Last night, I read a recent post [link] by the Baptist pastor
Kent Brandenburg wherein he provides a quote from an Evangelical pastor, Paul
Washer, which piqued my interest:
If you use carnal means to attract men, you're going to
attract carnal men. And you're going to
have to keep using greater carnal means to keep them in the church.
Later in the post, pastor Brandenburg brings up two
important Biblical concepts, that in my experience, are rarely discussed,
and/or practiced in our day: church discipline and separation.
While reflecting on the above issues of carnality,
discipline and separation, some of the quotations from the writings of John
Henry Newman that I have recently provided here at AF—see this post—came to
mind, and seem germane to our topic at hand. Here again are the quotes I am
thinking of:
There is in truth a certain
virtue or grace in the Gospel which changes the
quality of doctrines, opinions, usages, actions, and personal
characters when incorporated with it, and makes
them right and acceptable to its Divine
Author, whereas before they were either
infected with evil, or at best but shadows of the truth. This is the principle, above spoken of, which I have called the Sacramental. (An Essay on the
Development of Christian Doctrine, 1878/1989. p.
368 - bold emphasis mine.)
Confiding then in the power of Christianity
to
resist
the
infection
of evil, and to transmute
the very instruments
and appendages of demon-worship
to an evangelical use, and feeling
also that these usages had originally
come
from
primitive
revelations and from the instinct of
nature, though they had been corrupted
;
and
that
they
must
invent
what
they
needed, if they did not use what they
found ; and that they were
moreover possessed of the very archetypes,
of which paganism attempted the shadows; the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared,
should the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or
sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace,
as
well
as the philosophy of the educated class. (Ibid. pp. 371, 372 - bold
emphasis mine.)
In the course of the fourth century two movements
or
developments
spread
over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic
of
the
Church
;
the
one
ascetic,
the
other
ritual
or
ceremonial. We are told in
various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine,
in order to recommend
the new religion to the
heathen, transferred into it the outward
ornaments to which they had been accustomed
in their own. It is not
necessary to go into a subject which the
diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples,
and
these
dedicated
to
particular
saints,
and
ornamented
on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles;
votive offerings on recovery from illness ; holy water ; asylums ; holydays and seasons, use of
calendars, processions, blessings on the fields ; sacerdotal
vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later
date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are
all of pagan origin, and sanctified
by their adoption into the Church. (Ibid. p. 373,
- bold emphasis mine.)
I suspect that pastor Brandenburg would equate the
adoption of “instruments and appendages
of demon-worship”—i.e certain pagan ceremonies,
festivals, rituals and eventually the use of images—with ‘carnal means’. I am
not so certain that I can provide a solid apologia to discourage this.
But, with that said, of late I have been reflecting on a
concept which some have termed, ‘accommodation’. The apostle Paul alludes to a
form of accommodation in his first epistle to the Corinthians:
For though I be free from all men, yet have
I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I
became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as
under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are
without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law
to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I
as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men,
that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that
I might be partaker thereof with you. (1 Cor. 9:19-23)
The question that needs to be addressed is: when
does adoption and accommodation become ‘carnal means’?
Grace and peace,
Most Protestants do not believe that grace (supernature) builds on nature. A distinction between what is natural and supernatural are not categories that they would ordinarily use. The closest one could probably get as a Protestant is the difference between carnal and spiritual. Only that which is spiritual could be acceptable. In seeking to avoid "carnal means", the Protestant would tend to condemn that which is naturally good.
ReplyDeleteLet me give a timely example. It was not an offense to their Creator that many ancient pagans once celebrated a festival at the time when the season changed and the hours of daylight began to grow. It is natural and it is good to rejoice that the light is increasing. It WOULD be an offense to their Creator if the pagans offered sacrifice in rites of worship to the sun in the sky.
I doubt many Protestants would be willing to make this distinction. The Catholics would praise potential converts for rejoicing at the return of the sun. They don't have to give up that good and natural sentiment to become a follower of Christ. It is inoffensive and it could be explained that in the Book of Malachi, the Sun of Justice (Christ) is identified with a personal pronoun and it is He that the Sun symbolizes. I suspect this would violate Pastor Brandenburg's dubious rule against "carnal means". Denying Calvin's doctrine of total depravity, Catholics believe that every soul and every culture has elements of good nature on which to build an edifice of grace to God's glory.
Just yesterday I wrote the following against the annual LDS harangue about how Christmas in December was done to placate pagans, and as Pastor Brandenberg would likely assert, was a use of carnal means:
"Historically, it seems plausible but uncertain if Christ was born in December. But if the date of Dec. 25 were chosen because it corresponds to a pagan celebration of the return of the sun, it would not be inappropriate for Christians to take the same season and apply it to their Saviour. There is nothing wrong with celebrating that the days are getting longer, even as the pagans, so long as one celebrates and worships "the true light which enlighteneth every man that cometh in to this world." (Jn. 1:9) If it is uncertain that Christ was born in December, what is certain is that those who have celebrated Christmas on Dec. 25th since at least the 4th Century, have made the necessary distinction between sun worship and Son worship."(emphasis mine in this particular quote.) The Roman Church succeeded in making such a deep and meaningful conversion among the pagans, that thousands died for the Son, who did not have that kind of love and devotion towards the sun.
The Church took what was good among pagans who had not heard the Gospel, and sifted out that which was not good. I do not believe it has been established that Newman's list of alleged pagan practices are at all certain. Many can be found in the Old Testament and even in the New Testament. As for the rest, none of them could be accurately labelled as carnal unless you have this spiritual/carnal dichotomy that disallows grace to build on good nature. None of them are in their very nature intrinsically bad. The Great Commission demanded that the Apostles and their disciples should teach all things that Christ commanded. It does not require that the new disciple of Christ detach himself from all natural goods.
Hi Rory,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for your thoughtful and informative post. I cannot think of any person who is more qualified to critique pastor Brandenburg’s reflections than you, given the fact that you are an informed Catholic, who was once an independent Baptist pastor.
With that said, I think it important to share with you (and those who may read this thread), an inner, personal impulse that comes to the fore pretty much every year around this time—i.e. guilt concerning the celebration of holidays.
As you know, I was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness. It was drilled into my very being from childhood to view the celebration of holidays (and birthdays) as evil; the origins of which have a Satanic source.
My recent readings of Newman added additional fuel to this year’s impulsive guilt, giving cause to deeper reflection. Hope you can understand what I have shared with you; and whilst you attempt to do so, know that I greatly appreciate your continued interest in my personal journey…
God bless,
David
Hey Dave, thanks for the comp.
ReplyDeleteThe days and seasons of celebration and the days and seasons of penance that make up the structure of the Church Calendar are pedagogical. They are instructive to learned and unlearned, to young and old.
So, some pagans had special days and seasons, and that means nobody who follows Christ should recall the events that happened in the life of their Saviour on an annual basis, or in chronological order? Neither should there be any annual recollection or celebration of events subsequent to Pentecost, when the Church was being born and the kingdom of God began to make progress against the religious ceremonies of those who did not know God?
I would find this to be psychologically impossible. If we were like the angels and our knowledge was infused and like them, we had a steady spirit that could not forget later what was at one moment of chief importance and clarity. If that were so, I could be inclined to wonder why we need to have these seasonal remembrances. But we are not angelic. Jesus knew we needed repetitive activities and ceremonies. He instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice, as a remembrance of Him. Why? He knew our psychology. He knew that we forget. Humans get caught up in the imminent and often mundane activity of the moment. Our spirit wanes and waxes. We are told to arise from our slumber. Angels don't even sleep. They don't experience our changes of appetite or desire. It is a Christian's gravest need to find ways to continually renew resolutions and reflections that were made in moments of the keenest vision and strongest faith so that we can make the right choices when we are in danger of being dragged down by what St. Paul called, "the body of this death." Angels don't have that problem.
I guess it was really unfortunate that pagans discovered a tool (the Pagan Calendar) that would remind them to keep worshipping the devil or some monument or some natural object with great fervor. Why should this mean that it would be evil for Christians to use a similar tool, (the Church Calendar) to help each other in forming a consciousness of God's goodness to them?
continued from above
ReplyDeletePaganism came before Christianity. We have to do some things that pagans did! If we find out that pagans instituted breakfast, lunch, and dinner, would that make it necessary for Christians to adjust their dietary habits so as to not copy the evil pagans in the times that they eat? Did pagans sleep at night or in the daytime? Pagans slept at night. I guess we need to sleep in the daytime. I don't think anyone would go that far in condemning so-called "pagan practices".
But I don't see a big difference. If it is alright to care for the body after the manner of the pagans, why is the Church prohibited from feeding souls committed to her care after a pattern that is proven successful and in accord with the cyclical needs of human psychology? By what process was an observance of times and seasons, which had been sanctified by the Old Covenant, did the pagans sully any idea of cyclical ceremony and celebration for the Christian?
Monotony is dissatisfying to the soul and the body. For what reason do we have a calendar at all? Why don't we just forget about seven days in a week and do the best thing the best way, everyday for the rest of our lives? The reason is because God has created nature itself for humans, providing for a principle of variety with changing of the seasons. There is no one best thing that would work in winter as well as summer, in winter as in spring. Even if we are not farmers, we see how it is naturally good, and satisfying to the soul to have these changes that take place in nature. I would reason that if times and seasons are naturally good for the soul, perhaps the same can be said for that which is supernaturally good.
The Church Calendar has never led anyone to worship Satan. It would indeed be a Satanic triumph, if everything that a pagan ever did was tainted with evil. But that is absolutely not the case. There would be no end to absurd behaviorial reforms that we would have to make to consistently avoid "evil pagan practices". There is nothing evil in a calendar designed, with the Holy Eucharist always at its very center, that helps the Catholic, week by week, and even day by day, to obey Jesus when He asks us to "Do this in remembrance of Me." May we never forget.
Merry Christmas, Rory
Of course, once we realize that certain pagan practices should be legitimately used by the Church, Catholics still recognize and renounce idolatry for what it is if fallen away Christians should actually try to introduce the worship of false gods:
ReplyDeletehttps://gloria.tv/post/1k4iUBpMBWW8ExiYdwGzJgB8V
https://gloria.tv/post/ksNWdLeYjwsx3T9YzZrit6H7T
Rory
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteIm glad you got back to this but I thought youd explore it from the angle of what are some of the things the Catholic church sanctioned as salvific which really is forking off the "narrow path" (eg some of Richard Rohr's assertions or Church adopting legal power to assert dogma in the same fashion as the Roman State).
Cheers
Dennis
Reflecting on Romans 1:19-21 & Israel, I wondered whether looking at Israel would provide some clues. I decided in the negative because they did not have a task of evangelisation and were not therefore integrating into other cultures.
However the above passage in Romans seems to imply that God has revealed himself in human nature and that humanity innately know about him in some ways. I contend that this is via His image in us and that this causes a yearning for a transcendant "other". This results in the human desire to explain the unknown and to express worship via ritual.
We can see cultures develop religion incorporating ritual like observing certain days, praying in certain ways, reading sacred texts, using music to express worship, using art to vconvey meaning.
Even protestants can't escape this broad picture I've painted. So according to Romans the sin is in worshipping the creature rather than the Creator (ie Jesus the cosmic Christ). So while religions have some knowledge & experience of God, do they end with the worship of Christ ?
The idolatry is getting caught up in the form and icon rather than coming to the "alpha & omega". Other religions believe they are complete or Jesus can be morphed into their story. The subtle danger in Christianity is beliving the ritual is enough, but it is nothing without faith & Spirit.
So ritual and observance is fine as long as we are aware it is a "means to an end ".
Hi Dennis,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for sharing some of your thoughts on my musings.
I am not sure what you meant by:
==the angle of what are some of the things the Catholic church sanctioned as salvific which really is forking off the "narrow path" (eg some of Richard Rohr's assertions or Church adopting legal power to assert dogma in the same fashion as the Roman State)==
Would Bonifice VIII’s papal bull, Unam Sanctum, be one of those "things"?
A book that I read quite awhile ago, may be germane to the issue of the, “Church adopting legal power to assert dogma in the same fashion as the Roman State”; have you read the following:
The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order- Brent
You also wrote:
== Reflecting on Romans 1:19-21 & Israel, I wondered whether looking at Israel would provide some clues. I decided in the negative because they did not have a task of evangelisation and were not therefore integrating into other cultures.==
I am still trying to come to terms with the extent/limits of integration. Tertullian had some interesting thoughts on the Pauline passage that I quoted in my opening post. [See chapter XIV in his On Idolatry; ANF 3.69, 70 - LINK.]
With the above in mind, you may find the following book of interest:
Tertullian, On Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah - Binder
I found the comparisons in chapter 9 (pages 117 ff.) to be quite interesting—especially concerning ‘pagan festivals'.
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteThanks, itll take me quite some time to look into some of your suggestions.
The comments about "forking off the narrow path", refer to something I mentioned previously. I am suspicious that in being open to cultural integration the Catholic church has, at various points in history, absorbed ideas foreign to salvific content in the presentation of God's Kingdom. A modern example is the way Richard Rohr condones religious practise outside Christianity as salvific.
There may be some truth in this when others havent been presented with the Gospel, but it seems he goes further in his implications and he's not the only prominent Catholic that does.
One can also observe the differences in Catholicism say in Australia compared to South America. Id say there's way more absorption of pagan practises from the latter country.
Cheers
Dennis
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteI just read some commentaries aroung "Unam Sanctam". I would say I'd rather agree with the Orthodox view of an egalitarian papacy, so yes I tend to think a subtle thirst for power was absorbed into the Church from the surrounding culture.
I think it also manifests itself in other offices within the Church and I think you understand my definition of Church is broader than the RC flavour.
Cheers
Dennis
Hi Dennis,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification. You wrote:
== I am suspicious that in being open to cultural integration the Catholic church has, at various points in history, absorbed ideas foreign to salvific content in the presentation of God's Kingdom. A modern example is the way Richard Rohr condones religious practise outside Christianity as salvific.==
This reminds me of something that Richard Chilson of the Paulist Fathers wrote back in 1985:
“But the Church does not stop here [i.e with the Catholic, EO and Pro-Nicene Prot churches]. There are sects who, while they do not profess the traditional Creed, still seek to follow Jesus. These are groups like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. These are part of the Church." (Full Christianity, p. 85.)
I would be very interested in the older examples you have in mind—the earlier the better.
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. Hope to have a new comment up in the ID thread later today. Will provide links to a couple of resources I think you might be interested in.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteFrom what Ive read from Jarosav Pelikan and Von Campenhausen (in Ecclesiastical Authority...), the church developed in doctrine over time. Its locus in the Roman Empire made it pick up cultural forms and practises that may not have been fully fledged in its infancy.
I would say its concept of baptism, asceticism, unity and penance changed over time. This article: https://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/gar/gar18.htm asserts that it borrowed sacramental aspects from Mithraism. However, I would suggest that Christianity was ordained to spread in cultural contexts where the symbolism wasnt too foreign to the culture (another eg the concept of the Logos) and that's why Mithraism has a lot of similar practises.
That being said, it seems that in competition with paganism, the church wanted to be the victor and outdo, whatever it found established. Thats why it wanted to prove its unity was Divine compared with the secular unity of empire, and it would not tolerate breaks, like the Donatists.
Initially in baptism it tried to deliver the result of a new sin-free individual but later development came in line with the scriptures and allowed for repentance. Initially penance was for grave sins (probaly to demonstrate the spiritual toughness of a regenrate person) but that then developed into a regular confession. Asceticism sometimes went down crazy paths and episcopal leadership became authoritarian.
So the early Catholic/EO church, rather than sometimes allowing syncretism as it sometimes does now (on the ground), became stricter and more inflexible in competition with its culture.
Cheers
Dennis
Good day Dennis,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for responding to my request. You wrote:
==From what Ive read from Jarosav Pelikan and Von Campenhausen (in Ecclesiastical Authority...), the church developed in doctrine over time. Its locus in the Roman Empire made it pick up cultural forms and practises that may not have been fully fledged in its infancy.==
The issue of doctrinal development has been one of the major topics explored here at AF, with a number threads specifically devoted to the subject, and many others touching on it (see this link for the 60+ threads).
I am quite sure that you are aware of the incredible complexity and diversity that defines this important issue.
The two authors you mentioned have produced contributions that are valuable for those who have interest in our topic at hand, though Pelikan, is the more important of the two (IMO). Pelikan’s 5 volume The Christian Tradition is a must read, as is his lesser known contribution, Development of Doctrine - Some Historical Prolegomena.
From the latter work, Pelikan points out that, “the problem of development in doctrine is fundamental among the issues that divide Roman Catholics and Protestants—indeed, fundamental to most of the other issues that divide them.” (Pages 12, 13)
I would add to the above that the issue of the development of doctrine also divides the various Protestant sects, and is now an issue that has become quite divisive among Catholics too.
You also wrote:
==…it seems that in competition with paganism, the church wanted to be the victor and outdo, whatever it found established. Thats why it wanted to prove its unity was Divine compared with the secular unity of empire, and it would not tolerate breaks, like the Donatists.==
There may be some truth to the above, however, I think that the issue of false apostles, false prophets, and false teachers is more primary to understanding the issue of unity within the Church our Lord founded. Appeals to apostolic succession via the succession of bishops in those churches founded by the apostles and their appointed ‘lieutenants’ gave rise to the second century ‘bishops lists'. The formation of the 'regula fidei—also in the second century— accepted and adopted by the same churches that produced the ‘bishops lists', along with canonization of what we now term the New Testament, became a three-fold unifying foundation in the struggle against apostasy, schism and full-blown heretical sects like the Gnostics.
Shall end this post with an admission: I am still working on what principle/principles need to be embraced in determining true development/s from false development/s.
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteYes, its a difficult topic and difficult to decipher history especially as no historic church admits to "blind spots".
In keeping the integrity of Apostolic Succession, did integrity of structure trump over the succession of "integrity in office" ? When I read the history surrounding the Donatists I really can't make out that they were lying. Also with the Montanists, were accusations about their claims on the Holy Spirit true or hyperbole repeated by Eusebius ?
I suspect in the desire to keep the church from error, some of the Fathers may have been repeating rumours and innuendo. Were some Fathers only interested in holding office over against remaining in unity with the 5 sees ?
I certainly don't believe in syncretism with other religions but I am also uneasy with what seems to be authoritarianism in the early church & a reluctance to gracefully hear other points of view.
From my reading of history I dont think the RC and Orthodox churches synchronised religious beliefs with Christianity but they used some established cultural/religious motifs and Christianised them. In some cases this may have been accidental, as this article on Christmas implies: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/calendar/invictus.html
However, looking at St Paul in disagreement with the other Apostles, he claims his own revelation to justify himself not his Apostolic heritage. In 1 John 2, John urges His readers to abide in the anointing of the Spirit to authenticate the true path. I wonder if sometimes the Fathers were too involved in the church's political situation that they slipped in abiding in the Spirit.
On top of that 1 John stresses love. There doesnt seem to be much love in discussing dogma in some of the Councils or between some of the Sees.
This then becomes the heritage passed down where abiding in the Spirit takes the back seat to the status of office & claims to concrete traces of succession.
St Paul seems to emphasize his own experience with God & his Apostleship as "not through men nor by men" (as mentioned in "St Paul & Apostolic Succession" by W Weber). Could it be that the early church missed this emphasis on the Spirit and defined the Apostolic office too narrowly ? Could there be exceptions to succession if the anointed teaching was still handed down ?
Both Eastern & Western sides of the church claimed different dates for Easter were handed down via the Apostles. All this to me seems a bit messy & explains the inflexibility and anathemas being flung around in the early ages.
Cheers
Dennis
Hi Dennis,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for your continued interest in this thread. You asked:
==In keeping the integrity of Apostolic Succession, did integrity of structure trump over the succession of "integrity in office" ?>>
I think your question needs to be relegated to individual cases, because my reading of early Church history has revealed instances wherein the "integrity of structure trump[ed] over the succession of ‘integrity in office’", but also cases in which structure and integrity remained intact. The neo-Arian crisis of the post-Nicene period certainly speaks to the structure remaining intact whilst the integrity was compromised.
==When I read the history surrounding the Donatists I really can't make out that they were lying.==
Agreed. However, I do not think that Augustine’s exhaustive rebuttal/s argued that they were lying, but rather, that their conclusions were severely flawed.
==Also with the Montanists, were accusations about their claims on the Holy Spirit true or hyperbole repeated by Eusebius ?==
Good question. I need to refresh my knowledge of the controversy before drawing a conclusion. I just don’t remember what the contemporary sources had to say on this.
== I suspect in the desire to keep the church from error, some of the Fathers may have been repeating rumours and innuendo. Were some Fathers only interested in holding office over against remaining in unity with the 5 sees ?==
Given the inherent frailty of the human nature, I am quite sure that, “some Fathers [were] only interested in holding office over against remaining in unity with the 5 sees". But, I know a number of bishops were reluctant in assuming the office, and did so with pure motives.
== However, looking at St Paul in disagreement with the other Apostles, he claims his own revelation to justify himself not his Apostolic heritage. In 1 John 2, John urges His readers to abide in the anointing of the Spirit to authenticate the true path. I wonder if sometimes the Fathers were too involved in the church's political situation that they slipped in abiding in the Spirit.
On top of that 1 John stresses love. There doesnt seem to be much love in discussing dogma in some of the Councils or between some of the Sees.==
I concur with pretty much all you shared above; however, whilst reflecting on the truths you shared from Paul and John, one must not lose sight of the organized structure of Christ’s Church—as revealed in the Scriptures—and the stressed unity of that said structure.
The subtitle of this blog lays the foundation for my understanding of unity:
>>HOLY FATHER, KEEP THROUGH THINE OWN NAME THOSE WHOM THOU HAST GIVEN ME, THAT THEY MAY BE ONE, AS WE ARE...THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE; AS THOU, FATHER, ART IN ME, AND I IN THEE, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US: THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT THOU HAST SENT ME. - JOHN 17:11B, 21>>
That unity of which our Lord speaks of cannot be relegated to a 'spiritual' unity only, but also must speak to a visible, outward form; and this because ‘the world’ does not understand spiritual things.
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” (Heb. 13:17)
Grace and peace,
David
Dennis, hello again.
ReplyDeleteDennis says:
I suspect in the desire to keep the church from error, some of the Fathers may have been repeating rumours and innuendo.
Dennis says:
Were some Fathers only interested in holding office over against remaining in unity with the 5 sees ?
Dennis says:
I wonder if sometimes the Fathers were too involved in the church's political situation that they slipped in abiding in the Spirit.
Rory:
Your suspicions and wonderings seem based on guessing rather than well grounded suspicion or wonder.
Who are you talking about? What Church Father seems shady to you?
"Church Fathers" are so-called because they are above reproach morally, and compatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church in the East and in the West for nearly two thousand years. Roman Christians after the schism do not disdain Eastern Fathers. Eastern Orthodox after the schism do not disdain Western Fathers.
Protestant Christians after the Reformation are eager to claim ANYONE that is considered a Church Father as a Protestant. They know there is no historical basis to accuse them of selfishness or immorality. And so they write books trying to show that these men who are without doubt holy, often martyred, always persecuted by the world and the devil, would be sympathetic to their peculiar form of Christianity.
I can say the same thing for the Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints! Mormons don't suspect the Fathers of selfish and immoral motives. Like the Apostles. They died for Christ. They died for their flocks. They loved those who hated them. Mormons see that there is not much mileage to be gained by questioning the moral virtues of the Fathers of the Church. Because they cannot help but respect the Fathers like Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, Mormons labor (in vain) to show how Church Fathers taught distinctively LDS doctrines.
What church might one attend, that casts a shadow upon and distances itself from those who have been revered as Church Fathers? Might I ask, what is your church called? What is the name of the church that questions the moral integrity of Church Fathers venerated for close on two millenia in the calendars of East and West, of corrupting the faith through their own selfishness?
Shall we look at the evidence? Who can you name that is a Church Father, and what reason do you supply to suspect them of defective morals?
Hi Rory,
ReplyDeleteYour post was directed to Dennis; as such, I hope you do not mind if I share some of my musings, before Dennis weighs in. You wrote:
==Protestant Christians after the Reformation are eager to claim ANYONE that is considered a Church Father as a Protestant. They know there is no historical basis to accuse them of selfishness or immorality. And so they write books trying to show that these men who are without doubt holy, often martyred, always persecuted by the world and the devil, would be sympathetic to their peculiar form of Christianity.==
An accurate, and excellent observation. The author of the book I reviewed in my first thread of 2020 is certainly one of those Protestant Christians who is “eager to claim ANYONE that is considered a Church Father as a Protestant”, and challenges fellow evangelicals to read the Church Fathers.
With that said, I am very interested in learning from Dennis which CFs he had in mind…
Grace and peace,
David
Hi Rory & David,
ReplyDeleteExcuse me if you perceive that I am trying to denigrate the Patristic Fathers or take away their Catholic content. I am not. I'm trying to share my thoughts on how I think they may have unwittingly stumbled, possibly from the pressure of their positions & cultural backgrounds to "open the door" for negative change that has perpetuated through history.
Im not as well "read up" as you guys either but to back up my theory I refer to Doctrinal Development as mentioned by Von Campenhausen in "Ecclesiastical Authority..." and this article on Donatism: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://research.vu.nl/files/42180021/complete%2520dissertation.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjYpub-2MHnAhVcwzgGHVrHC3YQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2KPvY7q5X2lJph8ptvIXR_
This Post queries pagan influence on Christianity & I suggest it has come from the early cultural surroundings in the form of governmental structures which may have fortified the intolerance of schism within the church.
Not that I want to justify schism but it seems that the developing role of Bishop was moving from a more spiritual role to become a more institutionalised one that became "untouchable" to criticism. Thus when Donatis comes on the scene his concerns and those of his followers are ignored (I really cant tell who is at fault from the Dutch article but it makes good points about cultural influence).
Does Augustine as a Roman Christian see whats at play here ? Does he over correct with an "invisible" view of the sacraments ? The church itself should be a form of sacrament but if the leaders are corrupt or using political power to gain office, how can a celebrant see Christ in the church behind a power grab ?
Ok, let's say Donatist was going for the "power grab", why all the invective against him ? In Acts (I think) they came across a sect and their position was "if it is not of God it will fail".
In 1 Clement there is a clear concern about restoring priests & bishops unjustly deposed but what happens when leaders are ungodly or have ulterior motives ?
Another example is Hermas. The church is seen as a place of spiritual transformation and growth. If bishops and priests arent being transformed themselves, how can they pass on the spiritual life ? I think Tertullian and the Donatists were trying to address this in their stress on holiness.
From what I see, the Catholic and Orthodox churches have not been able to correct themselves internally & only do so when pressured by their cultural surroundings. God has to use the "surrounding nations" as with Israel, to bring real change. So the distortion is that the stress on keeping institutional lineage from the Apostles trumps the Apostolic teaching and spirituality of life.
Who has authority to pass on the faith, an institution or someone that has life in the Spirit ? These 2 have intersected well at times but at other times... well Jesus made His statements in Revelation to... Apostolic churches.
It takes people like Hermas, the Carmelites, St Francis, Hildegard etc to remind the Church it is more than institution. It lives & breathes within a cultural setting but should not be subsumed by that culture.
Cheers
Dennis
Oh, BTW, the comment about internal change being instigated by culture, in my 3rd last paragraph seems to contradict the Post. What I mean here are things like the Reformation and the paedophilia disaster. In the case of the Orthodox, the inability to adapt & spread the Gospel with their new status of freedom.
ReplyDelete