Apostolic Fathers
After mulling over the range of possible topics, all of them good, I have decided to go back to an earlier idea: the Apostolic Fathers, that is, the earliest accepted testimonies of the Church written after the first apostles. We shall begin with the first epistle of Clement and move on to Ignatius and the so-called Mathetes or Disciple. I made this choice because this Spring and Summer I am very overworked and the only texts that I can justifiably divert my attention to are the Scriptures and the early Church. Since I do not wish to pose as an expert Scriptural exegete or invite sectarian arguments, I shall only use Scriptural texts when they are useful in explaining the texts of the Fathers.
There are many available editions. I shall be using the Loeb text, primarily, with references to J.B. Lightfoot's Apostolic Fathers. However, the most convenient source is probably Philip Schaff's volume in the Christian Classics series that can be found in various places, including the very useful online edition in Calvin College's Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
Let us look at the first chapter, first for the general points in Lightfoot's English:
1Clem prologue:1
The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which
sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the
will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace
from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied.
1Clem 1:1
By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which
are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we have been somewhat
tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among
you, dearly beloved, and to the detestable and unholy sedition, so
alien and strange to the elect of God, which a few headstrong and
self-willed persons have kindled to such a pitch of madness that your
name, once revered and renowned and lovely in the sight of all men,
hath been greatly reviled.
1Clem 1:2
For who that had sojourned among you did not approve your most
virtuous and steadfast faith? Who did not admire your sober and
forbearing piety in Christ? Who did not publish abroad your
magnificent disposition of hospitality? Who did not congratulate you
on your perfect and sound knowledge?
1Clem 1:3
For ye did all things without respect of persons, and ye walked after
the ordinances of God, submitting yourselves to your rulers and
rendering to the older men among you the honor which is their due.
On the young too ye enjoined modest and seemly thoughts: and the
women ye charged to perform all their duties in a blameless and
seemly and pure conscience, cherishing their own husbands, as is
meet; and ye taught them to keep in the rule of obedience, and to
manage the affairs of their household in seemliness, with all
discretion.
Clement addresses, in the name of the Roman Church, the Church in Corinth, where sedition has broken out at just the worst of times, when the Church in Rome at least is beset by calamities. In general Clement complains of detestable and unholy sedition led by a few troublesome men whose behavior stands in contrast with the good old recent days when the Corinthians were praised for 1) keeping the ordinances of God, submitting themselves to the rulers, honoring the older men, keeping their women pure and submissive. In other words, they had learned from Paul's admonitions to be humble, obedient, and chaste. I do not think it is much of a stretch to say that Clement would have told hot-heads today, whether modernists or traditionalists, to mind their elders, respect authority, and keep their women in line--out of the pulpit and off the TV screen.
Chapter Two praises the former humility and peace of the Corinthians: "Ye had conflict day and night for all the brotherhood, that the number of His elect might be saved with fearfulness and intentness of mind. Ye were sincere and simple and free from malice one towards another.
Every sedition and every schism was abominable to you. Ye mourned over the transgressions of your neighbors: ye judged their shortcomings to be your own." The Greek agon , translated "conflict," here would be better rendered today by "competition" or "contest." An agon is an athletic competition.
"Being adorned with a most virtuous and honorable life, ye performed all your duties in the fear of Him. The commandments and the ordinances of the Lord were written on the tablets of your hearts. " Lightfoot translates as "life" politeia, a word that ordinarily meant commonwealth or constitution or citizenship and its rights. Clement might have meant they behaved well as imperial subjects but, as I rather think, he probably meant they managed their Christian community properly.
Their very success, however, encouraged envy and disorder, he observes in the third chapter. This is the familiar Greek paradigm of koros, hybris, ate, namely, that getting enough or being successful encourages pride and ambition that lead to one's downfall. "For this cause righteousness and peace stand aloof, while each man hath forsaken the fear of the Lord and become purblind in the faith of Him, neither walketh in the ordinances of His commandments
nor liveth according to that which becometh Christ, but each goeth after the lusts of his evil heart, seeing that they have conceived an unrighteous and ungodly jealousy, through which also death entered into the world." Again, Lightfoot overtranslates politeuesthai, which means to act as a citizen in a commonwealth, in this case the community.
Let us now take a close look at what Clement has to say about the order and organization of the Church, roughly chapters 40-44. In 37-39 Clement held up mutual help and cooperation as the model and censured the Corinthians for departing from it. In 40 he turns to one of the disorders in Corinth, the conduct of their services (a subject of Paul's complaints). Celebrations were commanded to be done at specific days and times, and he distinguishes (using Judaism as the model) between priests and laity--obviously anticipating his defense of the presbyters. Propert order in the Church (41) is based on diversity of functions, and Christians, who have been trusted with deeper knowledge, are even more bound to do things the right way than Jews, who incurred the death penalty for ritual failures.
In 42 we get to the nub: Christ is from God, the apostles from Christs, and bishops and presbyters derive their authority from the apostles either proximately or ultimately:
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went
forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.
So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, <i>I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.</i>
So here is the model of church organization in the apostolic age. It is neither the Quakerish "as the spirit moves us" nor congregationalist. The Church is universal; central authorities are recognized in Rome (and other major Churches), and the bishop and presbyters (the distinction is unclear) hold their authority from Christ by way of the apostles. This is not the Church of Boniface VIII, but it is not the Church of Calvin either.
Let us begin to wrap up our discussion and then move on to Ignatius to the Ephesians. From Clement we learn that in the Christian Church some decades before the end of the 1st Century, respect for the authority of presbyters and bishops was being insisted upon, that the bishop or presiding elder of a major apostolic Church could give instructions to another Church, that the authority of presbyters and bishops derives from Christ by way of the apostles. Within a church, the ceremonies were to be conducted at certain time and in a set manner, thus free-wheeling innovation was discourage. Life within the Church made a kind of commonwealth in which respect for authority, order, and tradition were preserved in a spirit of humility and charity. What have I left out?
Entries(RSS)
That choice couldn't be better (or better timed) as far as I'm concerned, since I'm currently trying to finish a two part podcast lecture series on the history of the Church which I downloaded from Covenant seminary, recorded in class by pastor David Calhoun. Since it's coming from a Presbyterian perspective, it would be great to get other views on the history of the early Church and the apostolic fathers from Catholic, Orthodox, or Lutheran Perspectives. I just hope the discussion can be prevented from degenerating into theological disputes.
Great choice...super great choice. Seriously you TJF are a hero of mine in the tradition of the very well considered & qualified (been through the mill) Greek great man. Conversely (and thus in essence i.e. the totality - not so conversely) I also like as hero in that tradition albeit of the judaic tinge inevitably (historical build-up) even though he became a Greek Orthodox Christian - Israel Shamir, of the left, if he still is of the left - I assume so. Right - left, left - right these days seems like a revolving door? Regardless there's nothing like character, erudtion and also sincerity to give a body (like me) hope. You guys I noticed have it - sincerity - not the kind that says once you've 'mastered' sincerity then you can be successful. I don't wish for that kind of 'success.' I'm a Christian in that regard at least. I believe in Jesus Christ the Essene. That's my 'belief.' It works, gets the endorphins going - keeps me on the right track usually. Regards,
p.s. i'm often an embarrassment and most of all to myself but it don't feel too bad - i'm sincere & often funny. I like or have chosen to fight it out, slog it out inch-by-inch. It's really a world of inches. I guess that's called the good fight?! Slowly I've noticed the mist gets less. And thanks to the Pope for visiting us here in America.
Let us have no quarrels and no propaganda. My Lutheran colleague Aaron Wolf has agreed to take part and I hope we can find some solid Orthodox person as well. I deliberately recommended Protestant editions to eliminate disputation. Since I regard the Church as an evolving project under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, I do not find it necessary to "prove" that Clement and Pius IX held the same powers and believed exactly the same things in every instance. To be quite frank, I have earlier called on Protestant friends and readers to help me search for a point at which we could agree on the fundamentals. These texts are the best place to begin.
I do not intend to write long commentaries, but to point out interesting things along the way and to raise questions.
Are you still intending a discussion of Cochin at some point?
Maybe I missed something earlier, but what is this exactly - a formal course, an on-line course, a reading program, or what? It certainly sounds very interesting.
Thank you, Dr. Fleming, both for the study and the spirit in which you aim to proceed. Can't wait...
This is simply another booklog discussion, but this one will take up some of the early Church Fathers, particularly from the point of view of what they tell us about the early Church and its practices. Since the primary purpose of these texts was usually to instruct early Christians on what to believe and how to behave, it is important to look at the underlying assumptions.
Let me thank Dr. Fleming publicly for undertaking this study. Certainly, one point at which all Christians can agree is the need to honor our fathers. One of the things that I find so fascinating and edifying about 1 Clement is the way in which he places the honor of our fathers in the context of the Gospel—of repentance, grace, faith.
"Let us review all the generations in turn, and learn how from generation to generation the Master hath given a place for repentance unto them that desire to turn to Him."
And all of this "Church history," if you will, is doxological, culminating in one of the Church's earliest witnesses to the use of the Sanctus. What a tremendous opportunity, then, for us to contemplate how Clement added to that doxology.
Thank you, Dr. Fleming. This sounds like something I won't be able to contribute to at all, but where I may learn a lot by following the discussion.
I'm eager to learn.
There's an old truth which is accurate in my opinion. The Holy Ghost is the only one who actually knows you fully here in the world besides yourself. And one day you'll or (in the collective we'll) know ourself/selves as well as he does. In the meantime it is a struggle, happily and sadly. It's been my experience in so far as I am aware of it. It goes to what we are ready for in terms of what is appropriately concealed and also unconcealed. And does speak to the truth of the *openness of Being in those terms. Some of us for whatever 'reason' may lend ourselves to that process more so than others. Of course there are benefits as well as shortcomings in this world. It depends probably on what is our passion and/or assignment in our time in the world. If you take this seriously, which I do for example.
I can't think of anything better to do in our times than to read the Fathers. I have met only a handful of teachers in my lifetime worthy of the title. Two are dead, one is senile and now enjoying his second childhood, one writes for Chronicles and will be leading this conversation and the other two are young and middle aged and therefore still subject to Lucifer's temptation towards pride and will thus remain annonymous. All agree, however, that no man can turn the clock back in time but rather should ask what time it is and then act appropriately. Reading the Fathers in our time seems to me one of those appropriate acts. My thanks to Dr. Fleming for this endeavor.
I have never studied the Fathers academically so I am rather excited to read more of what Dr. Fleming has to say. I notice that many Protestants who convert to Catholicism cite the Fathers as critical to their journey so hopefully these discussions will give me a greater understanding of my own faith.
Dr. Fleming:
If I may be excused in taking your valuable time for just a few questions:
1. I assume that you intend the Epistola ad Corinthios I. Is the other letter to the Corinthians doubtful in its authenticity or simply acknowledged as spurious?
2. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erster_Clemensbrief claims that the date is disputed. Is this true? What do you judge the date to be?
3. In the subject matter on the deposition of presbyters, is it correct to assume that the office of episkopos was already sharply distinguished from and superordinate to presbyteros?
4. Why is the bishop of Corinth not named? Was the see vacant?
5. And the weightiest question: Was the primacy of the Bishop of Rome already recognized throughout the empire? If so, was the primacy honorary in the sense of primus inter pares, the "presiding of love" (Primat von Liebe) of St. Ignatius, or was this primacy something more?
6. Was the letter included in the canon of some churches?
7. Are sections 59-61 a eucharistic Anaphora?
I in no way wish to presume an answer to all these questions, and I shall let you judge which are worthy of a reply. With gratitude
I am currently compiling for myself readings on Church history up to the death of Constantine the Great. The Apostolic Fathers are of a keen interest to me. I look forward to this encounter, an encounter which will, no doubt, unveil no little of my ignorance.
These are all worthy questions which can be addressed as we proceed through the text. In brief, to anticipate a better discussion of 1,2, and 6, my initial responses are 1) Yes, only the first Epistle. I may be wrong, but I don't know of anyone who maintains the authenticity of the other epistle, which seems to have been written 40-50 years later. On 2) one's decision on the dating partly depends on the interpretation of the text itself--which scholars have seen as a response to the persecution under Domitian--and on the tradition that makes Clement the third bishop of Rome after Peter. Clement's career probably fell in the reigns of Domitian and Trajan. In these matters I prefer to take what might be called a probabilistic approach, that is, to weigh and balance internal and traditional evidence and conclude what seems more likely. The brief answer to six is that it was certainly read in churches and included in some NT texts (the famous Alexandrinus). The nearness to which it approached canonical status is another question to take up at greater length.
As to 5, that partly explains the dating controversy, since Bishop Clement seems to write with authority to the Church in Corinth, implying some sort of special status. Hence, those who are eager to attack the papacy or even the episcopacy are all the more willing to dispute the date or even the tradition that Clement was bishop. This is, in my view, bad-faith reasoning, and if it is applied to the Scriptures themselves, we end up confessing we know nothing. Radical skepticism is only an egocentric form of credulity.
Without wishing to sidetrack the conversation, let me put one or two cards on the table. In general, I think that the earliest Christian writings show a Church in which a central authority is recognized, initially in the disciples in Jerusalem, and in which a rather small number of large episcopal cities associated with the names of the apostles develop rather rapidly a superior status: Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Caesarea. The evidence I have examined would not at all support a purely congregational system. But the hierarchy of patriarchate, metropolitanate, diocese, parish took some time to develop. But let us return to the text.
To get the ball rolling, I have posted the first chapter and a few obvious comments.
"I do not think it is much of a stretch to say that Clement would have told hot-heads today, whether modernists or traditionalists, to mind their elders, respect authority, and keep their women in line–out of the pulpit and off the TV screen."
And what if their elders, Church authorities, had refused to (for example) keep women out of the pulpit? What then? Would Clement call those who objected to such activities "hot-heads?"
Don't want to derail the reading. This is just the obvious comment that occurred to me upon reading yours, Dr. Fleming.
This is a relevant question. The simple answer would seem to be that a) Clement would probably not have regarded a church that routinely put women into the pulpit or allowed them to run wild as a genuine Church and if you follow his lead, neither will you, and b) the way to debate such matters is with respect for those in authority.
Let us take the Anglican case, where women are, alas, being ordained, or the Catholic case, where radicals call for their ordination. In the Anglican Communion, I really think they are fighting a losing battle against homosexualism, feminism, and every other ism. If that is/were true, then faithful Christians have to join another church but without making all the self-serving bother of a Richard Neuhaus. Remember: It is not about your ego. In the Catholic case, one has the right to appeal the arguments of a bad bishop or evil theologian to a higher court. In the case of the theologian one may laugh or dispute and walk away, but the rotten bishops must be treated with the courtesy that their office demands. Patience is, in such cases, the relevant virtue. I do not claim to possess much patience, much less to practice it, but the least we can do is not to boast of our insulting behavior to priests and bishops who do not, so we think, come up to the mark.
May I ask what, more specifically, was the nature of the discord spread among the Corinthians?
Speaking as a Catholic, I have noticed that in today's American Church, which is poisoned with so much modern thought, individualism under the form of extreme political activism has become the ticket to glory (or sainthood). Obedience, which was a once valued virtue, is disregarded in favor of activist 'movements' that frequently dissent from the Church unabashedly. This is not to say, however, that Clement would have nothing to say to our clergymen about their own bad example as Mr. Newland has pointed out.
"The least we can do is not to boast of our insulting behavior to priests and bishops who do not, so we think, come up to the mark."
Certainly there is a difference between privately (meaning within the Church) admonishing a priest or bishop while maintaining due respect for their authority and openly criticizing a Church figure as if he were a corrupt politician. Obedience does not equal silence or servitude, it requires respect for the Church and to each of Her members in as much as they properly fulfill their duties.
"For ye did all things without respect of persons, and ye walked after the ordinances of God, submitting yourselves to your rulers and rendering to the older men among you the honor which is their due."
Clement is not saying that dissent (heresy) or corruption must be tolerated because one is an elder. He is addressing the disintegration of the faith among the people, something which could manifest itself just as easily in corrupt elders as in disobedient youth.
I wish to extend special thanks to Dr. Fleming for choosing this topic and for beginning it in this manner. The opening passage above quoted reads:
Fleming further adds:
He later specifically uses the word "egocentric." This word neatly sums up what ails us today, from the impertinent "I gotcha" comments slung at experts here on Chronicles to the cultural of fat, self-indulgence roaming at large. The topical choice coincides neatly with my personal current reading of Cornelius van Til's Apologetic (ed. Bahnsen); it seems we have produced society where every individual believes himself the standard whereby the world is measured. We are, so each of us thinks, the Monad.
The obvious observation here to make is that we live in a society which St. Clement would doubtless describe as "idolatrous." We worship power. We hate authority. But isn't funny we cannot tell the difference between the two?
All this stems from self-worship. Which is really ridiculous if you think about it. If I am somehow God, why can I not blow my troubles away? Why can I not will a better-paying job? I do not write this in jest. My own father, once on the board of the Presbyterian church where Reagan attended, now believes in the "Law of Attraction," meaning that one creates his own fate by his thoughts. If you are not already fabulously rich, it is because you have not been thinking enough Positive Thoughts, the New Ager says, wagging his finger in your face.
There is an irony here. We worship ourselves. We worship the powerful. How can this be, I used to ask? We can do this because those who have the most are obviously the most successful – the most successful egocentrics. We worship their acquisitiveness out of our wish to emulate them. As egocentrics, our role-models are they who have most successfully indulged their egos. Who cares if the largest companies swelled to power by stealing from others? "It's theirs now."
It should be clear to all of us that the reason for what St. Clement calls "the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which are befalling us, brethren" is the same today as it was when he wrote, what Fleming names egocentricism. The whole Old Testament is about the people of God pulling together to follow him, or falling apart and fosaking Him. So it is in the New. We are, I hope, that people of God. That means we ought to set aside egocentrism in order to worship God, to respect authority – which God hath appointed.
By the way, this is also an oblique answer to the above questions on ecclesiastical polity. That of the early church was a confederation – neither purely centralized nor congregational. The five patriarchates then arising were each analagous to Montgomery or Richmond, and the bishops to governors in the old South. Too little organization and we lose accounatbility and head again toward egocentrism (and self-centered worship services). Too much organization, and God's sovereignty is usurped. The specific question on the episcopacy and presbytery will be more specifically developed by Ignatius, writing some thirty short years after John wrote Revelation; and I believe Ignatius is next after we finish here with Clement of Rome.
Thanks again, Dr. Fleming.
" . . . dispute the date or even the tradition that Clement was bishop."
I do want to stick to the text, so I submit that this is, in part, a response to St. Clement's use of "we" in our pericope, as in "we consider that we have been somewhat tardy," etc.
I agree that Clement writes with authority, even that of a bishop, but not as one who held the office as defined even a few years later by Ignatius. Protestant scholars agree that "bishop" and "presbyter" were used interchangeably in the New Testament, by Clement, and in the Didache. Thus, Schaff in Vol. I of his History, under "Christianity in Rome":
"This consolidation [of Jewish and Gentile congregations] was chiefly the work of Clement, who appears as the first presiding presbyter of the one Roman church. He was admirably qualified to act as a mediator between the disciples of Peter and Paul, being himself influenced by both, though more by Paul. His Epistle to the Corinthians combines the distinctive features of the Epistles of Paul, Peter, and James . . . "
Each household congregation of Rome (formerly divided along racial lines) would have had one or more presbyters, and Clement acts as their ambassador, writing on behalf of the "[assembly] of God which sojourneth in Rome."
This understanding does not detract from the force of authority expressed in the epistle. That Clement appeals to them as brethren reflects the language of Paul. However, Paul, with apostolic authority, says "I" ("I give thanks for you," etc.) in greetings that otherwise parallel Clement's, in which he insists on "we."
None of that is to suggest that an organic development and organization of the Church (including a distinction between presbyter and bishop) is somehow unseemly. What is unseemly is that the Corinthians would overthrow their own presbyters/bishops (used interchangeably throughout this epistle), who were appointed by the Apostles themselves or, following them, "by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church." That they had done so was a grave concern of all those assembled in God's Name at Rome.
Episkopos=bishop is an ordinary Greek word meaning overseer, superintendent. We have too few passages to determine at what point it means "elder-in-charge," though by tradition Peter and Clement exercised such authority. The problem to wrestle with is the status of individual churches and their governments. In the early Church, each church was, primarily, its own diocese and thus an elder-in-charge of such a church would correspond to some of our notion of bishop. Even as late as early Medieval Tuscany, one can distinguish between the full-fledged Church in Pisa or Lucca, presided over by a bishop and consisting of a plebs/pieve and the plural pievi in the countryside, which acknowledged the superior authority of the bishop. These smaller churches, which sprung up in towns as well, would originally have had more the status of a chapel, and Tuscans routinely Christened their children in the cathedral church or its adjacent baptistery.
Church of God which sojourneth . . . to the Church of God which sojourneth . . . ."
This calls to mind a theme found in Peter and Paul—and especially in Hebrews, which is often associated with Clement in one way or another: that the Christian is an alien and stranger in this world. St. Peter lays a foundation for 1 Clement with "Dearly beloved, I beseech [you] as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." And St. Paul turns to the converse: "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God."
For Clement, the man whose feet are firmly planted in this life will engage in "foolish dissension." But those who together seek the Heavenly Kingdom, while sojourning for a while in Corinth or Rome, will set aside vainglory and be obedient to a different (higher) order. "For it is better for you to be found little in the flock of Christ and to have your name on God's roll, than to be had in exceeding honour and yet be cast out from the hope of Him."
This theme is the basis for St. Augustine's distinction between the Two Cities, as well.
Setting aside the philosophy of the matter, perhaps the emphasis on being a stranger in this world was at least partly due to the extreme persecution of the early Church. It seems as if the peril in which the early Church was constantly submerged helped foster this truth. The only reason I suggest this is because of the severe lack of emphasis placed upon this ever-important theme in the Church today. Keeping this specific idea in mind would have benefited the Catholic Church greatly in the wake of Vatican II. If the Church does not work hard to remember that she is not of this world then whenever the world and the Church clash the Church will always cede ground.
"Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence." John 18:36
"which a few headstrong and
self-willed persons have kindled."
Notice the word self -willed contrasted to the former Corinthians who " did all things without respect of persons, and walked after
the ordinances of God, submitting to rulers and
rendering to the older men the honor which was their due."
One of the constant themes of the spiritual life is the struggle between the self and the Self. Between the fraility of human nature by itself and the virtue of faith that could move mountains, if only it was real. Between fallen man and redeemed man. Between a humble woman full of grace and terrible as an army in battle array and the willful type hiding her nakedness in the Garden of Eden. Between the laws of flesh and the laws of God. Between " those who are called and sanctified by the
will of God," and those consumed with " detestable and unholy sedition, so
alien and strange to the elect of God."
At least one classical definition of hell is having one's own "selfish"way forever. And at least one definition of heaven is living in the presence of God forever. One "self-willed" soul writ large is the city of man.
One lonely desert father "seeking truth " is, as Aristotle noticed , either a beast or a god. Seek first therefore the kingdom of heaven and ....
Mr. Fleming wrote:
"Let us take the Anglican case, where women are, alas, being ordained, or the Catholic case, where radicals call for their ordination. In the Anglican Communion, I really think they are fighting a losing battle against homosexualism, feminism, and every other ism. If that is/were true, then faithful Christians have to join another church but without making all the self-serving bother of a Richard Neuhaus."
I fully agree with Mr. Fleming. However, would not faithful Christians also have to join another church if their current church engages in inter-religious worship (not just inter-denominational)? Certainly Clement would not have approved praying/worshiping with Gnostics or Arians, would he?
I mention this only to point out how desperately bad the condition of the church is in our world, and how impossible it would be for Clement to have accepted even so-called "conservative" churches today.
John Rutowicz
A few small stray points:
1) The persecution of Christians under Nero and Domitian was limited in scope to a few places. While the threat of persecution certainly underlies certain Christian attitudes--the equation of Rome with Babylon, for example--one should not make too much out of it. All Christians are strangers and not only because they mostly live in an anti-Christian world but also because this world down here is not ultimately their home.
2) To go back to the date question, we shall see in chapter 44 that Clement writes as if some of the presbyters of his time were appointed by the apostles, making a late date rather improbable.
3) In response to Aaron Wolf, I do not think that the use of the first person plural has much to do with the question. In the first place, Clement is speaking for the Church of Rome and not just for himself and second because such usage is not at all uncommon either in Greek or in English. As editor of Chronicles, I frequently use we where I really mean I, because I am making the decision I expect others to stand by. Clement, whatever titles we choose to quibble over, is writing as one with authority, and any attempt to detract from that is special pleading.
4) American Christians of every type have fallen into a bad habit of thinking of themselves as individuals, elevating their own opinion above that of their community and its leaders. The desperately bad condition of the Church today is only slightly worse than the age of the apostles when Simon Magus was performing his tricks and disciples in Jerusalem thought they could trick the Holy Ghost. "The Church's one foundation is Jesus Christ our Lord," but it has always been filled with foolish, vain, and self-seeking men.
Dr. Wolf @ 27
Is there a consensus among scholars that the Clement of our current discussion is likely the Clement to whom St. Paul refers in Philippians 4: 3?
Mr. Wolf is off today, attending to a sick child. The simple answer is that there is no consensus. Older scholars believed this identification was quite possible. Another attractive hypothesis, not incompatible with Paul's Clement, is that our Clement was the freedman of Flavius Clemens, a cousin of the Emperor Domitian, executed for adhering to a "Jewish superstition." Since Judaism was licit in the Empire, the only reasonable conclusion seems to be that Flavius Clemens and other members of his household, including St. Domatilla were Christians. It seems highly unlikely, though, that our Clemens was Flavius Clemens. I should add that many so-called scholars today are anything but that.
Dr. Fleming @ 33 and 35.
Thank you for the response at 35.
"All Christians are strangers and not only because they mostly live in an anti-Christian world but also because this world down here is not ultimately their home. "
Is there not a tension in our sojourn, tension understood in a positive sense, in that as the Bride of Christ, the Church looks forward to the return of the Christ and the homegoing (nothing to do with dispensationalism and the "rapture"); but as the Corpus Christi, the Church has an obligation to be "that city on a hill," "the salt and light," and the "bringer of the Evangelium" to a dark and dying world, being, as it were, His hands and feet. If we in faith do not follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost in the context of Church authority, we sheep will go astray, either in the direction of the cult, waiting on the mountain top and forgetting our duty to those who need the Gospel - here I see dispensationalism and "rapture" theology as this ultimate manifestion of this tendency; or in the direction of a wordly theology such as postmillinialsim of the Puritans which leads in it "religious" form to the attempt in establishing a theocracy or its most secular form to the "social gospel" which marches quite well with "leftism."
My apology for yesterday's drunken missives. In the morning my posts are sober... then turn into trash as I get blitzed if drinking that day. You folks are wholly decent...I'm still working on it. Since I'm trying I guess it can be said a work in progress. I'll read about this and not post under any name for about a month. Anyone can be opinionated then it takes work to be informed. Sorry. I'll just end with an Essene quote since poetry is some of our best thinking:
"One day your body will return to the Earthly Mother; even also your ears and your eyes. But the Holy Stream of Life, the Holy Stream of Sound, and the Holy Stream of Light, these were never born, and can never die. Enter the Holy Streams, even that Life, that Sound, and that Light which gave you birth; that you may reach the kingdom of the Heavenly Father and become one with him, even as the river empties into the far-distant sea." -Essene Gospel of Peace
I would venture to add if there's seven levels to heaven and in freedom even there it may be possible to get the boot - it would make sense (not that things need to make sense), our blue planet here i.e. our Earthly Mother may always be if she always was, long as needed as an experiential school so that she catches us, and we're not merely tossed into oblivion. I say this because I feel I was booted out of heaven (understandably.) No? Also feel free of course as you do to delete this if inappropriate. And, thank you. You folks even in little quarrels are top drawer.
Added here and at the end of the original post:
Chapter Two praises the former humility and peace of the Corinthians: "Ye had conflict day and night for all the brotherhood, that the number of His elect might be saved with fearfulness and intentness of mind. Ye were sincere and simple and free from malice one towards another. Every sedition and every schism was abominable to you. Ye mourned over the transgressions of your neighbors: ye judged their shortcomings to be your own." The Greek agon , translated "conflict," here would be better rendered today by "competition" or "contest." An agon is an athletic competition.
"Being adorned with a most virtuous and honorable life, ye performed all your duties in the fear of Him. The commandments and the ordinances of the Lord were written on the tablets of your hearts. " Lightfoot translates as "life" politeia, a word that ordinarily meant commonwealth or constitution or citizenship and its rights. Clement might have meant they behaved well as imperial subjects but, as I rather think, he probably meant they managed their Christian community properly.
Their very success, however, encouraged envy and disorder, he observes in the third chapter. This is the familiar Greek paradigm of koros, hybris, ate, namely, that getting enough or being successful encourages pride and ambition that lead to one's downfall. "For this cause righteousness and peace stand aloof, while each man hath forsaken the fear of the Lord and become purblind in the faith of Him, neither walketh in the ordinances of His commandments
nor liveth according to that which becometh Christ, but each goeth after the lusts of his evil heart, seeing that they have conceived an unrighteous and ungodly jealousy, through which also death entered into the world." Again, Lightfoot overtranslates politeuesthai, which means to act as a citizen in a commonwealth, in this case the community.
Jim @37 "My apology for yesterday’s drunken missives."
No problem Jim, but it is much easier to admire you and your sober comments than the drunken drivel. But we have all been there and done that. Let it go.
"For who that had sojourned among you did not approve your most
virtuous and steadfast faith? Who did not admire your sober and
forbearing piety in Christ? Who did not publish abroad your
magnificent disposition of hospitality? Who did not congratulate you
on your perfect and sound knowledge?"
“For this cause righteousness and peace stand aloof, while each man hath forsaken the fear of the Lord and become purblind in the faith of Him, neither walketh in the ordinances of His commandments"
This is an echo of Romans 1. As man's mind turns from the Creator to the creation, even the virtues, which, as noble as they are, are the intended byproducts of man's faith walk, become idols to which we attach our allegiance and eventually our lust, desiring to possess that of which we are the mere stewards, with every good and perfect gift having come from and belonging to the Father. Our quickness to idolatry is readily tempted by things closest to the heart of God. Eyes off Him and lusting after His attributes we become purblind; and in the dimness which accompanies that state, we wander further from God and the darkness deepens. We mistaken the afterglow of His attributes and virtues for His light, and thus, in the darkness we deceive ourselves, believing to be walking with Him, but actually going further from Him. In His providence, He often chooses to teach the wayward Christian a lesson: He and He alone is Life and Light. Even the great virtues, untethered from Him, grow dim and eventually dark and can themselves become instruments of evil.
I wanted to make a comment about rhetoric real, and just rhetorical technique. Some communications people might want to say that St. Clement is appealing to the audience's " better angels" by prefacing his remarks with these good memories. I noticed that the last Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush inaugral addressses (perhaps in imitation of Lincoln) always use this as a technique.
Bill clinton :"We can do better !!" George W. "We were..., we are... , we will, .... throughout this great land and The WORLD !! etc..
But the character of the speaker and the audience really does matter even more so than their authority. Socrates noticed this about the sophists and Aristotle mentions it again in his Rhetoric. I guess what I am suggesting is that St Clement is a saintly man speaking to sinners and asking them to live up to something greater than their current feuding predicament. He is not just a politician seeking votes of confidence. Authentic authority is more than a warm body occupying a powerful position.
exception to the rule which proves it - i said no more posts while I learn for a month - but thanks robert reavis. thanks. (look at this exception as pulling someone out of a ditch on sunday.) regards.
"After this manner, therefore, pray to your Heavenly Father, when the sun is high at midday: 'Our Father who are in heaven, and send to all the Sons of Men your angel of Peace;' " (so why not?)
Mr. Reavis at 41,
You rightly mention "authenctic authority." Another poster on this thread has differentiated between "authority" and "power."
Although it is no longer the case, finally fading away in the 1970's, we I grew up all adults in our community, acting morally and lawfully, had full authority over all minors. I recall that Miss Molly, an old maid in her 80's, quite genteel, encountered us boys trying to rob a bird's nest. She gave us a stern lecture about the proper time to take a bird's life and it wasn't from the nest. She very matter of factly told us not to approach the nest again. We did not. We fully recognized her authority over us. Bullies on the other hand quite often hand power over us, particularly when they were older, but they never had authority over us.
As respect for authentic authority delines, the more we must come to depend on power, a dependency which must fail. As authentic authority and respect for it has waned, so the number of law, policemen and prisons - power - have waxed in an ultimately futile effort to hold the line on the ever more depraved hearts of men and the evil actions which flow out of them.
There are great minds on this very forum who can correct my misconceptions; however, I understand that it is the function of the Chruch, among others, to imbue the given society in which she might find herself with the values of the Christ, one of them being the respect for authentic authority. If these values then permeate that society, they will not only be reflected in the behavior of the members of that society but in the polity which that society creaets and its laws. In a society thus imbued, few negative laws will be needed, only such to deal with the fringes which do not hold those values and act against them. When, however, those values are no longer present or are on the wane, the the number of negative laws will increase along with the demand for power and the coercion which is its handmaiden. Thus, if power and coercion are the enemies of freedom, then freedom comes when we submit ourselves to authentic authority, which, as always, has its origins in God through His Holy Spirit and through His Church.
This is the time of purging. Every large denomination is facing the extremes of heresy and worse, unbelief. But for every major denomination, there is an orthodox solution. If one still remains an authentic believer inside a Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, et al., there are new choices that have seceded from the apostacy that allow one to retain the faith of his fathers. For the Anglicans, for example, there is the burgeoning Continuing Anglican movement. For congregationalists (such as Baptists), one could find a good congregation across town.
I called this the "time of purging" because we men have become too lazy and feminized the last 100 years. The apostacy is both consequence and judgement. We are being judged for our egocenticism (the root of our effeminacy) much like what Clement addressed in the Epistle.
Robert M. Peters:
We are on the same page in the same book.
I was just thinking today that virtue is authentic authority. Why? Because true virtue is obedience to God, the one Authority over all.
So on one hand by living virtue, we become a sort of living parable for others to find God.
On the other hand we are despised in the same way that fallen man hates authority and loves power.
There is also jealousy of virtue and the authority it represents because virtuous living challenges the egoist's self-centered view that he is it. And there is also a power in all authentic authority that fallen man covets. Remember, Jesus spoke as one with authority, which was both an attraction to the multitude and a threat to the sacerdotes, who held power.
So you are right that the church is the representative of authentic authority. But every major denomination has abdicated its responsbility by submitting itself to the ways of the world instead of to God. Even orthodox, Bible-believers, otherwise dedicated and committed to Christ have been led far astray in the half-century of attempting to raise numbers by "engaging the culture" to the end that worship services are almost entirely man-centered indulgence of fleeting emotions, and bongo-drums.
In the early 20th century the Boston Archdiocese, under the head of William Cardinal O'Connell, grew exponentially with the rapid explosion of Irish Catholics (about one million by 1944, the end of his reign). Many parishes and schools opened and the seminaries and convents were being flooded with young Irish men and women. The archdiocese was praised for its outstanding administration and impressive numbers. The Cardinal had a nephew named James O'Connell who also became a priest. He also secretly married a woman and lived a double life in New York using the name of James Roe. Cardinal O'Connell knew of this scandal for at least two years before taking any action against his nephew.
50 years later the Boston Archdiocese would become the center of the American Church's sex-abuse scandal. O'Connell and other bishops deliberately concealed terrible immorality within the Church because they did not want to tarnish the image of success and faithfulness to which they were so accustomed. Because of the Church's early success, bishops focused on administrative efficiency at the expense of their pastoral duties. Now Boston, as well as the rest of America, is filled with fallen away Catholics and heretics who are openly hostile to the faith. Pride is the most dangerous of sins (and the oldest) because it is the only sin that tempts us when we are at our best.
Several commentators are riding their hobby horses well out of the pasture. Let us, please, concentrate first on the text in its historical context before rushing off into conclusions and parallels that are not always relevant.
Edward @46
"Now Boston, as well as the rest of America, is filled with fallen away Catholics and heretics who are openly hostile to the faith."
To which Clement responded then as now :
"For this cause righteousness and peace stand aloof, while each man hath forsaken the fear of the Lord and become purblind in the faith of Him, neither walketh in the ordinances of His commandments
nor liveth according to that which becometh Christ, but each goeth after the lusts of his evil heart, seeing that they have conceived an unrighteous and ungodly jealousy, through which also death entered into the world."
I may have given the impression that I was using this text to preach non-resistance, but that, I assure you was not my point. Clement does not, let me note, tell us to obey or conform to wicked people who might hold positions in Church. This is a possibility he does not consider, at least in the epistle. What he is describing is a haughtiness of spirit that sets itself in contention against authorities that were established by the Apostles themselves on some grounds other than wickedness or heresy.
Let me divert attention to a question that arises throughout the epistle, but particularly in chapters 3-12 (I assume that everyone commenting has by now read at least this far), and that is his use of the Scriptures, especially the OT Scriptures. What is his approach to the OT, overall, and what lessons does he take from it? What does he not, apparently, take from it? Let also compare his methods with those of Peter, Paul, and Christ Himself and contrast it with other methods used more recently.
Finally, in answer to the question, yes, we'll do Cochin, probably next. Several people have also suggested I do either my Socialism book or my previous book. It seems a little self-centered, but I could spend a day on each chapter, answering questions, if that were desired.
On we, etc.: I won't post 95 theses on this topic, but I shall agree to disagree. I do not disagree that Clement was writing on behalf of the "Church of Rome," although even that phrase is half-loaded. Clement is following his mentor Paul very precisely in his greetings, including the use of this phrase "assembly of God which is at [X]" (see Paul's own letters to the Corinthians). Peter, on the other hand, writes to the "strangers," which underscores my other point about Christians-as-Sojourners. At any rate, both Paul and Peter are careful to identify themselves as "an apostle of Jesus Christ." Clement does not claim that sort of apostolic authority, as he is speaking on behalf of the church, or rather, the assembly at Rome is speaking through him.
On identifying Clement: I have nothing substantial to add to Dr. Fleming's answer. I prefer to side with tradition on this question. I will only add that Origen notes that some thought the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Clement, though by 400 most (not all) would agree with Origen that Paul was the author. Luther guessed that perhaps it was Apollos.
***
The reason so many in the ancient church thought that Clement wrote Hebrews has to do with the last point that Dr. Fleming raised—his treatment of the Old Testament. Clement stands out among the early fathers in his emphasis on the continuity between the Testaments. This extends beyond Chapter 3 into 7 and 10. For there is one sojourning people of God—not two or more, as the Montanists and dispensationalists would have it.
It is delightful to see something of his homiletic style in his epistle. (Clement is after all a preacher.) Essentially, he weights the entire history of the people of God against the sedition of the Corinthians. They have sided with Cain (4:1-11) and Dathan (4:17), and even jealous Moses (4:14)! And mentioning Moses is not insignificant either, because Moses ("called faithful," 17:9) is counted among God's elect. Which is to say, he repented of his jealousies just as the Corinthians should do.
Later, Clement will mention Moses' transformation from jealousy to humility. This recalls the tremendous statement in 2:1 about the nature of Christian authority and respect for order: "And ye were all lowly in mind and free from arrogance, yielding rather than claiming submission, (more glad to give than to receive), and content with the provisions which God supplieth."
Yielding rather than claiming—How could that not bring to mind the humility of Our Lord Himself? And also, in 2:2, there is something of an allusion to the humility of His Blessed Mother: "And giving heed unto His words, ye laid them up diligently in your hearts, and His sufferings were before your eyes." Mary "heard the Word of God and kept it," "kept all these things and pondered them in her heart," and "beheld her Son."
More glad to give . . . —The Christian doesn't seek his own, doesn't "Lord it over" others, but instead focuses on all of the opportunities in his path to pay respect. So how can a "Christian" depose his own presbyters?