Take the Long Way Home

     When I used to study the “church” in history, I usually meant the Reformation  till now.  I assumed that if you could go back far enough (back all the way to the first ever church) you would see a worship service that would look very much like the one I went to every Sunday.  Minus the brick building and the organ.  I was assured (by many - pastors, teachers, elders and their wives) that “we” had it right.  We worshipped the way that God wanted to be worshipped.  In fact my church made a very big deal out of the way you worship being important.  They preached that worship was about what God wanted, not what we got out of it, or what our own personal preferences were, but what God commanded in Scripture.  I also assumed that if there were records from the earliest churches they would bear this out, but I never heard about any sources being available.  The only church “father” I ever heard of was Augustine, after him it was straight to John Calvin or John Knox.  So when I found out that there were quite a few of these “early church fathers” I was excited to read them.  Here was the proof I needed to  “know” that I was in the right place.  Now I wanted to make sure that I only read very early church fathers, only from the 1st or 2nd century, because “everybody” knew that with Constantine the church was corrupted (I never thought through what that meant in practicality.  That it had to mean that the Holy Spirit abandoned Christ’s church.  That God had allowed his people to be without a shephard for over one thousand years before the reformers “put things to rights”.  Is this the way God works?)  So I began to read and I kept a list of “Things to Ponder”.  This list is not in any particular order, just things that make me go hmmmm:

Justin Martyr and Polycarp both speak of the definite reality of hell.  Justin says that the soul is immortal and conscious.  That bodily death does not change this.  He uses the reality of divination (pagans ability to summon spirits) as proof of this.  He also says that the angels in OT actually intermarried with human women and the resulting children were demons (Genesis).

Iranaeus speaks of hell, as well as the immortality of the soul, but expands to say that this does not make the soul pre-existent or equal to God in any way.  God creates each soul, so it has a beginning.  All of these early fathers speak of “works righteousness” and “free will”, “man’s choice to seek God”.  They explicitly say that the judgement of hell is based on works (it supposes faith, but include works as proof).  I don’t see the idea of faith alone, or Scripture alone anywhere here.

Iranaeus speaks of the church in very catholic terms.  He accuses the Gnostics of not following Scripture or tradition of the apostles.  “the tradition which originates from the apostles, which is preserved by means of succession of presbyters in the churches.”  Book 3, chap III of Against Heresy is titled “A Refutation of the Heretics, from the fact that, in the various churches a perpetual succession of Bishops was kept up”.  He says these Bishops were chosen by the apostles.  He cites Rome as the “very great, very ancient, and universally known…founded by the 2 most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; the faith preached to men which comes down to out times by means of the succession of bishops.  For it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church, on account of it’s pre-eminent authority…”.  He makes a big deal of being able to trace back the bishops to the apostles.  He refers to the “faith handed down by the Church…since the apostles, like a rich man depositing his money in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man can draw from her the water of life.  For she is the entrance to life…to lay hold of the tradition of the truth.”  He actually says that we could, if we needed to , look to the church for answers to our questions, even if the apostles had left no written record, because the Church would have the tradition committed to it by the apostles.  He also says that Barbarian tribes come to the truths and pass on the truths because of these traditions because they cannot read.

The early fathers also praise those who remain virgins.  Both men and women.

Very corporate understanding of faith and salvation.  Iranaeus says, the “Spirit, He did convey on the Church”.

Iranaeus also teaches that Adam and Eve did not consumate their “marriage” until after the fall.  He says they had no understanding of it because they had only recently been created and were childlike.

He compares Eve, the disobedient,to Mary, the obedient just as he compares Adam, the disobedient, to Jesus, the obedient.  “for what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.”

“And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin [Eve], so it is rescued by a virgin [Mary]; virginal disobedience having been balaned in the opposite scale by virginal obedience.”

“I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  I am not the God of the dead, but of the living.  For if he be not the God of the dead, but of the living, yet was called God of the fathers who were sleeping, they do indubitably live to God, and have not passed out of existence, since they are children of the resurrection.”

“But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion.  For we offer to Him his own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and the Spirit.  For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of 2 realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”

Iranaeus (along with Justin Martyr) seem to say that the early Christians did not tithe.  Justin says that the rich gave what they wanted and Iranaeus says that all belongs to God and we give him the best part.

It also seems as if they believe that you CAN lose your standing before God… “if we do things displeasing to God, we [might] obtain no further forgiveness of sins,but be shut out from his kingdom.”  This quote, from Against Heresy, was attributed to a presbyter who heard it from another, who heard it from the apostles.  (here my American sensibilities scream, hearsay can’t be trusted, which of course is my whole problem with “oral tradition’.  I’ve been conditioned to reject anything that is not firsthand information, but what does that say about the book of Luke?  By this rule, the book must be thrown out as hear say and unreliable.) 

The ECF’s really focus on how to live.  To not sin in word, deed, or thought.  Belief, faith, action are all seen as the same thing.  One doesn’t exist with out the other.  Faith is belief lived out in obedience.

I do not see predestination anywhere.  I see foreknowledge, but not fore”choosing”.  “If therefore, in the present time also, God, knowing the number of those who will not believe, since he foreknows all things, has given them over to unbelief, and turned away His face from men of this stamp, leaving them in the darkness which they have themselves chosen for themselves, what is there wonderful if He did also at that time give over to their unbelief, Pharoah, who would never have believed, along with those who were with him?”  (William Faulkner has got nothing on this guy!  His sentences are a mile long and murder to get through!)

“…set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free agent from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests of God voluntarily and not by compulsion of God.  For there is no coercion with God, but a good will toward us is present with Him continually…And to man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings) so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves.  On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment.”

Iranaeus also says that the succession of bishops must include only those who live rightly.  They must be obedient to the law of God, not profligate.  (the reformation era bishops would have done well to harken back to this old dead guy!)

“And then shall every word [of the Scriptures - there is no canon yet, he means the OT and the various letters they consider Scripture, which is not necessarily the same books WE consider Scripture) seem consistent to him, if he for his part dillegently read the Scriptures in company of those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I pointed out.”  Only read Scripture with presbyters!

Iranaeus teaches that souls do not go directly to heaven when the body dies, but go to the “invisible place that God has for them, until the return of Christ when their bodies will be resurrected.”

Another theme that I find in the ECF’s is obedience.  Obey your bishops seems to be a continual theme.  No question that there was heirarchy in the early church and the members were expected to obey the bishop as they obey Christ (that is from Ignatious of Antioch)

If anyone (other than myself) reads this far I have only this to say:  I apologize for the randomness and the lack of personalization.  At this point I’m only finding out interesting things that I see in the early church and not sure what to do with them.  These insights are primarily from Iranaeus, but the same sentiments are found in the other ECF’s.

I began this post talking about worship, but interpretation of Scripture is key to understanding what the Bible says about worship.  How the earliest Christians interpreted the Bible is very important to me.  It tells me either how far away we’ve come, or how near our interpretations are to theirs.  There is going to be growth in understanding over time, I accept that, but how much should change?  Should our very basic doctrines be different than the early church’s?  What I have found is that these men believe very differently than what I was taught.  Who is right? 

This is a very interesting book!  Even though I know, intellectually, that the Bible wasn’t written all at the same time, and that early Jews and Christians had to decide which books were “inspired” and which were not and that there was early Jewish commentary - I never thought about what it means - how it affects interpretation.  Whose interpretation is correct?  Jewish or Christian?  When was each book written and why?

The Bible is basically written down oral tradition.  I “know” this, but I have always glossed over this in my mind.  When Moses wrote the Torah (and how do we even know that Moses wrote it except for tradition?) was he writing down the stories that his mother had told him as a little boy?  Was it the stories that his father in law told him in the years he lived there?  I was always told that Moses wrote these down so that the second generation of Isrealites (the first generation who left Egypt had died in the wilderness) who hadn’t witnessed the miracles of God’s deliverance would have a record to look back on and “know” what God had done for them.  But what about Genesis?  Did he have a vision and God revealed to him exactly what happened?  Or did God preserve this history by word of mouth?  Or were they stories (like George Washington and the cherry tree) not based in actual history, but moral stories to make a point about who God was and what he had done?

Pelikan talks about  how translation from Hebrew to Greek changed the text.  That what choices translators make show their biases.  there are not always equal words in different languages, so in translation meaning can be changed.  This is so scary to me.  I must rely on men I don’t know to translate a book I consider holy!

I remember the first time someone told me (an English Professor) that the Bible wasn’t canonized until the 4th century and some of the books included were highly disputed.  Barely made the cut, as she put it.  I was stunned, shocked, speechless.  I had never thought about where the Bible came from or that “people” had to choose from many books which ones were Scripture.  I had this idea (not a formed idea, just a vague seed of an idea) that God had put it together.  I knew it didn’t drop from the sky finished, but that was how I treated it.  I wanted to argue with her, but knew I had not a leg to stand on.  “What do you mean, barely made the cut?  What do you mean not all churches at the time used the same books?”  I never thought about the fact that the last book wasn’t written until 70 years after Christ’s death.  What did the first churches do without John or Rev. for 70 years?  What about the churches who were very far away from hubs like Rome or Jerusalem, or Antioch?  Did they even have copies of any of the books?  And what about before any of them were written?  There was about 10 -20 years when there were NO letters from Paul or James, etc.  And now that I am thinking about this, what does it mean?  How does this affect what I believe?

With Pelikan’s evidence I’m forced to rethink my view of Scripture.  Maybe it’s not a “magic” book, where every word is inerrant.  Maybe it has to be looked at more loosely - a collection of thoughts and practices on God that have been amplified by the “community of believers”.

What is most “d*mning is the New Testament authors making interpretations of the Old Testament based on the Septuigent, that end up reading differently in the Hebrew original.  This makes me want to question “inspiration” or at least my definition of inspiration!  Maybe it doesn’t mean that every word is sacred, but that God uses the whole to reveal himself.

Question:  Did God create a text to define the Church or create a church out of which flowed a text?

“Canonization is the search for texts perfect in their role in accounting for how God has come into history.”

“How a text is accepted/rejected in the canon…

1) Do those who experience the life of God in the world through teh right worship of God in Christ find in this text a true account of their experience/history?  Does the text resonate with the community of those who worship rightly?

2) Is the text agreed upon by a consensus of authorities in the apostolic line of descent?  (all in italics were the words of someone in a forum that I frequent)

According to Pelikan, at the Reformation, the Bible became a “doctrine in it’s own right.  Inspiration was defined as the mysterious process by which the Holy Spirit interacted with the personalities of the Biblical writers.  On this basis the religious authority of the Bible was taken to imply also it’s inerrancy, not only in questions of faith and morals but in every historical, geographical, and scientific detail that is mentioned in it’s pages.”  I must personally take issue with Pelikan here, because I see instances where this (all but the first sentence) took place before the Reformation. 

Now many groups claimed their interpretations were right based on Scripture alone rather than how they worshipped or organized or wanted Christians to live.  Before the Reformation, Scripture had never been “alone”.  In the Judaic tradition there were commentaries to go along with and interpret the Tanakh (Old Testament), then the early Christians had Jesus’ words to interpret the Tanakh.  Then the church developed it’s creeds and liturgy.  The church chose which books were “Scripture” according to how they fit with tradition.  These New Testament Scriptures were used to interpret the Old Testament.

I have intentionally kept myself isolated from works of this nature.  I have walled myself in with only Calvinistic, Reformed, Presbyterian works so that I don’t have to think about what I believe.  I can define it , using the words of another, but I don’t really have tomake any choice.  I decided that *thi*s is the way to believe and I have only read those who defend and support *this* view.  Now that I have allowed other voices in I feel like a schitzophrenic with competing voices in my head.  I am having to redefine what I believe.

At the end of the book, Pelikan moves to a description of the “reality” of Scripture that I love…

      It has always possessed that power [to speak to the reader] and those whom it strikes have always been at a loss about how to cope with it…the beauty of the language of the Bible can be like a set of dentists instruments neatly laid out on a table…until they set to work on the job for which they were intended.  Then my reaction changes from “how shiny and beautiful they are” to “get that d*mned thing out of my mouth!”  Once I read it anew, it stops speaking in cliches and begins to address me directly.

     As much as I like to hear myself talk, I have resisted the “blog”.  It’s one thing to write something in a notebook that no one but me will ever have any interest in reading, it’s quite another to put it out on the internet where no one but me will ever have any interest in reading it!  Somehow posting this in public makes the assumption that someone else WILL be interested and that’s a lot of pressure.  But here I am anyway, warts and all, interest or none.

I had lunch with an old friend with whom I’m in constant contact, but don’t see very often.  She asked me how I was doing, she said she could sense that I had something on my mind.  I told her that I didn’t have anything concrete to tell her yet, but that yes, I did have something on my mind.  I assured her that when I had worked it out in my own mind, I would let her in, and that if I could put it into words now, I would.  Sorry to be so vague, I said, I’m on a spiritual journey of sorts and I don’t know where I’m going to end  up.  I don’t know what path I’m on, so I don’t know my destination.  I’m questioning a lot of things, but I don’t have any answers yet.

This is  a friend, a true friend, that I can tell anything to, because she, unlike most people, has the ability to see right through me.  Most people accept what they see on the surface, also accept what I’m willing  to divulge and make their assumptions about me in this way.  It’s the “normal” way, it’s what we all do.  It’s the way I “know” others.  But this friend has the uncanny ability to see who I am despite what she sees on the surface and despite what I tell her about myself.  Sometimes she “knows” me better than I know myself.  Maybe this is because she is a writer.  She once confided in me, that she was writing a story in which I was a character.  Or not me, exactly, but a character that was inspired by me.  She wrote down for me a quick description of her “character”:

            She is a wonderful, complex woman still trying to fit into her skin.  Some are comfortable with theirs at birth - others go through phases - but there are those who never quite fit - but you have to love her for it.

Although this was scrawled on the back of an envelope it is one of my most treasured items.  It describes me perfectly.  I don’t fit into my own skin, I’ve never fit in anywhere I’ve ever gone.  I’ve never felt completely at home or at ease anywhere in my life.  I hope that heaven will fill my inner most longings for a feeling of belonging, a feeling of comfort and ease, a complete safety that I’ve not found in this life.  Maybe that’s the way it’s supposed to be?  I am not at home here on this earth, I will only be home when I reach heaven. 

Through this blog I hope to work through this “spiritual journey”.  I hope to work through my questions, and my answers and find my way home.  If there are any who choose to make this journey with me then, welcome.  If there are not, that’s okay too, it is my journey after all.  A journey that I must make somewhat alone, although I have discovered many friends along the way.  I must admit upfront that this is not the *beginning* of my journey, this is more like the middle.  I apologize  up front for any confusion this causes, but my thoughts are rarely linear anyhow, so it probably wouldn’t be any easier to follow if I had been braver and began this blog at the beginning.