Apostolic Fathers: Living in this our Exile
Between the conversion of Constantine and the French Revolution, most Christians in Europe and North America assumed that they lived either in a Christian society or at least in a society that was not alien or hostile to their faith. By now, we know better or at least we have no excuse for not knowing that most modern governments and the culture and morality they promote are deeply inimical to what Christians are supposed to hold dear. Then how are Christians supposed to live in an anti-Christian world? There is, of course, the Pat Robertson/Norman Vincent Peale solution, which is some combination of lies and self-deception. Then there is the open rebellion preached by civil disobedient zealots. To find out how early Christians responded to their own world and the serious threat it presented, let us turn to two early works: First, "the Epistle to Diognetus" and, second, the apology of Aristides of Athens. I'll take up the contents of these two works in as much detail as is desired. For the moment, let me just post a few observations I have made before both in lectures and in an earlier discussion.
Early Christians were caught between two hostile religious cultures, Juadaism and the various pagan cults and philosophies that were either promoted or tolerated by the Empire. As we have already seen, Ignatius had warned against one of the perennial temptations for Christians—to impose Jewish customs on the Church: “It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God.”
One of these early attempts to defend the faith in public is the letter of the “Mathetes” (Greek for Disciple) addressed to Diognetus, a pagan intellectual. The Disciple clearly distinguishes Christians both from idolatrous Greeks and from Jews, whose kosher laws he describes as superstitious and even blasphemous. “For, to accept some of those things which have been formed by God for the use of men as properly formed, and to reject others as useless and redundant—how can this be lawful? And to speak falsely of God, as if He forbade us to do what is good on the Sabbath-days—how is not this impious? And to glory in the circumcision of the flesh as a proof of election, and as if, on account of it, they were specially beloved by God—how is it not a subject of ridicule.”
Conflicts between Jewish and gentile Christians had obviously not disappeared after the Council of Jerusalem, especially in Asia Minor and Syria. Ignatius and the Disciple were concerned to make it clear that Christianity had gone beyond Judaism. One of their reasons was the fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy that the temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed. Jews had become increasingly militant against the Roman Empire, and when they rose up in rebellion in the late 60’s, Vespasian was sent by Nero to put it down. When the war was finished by Vespasian’s son Titus, Vespasian (now the emperor) had the temple destroyed. Problems continued until another major rebellion, led by a false messiah, broke out in the reign of Hadrian. Hadrian’s generals not only crushed the rebellion but expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and much of Judaea. Jerusalem was renamed Aelia Capitolina, and it would be several centuries before the Church in Jerusalem, no longer made up of Jewish Christians, would play a major role. During this difficult period, then, Christians wanted to show that they were not Jews, but good citizens of the Empire.
This concern may explain why the Disciple is so eager to portray the Christians as good citizens who do not make trouble:
For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity…inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. .. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted."
By the Age of the Antonines, Christianity had attracted enough attention that pagan intellectuals were able to distinguish Christianity from Judaism. Many of the same charges continued to be made: Christians were immoral, unpatriotic, and cannibalistic. The philosopher Celsus, later refuted by Origen, ridiculed the beliefs of Christians as a mishmash of lies, false history, and traditions borrowed from Jews, Greeks, and other nations.
Christians, at this same time, were beginning to feel confident enough to address a series of “apologies,” that is, philosophical explanations in defense of their faith, to the emperors. The first to survive (discovered at the end of the 19th Century in an Armenian version) is from Aristides of Athens and addressed to Emperor Hadrian.
All these early defenders of the faith underlined the importance of the moral virtues. Christians are just like other citizens of the empire, paying taxes and serving in the army. Their only distinction is that they abide by their oaths and do not rob or cheat in business; they do not fornicate or commit adultery or waste time on drunken rioting. As the Disciple says, “They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy the fetuses.” In other words, they did not abort or expose their children. Aristides of Athens also points out another vice not practiced by Christians: homosexuality.
But Christian morality is not just a series of “Thou shalt nots.” It is a positive moral code. Christians, says Aristides:
“honor father and mother, and show kindness to those near to them.. ; and whenever they are judges, they judge uprightly…and whatsoever they would not that others should do unto them, they do not to others….And their oppressors they comfort and make them their friends; they do good to their enemies; and their women, O King, are pure as virgins, and their daughters are modest…."
Let us turn to the texts for a second look. Unfortunately, there is no agreement as to the author or date of the "Epistle to Diognetus." In the end, the writer claims to have been taught by the apostles, and this has suggested Quadratus the apologist as the author, but other scholars believe the ending is written in a different style. If we say sometime in the Third Century, we shall probably be right. It is one of the earliest apologiae, that is, works intended to defend the Christian faith from its detractors. The work is worth reading if only for the charm of the prose style, which is written in better Greek and more artfully than most early Christian writings. There is no refinement of doctrine, but we do meet with a wise and humane Christian who does not so much hate the pagan world as find it wanting. He has a beautiful metaphor, comparing the world to the body and the Church to the soul. This is a brilliant way of restating the teaching that Christians are in the world but not of it, that they are salt of the earth.
Entries(RSS)
From your studies, Dr. Fleming, did the Christians of those times really practice all those virtues to such a notable degree? If so, how did they manage to escape the seductions of their society? Was persecution just severe enough to get rid of the weaklings without destroying all? To many people, myself included, the seductions of contemporary Western society seem very comparable to those of pagan Rome. The only thing missing is overt violent persecution. And the contemporary Christians of the West don't seem to live such virtuous lives as are claimed for the Christian citizens and subjects of the Roman empire.
Persecution like temptation or any other difficulty in life can be used for the glory of God or can lead to destruction of an individual or a whole group. It’s worth noting that of all the apostles only John lived to die of old age. All the others were martyred in various ways over the years. True Christians have always been told to take up their cross and carry it daily. And we in the so-called modern world are no different. Our cross is different then the Christians of the early Church.
In the early church persecution was direct and open. These days it’s indirect and sublime. But the means of fighting it is still the same. Only God gives victory all we can do is Love God with our entire mind and all our body. Prayer and Fasting are also indispensable in this struggle. The early Christians new this and used it in all their struggles. Let us learn this from them.
Dr. Fleming,
Your words:
"By now, we know better or at least we have no excuse for not knowing that most modern governments and the culture and morality they promote are deeply inimical to what Christians are supposed to hold dear. "
One of the problems, from my perspective and understanding, is that many of my brethren believe that they can hold the line or turn the clock back by "voting correctly, i.e. Republican," in the "elections."
Some of the same of my brethren and yet others of them hold that since most modern governments and the culture and morality they promote are deeply inimical to what Christians are supposed to hold dear, the end times must be upon us, and we will be raptured out of here before we, the American Christians of the 21 century, are asked to do what the Christians of the first three centuries were required to do as the Bride and Body of the Christ, namely through the power of the Holy Spirit, the determined witness of the Church and the blood of the martyred Saints enter into a spiritual dialogue with the empire which the Church eventually won.
My prayer is that we, the Church, will drop these false means - politics and rapture among others - and ask for the faith and the courage which flows out of that faith to get on with the hard and demanding business of being the salt and light in a decaying and dark world.
#2 - You are right about the example we can take from the early Christians in prayer, fasting, and love of God, but at least in Europe and the US, you really can't speak of persecution. In the Roman Empire, you risked death to profess the faith, so this probably attracted a better or at least braver quality of Christian to begin with. At the same time, although the Church leadership was always targeted, mass executions of the rank and file were relatively rare.
I would add that the singular, inescapable similarity with judaism, [something can be similar or even the same though not identical (and even conversely at the same time anti-thetical)] is the judaic notion shared by us christians of a transcendant G-d, (or 'God' now that there is a clear ideal of the godhead in Christ.)
This is what is similar, a transcendant God, not even the mistaken notion that we inherited our so-called monotheism from judaism. To this day judaism holds that there either are or may be many gods or deities but that Yawah or the unspeakable one who chose jews is the Top God for or of themselves. Even Newton somehow mistakenly thought of jews as being monotheistic in the sense that judaism thought or believed there was only one god; and not just one god for jews. Thus Newton concluded that perhaps the trinity or the christian three manifestations of God in One might be a 'blasphemy.' If a blasphemy (for whatever reason), it certainly was not on account of jews believing there is only one deity period. This for me is the problem with believing christianity owes anything at all to judaism. The disciple had it right judaism chose Christianity (via those jews who chose it) and christianity has no business whatsoever in choosing judaism, which at this point is christianity's anti-thesis.
What does 'transcendant' mean? First of all there is the totality also in the microcosm. For example even a horse is more than the sum of its parts. Because what else there IS therein is how the parts function together i.e. the horse's totality. It is the same in microcosm with us human beings. In the macrocosm it is not only the same it is identical to the microcosm. There are all of the parts in the macrocosm, all that exists (that are not God per se) functioning together in the cosmic totality. So even the universe is thus also in this regard more than the sum of its parts, it IS also how they all function together.
None of those things are 'transcendant' per se. What then is transcendant are the gods; and God if you consider there to be a Top God, as we Christians do now in Jesus Christ. And so in this regard we did not even receive a baton from judaism, we just also like even the pagans did, happen to posit a transcendant God who is more and beyond even the totality of the universe in microsmic as well as its macrocosmic manifestation.
What is under attack to today is our Christianity.
I do not know to what extent persecution played a part in stiffening the resolve of Christians. It is important to remember that at this point the persecutions were rather scattered and badly organized and not a consistent Roman policy. That comes later in the troubles of the Third Century. There is good reason to believe that some of the early Christian stories of martyrdom are edifying fables, though many gruesome stories can be authenticated.
I think the main trouble today is the failure of faith among Christians themselves. It is not simply that they fear the "martyrdom" of career setbacks or public ridicule, but rather that they want to believe that faith is something you can turn on occasionally but turn off when you are doing your taxes or watching Sex in the City. In Europe, there is a useful term: laic or laic Catholics. These are people who go to Mass, profess the faith, but don't want the clergy--by which they mean the Church--interfering in the business of everyday life. The so-called extremists on the other side are sometimes called "integralists" because they believe in the wholeness of the Christian life. Where integralists often go wrong is in assuming that all they need to do is to take control of the great institutions and they will renew Christendom, but there is nothing right about the laicists. I believe that the proper path to follow is that shown to us by the early Church. They were good citizens and neighbors, but they lived their faith within communities of belief and prayer. They made mistakes, such as attempting occasionally to opt out of pagan culture, but in building the Church they insured their triumph. Contrast this with our own churches that pander to every worst feature of the neopagan world: TV, drumsets, dancing, liberal do-gooding, pop "theology." Perhaps I am a simple extremist, but I detest Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, et al. far more than I do the neopagans. Our open enemies are simply what they are, while the TV preachers and the pastors of Megachurches are wolves in sheep's clothing.
Here in a nutshell is the problem. I used to have a colleague who is regarded as a pro-life leader, and yet he continues to belong to an ELCA church, a denomination that supports abortion rights and pays for abortions for its pastorettes and secretaries. Why? It is his wife's church, his children grew up in it, he is comfortable. "Great God I'd rather be a pagan suckled on a creed outworn." All this poor devil had to do was to leave the ELCA and go to either the Missouri or Wisconsin synod, but that was too great a sacrifice. This is tantamount to being ashamed of Christ. How could any believing Christian remain in the ELCA, the PCA, or the United Methodist Church? And, if the Southern Baptists find the divorce issue trivial, there are Protestant churches that do not. These denominational traditions are fine, if it is a question of this or that hymn, or a kind of prayer meeting, but when the traditions are perverted to evil ends, it is hard to come up with a justification for staying.
I. "It is not simply that they fear the “martyrdom” of career setbacks or public ridicule, but rather that they want to believe that faith is something you can turn on occasionally but turn off when you are doing your taxes or watching Sex in the City." ... (plus) ...
II. "I believe that the proper path to follow is that shown to us by the early Church. They were good citizens and neighbors, but they lived their faith within communities of belief and prayer. They made mistakes, such as attempting occasionally to opt out of pagan culture, but in building the Church they insured their triumph." -TJF
In # "I." above I for example manipulate the system wherein I notice it has already been improperly though 'officially' manipulated and rigged against me. Sometimes I can find all the loopholes so that in so doing I don't cross any 'legal' or 'officially rigged' lines. Though when I can't I wonder, what's the difference, the system is such no one will know and even if some desk jockey went on a witchhunt because he thinks he 'noticed' something, he'd lose his job for spending too much money straining out gnats and swallowing camels to get to such a small fry. The only thing that stops me from doing what I want to do in this regard when it crosses lines, a little bit, is my Christianity. So there is this paradox that the filthy system rigged against us all today is yet not undercut and blown to bits THANKS to our Christianity.
In # "II." above I couldn't agree with you more. It's what I like about the Mormons even if we take issue with some of their particular beliefs ourselves in terms of what we find to be holy.
I suspect unless and until there are such communities consciously formed by ourselves, I'm extreme enough in the face of this present to probably remain a hermit more or less. I know I can't win but sometimes there's joy in the feeling of simply going up against it ALL, in lieu of such communities actually being/real. It's why I have been 'tempted' (not really the appropriate word) in considering Mormonism; I could be a closet Catholic, Mormon. (humor?) I could say to everyone: 'excuse me, as christ advised, i have to go into the closet now to pray.' I kid, I kid. But these are NOT kidding matters.
It's not 'funny' in my opinion any more.
I was raised in the Methodist Church until I was about 10 or 11. (Until around 1980 +/-) We were Methodists because that is what the Phillipses were. That is the way it used to be in the age before mass church shopping for a church that meets your "felt needs."
At that time, I don't think I could have had a more conservative experience if I grew up Baptist/PCUSA/etc. We heard the Word of God, there is no question. There were a lot of old pietistic Wesleyans still around. Tee-totalers, no dancing, no smoking and even no card playing. (A temptation to gambling, you know.) The church encouraged attendance at Billy Graham Crusades, Bill Gothard Seminars and all the other things that conservative Christians did at the time. I am sure my parents were aware that something was amiss at the higher levels, and they were rightly very skeptical of the Seminaries, but at the local church level the Gospel was still preached.
Because of my background, I have followed Methodist affairs more closely than I otherwise would have. I have always thought that there is a big disconnect between the leadership of the UMC and the laity, esp. down South. I sometimes listen to Methodist radio broadcasts and watch Methodist church services on TV just to see what I can detect. And you hear all the same things you would hear at your local conservative evangelical church. (Perhaps that is part of the problem.) Now whether they are doing what theological liberals often do, investing those words with a meaning different than the traditional meaning, is possible and probably likely. But I can see how a not so well informed lay person could simply attend church as they always do and miss the apostasy at the top of the UMC.
Some of this is regional. The laity of the UMC in the South is much more conservative than in the North and out West. Such blatant apostasy I don't think would be welcome down here outside a few big cities.
I almost think the UMC leadership is kind of like the Straussians. Believing they are keepers of some secret knowledge. Winking at each other thinking "Yeah we know this is all bunk, (We learned that at Emory and Duke Divinity Schools) but we can't let on." Speaking to the lay people in code that they understand to mean something different.
When my parents decided to leave the Methodist Church it was partially because of the direction of the church leadership and the seminaries, but it was also because of the practice of them moving pastors every so many years. So while they might be comfortable with a particular conservative pastor, there was no guarantee that your future pastor might not be a liberal wacko. (I think the leadership, for political reasons, does try to be sensitive to congregational preferences.)
This is not to excuse the UMC, but I do think there remain many well meaning Christian laypeople within it. There is an active conservative reform movement within as well. I agree with Dr. Fleming that these folks need to jump ship, but some are well intentioned even if misguided. The average small town Joe who attends the UMC on the corner because he has always been a Methodist is likely as distressed about gay marriage, etc. as we are.
Anyway, poor John Wesley must be rolling in his grave.
I do think, in a better time, there was something to be said for attending the local community church of your denomination instead of pilling into the car and driving 20 miles to a church that suits you. (Like Catholics still do to some extent.) This is further evidence of our deracination. It is too bad that all local congregations can't be trusted with doctrine.
I agree entirely with Dr. Red. I have known many solid Christians who were Methodists and used to know a minister who was engaged in a vain attempt to clean up the Church. I also entirely agree on the perils of church-shopping, as necessary as it might sometimes become. I don't want to lay blame at the door of the Reformers, but sectarianism forces individuals to choose a church, and that is a bad thing. I have no plan for reunifying Christians, but the separation into denominations named after men or principles--Lutherans, Calvinists; Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Baptists--is pernicious. Indeed it is always the mark of schism and heresy to go running after a guru or a slogan. "I am Apollos' man" or Montanus' or Donatus'. Christian humility should dampen the desire to be a leader. Every church and sect suffers from this, and everytime I hear about some new nonsense, whether it is Liberation Theology or The Purpose Driven Live, I feel that the very body of Christ is being torn apart and sold piece by piece. When people give me the Lutheran or Presbyterian or Thomistic argument and ask me to accept it on the authority of a man, I never know what to say and prefer to change the subject. I respect Luther, admire Calvin's logical intellect, and regard Thomas as the greatest Aristotelian since the master himself, but, as much as we can learn from them, we must not follow them, especially if they have something new to tell us. Evolution in response to changing circumstances is necessary; innovation is almost always evil.
Back to the subject. What about the argument our sources seem to present--one rooted very much in the pastoral epistles--that we are to convert the world not by hectoring and bullying but by our patient example and that we are not to prance around boasting of how different we are from our neighbors? I don't think the Mathetes accosted Romans on the streets and asked them if they have been saved or staged demonstrations against idolatry, pornography, and infanticide. They were not naive enough to think that human nature is basically good and just needs a little preaching to wake up the goodness in us, and they were not vain enough to think that in accepting the Gospel they had become something. I see this spirit in some born-and-raised Orthodox--though not among the American converts, some of whom are as arrogant and self-important as it is possible to be--but much more rarely among Catholics and Protestants.
To take a group I know fairly well, the Traditional Catholics who attend the Tridentine mass, I hear all too much about the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo--and the deficiencies are grave--and the superiority of our own liturgy, and nowhere near enough about what we are doing to remedy the situation, such as teaching Latin, Greek, church history, and traditional theology. Of the hundreds of Trad Cats I know--including people who write for traditionalist publications, hardly a one under 60 has any competence in Latin. They would rather rail at mainstream Catholics and prate about their absolute loyalty to dead Popes than do anything useful. I once offered a column on Latin to a traditionalist publications whose publisher was a friend--an offer I have repeated--but no one is interested in the Latin of the Latin mass. Ultra-Calvinists and Rushdoonyites are even worse, perhaps, to say nothing of the splinter Anglicans who show their loyalty to the tradition by breaking up their church. These things annoy me no longer, but they are symptoms of a disease that afflicts many fine Christians alive today. What, then can we learn from the early Church as a counter-weight to sectarianism of every kind?
that we are to convert the world not by hectoring and bullying but by our patient example and that we are not to prance around boasting of how different we are from our neighbors? I don’t think the Mathetes accosted Romans on the streets and asked them if they have been saved or staged demonstrations against idolatry, pornography, and infanticide
Amen. I recently returned home from Athens where my wife photographed me standing where I imagined St. Paul stood on The Aeropagus as he evangelised the Greeks. I struck a pose that I thought would indicate I was making an important point (I had a forefinger extended) but the resulting photo just made me look like the hectoring whack-job that I am.
Paul was called and sent. Not me. My vocation is of an entirely different order as a Husband and Father.
I was born a Vermont Crank but I now live in Florida where everybody and his Mother has a "ministry." It is really a trial to bear with these well-intentioned folk who assure me that "God told me to do this.."
When everybody is a preacher and an evangelist, nobody is. I prefer to let the Pope and Bishops and Priests, and a select few apologists, act publicly while me and mine witness to the truth silently, through our actions.
And if we are Christians who are watching "Sex and the City" we have lost our saltiness and are good for no thing and no body.
Our world with all its secularism, rationalism, hedonistic lifestyles etc… is as far from the Christian way of life as day is from night. The sad this is that this isn’t going to change, and it’s most likely going to get worse. A middle ages Christian once said that each subsequent generation would love less and have fewer virtues then the preceding generation. So true. Another Russian Christian in the late 19th century once said that in the last days a Christian who professes Christ, as true God will be greater then the early Christians with all their virtues and martyrdom.
Dr. Fleming,
Your words:
"What about the argument our sources seem to present–one rooted very much in the pastoral epistles–that we are to convert the world not by hectoring and bullying but by our patient example and that we are not to prance around boasting of how different we are from our neighbors?"
Two Sundays ago, in a Sunday school class of young adults, ages 18 to 30, which I teach, we discussed this very subject and used the example of Christians, about two years ago, who, in Philadelphia, protested at some event involving gays. Some of the Christians were arrested, and a constitutional question arose. The point of discussion was not the "constitutional question" but rather whether or not the Christian presence and behavior at the event glorified God, edified the Church, and enhanced the witness of the Christians in converting the world. To a person, the answer was "No!" While each member of the class which I teach holds to the Church's teaching and the biblical record on the subject of homosexuality, each of them likewise understood that the Christian presence at the gay event was, at least as it was present in the media, including the Christian media, a power struggle of "rights" rather than the living out of the virtues which come to us as we walk with our Lord and which are witnessed as we interact as men among men in the normal comings and goings of life.
"What, then can we learn from the early Church as a counter-weight to sectarianism of every kind?"
Paul's letters to the Corinithians make it clear that there were disagreements and disputes. However, in considering the growth and strength of the early church as it was raised up in the power and unity of the Holy Spirit what stands out to me is Paul's admonition in ICor 12:12-31. He tells them they are the body of Christ and that each part (member) has it's place, reason, function and like the human body each function is important and if one member suffers all suffer together. The early believers must have exhibited a powerful love for one another and a spirit of unity and devotion as to the Lord. They understood this applied first to where they were physically and then to the universal church as a whole. In our "modern" church culture we don't take seriously enough this call to the unity and loyalty of the group we are in and that God has called us to. I think many times people church hop simply because they can without realizing the "breaking of unity" that occurs. Unfortunately this often comes about because of some minor perceived slight or difference in taste or some petty thing. Often the individual churches of each denomination compete against each other for the loyalty of members who seem to exhibit the loyalty to that particular body that you see to a fast food restaurant - changing allegiance when they see a "better deal down the street". This church consumer culture is the antithesis of what Paul is talking about. Certainly there can be good reasons to leave - as in TJF's example of the ELCA man who should have had the courage to lead his wife to a church who's stand on abortion he could agree with despite becoming uncomfortable. Perhaps the first counterweight to sectarianism and schism would be a determined effort, despite disagreements and discomfort, to remain in the body of Christ where you are. The second would be to try to live in a state of grace and mercy with those in the body you are a part of and with all who claim Christ as Lord.
This poll released today on religious attitudes in the US would seem to illustrate Dr. Fleming's point about a lack of confidence in the Faith and in Christ.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/us/24religion.html
I consider the example of the early saints related in summary by Dr. Fleming and confess that it makes me ashamed of myself.
#9 TJF Writes :
" such as teaching Latin, Greek, church history, and traditional theology. Of the hundreds of Trad Cats I know–including people who write for traditionalist publications, hardly a one under 60 has any competence in Latin. "
Dr. Fleming has hit upon a good point here and for several reasons. I only know a smattering of Latin but can usually get through the Missal and breviary with a little help from the facing page translations but it is still good exercise to try.( Part of the punishment from purgatory is knowing how far you are from heaven.) My wife is much better with Latin and languages in general. Yet we both realise the deficiency and instead of agonizing over which "good catholic colleges are out there" simply let them pick a college and require they study greek and Latin as undergraduates. Much like the engineering schools but unlike the "liberal arts schools" it is hard to teach much stupid ideology in Language courses until one reaches the graduate level. (Yes, I know they try between conjugations but it is still difficult )
And another point is that one aspect of The Ancient Mass is that it is not literal and therefore can be understood by a variety of different means and senses --- the ancient chant, the rubrics of the priest and congregation, the silence and adorartion the full integrity proposes. The lessons and gospel are usually repeated in translation and the sermon and advice in the confessional are unfortunately quite understandable though usually difficult to always will with all ones heart, mind and soul. Modernity is too preoccupied with either measuring things or implememting "good ideas" . Trads don't have all the answers because the answers are revealed ( some say disguised ) through Christ and his Church. But what they do represent is what Cardinal Ratzinger noticed when he said : " A commuinty calls itself into question when what was previously its most holy possession, is all at once forbidden." Yes Elmer, there was a Church before 1964 and presumably saints as well. Progress has been a disaster for the progressives as well as the Traditionalists.
I detect four divisions of Christians, and their beliefs and practices are so radically different that I wonder, Does the word "Christian" and "Christianity" make sense anymore?: 1) Classic Protestants, 2) Evangelical Protestants, 3) Liberals (Protestant and Catholic), and 4) authentic Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and the other Eastern rites. Dr. Fleming does us a service in discovering the roots of #4 and establishing the antiquity of those roots. I'm sorry to say so, but groups ##1-3 seem to have different roots.
Let me immediately hasten to add that I am neither contesting the high worth of each division of Christianity nor its potential in the New Testament
Let us turn to the texts for a second look. Unfortunately, there is no agreement as to the author or date of the "Epistle to Diognetus." In the end, the writer claims to have been taught by the apostles, and this has suggested Quadratus the apologist as the author, but other scholars believe the ending is written in a different style. If we say sometime in the Third Century, we shall probably be right. It is one of the earliest apologiae, that is, works intended to defend the Christian faith from its detractors. The work is worth reading if only for the charm of the prose style, which is written in better Greek and more artfully than most early Christian writings. There is no refinement of doctrine, but we do meet with a wise and humane Christian who does not so much hate the pagan world as find it wanting. He has a beautiful metaphor, comparing the world to the body and the Church to the soul. This is a brilliant way of restating the teaching that Christians are in the world but not of it, that they are salt of the earth.
"ELCA church, a denomination that supports abortion rights and pays for abortions for its pastorettes and secretaries."
I confess I was naive enough that the thought of this had never previously crossed my mind. Is this true of all the liberal denominations, or is the ELCA exceptionally advanced in evil in this regard?
Clarification: I mean the part about actually paying for the abortions; I was well aware that such denominations support legal abortion.
A few brief responses. It has been some years since I checked, but about ten years ago I discovered that the ELCA was covering, in its insurance program, abortion expenses for employees. As little regard as I had for the ELCA, I was a bit rattled by this. Many pewsitters of major denominations do not know what their "churches" are teaching or practicing. One cannot blame the ordinary members for their ignorance, but when they do find out, they should either try to reform the church--in most cases a complete impossibility--or join a more traditional branch of their denomination. This is not church-hopping but an attempt at maintaining fidelity.
Let me bring up a question, partly in response to Robert Reavis's good observations. Suppose you have been brought up in the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church, and while you are not inclined to rebellion, you dislike the many changes in the mass and the many mistranslations and illicit practices adopted in the US? What do do? I have met some people who simply quit going to mass regularly--clearly a bad option. Others joined schismatic groups--I used the word advisedly--such as the Pius X Society, whose leaders have constituted a mini-Vatican. As much as I respected Archbishop Lefevre and agreed with his complaints, schism cannot be an option, for Catholics in particular. Suppose a group of traditionalists brings in a priest to say the old mass in a house. The bishop has so far ignored their existence but neither has he approved. I think the wiser course is to steer clear, but if the only alternative is simply to avoid going to mass, it may be better to attend without disengaging from parish life. Suppose the bishop is instrumental in setting up a church devoted to the traditional mass and, further, has granted the status of oratory, as our bishop in Rockford has done. I think there can be no serious objection at that point, especially since the diocese has asked people who attend to indicate whether it is their primary or secondary place of worship. But, suppose under the recent indult, a regular parish begins to celebrate a Tridentine mass every Sunday. Is it right for disgruntled members of the Latin Mass community--and let us face it, traditionalists are more inclined than Novus Ordo Catholics to bicker and divide--to begin attending the regular parish, even though it is not their parish? I should say absolutely not. Their choice is either to attend mass in their proper parish or attend the oratory established for that purpose.
This long and tedious account might serve to clarify the question. Finally, I think Mr. Peters for hitting one nail, at least, on the head. I am delighted to hear that members of his church are so sensible.
Perhaps we should switch gears a bit and turn to the scraps of evidence we have in the early Fathers for how services were conducted. I propose a reading of the Didache or "Teaching of the Apostles". Before that, let us continue to look at the two texts we have been reading for their view of Christianity's relationship to Judaism--unless that is too hot a topic. Perhaps we should invite John Hagee to participate?
TJF @21 " let us face it, traditionalists are more inclined than Novus Ordo Catholics to bicker and divide"
This is an unfortunate truth in our time. I have wondered why for years and offer just a few of my observations. There sems to me more folks in need of a physician within traditional circles. Mildly deranged and crippled folks need grace and love too. Soldiers tend to become accustomed to the sting of battle and tend to get bored after the revolution or battles are over, only to rediscover that the world is still old and imperfect, in spite of their sometimes heroic efforts.
But most importantly I think our notions of the Christian have become sentimental and narrow. Robert Louis Stevenson noticed this trend years ago and wrote about it in his defense of Father Damian, the Lepor priest of Hawaii, I refer any interested readers to Stevenson's defense of Father at
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207115024/http://praiseofglory.com/rlsdamien.htm
Some said Father Damian was a womanizer, others a surly cleric, and still others a dispicable creature. As Stevenson points out, what these descriptions and calumnies failed to notice , was that in spite of himself, he was also a saint.
PS to Not-Spartacus: How did you find Athens in the Summer? (And please don't say with a map.) I've always been there off-season, when it was already fairly crowded. I may have to go to Greece in a few weeks and would probably stop in Athens a few days, just to see people. Did you walk up the Pnyx? There is a tiny Orthodox church at the foot. What about places to eat? I don't especially going into the Plaka, but some of the restaurants there are good.
Fleming: "Of the hundreds of Trad Cats I know–including people who write for traditionalist publications, hardly a one under 60 has any competence in Latin."
There is some truth to this. Someone once subscribed me to an Opus Dei email list (although I am Protestant) and I would reply to all responses in Latin, always getting requests to write in English.
I don't know what is is like in your area, but in the greater Kansas City area, the vast majority of Catholic schools do not offer Latin; and the most conservative school of them all does not offer it. In fact, the best Latin program at any of the Catholic schools is at one of the more liberal ones.
I, however, have found some younger-than-60 traditionalist Catholics competent in Latin, especially those at Reg. Foster's summer Latin program, but they are certainly the exception to the norm. When I was at Foster's program in 2001, about 1/3 of the class was Protestant, and they were just as competent in Latin.
Dr. Fleming: What do you think of the thesis that early Christianity spread throughout the Empire by first attracting the matrons of elite households (who later would convert their children or husbands)? (Evelyn Waugh beautifully gives credence to this theory in Helena.) I have always heard this taught as fact - but is there an opposing view?
To MA Roberts: On Latinity I can only speak of the Trads I have met, and that is a fairly large number, and outside of few priests and men of learning, I have yet to meet anyone who can actually handle Latin. I have met some who studied with Foster, but what they told me of his methods was hair-raising and reminded me a lot of Berlitz methods that make the student a prisoner of the system. There is simply not excuse for any new methods in teaching Latin, quite the contrary. But knowing nothing either of the man and nothing directly of his system, I am in no position to judge.
As for the role of women, there is insufficient evidence. It is a reasonable hypothesis, but that gets us nowhere. It is true that women have played a significant role in most religious movements, and that we know of such women among the followers of Jesus, though there are perhaps fewer examples in the next two centuries. Perhaps it is only an accident of the sources. Waugh's novel is very pretty, but he attributes to Helena a kind of hard-headed British practicality we may well doubt was true of a Romanized Celt, if that is, indeed, what she was. My own preference is to abjure theories until one has accumulated enough experience to justify a generalization.
I don't know much of Foster's methods for teaching Latin to beginners - but what I have seen does seem odd. During the summer program, which is not for beginners, students have already studied Latin (in fact, they're supposed to have already taken a composition course), and he mostly uses Gildersleeve for authority.
Yes, some of the examples I've seen cited (regarding women) could very well only be an accident of sources. Better, I suppose, to suspend judgment.
This is indeed a good question.
In general terms, the Mathetes' solution is to leave behind the things of the creature and return to the Creator. The natural man's efforts always lead to idolatry and superstition. In the case of the Jews, at this time of the early church, they were attempting to hold on to their old ways and had lost a true worship of God. The Old Testament Jews were the people of God because of their forward belief in Christ to come. But now, he did come. By trying to hold on their old identity, their ethnicity, they refused to acknowledge the Savior.
I say that we face the same age-old problem. Our ecclesiastical institutions have served us well for a long time and have become part of our identification with community. But our faith cannot be in the brick and mortar of our institutions, but in Christ. Thus in the Mathetes, after identifying the problem of idolatry and superstition in the institutions of the natural man, the bulk of the work is spent summarizing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
When a church – or indeed an ex-church – ceases to be Christian and worse, persecutes the true believing Christians in its midst, the remnant of believers must find other believers with whom to worship. When a church adopts a myriad of anti-Christian practices (such as homosexuality, post-modernism, pedophilia, and dismissing the Gospel as "founding myths") and chases away true believers, it has formed a schism; it has cut itself off from the body of Christ.
Believers in Christ can no longer be a part of such schism and they do not form a schism by recognizing that schism already exists.
Note that the church fathers used "catholic" to denote true belief in Christ. Anything else is not catholic, but sectarian. Anyone who pushes anything apart from the Gospel of Christ – such as secular humanism or traditions however ancient – is automatically sectarian.
The American religious landscape has been diverse owing to the peculiarities of American history. Beginning in the colonial period, the Church of England was slow to train and send out clergy. This shortcoming was made up for by Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists who were better able to send out laity and apprenticed clergy across the continent as we moved West. (When Roman Catholics were eventually tolerated, they joined the landscape as yet one more group.) Despite the physical disunity, there was a kind of unity and cooperation. Many congregations shared buildings. Many denominations allowed clergy from other denominations to stand in when one of their own was unavailable. So there was a unity of belief in Christ.
-----
To help understand the landscape as it has been, I remind what historians have observed, that American religion is predominantly Calvinist. The Anglican/Episcopal Church until recently was Calvinist. Methodism at first remained part of that, but with Arminianism added. Baptists are mostly Calvinist. Orthodox Lutherans show much of the same Calvinist influence. In other words, not only was the bulk of American religion united by a general orthodox belief in Christ, but in a specific historical form of it.
When modernism (liberalism) first gained in strength in America owing to the dominance of German theological schools, the evangelical movement countered it. The evangelical movement existed across denominational lines, once again producing a unity of belief and cooperation. The cooperation, for example continued in the Billy Graham crusades during which new converts to belief in Christ were directed to join churches of various stripes when they went back home.
The evangelical movement as a whole, I would guess, is about 85% Calvinist and the rest is Arminian with anabaptist influences. In America, the anabaptist influence has always existed alongside the Calvinist and is why many evangelicals were vulnerable to the Judaized eschatology known as Dispensationalism (one of the distinctive features of historical Anabaptism was its peculiar millennialist beliefs).
The anabaptist-like thread has also played an important role in the American religious landscape. Many people who do not understand the history of American religion, mistakenly identify this thread with evangelicalism. But although there is some intersection of membership, the two have separate histories. Evangelicalism came about in an effort to steer classical American religion (Protestantism) away from the modernism emanating from Germany. For example, the Pentecostal movement was a distinct phenomenon heavily indebted to the anabaptist strain. Some Pentecostal and Charismatic groups have become evangelical. I am told there are even some Roman Catholic parishes that are identifiably evangelical.
But since evangelicalism has always been a movement and not an organization, anyone can call himself one even if he does not believe any of the original Fundamentals published a hundred years ago. For example, Hagee, Robertson, et al. target the evangelical movement for financial support, but prominent, mainstream, and respected evangelical leaders such as John Macarthur of Grace Church in California (as one example) energetically criticize them and others for heretical statements.
I note that TJF and other traditional Catholics here hope for some kind of conservative political unity among Christians across denominational bounds. But I also note what is to me a quizzical innocence of American Protestantism. On one extreme of American religion is the Arminian/anabaptist stream and on the other Roman Catholicism. In the middle is the predominant theology in American Protestantism, the "Reformed" or "Calvinist".
Evangelicalism is the most visible and largest group. Its theology is mostly Calvinist. But those features which seem to stand out most to traditional Catholics derive from the Arminian/anabaptist stream and they form only a small section of evangelical theology and practices.
So in my understanding, the four groups of American religion are:
(1) The Arminian/anabaptist complex;
(2) Reformed (with Lutherans);
(3) Roman Catholic;
(4) Liberal.
It is also important to note that the Liberal group now exists in two parts: modernist and post-modern. The post-modern is the most unchristian of all, but it is currently targeting ex-evangelicals. This movement is known best as the "Emergent Church" and is so new, many people have not heard of it. But it is a very big and growing factor – the mega-churches, such as Joel Osteen's belong to it. Do a web search and you will find that true evangelicals critique it and ridicule it vociferously.
If you are not a traditional Protestant, and want to know how to communicate, keep this in mind: the Christian's faith is not in brick and mortar but in Jesus Christ. The traditional Protestant will differ from the Catholic on authority.
Keep this in mind, too, that the Protestant gives absolute authority only to what the Holy Spirit expressed with clarity in holy scripture and not to any expert or expert interpretation thereof. Those Protestants more strongly rooted in the Reformed tradition will happily study the early church fathers which TJF has graciously undertaken here, but those more tending toward the Arminian/anabaptist thread will agree with the fathers but be unfamiliar with them.
Any unity will come from a focus on Jesus Christ and the Gospel, which is just what the Mathetes do.
(By the way, I have to leave now, so I apologize in advance for any typos, poor transitions, or commentary phrased in haste. I am fallible.)
PcH
"Any unity will come from a focus on Jesus Christ and the Gospel,"
Yes, so let us return to the discussion and see what the Fathers have to say about Christ and his Gospel. Sorry if I detoured the discussion to brick and mortar or the things that may divide us. I appreciate this thread and enjoy readingthe comments -- all of them.
Wow, so what I am getting from this article and discussion is we Christians should just mind our business and let the world go to pot? Forget it!!!!! Too many people have rejected Christ and don't give a damn how others live, so that shining example you try to set doesn't mean squat. I have been there, done that, people just think you are a nerd or killjoy. Meanwhile your freedoms are under direct attack, your wealth and property confiscated, regardless of your religion, but we are just supposed to sit around and let it happen? This is why I sometimes think it would be best to follow Thomas Paine's reasoning in Age of Reason and just drop the whole damn thing(Christianity) as being just a source of social control.
It would be much better to drop Thomas Paine as being just a lunatic.
If I am following the logic of RB, we as Christians should force others to live as we would like them to but at the same follow the tax-collector Tom Paine in rejecting Christianity. Wow, indeed. I suppose it is too painful an exercise for Americans who have all the answers prefabricated without ever knowing what the questions are, but it might be better to have an idea of what the discussion is about. The question on the table is 1) How did early Christians view their role in society and 2) What relevance does that have today. Running around like the proverbially decapitated chicken, crying "our freedoms are under attack" must feel good--otherwise why do it--but it does not do good. I suppose Christians in the time of Nero and Domitian and Diocletian were having an easy time of it? What we have here is the crazed Yankee notion my old friend Murray Rothbard used to sum up with the phrase, "We can't stand idly by while..." To which Murray would croak in his inimitable fashion, "Why not?"
To put an extreme case: Is it my job as a Christian to attempt to prevent nonChristians from killing their babies? Early Christians obviously thought not. Their job was not moral exhortation to the immoral but the twofold task of living the Christian life and converting the pagans and Jews. Since no Christian can ever justify infanticide, whether of born or unborn children, abortion is a problem that would solve itself. Of course, a Christian society will usually pass laws to prevent violations of the most basic moral tenets--divorce, infanticide, etc.--but sensible Christians will not engage in any wholesale attempt to eliminate the old Adam or reconstruct human nature through legislation, as in Puritanical attempts to eliminate drinking and prostitution. Commonwealths exist, as Aristotle and St. Thomas insist, not to impose morality but to create conditions that are propitious for a moral life.
Naturally, this raises the question of whether a church that permits or encourages abortion--and divorce and homosexuality--among its members is entitled to be called Christian. I think not, no matter how many real albeit deluded Christians might be members.