'25 SUMMER READING LIST, #7 - "GETTING TO KNOW THE CHURCH FATHERS" BY BRYAN LITFIN

How many of you get excited by studying church history? Does it seem to be dealing with dry historical figures that don't really fit in with modern life? Here's a book that will help you appreciate the development and the individuals who influenced that development.

If you can read the small, light print on the bar above the author's name, you'll see this is the second edition. I've read both editions. The first one deals with Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Perpetua, Origen, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and Cyril of Alexandria. The second edition adds Ephram the Syrian and St. Patrick of Ireland. 

Each chapter gives a biography of the subject and some description of what was going on at the time. This is followed by five or so questions, reading recommendations, and an excerpt of their writings. The questions make this ideal for a group study - I've used this in that setting twice.

 

LOOKING BACK AT THE CHURCH FATHERS AND CHURCH HISTORY

 

"Church Fathers' Fellowship", Jeffrey C. Reynolds. Explanation below.

I hope you enjoyed the last two weeks looking at various church fathers. Maybe you've learned more about the first 500 years of church history than you previously known. Maybe you've been challenged and/or encouraged through this series. If so, please let me know.

We have a problem today with Biblical illiteracy. Add to that the fact that Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is in its entirety truth(2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 4:12; Psalm 119:160; 2 Peter 1:21), and church history is not, and we can see why church history is overlooked. But should it be?

Paul urged the Corinthians to follow him as he followed Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). Likewise, we should note how other believers follow Christ and imitate their obedience and faith (Philippians 3:17; Hebrews 6:11-12; 13:7). In this case, we can learn from the Church Fathers, from the Reformers, from godly pastors/evangelists/apologists/authors of the past and present, and even from pioneers of Christian music (which I would include Isaac Watts and Charles Wesley in that category).

In the book Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction, Bryan Litfin ended each chapter with some provocative questions concerning the church father covered. In the last chapter, the final two questions were more summary questions. 

He asks which of the twelve people he dealt with were your favorites and least favorites, and if there were any whom you felt connection to. My favorites were Tertullian, Athanasius, and John Chrysostom. The first two were in my list of heroes of the faith before I read this book; Chrysostom was not. Least favorite is easy, and if you've been faithful reading this series and have a memory of what you've read in the past three days, you'd know it's Cyril of Alexandria.

Do I relate to any? This took some thought, and I realized there were two. One was Irenaeus of Lyons, who worked to bring peace between the Bishop of Rome and some in the Middle East who disagreed with him on the dating of Easter, as well as standing against the false teaching of the Gnostics. The other was Ephrem the Syrian, between his use of poetry to teach truth and his encouragement of getting "the sisters" to sing by forming women's choirs. Some of you may know I used to be a songwriter, and a few might know that I've always liked hearing female vocalists. 

Litfin's last question of the readers is if their view of "church fathers" changed. At the beginning of the book, he mentioned some confused the catholic fathers with Roman Catholicism - whether you use a capital 'C' makes the difference.  Likewise, he stated some felt the Church fell into apostasy at some point (usually either with Constantine's rise to power or with Leo the Great raising the role of the Pope). My treatment is more abbreviated than Litfin's but it would be interesting if my series has affected your opinion of the church fathers in particular and church history in general.

So let me close to the few, the proud, those who read my blog daily for the last two weeks: Who are your favorites of the twelve Litfin (and I) have dealt with? Whose your least favorites? And do you connect with any of them? 

Explanation of Picture:

"Church Fathers' Fellowship".

In the center, seated, are Origen and John Chrysostom, debating over hermeneutics (Biblical interpretation, with Origen representing Alexandrian allegorism and Chrysostom representing Antiochene interpretation, more literal.

 

On the far left, you have Ignatius of Antioch with the lion he met at the Collesium; they're better friends now in glory. Seated is Ephrem the Syrian, trying to teach Perpetua a hymn he wrote - Ephrem encouraged women's choirs. Perpetua is with a heifer who she encountered at her martyrdom.

 

Behind Origen and Chrysostom are observing, left to right, Irenaeus of Lyons, Athanasius, Augustine, and Cyril of Alexandria. I'd love to hear their theological discussion.

 

On the far right, St. Patrick discussing the shamrock as an object lesson to philosopher/early apologist Justin Martyr (seated) and Tertullian (standing).

 

Artist's impression of the twelve church fathers in "Getting To Know The Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction," (2nd edition) by Bryan Litfin.

 

ARE GOOD DOCTRINE AND GOOD CHARACTER SYNOMONOUS? - A LOOK AT CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

 

Cyril of Alexandria by Rousanu

 

Let's say I'm writing a novel with the twelve church fathers Bryan Litfin covers in his book Getting To Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction having dinner together. (Would it be considered historical, since it deals with individuals who lived between 100 and 500 AD, or speculative since they weren't all contemporaries of each other?) One of the guests gets murdered. Which one? Good question, but it isn't Cyril. For me, the question is whether I want to make Cyril the killer, or just the red herring you suspect until he becomes the second victim.

First, I'll deal with why he is included as a Church Father. You probably are familiar with the 4th century conflict with Arianism during the days of Constantine and Athanasius (definitely if you've been reading this series and quite probably even if you haven't).  However, the 5th century had it's own controversies, which were more Christological. What relationship did the eternal Begotten Son of God have with Jesus of Nazareth? Was His real nature divine? Human? Or both?

One of the promoters of a variant teaching on the subject was Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople. (NOTE - an excellent book dealing with Nestorianism and other Christological heresies like Arianism and Modalism is Superheroes Can't Save You: Epic Examples of Historic Heresies by Todd Miles, where he compares various false teachings concerning Christ with various superheroes.) The orthodox view was defended by Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Cyril held that Christ was fully God and fully man, not some strange hybrid. He was the one to introduce the theological term "Hypostatic Union", of how Jesus Christ was one person with two natures.

Why, then, do I have a problem with Cyril? Remember two installments ago when I was mentioning Theophilus, then Bishop of Alexandria, was unhappy with John Chrysostom being Bishop of Constantinople, and gave trumped out charges which resulted in John being exiled and dying due to his treatment? Do you want to guess who Theophilus' nephew was? Yep, it was Cyril. Did Cyril have a problem with how John was treated? Not at all. Now, after the dastardly deed  was done, Cyril did reluctantly admit that Chrysostom was orthodox, and later on quoted him.

Was that the only question mark I have about Cyril? I wish. In Alexandria, some "Christian" thugs brutally and savagely murdered a pagan prophetess. Do you remember what Cyril said against that attrocity? Same thing I did at that time - nothing! Of course, I can say I didn't say anything because it occured over 1500 years before I was born. Cyril did not have that excuse.

Let's go to the Council of Ephesus, where Cyril successfully defeated Nestorianism, with Nestorius being declared a heretic and his ideas being condemned on the first day of meeting. Could it be that was because Cyril was appointed as representative of the Roman party until they arrived, not to mention the senior bishop of Alexandria, he took charge? Maybe, though he did have the authority to do so. How about the council being called to order on time, even though Cyril knew many of Nestorius' supporters had been delayed from being there at the time? Now that wasn't completely kosher or, in 21 century terms, fair and balanced, was it?

So here's the question: Is good doctrine negated by bad character, or vice versa for that matter? 

WHAT'S WORSE? PERSECUTION BY UNBELIEVERS OR POLITICAL ATTACKS IN THE CHURCH? - A LOOK AT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

 When I first started reading Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction by Bryan Litfin, this was where I stood on the twelve people he dealt with in the second edition:

1. Ones I knew absolutely nothing about before reading - 3
2. Ones I recognized the name but knew nothing more about them - 2
3.  Those I could give a one sentence summary of - 4
4. Those I could give more than just a one sentence summary of - 1
5. Those that I considered a hero of the faith - 2.

After reading the book, only the final two categories remain. I can give a two or more sentence  description of all of them. The two heroes (Tertullian and Athanasius) are still heroes, but they are now joined by a third: John Chrysostom (i.e. Golden Mouth).

Chrysostom was an interesting character. He had an excellent education, studying under Libaneus, the greatest orator of that time. When Libaneus was asked on his deathbed which of his students should be his successor, he said, "It ought to have been John, had not the Christians stole him from us."

So how did John use his education and oratory skills? By committing himself to Christ. First, he got involved in his local church, but that wasn't enough. So he sojourned in a monastery for four years and lived in a cave for two more. 

After that, he returned to his hometown of Antioch and preached there. You may remember three days ago that Origen, practiced Alexandrian (allegorical) interpretation of Scripture? John was trained in the Antiochene method which recognized the Bible was a spiritual book, but it focused on understanding what the text meant and remained grounded in what the text said. 

Litfin included an excerpt of a sermon John preached. Riots had occurred in Antioch, including vandalizing statues of the Emperor and his family. Among other consequences, Antioch lost the designation as a "Metropolis". John pointed out that Antioch has a greater glory than having that worldly title - it was the city where Christians received their name. He also reminded that the church at Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas with relief for a famine in Jerusalem, and later sent the duo again to the Jerusalem council when the circumcision issue cropped up (Acts 15).

John received an imperial order where he was informed he was appointed Bishop of Constantinople, not only to his surprise, but also that of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, who was trying to get his protege plugged into that spot to give him more political influence. To make matters worse for Theophilus, John was from Antioch. If you picture the greatest college rivalry, it pales between the competitiveness between Alexandria and Antioch, two communities that often took opposing sides in church controversies.

Constantinople was a city of affluence, with two newly built cathedrals in town. How well do you think a former monk fit in that area? As you'd expect, John spoke out against the extravagance and put more emphasis on ministering to the poor. He also didn't hesitate to speak out against the sins of the church. His criticisms were sometimes ill-advised. Standing against the Judaizers that were around in that day, John responded with some anti-Semitic remarks. He also referred to the Emperor's wife as "Jezebel."

Theophilus and his Alexandrian co-horts used that to their advantage. They managed to get John Chrysostom exiled. They even offered bribes to the guards if John did not survive his exile. Being weakened by his earlier aescetic wilderness years, John died in exile.

As everybody else, Chrysostom had his shortcomings. But there are things I admire about John. His zeal for the Lord that resulted in living in the wilderness. His faithfulness to preach the Word of God and not look for hidden meanings. His concern on serving the poor rather than having a luxurious church. His message to Antioch to rejoice in their place in the spread of the Gospel.