons. i mean, paul calls us a priesthood, all of us, priests, and yet no church that i’ve ever been to has given me that impression. sure, everyone’s a priest… if they go through the proper training. i don’t get this impression from paul or Jesus. things like elders – shouldn’t they occur naturally as opposed to being requisite for a church to start? because that would mean that our church is wrong, and i don’t see things that say people can’t gather unless there’s an elder.
and the extreme veneration of the saints is blatantly polytheism, just given a sort of “christian” flavor. i lose my keys? i’ll give some alms, light some candles, and pray to saint jehosophat, finder of stuff. i have a war to fight? i’ll light some candles, give some alms, shoot a prayer and maybe sacrifice a ram if its handy to ares, god of war. exact same principle. and protestants have kind of taken this saint veneration, watered it down, and applied it to their preachers/pastors. “he’s so touched by God!” which might be true, but he’s no more touched than i, and pastors build followings around themselves, intentional and otherwise.
and i agree that the NT emphasizes the universality of God himself, and i guess what i meant is that Jesus’ teachings were aimed at jews primarily, then after his death, a jewish paul reached out to gentile greece. but, it wasn’t so much that the old covenant disappeared and was being replaced by this dog gentile covenant, but rather, the dog gentile was being grafted into the old covenant, kind of. rather, God had struck the ultimate covenant with his people, and the gentiles were welcome to join. we were being grafted into the true vine.
and then i stopped to clip my fingernails and think, and then i lost what i was thinking.
oh, i remember. so, while the focus shifted to a more universal approach, i don’t think this negates their jewish roots. we aren’t now the center of his covenant, the jews are still his chosen people, we’re just given oppurtunity to participate it in with them, and they to participate more closely. paul admits this mystery. somehow we can all participate, yet somehow God still honors his old commitment.
so, that’s what i was meaning in a nutshell. i need shower. bad.