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? 

APOSTLE OF GRACE - A LOOK AT AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO

Triunfo de San Augustin by Claudio Coello

 In a Facebook group I once was in, someone asked who your favorite theologian. Someone replied, "If it's not Augustine, your vote doesn't count." In the cartoon collection Submitting To Be More Vile: The Illustrated Adventures of John and Charles Wesley, Charlie Baber referred to Augustine as the rock star of church history. If you noticed, the painting above by Claudio Coello is more extravagant and not just a portrait like the others. Much less of an overstatement is Bryan Litfin's title "Apostle of Grace."

You may say that a short blog like this definitely won't do justice to Augustine. I agree. The reality is that the chapter in Getting To Know The Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction just touches the tip of the iceberg. The primary emphasis was Augustine's testimony from his book Confessions (including an introduction to Ambrose, the bishop whose preaching God used to draw Augustine to Himself), and then a brief mention of dealing with the Pelagians and Donatists. Litfin gives a list for each of the twelve church fathers titled "Good books to dig deeper", and for Augustine he has a translation of Confessions and some biographies and overviews of his thought, but fails to include translations of his other classic City of God.

I heard someone comment that Augustine was the one who started the Roman Catholic Church. To be honest, I'm not equipped to debate that issue, and have no reason to refute it. However, you can also call him a Father or Forefather of the Reformation: Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, and Calvinism reflects an Augustinian theology.

You can see grace being an issue in Augustine's conflicts with both Pelagianism and Donatistism. The former denies we were born in sin and claim we can live choose to live a righteous life, thus rendering grace unnecessary. Donatists, while orthodox doctrinally, refused to forgive church leaders who "lapsed" (i.e. burning incense to Caesar to avoid persecution) and considered only Baptism by Donatists to be valid. Is this reflective of God's grace? Nope!

I did smile. Litfin believes every Christian should read Augustine's Confessions; no other book by the Church Fathers he mentioned got the same endorsement. Maybe reading it might make me more of an Augustine fan - I'm neutral on him. I have areas of disagreement with him. But I cannot deny the influence he's been on others.

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.

 

 

A HYMN WRITING APOLOGIST FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF JERUSALEM - A LOOK AT EPHREM THE SYRIAN

 

Jesus commanded His disciples to make disciples of all nations, to go into all the world and preach the Gospel, and to be His witnesses to the uttermost parts of the world. Yet we consider Christianity a Western religion, not reaching into Africa and Asia until the modern mission movement. Did the apostles fail to obey and ignored the lands to the East, or is our perception a bit off?

In this series (we're in part 9 of 13), I've been following Bryan Litfin's book Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction. The first edition included ten people from the first 500 years of the church, and the second edition added two more. One of these is Ephrem the Syrian. I had never heard of him before the second edition. My loss.

Litfin mentions that the Christianity that traveled East was more Jewish than the Western form. Some of it was orthodox, some wasn't. Also, in Edessa in Mesopotamia, there were other false teachings. Ephrem recognized that both the Eastern church he was a part of and the Western church were the same faith, serving the same Savior, and fought against the heresies of Ebionism (a Judaizing movement), Arianism (denying that Jesus was God in the flesh), Marcionism, and Manicheism (a form of Gnosticism). Ephrem's theology was so strong, it was praised by church leaders in the West, such as Augustine's contemporary Jerome.

One technique of the false groups like Arianism and Manicheism was to set their hereitical teachings to music. Ephrem decided the best way to fight fire was with fire, so he wrote hymns both to refute error and to proclaim truth. This helped him earn the nickname "the Harp of the Holy Spirit."

A topic for debate today is a woman's role in the church, particularly if women can preach. In Ephrem's day, there was no such debate - the answer was an across-the-board "No." However, Ephrem saw no prohibition on women singing. So he organized women's choirs, so the sisters can sing.

Have there been hymns or other Christian songs that have had an impact on you? Do you see music being used to defend the faith and teach doctrine much this day? If not, should it? (See Colossians 3:16)

 

EVEN CHURCH FATHERS CAN BE CONTROVERSIAL - A LOOK AT ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA

 

 

Have you ever heard that there are many ways to interpret the Bible, almost implying that there's no way of knowing what it really means?

This is the halfway point in my 13 installment look at the Church Fathers, using Bryan Litfin's Getting To Know The Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction as a guide. Today's subject is Origen. I was about to write "Today's saint," but Origen (like Tertullian) was never canonized. 

I believe I've mentioned in another blog (possibly the one I did for All Saints Day a couple of months ago) that I take the typical Biblicist view of sainthood, which is that all believers are saints. (In all except one of his letters to the churches, Paul addresses the recipients as being saints, including the carnal Corinthians; the exception was the Galatians, where they were on the verge of following "another gospel.") With that definition, I definitely consider Origen a saint (and the same for Tertullian, but you might remember me referring to that a couple of days ago).

Why do I unhesitatingly consider him a saint? Two reasons. He clearly loved the Lord, and he loved the church. He got carried away in trying to live out the passage of being a eunuch for God's sake (which he later realized was unwise), and lived a life of self-sacrifice which weakened him physically. He also taught others the Gospel during a time of severe persecution, and when his students were arrested, Origen risked his freedom visiting them in prison and shouting encouragement to them when they faced martyrdom (which Origen later did as well).

Some of you may not have known this about Origen. Those who are familiar with him probably associate him first of all with his allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Those who know my life story are aware I went to a Bible college that emphasized a literal interpretation of Scripture, and view symbolizing Scripture with wariness, afraid the interpreter will use that hermeneutic to justify any fanciful thing he would think of. On the other hand, though, is there an equally dangerous extreme of plain sense interpretation, where we believe that an unbeliever is able to read Scripture and understand what it means?

First of all, Origen believed the Bible was Spiritual, and thus there was more to it than the historical/literal words (which Origen did not reject). Also, being aware of the danger I mentioned above, he established three safeguards against his allegories taking us to la la land. They are:

1. The Catholic Church's Rule of Faith. The Rule of Faith is the precursor to the Apostle's Creed, and Origen was in agreement with other church fathers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian concerning what it taught.
2. The nature of Scripture. Origen believed Scripture was both about Christ and from Him. See John 5:39. If you've heard some say that Jesus is on every page of the Bible, you're repeating a concept that may have originated with Origen.
   
3. The upright character of the interpreter. To understand Scripture requires a pure heart. Godly maturity and wisdom prevent going into error.

Origen was definitely considered a Biblical scholar. His allegorical approach was not due to a lack of respect for Scripture but rather the opposite. Is it possible that, as Festus taunted Paul, that much learning made him mad? Should we be skeptical of Christian intellectuals and academians? Or are we going the other direction and promoting anti-intellectualism? 

There are ideas that Origen came up with which weren't completely orthodox. For example, he believed that Satan would eventually repent, and that our resurrection bodies won't be physical, neither view being accepted by the mainstream church. But anybody who's familiar with Pilgrim's Progress or the Chronicles of Narnia realize symbolism and story can effectively communicate truth.

 

 

ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL CHRISTIANS, YET NOT A SAINT? A LOOK AT TERTULLIAN

 

When I first read Bryan Litfin's Getting To Know The Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction, I was able to describe nine of the twelve church leaders with one sentence... or less! (There were three I knew nothing about.) Two of the three were men I consider heroes of the faith, and the third was Augustine. 

In a previous installment, I mentioned doing a term paper on six early church movements, and Tertullian had connection with two of them - a positive connection with Montanism (some believe he joined the group, others thought he just accepted them), and an advesarial relationship with Marcionism. 

As my title stated, Tertullian was not canonized as a saint - more about this later. Regardless of that, he is an important figure in church history. Pope Benedict XVI lists this non-saint in his book on church fathers. While Irenaeus was the first to mention a collection of Christian Scripture, Tertullian was the first use the term "New Testament." Another term he was the first to use is "Trinity" relating to the relationship of the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit (he was also the first Church Father to write primarily in Latin). You may have heard Tertullian's question "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem" and more likely to be familiar with the line "The blood of Christians is seed" (more commonly rephrased as "The blood of martyrs is the seed of the church").

In this series I've mentioned the seven letters of Ignatius, the three writings of Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus' two classics. Tertullian's bibliography consists of more than twice the listings of the other trio combined - a total of thirty one in the original Latin.  His biggest is a five volume set titled Against Marcionism.

Who is Marcion? He was a wealthy shipmaker, and had enough money to spread his heretical doctrine. Marcion is included in lists of Gnostic teachers because his theology is similar (especially in a non-physical Jesus who came to forgive sins but didn't pay for them on the cross). However, most Gnostics used their own writings as well as Scripture. 100% of Marcion's Bible is contained in our Bible.

Marcion was the first to give a canon of New Testament books, which consisted of Luke and ten of Paul's letters (excluding the Pastoral Epistles). He believed there were two different gods - the Creator who the Jews worshipped, and the true God who sent Jesus. Thus, Marcion rejected the Old Testament and anything "corrupted" with Jewish thought in our New Testament.

One reason I'm a Tertullian fan is because of how he dealt with Marcion. Two of the five books against Marcion refuted the shipmaker's teachings from Scripture - Volume 3 using Marcion's edited version of Luke, and the next one using Paul's letters. In other words, even Marcion's limited Scripture was enough to disprove him.

When I did my term paper, Tertullian was considered to have joined the Montanists. His version differed from the movement's founder Montanus version, and the authors I read gave three possible reasons: 1) Montantism mellowed between Montanus' time and Tertullian's; 2) North African Montanism which influenced Tertullian was more orthodox than the Middle Eastern Montanism of Montanus; and what I consider the most likely theory, 3) Montanus was Montanus and Tertullian was Tertullian.

If Tertullian was a conservationist, he'd probably be another Crocodile Hunter. Then, maybe you might call him the Rush Limbaugh of Church Fathers. Tertullian could be very harsh and legalistic. He wrote a list of what women could and could not wear, for example.  His crusty personality may be why he wasn't canonized as a saint. Of course, if you use the NT definition of saints as being all of Christ's followers, then Tertullian would definitely be a saint.

One last comment. In dealing with heretical movements, Tertullian said they had no authority to use Scripture. Scripture belongs to the church, and it is ours to use, not those who twist it.

Do you have any heroes of the faith that, while orthodox, can be controversial?

 

A GAME CHANGER IN CHRISTIANITY - A LOOK AT IRENAEUS OF LYONS

 

In case you've lost track in counting, this is part four of a beginning of the year series looking at the church fathers, using Getting to Know the Church Fathers: an Evangelical Introduction by Bryan Litfin as a guide. 

One thing we often forget is that we didn't always have hundreds of Bible translations or a clear cut guide on what Christians believed. With the combination of persecution from the outside and false teaching on the inside, we can see the need for a catholic (small 'c', representing the universal church), as well as people defending against false teaching.

A primary form of false teaching was Gnosticism. In college, I wrote a 30 page term paper looking at six early church movements: Ebionites, Gnostics, Marcionites, Montanists, Novatianists, and Donatists. The Gnostics took up half the paper.

Gnosticism has always been a threat to Christianity. The books of Colossians and 1 John in particular dealt with early Gnosticism. Additionally, the Gnostic emphasis on knowledge shows up in two different ways: 

1. False sects that rehash old Gnostic theology (not to mention groups that call themselves Gnostic), and 
2. Individuals and groups that are orthodox theologically but have the same Spiritual elitism that was in Gnosticism.

What are some beliefs of Gnostics? They divide people into three groups - 1) the pagans who lack knowledge; 2) those with some knowledge who will save themselves by doing good; and 3) the Gnostics, who have a complete understanding and thus are free to do whatever they want. You may remember my mentioning the belief of Docetism (denying the humanity of Jesus Christ) in an earlier blog - Gnostices were Docetists. They believed that matter is evil and the spiritual is the true reality. Unlike historical Christianity, the God of Gnosticism is not the Creator of the world; the earth was made by a false god. 

If you compare Gnostic teachings with evangelical beliefs, you'll see it wasn't merely a competing form of Christianity, as we consider denominations to be. Rather, it is a different religion with differing views on creation, sin, the reason for Jesus to come (to be a wise teacher as opposed to the once-for-all sacrifice for sin). They also had their own writings contained in the Nag Hamadi library, the best known being the Gospel of Thomas. This book differs from the four canonical Gospels - the Gospel of Thomas was not a telling of the life of Christ but a collection of 114 sayings attributed to him, ending with one where Peter questioned Jesus allowing Mary Magdalene to be with them since she was a woman, and Jesus replied that He was making her male. (And you think today's Christianity is misogynist?)

This was the time of Irenaeus (pronounced Eer-eh-nay-us; I still struggle to pronounce his name correctly). He was born in the Middle East and then became bishop in what is now called Lyons. When he was young, he sat under Polycarp. Scholars consider him to have good relationship with the Bishop in Rome, and encouraged the Bishop not to ex-communicate the Asia Minor church over a disagreement on the dating of Easter, pointing out that while a previous Bishop of Rome and Polycarp had disagreements, the Bishop invited Polycarp to officiate the eucharist. Other than that, we don't know of the details of his life, including whether he died a martyr or not.

We best know Irenaeus not from historians but a pair of his writings. The better know is known under the title Against Heresies, and until the mid-20th century description of the Nag Hamadi Library it was the primary source on Gnosticism. In Another Gospel? A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity, Alisa Childers mentioned reading Against Heresies as a step of strengthening her faith after it was challenged.

One modern day fable is that our current Bible won out over the Gnostic views due to the politics of the day. But Irenaeus' defense against Gnosticism was 0% politics and 100% doctrinal.

 Irenaeus felt there were three defenses against error:  the Church, the Scriptures (Irenaeus was the first two see a second, Christian, collection of Scripture we now refer to as the New Testament), and the Creeds. He refers to a Rule of Faith, which was a predecessor to the Apostles Creed.

 When it comes to the balance between truth and love, many Christians prioritize one over the other. Irenaeus did a great job of dealing with both truth and love, of promoting unity among the Church while fighting against false teachings.

Do you tend to favor either truth or love above the other virtue? What are you doing to promote unity in your church? Likewise, what are you doing to protect yourself, your family, and other believers from error?

THE FIRST CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHER/APOLOGIST - A LOOK AT JUSTIN MARTYR

Would you believe there was a time when you could identify a philosopher by how they dressed? Likewise, would you believe there was a Christian who chose to wear the outfit of a philosopher?

Justin Martyr became interested in philosophy as a young man in the early 100's. He sat under Stoicist, Aristotlean, and Pythagorean followers before focusing on Platonist teaching. He still wasn't satisfied until he encountered an older Christian.

As mentioned above, Justin chose the garb of the philosopher. This gave him opportunities. For example, it lead him into a friendly dialogue with Trypho the Jew, which Justin put in print... er, written form. 

Bryan Litfin, in his book Getting To Know The Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction, distinguished his ministry with Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius' letters were those of a pastor, strengthening the Church. Justin's primary ministry was to those outside, and he presented the Gospel in a way that reached those of the Greco-Roman society.

Justin did not feel philosophy (or more technically true philosophy) was at odds with the Gospel. He also showed some early wrestling with the realization that the Father was God and Jesus, the Logos, was God, and the Father was not Jesus.

This early church leader did live up to his name. He knew of the consequences taking the name of Christ could have; in fact, the martyrdom of Christians drew him before he came to the faith.

Justin is known for the above Dialogue With Trypho. He also wrote his First Apology and Second Apology. In the former, he gives a picture of what a second century church service looked like.

How do we deal with different people of different backgrounds? Justin Martyr was an early example on contextualization, but while he changed his presentation of the truth, he didn't change the truth.

THE LONG ROAD TO MARTYRDOM - A LOOK AT IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH

 

Ignatius of Antioch

I believe it was last year that I saw a meme which said, "If I get killed by a mountain lion, know that my last words were 'Here, kitty, kitty.'" Is it possible that those were the last words of a church father?

 

There are a pair of Saint Ignatiuses. My guess is the better known one is Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), founder of the Jesuit movement. Fourteen hundred years earlier was the Saint he was probably named after, Ignatius of Antioch. Note of interest: Before moving to Indy, Becky and I lived in the part of Nashville, TN known as Antioch, and we were about a mile from St. Ignatius of Antioch Catholic Church.

Ignatius (from here on in this blog, "Ignatius" refers to the one from Antioch) was the first Church Father dealt with in Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction by Bryan Litfin. We know very few details about his life; the year his death was set approximately at 115, at that death was assumed to be via a lion or the like in the Roman Colesium. How long he lived, why was he arrested and sent to Rome for execution, and what the name of Budd Abbott's famous third baseman was all have the same answer: "I don't know."

Here are the few facts we know of Ignatius:

• He was a bishop from Antioch of Syria, the city where followers of Jesus were first called Christians, from where Paul started his three missionary journeys. It is possible that Ignatius may have known of Paul, though it might have been as a child.
• He was arrested and traveled to Rome, writing seven letters during the journey. During a holdover in Smyrna, Asia Minor. he was visited there by Smyrna's bishop Polycarp -if you're not familiar with him, look up his inspiring martyrdom defense at age 86 - and bishops from other neighboring cities including one name Onesimus (Philemon's former slave?), who came to encourage their captive brother. Five of his letters were to churches that sent representatives to him along the journey, with the other two being a personal note to Polycarp and a letter to the Church in Rome asking them not to interfere in any way with his martyrdom.
  

We often think of the church of the first three centuries as being persecuted from without but faithful to Christ. That picture is not true. In his ministry in Antioch, he faced two different forms of false teaching that despite their differences shared a dangerous similarity: Both minimized the value and necessity of Jesus' death and resurrection.

On one hand are the Judaizers. You may remember that the important Council in Jerusalem was convened due to Paul and Barnabas being confronted in Antioch following the first missionary journey by believing Pharisees who stated the Gentile converts needed to be circumcised. Antioch was also the location where Paul publicly rebuked Peter for giving mixed messages about the Gospel by changing his eating partners when they had Jewish visitors sent by James. If you think the verdict of the Jerusalem Council and Paul's letter to the Galatians ended the conflict, guess again. I've seen groups today 2000 years later still Judaizing believers, as well as other forms of legalistic teaching. 

How does this teaching weaken the Christian faith? Simple. Christ's death was not enough for salvation. God's grace is not sufficient. Rather, we need to help God save us by obeying Him.

On the other hand were early Gnostics. The emphasis of Gnostics is knowledge, and they believed Jesus came to be a spiritual teacher, a guru if you will. They held to a belief called Docetism, which had little problem of Christ being deity but a big problem with His humanity. For them, it was not necessary for Him to be born, and much less for Him to die a tortuous death. Instead, we are saved by knowledge, by mystical teachings of Jesus (as well as other Gnostic leaders).

What is the solution? Ignatius proposed the concept of a single bishop in each city. The purpose was not to give authority to that bishop but for the sake of unity. The church needs to be unified by both truth and love. Too many focus so intently on one or the other that they don't focus enough on the other.

As I hinted in describing his letter to Rome, Ignatius did not consider a painful criminal's death as a mark of failure. Rather, he viewed it as the cry of a victor, that his demise validated his stands against the Judaizers and the Docetists. Ignatius asked the Romans not to interfere with his martyrdom, and added that some of the wild beasts were on the timid side, so he planned to coax them to eat him. Is it possible that Ignatius' final words were the Greek equivalent of "Here, kitty kitty?"

Are you willing to die an unpleasant death for the sake of Christ? Do you deal with either legalists (including but not limited to Judaizers) or with those who relegate Jesus to being a wise teacher rather than a Sacrifice and Savior? What are you doing to encourage (or discourage) unity in your local church? Do you support, encourage, and even submit to your church leader(s) for the sake of unity and the Gospel?

IS THERE A BETTER WAY TO START A NEW YEAR THAN WITH THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS? (PART 1 OF 14)

 

Statue of Junipero Sera, Mission San Juan Capristrano, by Bernard Gagnon, Wikipedia Commons

 Let me start the New Year out with a look at the Church Fathers. I am writing this blog series as I'm preparing to facilitate a men's Bible study group going through the book Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction by Bryan Litfin. If you've been reading this blog, the name will ring some bells. I had done a book review on this volume, and before that did another review comparing this with another book dealing with Church leaders from history.

First, before you read on, make a list of twelve church fathers. Don't scroll down until you finish your list. Finished? Okay, how many were able to come up with twelve names? Oh, you struggled after half a dozen? Don't give yourself a hard time - a lot of Christians aren't aware of history. Here's a list that you can compare with:

1. Martin Luther
2. John Calvin
3. John Wesley
4. Charles Spurgeon
5. Jonathan Edwards
6. Billy Graham
7. St. Francis of Assissi
8. Dwight L. Moody
9. C. S. Lewis
10. Dr. J. Vernon McGee
11. James Dobson
12. Fanny Crosby

How many of you had any of these names on your list? If you did, mark those answers wrong. If I gave the correct list, my guess is that most of you would recognize one name and some more theologically informed may recognize a second. If you know more than that, I'm impressed. Having church history in college and reading the text-book cover to cover, I recognized 9 of the 12 names, and could give a complete sentence answer about who they were to seven of them. But I'm not giving the list now, so you'll either have to read Litfin's book or continue the next two weeks to get the names.

But what is a church father? Of course, different people may have different theories. In my opinion, ten of the twelve people listed deserve the title, while the other two do  not. That is because there are people in church history (as well as contemporary people) are inspirational ans some are influential. The former is admired as a hero/heroine, while the latter has an impact on how you think and what you believe. I would consider a church father to the the influencer. Most of these were active writers and their writings have impacted the direction the church went.

As we have different definitions for what a Church Father is, some of those definitions may be based on misconceptions. Litfin gives three of those misconceptions:

1. The church fathers are not biblical. Actually, if you collected the church fathers writings and cut out their quotations from the New Testament, you might be a few verses short of a complete manuscript. The church fathers were very familiar with Scripture.
2. The church fathers were Roman Catholic. Well, since the modern Roman Catholic Church didn't exist in their days, not really. The creeds talk about a catholic church, but what does the word "catholic" mean? If you guessed "Universal", you're right on the money; if you think it's a person who is addicted to sharing photos of felines on Facebook... sorry. You may notice I talked about a "catholic" church with a small "c" - we all belong to the small c catholic church of true believers.
3. The church fathers represent the fall of Christianity. When I started Bible College, the professor for "Baptist History and Distinctives" held that view, that there were Christians who were never a part of the Catholic church or its offspring (the Orthodox Church or the Reformation Protestant Churches). Later, the school hired a history teacher (the former one was focused on Pastoral studies) who disagreed. The reality is there is no clear point to say the church went astray. My belief is that every denomination/group/theology has both wheat and tares, both sheep and goats. Also, the tendency of mankind is to drift from the truth, so we need people at least every generation calling for reformation.

But why study the early church fathers? Shouldn't our focus be on following Jesus? Yes, but how do we follow Jesus? Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:1 "Imitate me just as I also imitate Christ." Dr. Mark Bailey in a Bible College class on Biblical Discipleship taught you can learn how to follow Christ by observing how others follow Him. 

I'd like to close today's installment a pair of questions (influenced by Litfin):

1. What role do the cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12:1) have in our lives as believers? Would the church fathers be in that cloud?
2. Can one claim to follow Christ and not hold to historical/orthodox Christianity? Can you think of someone like that? Are there any ways your views differ from typical Christian belief?
   

 

 

BOOK REVIEW: GETTING TO KNOW THE CHURCH FATHERS (2ND EDITION) BY BRYAN LITFIN

 I had a semester of church history at Bible College, and about a decade later read through the whole text-book. But that didn't give me a handle on a lot of the people, let alone help me relate to them. This book does an excellent job at that.

In the first edition of this book, Litfin selected ten people from the first five hundred years of church history; in this second edition, he adds two more. With each one, he gives a more contemporary illustration that either was connected to the perception of the church father or an event in their life (such as dealing with twins as an example of the debate on Christ's natures in the intro on Cyril of Alexandria). He then gives a short history of that person's life, and concludes with a section titled "Reflections on ________". This is followed by five or six discussion questions, helping bridge the gap between the historical person and our current times. A list of sources for further study are provided, and followed by "A Taste of __________" where it gives a sample of the writing of that individual.

This is not meant to be an exhaustive work on Church History. Neither of what I call the Clement Brothers (respectively of Rome and Alexandria) are dealt with, nor is Jerome. You learn some about people (good and bad alike) like Polycarp, Marcion, Montanus, Ambrose, and Leo the Great when they're mentioned in connection with one of the twelve highlighted people. I do think Perpetua seems a little out of place, and included only so there's a church mother there with all the church fathers. Likewise, while I consider Patrick of Ireland a hero of the faith, I would not consider him a church father.

It gave me an appreciation for my favorite church fathers, Tertullian and Athanasius. It also helped me gain an understanding of others like Ignatius and especially John Chrysostom. My pastor and I also took some time reading this book and going through the discussion questions.

I would highly recommend this book both for personal knowledge and for small groups.

Are you familiar with any of the church fathers? If so, who would be your favorites? Any other people from church history you consider heroes?

NOTE: The church fathers dealt with in this book are Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Iranneus of Lyons, Tertullian, Perpetua, Origen, Athanasius, Ephram the Syrian, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Cyril of Alexandria, and Patrick of Ireland.

BOOK REVIEWS: GETTING TO KNOW THE CHURCH FATHERS & SHAPERS OF CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY

 

Today is All Saints Day (and this year, falls on the same day as International Day Of Prayer for the Persecuted Church , and I thought it would fit to use the Medieval Sharp font for this blog.

On this occasion, I will review not one but two books for what I consider Early Church History 101 and 201.

The first one I'll review is Getting To Know The Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction by Bryan Litfin. In the first edition, he looks at ten Christian leaders from the first five centuries of Christianity: Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Perpetua, Origen, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and Cyril. He added Ephrem the Syrian and Patrick of Ireland to the second edition.

I can argue calling his collection to be church fathers. Most of them, I would agree. However, I consider Perpetua and Patrick to be heroic examples of the faith but not having the impact on the development of Christianity the others have.

One item I like is that Litfin ends each chapter with five or six questions helping us to understand the Church leaders mentioned and how this relates to us today.

After you read this book, you're ready for Shapers of Christian Orthodoxy: Engaging with Early and Medieval Theologians, edited by Bradley Green. This book looks at eight individuals (technically, ten, but the three Cappodocians are included in a chapter together).

There is a lot of overlap between the two books. Both include Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, and Augustine. (Litfin's chapter on Athanasius also briefly mentions the Cappodocians.) This goes further into history by including Anselm and Thomas Aquinas.

The reason I recommend the other first is this one is deeper. The fact that each chapter has its own author is one indicator. (By the way, Litfin wrote the chapter on Origen.) The authors go deeper into the theology of the church leaders covered. 

I would recommend Getting To Know The Church Fathers for anybody. This is a great book to get a group of friends together to read and then discuss the questions. Anybody active in ministry also should have Shapers of Christian Orthodoxy on their bookshelf as well.