I'll be posting quick reading notes by chapter.
Reading Notes for Chapter 1
Guy titles this chapter "If Paul Could See Us Now"
His leading questions (summarized): what kinds of changes did the church go through from the first century to the fifth? How much would Paul have recognized in the Christianity of the 5th century? Where do we see continuity and where do we see major differences?
He addresses changes the church went through within the following sections:
Numerical Growth
Identity
Relationships with State and Society
Institutionalization
Setting
Worship
Numerical Growth:
~Change in size is most obvious shift Christianity went through in its first centuries.
~In Jesus' time, followers numbered in the hundreds. By end of the period we're studying, Christianity was at least the formal religion of the whole Roman empire.
"...to have become the public religion of the empire and to have captured the allegiance of a majority of the inhabitants of that empire in four centuries demonstrates remarkable growth." (p. 9)
It's interesting to note that there's reason to believe that many of the churches Paul founded were small. For instance, the church at Corinth probably only had about 50 people in it (this is surmised based on what we know of where and how they met for worship).
~Pinning down absolute numbers of Christians in this time period is challenging. Here are a few things we do know, however, from existing primary sources:
-- That there was a significant enough presence of Christians in Northern Asia Minor in 112 AD for Pliny (governor of Bithynia) to write to Trajan about it, remarking that the "contagion" (his word for Christianity!) has spread to villages and country as well as the city.
--So that's significant. But pagan writers didn't really feel a need to address Christianity (or its "threat") until about half a century later. By the time we get to about 170, the pagan philosopher Celsus felt the need to attack it.
And speaking of attacks...further Christian growth is also indicated by the fact the empire, as a whole, began to attack Christians. Two emperors in the 250s launched attacks, and there was a "third wave" of persecution in the 300s. Persecution thus becomes a sign of Christian growth and vitality.
However large the church was growing, however, it still remained small in proportion to the rest of the population. The best scholarly guess (and he footnotes Stark here) is that at the time of Constantine's ascension to the throne in 312, Christians made up about 10% of the empire.
That growth was not always evenly distributed. It was primarily URBAN growth (though as we've seen, some growth was occurring in outlying areas. The very word "pagan" as we know it in English comes from the Latin word "paganus" which means rural villager. Guy surmises that at least some of the slowness of Xn growth in more rural areas is a pattern we've seen repeated in history and is due to the inherent "conservatism" of peasants.
~Is there truth to the common perception that Xnty, early on, was mostly a religion of the poor and slaves? Yes and no. See Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:26 ("not many of you were of noble birth...") But this needs to be seen in proper context. Most people in the empire, on the whole, were poor! Recent scholarship seems to indicate that the church did pretty well in the lower middle class and a bit upwards, but not so well in the "male elite" class (it didn't pick up growth here until the imperial edict in the 4th century). Christian women of rank were hard pressed to find Christian men of suitable rank to marry, which led to (of all things) Callistus, the bishop of Rome, allowing them to live in concubinage with lower-born men so they wouldn't have to forfeit their property rights and lose status, as they would have if they'd gotten legally married.
~Constantine's edict, of course, which made Christianity the "official" religion of the empire, did contribute to church growth, "though motives for conversion often now had a more worldly aspect" (p.12). Augustine of Hippo called them "crowds of heathen" and lamented that they brought old worldly practices with them when they converted.
~Conversion in this era became more "superficial" (NB: leading one to wonder whether it was true conversion -- the question looks different when you approach it from a spiritual point of view or a sociological one). Guy characterizes two types of conversion: "secondary" (someone becoming a Xn because their spouse is Xn) and "social" (becoming a Xn because the society is moving in that direction).
~Even after the edict, Christian growth was not completely pervasive. John Chrysostom commented that only about half the population of Antioch (a very old center of Xnty) was Christian in the 4th century.
"The Christianization of the Roman Empire continued apace in the fifth century but was still not complete, especially in rural areas, when waves of invading barbarians interrupted the process, creating the need for a new wave of Christianization in the early Middle Ages." (p.13)
Identity
Issues of identity in the early church are very complex, especially as we look at how the church "emerged..." "from the matrix of Judaism" (p.13)
Early church was perceived as a Jewish sect, and saw itself as a fulfillment of Judaism (BUILT ON, but not REJECTING, its past)
70 AD was a huge turning point for Christian/Jewish relations and emerging and developing Xn identity. (NB: Helpful here to cross-reference Noll's first chapter in his book "Turning Points" which deals specifically with this point.)
"The destruction of the temple, so central to Jewish worship and identity, triggered deep crisis and reflection within Judaism." (p. 14) What happened as a result of this destruction? List that follows is my own, numbered only for clarity's sake (not in order of importance)
1-Collapse of the Saducees, who were tied completely to temple worship, left Pharisees the unabashed influencers of Judaism
2-Deeper Pharisaical influence led to "narrower and more closely defined Jewish boundaries" (p.14)
3-Christians increasingly seen more as outsiders, not insiders
4- Evidence of this is seen in a modification in Jewish daily prayers, which added a curse on heretics and a specific imprecation against "Nazarenes"
5- In some places, tensions grew so deep that full separation occurred. Christians were expelled from synagogues.
6-Such actions left Xns exposed to imperial pressure to worship Roman gods or emperor. The Jews were exempt from such a requirement (and Xns had been when they essentially functioned as Jewish sect).
7- These tensions left their mark in some places in Scripture, i.e. the bitterness in the book of Revelation against Jews in the synagogue
8- The deepening chasm between the 2 communities meant Christians began to develop (out of necessity) "a powerful sense of identity quite separate from the Jews" (p.14)
9-Christians begin to be perceived (and to perceive themselves) as a "third race" -- not Jews, not pagans, something other
10-Both Jews and Christians began to say and do things against the other that show forth these tensions. Jews sometimes aided in Christian persecution (gathering firewood -- on the sabbath! -- to burn Polycarp). Christian preachers sometimes preached harshly against any "accommodation" between the two groups, seeing the chasm grow ever wider (and helping it widen). We see this (unfortunately) in the preaching of the golden-tongued Chrysostom (see p. 15 for sidebar on his "Homilies Against the Jews") and in the guidelines in places like the Didache (late 1st or early 2nd century Christian manual) where Christians were instructed to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays (not Mondays and Thursdays as the Jews did).
Christians and Jews still continued to hold much in common, including their use of a common Scripture (both people of the book!) and their "common stance against paganism" (p. 16)
But by the 5th century, it was getting harder and harder, at both popular and theological levels, to imagine anything but "total separation" (p. 16)
Relationships with State and Society
Judaism had always been an "exclusive" kind of faith, uneasy in its "home" of Greco-Roman paganism.
Christianity "was stricter even than its mother, especially in not conceding any place for sacrifice at all" (p.16)
-- this is an interesting point and one I'd like to come back to and chew on
This contract with paganism was SO great that it "fostered an adversarial stance between church and state that led to periodic persecution and even martyrdom of Christian adherents" (p. 16)
*******And all of this shaped the Christian world view. The relationship between a faith and its society "profoundly affects the religion itself" (p. 16)********
If your faith group feels threatened by society, there are various responses:
--withdraw, wall your group off from society
--head to the center and modify your beliefs to maintain some resonance "with broader social patterns and expectations" (p.16)
(seems to me there is often a dance between these two responses -- EMP)
*stand against* *embrace*
Xnty started out as a sect and was markedly separate, but that didn't mean that even early on they failed to engage the culture. In fact, by its nature (I would say) they were compelled to engage the culture (by mandate of Jesus himself! who called them to be witnesses, salt, light). Guy says that we see how well they did this by the strength of their influence which ultimately pulled their society as a whole toward the faith. That's really a pretty remarkable thing when you think about it.
Why was Christianity so attractive to Roman society? (and here it would be helpful to cross-reference Les' early workbook chapter)
"In a world of powerlessness Christianity offered the hope of positive power, not only for the 90 percent who were poor but also for almost everyone, with regard to nature, illness, the spiritual realm and the often arbitrary expression of state power..." (p. 17)
The Greco-Roman world was "teeming" with "angels, spirits and demons" and one's life was often seen as controlled by these forces (in a fatalistic way -- EMP) so Christianity was attractive and life-giving because it "provided solutions"
*****"If one were to ask for a single, simple proposition that would summarize the meaning of Christianity in the patristic period, it would be: Christ has triumphed over Satan." (p. 17) *******
We see these power issues at work in the fact that exorcism held such a prominent place in the early Xn community. It was part of baptismal prep. By end of 5th century, Rome had 22 designated exorcists.
Christianity was also attractive, undoubtedly, because of the social concern they showed, both "in-house" and outreach. See sidebar on p. 18 for emperor Julian's recognition of what Christians were doing (and how he thought pagans needed to emulate them to keep up!) Julian understood that Christians were winning allegiance to the faith by their compassion. One example: Xns who ministered to sick and dying in the plague at Carthage in 252.
So big descriptor words for the church at this point? *charismatic* and *compassionate*
"It offered cohesive community in a crumbling world." (p.19) (Sounds like a strategy worth employing still!)
Constantine's conversion in 312 AD marked a shift in Christianity's self-identity. Simply put, they moved from edge to center of society (and here would be a good place to cross-reference Gonzalez' "Changing Shape" of CH where he discusses the problems inherent in that, and makes persuasive case for a return to "incarnated marginality")
We see the power shift happening in ways small and large -- corruption beginning to affect the church, bishops having functional power akin to government officials.
***"By the end of the fourth century Christians were close to the levers of power and were starting to manipulate them in the oppression of heretics and pagans. The persecuted were on their way to become persecutors." p. 19***
"Being at the center"" affected the church in other ways. The church began to embrace (or at least use as a helpful lens) classical philosophy, rhetoric, literature. (p.19, toward bottom of page) We see this in the language of the great theological creeds. That language tends to be more abstract than the concrete metaphors of Scripture, though certainly the language of the creeds (and the meaning behind them) was rooted in Scripture, found its seeds there. But it had a new "evocative flavor" -- "Athens was harnessed in the service of Jerusalem" (p.20). Very different from Tertullian's time.
The shift to the center is perhaps the most profound difference from beginning church and the church of the 4th-5th centuries.
Institutionalization
The church began as "a dynamic movement" -- but it became an institution.
Not that there weren't "seeds" of that kind of structure in Jesus' time and right after. (The disciples had a treasurer -- though look how that turned out! -- and we see in Acts that the church was beginning to put some institutional structures in place, like the appointing of deacons to serve widows and the poor). Early Xns recognized ministers and ministerial offices, but those offices were fluid and loosely defined -- and often emerged within a "charismatic frame" (p.21)
"For a couple of centuries the church struggled with the relationship between institutional and charismatic ministry." (p. 21)
By Constantine, church is institutional. When other ministries (outside of institution) emerged, they were subject to institution. Example....
"When...monasticism was drawn into the church, its looser and more spontaneous qualities became very much subject to church direction. Holy men and women were welcome additional guests to the church banquet, but they could not upset the meal." (p. 21) (Now there's a quote! -- EMP)
The shift toward institution also shifted to an increasing HIERARCHY. There was certainly a NEED, as early as the 2nd century, for "institutionally identified authority figures" and the church would have fragmented and fallen apart (relationally, doctrinally) without them. The fact that Ignatius had to stress "Do nothing without the bishop" seems to indicate that was still under discussion at beginning of second century. It wasn't 150 years later, in the mainstream church. Cyprian viewed the bishop as the center and embodiment of the church, the glue that held everything together (see bottom of p. 21)
Of course, as bishops became more powerful, and as the church moved more toward "center" corruption arose. We see it already in the words of Gregory of Nazianzus, when he resigned the see of Constantinople in 381 (see quote on p. 22)
Pomp and prestige a far cry from Jesus' life.
***"...by the end of our period of study the church had constructed a foundation of ecclesiastical doctrine and structure adequate to bear the medieval papacy that was later to emerge..." (p 22)******
Setting
House churches were the norm in the beginning. This shows continuity with Jewish roots, since synagogues originally met in homes (p.23)
Clear evidence in NT for house church meetings. Houses were limited in size, which meant multiple meeting locations in one city.
No evidence, till 3rd century, of Xns meeting anywhere but homes. Even then, the specially designated building was probably a home remodeled into a church
Some argue there were so "specially constructed" churches till Constantine. Maybe, though some evidence to support possibility a little earlier.
Why does this matter? Because setting shapes faith. The home setting meant
1-Christianity "was nurtured in non-sacred space at the heart of daily life" (p. 24) (or begs the question of how Christians initially viewed "sacred space" and what counted as that or not -- EMP)
2-Christians saw themselves as family: "brothers and sisters"
3-They existed in a fellowship that shared radically with family members in need
4-There was a natural 'brake' on hierarchy and formality --- rituals were shaped differently (think about elaborate processionals in later basilicas, not possible in a home church setting)
Constantine's favoring of Xnty meant church buildings, designated as such, began to be constructed. There were positive and negative things that flowed out of that --
+ such buildings looked stable, grand, substantial "worth consideration" to pagans looking on, and providing Xns with sense of self-respect and dignity
- the buildings risked diverting attention from what was really important, and could make Xns fall into a sense of opulence and selfishness (see Hilary of Poitiers quote from mid-4th century on p. 25)
Worship
And just a quick final note on worship. Guy cites 3 major influences on worship in early Xnty, and characteristics they fostered:
1-presence and ongoing activity of the Holy Spirit (spontaneous, immediate)
2-Jewish roots (continuity with past, richness of liturgy)
3-home setting (informality, congregational participation)
Worship began in flexibility, but trend in the period we're studying is toward formalization.
Conclusion:
Enormous shifts occurred in the early centuries, though the gospel (the core of what Xns proclaimed) remained unchanged
Change is necessary. We're not "pining" for the good old days, because (as is always the case) the old days contained things both good and bad
"A much less structured church was also a much more fractured church. Greater levels of institutionalization were needed in the long run if the church was to survive and flourish. Greater definitions and cohesiveness were required if the church was not to splinter into myriads of pieces." (p. 27)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.