The Collection of Relics Begin

When Ignatius did die the martyrs’ death — and only a few bones survived — these became the first of many “relics” that were collected and esteemed by the Church.

“For only the hard portions of [Ignatius’] holy remains were left, which were conveyed to Antioch and wrapped in linen, as an inestimable treasure left to the holy Church by the grace which was in the martyr.” (1)

On the topic of relics, Saint Jerome is quoted as saying,

“We do not worship, we do not adore, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore him whose martyrs they are” (Ad Riparium, i, P.L., XXII, 907).

A curious defense, since it would appear that Jerome is making reference to Paul’s words:

“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator”

— Romans 1:25 AMP, emphasis mine

And what did Paul say was the result of such an exchange?

“They became futile and godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves]. And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man.”

— v. 21-23 AMP, emphasis mine

What we put before our eyes, often causes us to stumble (Ezekiel 14:3) — especially when we elevate the “created” as a method of worshiping the “Creator.” This is the stumbling block of religion: whatever you elevate in the place of God, becomes that which causes you to become “futile and godless” in your thinking.

Regardless of Jerome’s original intentions, over time, relics nevertheless became shrouded in a supernatural haze — considered luckier than a four-leaf cover — breeding religious superstitions and were even used in church services! The belief arose that God (on occasion) chose to work miracles through items associated with certain saints.

Different classes of relics evolved. The physical remains of a saint (and in particular those of a martyred saint), like a bone, a tooth, or a limb would be considered a “first-class” relic. A singular event involving Elisha’s bones was often cited as precedent for the belief that “God worked miracles through relics” (2 Kings 13:21).

A “second-class” relic would include something frequently used by or worn by a particular saint (like a shirt). A “third-class” relic could include an object that the saint had touched, like a piece of cloth. The burial sites of saints became sacred places. No, indeed, we are not worshipping the creature rather than the Creator.

In the absence of a thriving personal relationship with God, Christians substituted the worship of relics as a means to “feel” closer to the saints associated with them. Christians also craved the closer bond that they believed worship of relics created between themselves and God. This was especially true during medieval times, when Christians would frequently make pilgrimages to sacred sites. Thus the collection of relics became a big business — something we can still relate to today (would you like to take a trip to the Holy Land? You’ve never experienced a closeness with God, like you will when you walk the very streets Jesus walked). ‘Nuff said.

___________________________

If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.
This is the last blog entry at this time.
Check back for more to follow.

.
.

---

Footnote References:

(1) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses – The Early Church in Her Own Words (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002), page 149 (org source: Martyrdom of Ignatius, chap. 6, in ANF 1:131).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Martyrdom: a silent seal on doctrine (part 2)

Image by Lawrence OP via Flickr

Ignatius believed that agreement with one’s bishop coupled with faithful “meeting attendance” had the three-fold return of:

1. keeping a person in constant communion with God
2. keeping a person from becoming “self-excommunicate,” and
3. confounding the powers of Satan.

“A completely united front will help to keep you in constant communion with God … Anyone who absents himself from the congregation convicts himself at once of arrogance and becomes self-excommunicate … let us take care to show no disloyalty to the bishop, so as to be loyal servants of God.”

“When you meet frequently, the powers of Satan are
confounded …” (1)

In his letter to the Ephesians, Ignatius ends with a promise to write another letter at a future date, in which he will continue his preliminary account of God’s design for the new man, one one condition:

“I will certainly do this if the Lord reveals to me that you are all, man by man and name by name, attending your meetings in a state of grace, united in faith and in Jesus Christ … and are ready now to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds.” (2)

Ignatius had some unique opinions about what constituted “being a witness” (or what he termed “witness bearing”). Witness bearing required persecution or some form of Christian suffering. With the very real persecutions that existed in his time, you can understand how he arrived at such a conclusion. But not all “times” would be like “that time.” And to conclude that the only way someone became “a true witness” was to somehow suffer (and perhaps die) for the cause of Christ — would lead him down a path where he actually coveted the martyrs’ crown as a means of “securing” his eternal destiny.

It was for this reason that he wrote letters as he was traveling to Rome, so that it would be made clear he wanted no interference on his behalf. He was going to Rome and expecting to receive a martyrs death and no one should stand in his way. Was he brave? Certainly. However, if he was also at least partially driven by a belief that obtaining a martyrs death secured his salvation — perhaps his convictions were not all that different from the religious motives that drive modern-day terrorist bombers? He would hurt no one but himself in his quest for salvation — except others would follow in his example, and his doctrines would be sealed by his martyr’s blood.

“I am writing to all the Churches and state emphatically to all that I die willingly for God, provided you do not interfere … Suffer me to be the food of wild beasts, which are the means of making my way to God … that I may prove Christ’s pure bread. … Then only shall I be a genuine disciple of Jesus Christ … Permit me to be an imitator of my suffering God …Pray for me that I may succeed … If I suffer you have loved me; if I am rejected, you have hated me! … If I but make my way to God, then by His mercy I shall be someone …” (3)

With Ignatius’ spilt martyr’s blood, you can already hear the cement setting on a doctrine that (perhaps) initially was meant more as a matter of genuine respect yielded to effective Christian leadership (by Clement), then as a matter of honor given to Christian martyrs, and finally emerging as undisputed law for Christian order. As the authority of bishops grew, the freedoms and voice of the non-clergy would become faint (especially when excommunication became a real risk — which was early and often).

Ignatius’ five great contributions to new church doctrine were:

1. The “elders” were now subject to “bishops” (thus introducing the three-tier monarchial episcopate and preparing the way for the pope’s later entry),
2. The “bishops” were in charge of every meeting of the church (there would be no more private home church gatherings),
3. Baptism and Communion became rites that could only be administered by the official clergy.
4. The Bishop presided (by reason of his office) as the “counterpart of God,” and should therefore be regarded as the Lord himself, and whatever the Bishop approved was automatically “well-pleasing” to God.
5. Attendance at church meetings was so important, that, to not attend would be equivalent to “self-excommunicating” oneself from the Church.

And with five stokes of the pen, the practice of human mediators between God and man resurfaced and took center stage yet again.

___________________________

Next up: The Collection of Relics Begin
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

---

Footnote References:

(1) Early Christian Writings, translated by Maxwell Staniforth and Andrew Louth (Penguin Books, England 1987), Ignatius to the Ephesians, pages 62, 64.

(2) Early Christian Writings, translated by Maxwell Staniforth and Andrew Louth (Penguin Books, England 1987), Ignatius to the Ephesians, pages 66.

(3) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002) page 145-146 (org source: Epistles to the Romans, chap. 2, nos. 1-2a; chap. 4, nos. 1-2; chap. 6, nos 1-3; chap 8, no. 3—chap. 9, no. 2, chap 10, no. 3, ACW 1:81-84) emphasis mine.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Martyrdom: a silent seal on doctrine

“The manner of his death sets the seal on his life,
so that even his earthly utterances are endowed with infallibility.” (1)

− Andrew Louth (speaking of Polycarp’s martyrdom)

Image via Wikipedia

There are those who carry an ominous conviction that “heroic acts alone” prove and test the truth of one’s inner belief system. While persecution can and will test the strength of one’s “perception of truth” — it holds no radar for “truth” itself.

As persecution abounded and countless died for their faith, an unwritten rule surfaced among Christians which caused the doctrinal positions of martyred Saints (and especially those with rank within the Church) to become “untouchable.”

It’s understandable considering the circumstances. I mean, who was going to question (let alone debate), the doctrinal position of someone who has just put it all on the line for their faith? Such opposition would be deemed insensitive in the least; unforgivable and possibly heretical at worst. The times were critical. Christians (under the ever present eye of the Bishops) opted to band together and bury their differences. This wasn’t the time for doctrinal squabbles — especially among the laity.

I think this is important background information to understand, because it was often the event of martyrdom that catapulted new doctrines into the arena of accepted norm.

About 20 years after Clement’s statement regarding the rules which governed the layman/laity [non-clergy], Ignatius (bishop of Antioch) was condemned to be fed to the lions in Rome. (2)

En-route to Rome, he had the opportunity to write several letters to various churches. He implored the churches not to step in and deprive him of his right to die for the cause of Christ and gave (what he considered) his last words of helpful advise to the Christian world. Needless to say, those letters became extraordinarily important to those to whom they were written and were broadly circulated after his death. Within those letters, Ignatius made the following radical observations:

“Let the laity [non-clergy] be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters [elders]; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (3)

As Earle Cairns, (in his book Christianity Through the Centuries) explains:

“[Ignatius] was the first to place the office of the bishop in contrast with the office of the presbyter and to subordinate the presbyters or elders to the monarchial bishop and the members of the church to both. The hierarchy of authority in the church is, according to him, bishop, presbyter, and deacon. However, Ignatius did not exalt the bishop of Rome as superior to other bishops even though he was the first to use the word catholic (Smyrna 8). The only superiority is that of the bishop to the presbyters within each church. Ignatius believed that without this threefold order there is no church (Trallians 3).” (4)

Building upon this platform, Ignatius made other alarming statements:

“Plainly, then, one should look upon the bishop as upon the Lord Himself.” (5)

“Surely, Jesus Christ … for His part is the mind of the Father, just as the bishops … represent for their part the mind of Jesus Christ. … It profits you, therefore, to continue in your flawless unity, that you may at all times have a share in God.” (6)

“I advise you to always act in godly concord with the Bishop, presiding as the counterpart of God … you must do nothing without the Bishop and the presbyters.” (7)

“It is fitting not to take advantage of the bishop’s youth, but rather, because he embodies the authority of God the Father, to show him every mark of respect … the bishop is to preside in the place of God.” (8)

In a the fuller passage of the above excerpt, Ignatius begins to lay the ground work for establishing a symbolic correlation between:

• The Bishop and God the Father
• Presbyters and the Council of the Apostles
• Deacons and “the Seven” picked to become day to day helpers in Acts 6.

Of course, as Bishop, he was free to give the interpretation of that symbolic relationship with all the authority of his office at bear.

“Just as the Lord … did nothing without [the Father] … so neither must you undertake anything without the bishop and the presbyters; nor must you attempt to convince yourselves that anything you do on your own account is acceptable.” (9)

Is it just me, or does this guy begin to rub you the wrong way? Talk about a mind trip! “Nor must you attempt to convince yourselves that ANYTHING you do on your own account is acceptable?!”

“Do nothing without your bishop … Let all respect the deacons as representing Jesus Christ, the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as God’s high council and as the Apostolic college. Apart from these, no church deserves the name …

… cling inseparably to God Jesus Christ, to the bishop and the precepts of the Apostles. He that is inside the sanctuary is pure; he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words: he that does anything apart from bishop, presbytery, or deacon has no pure conscience …” (10)

“Heed the bishop that God may heed you, too.” (11)

“… it is not permitted to baptize or hold a love-feast [Communion; Lord’s Supper] independently of the Bishop.” (12)

“You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father … reverence the deacons as you would God’s [own] commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church apart from the bishop.” (13)

“Surely, all those that belong to God and Jesus Christ are the very ones that side with the bishop.” (14)

“Whatever he [the bishop] approves, that is also well-pleasing to God.” (15)

According to Ignatius, the way to give glory to Jesus Christ was to be submissive to and acknowledge the authority of one’s bishop:

“It is only right that you should give glory to [Jesus Christ]; and this, (if sanctification is to be yours in full measure), means uniting in a common act of submission and acknowledging the authority of your bishop and clergy.” (16)

My how far we’ve fallen — and in such a brief time period — from Jesus’ original instructions about servanthood leadership.

“You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you IT WILL BE DIFFERENT. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant … for even the Son of Man came not to BE SERVED but to SERVE OTHERS.”

(Matthew 20:25-28, New Living Translation, emphasis mine)

___________________________

Next up: Martyrdom: A Silent Seal on Doctrine (part 2)
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

---

Footnote References:

(1) Maxwell Staniforth & Andrew Louth, Early Christian Writings (London, Penguin Books, 1987), page 117 (speaking of Polycarp’s martyrdom).
(2) James Rutz, Mega Shift (Colorado Springs, Empowerment Press, 2005), page 216
(3) MegaShift, by James Rutz, page 216 (org source: Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans I, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, American Edition, Volume I, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 1885, chapter 40, “Honour the Bishop”), emphasis mine.
(4) Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries – A History of the Christian Church, Third Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), page 76, emphasis mine.
(5) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002), page 124 (org source: Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. 6, no. 1, ACW 1:62), emphasis mine.
(6) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002) page 123-124 (org source: Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. 3, nos. 1-2, chap. 4, nos. 1-2, ACW 1:61-62), emphasis mine.
(7) MegaShift, by James Rutz, page 216 (org source: Ignatius’ letter to the Magnesians, in Bettenson, op, cit., The Early Christian Fathers, pp. 42-44), emphasis mine.
(8) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002), page 126 quoting Ignatius of Antioch (org source: Epistle to the Magnesians, chaps. 3, no. 1; chap. 6, nos 1b, 2b, ACW 1:69-71), emphasis mine.
(9) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002) page 127 (org source: Ignatius, Epistles to the Magnesians, chap. 7, nos. 1-2 ACW 1:71), emphasis mine.
(10) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002), page129 (org source: Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians, prologue, chaps. 1-3, 6-7, 9-11, 13 in Epistles, ACW 1:75-79), emphasis mine.
(11) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002) page 138 (org source: Ignatius, Epistle to Polycarp, chap. 6, nos. 1-2, ACW 1:98).
(12) MegaShift, by James Rutz, page 216 (or source: Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:8-9, J. B. Lightfoot, translator) emphasis mine.
(13) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002), page 135 (org source: Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, chaps. 1-2, 6, 8, in Epistles, ACW 1:90, 92-92), emphasis mine.
(14) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002) page 134 (org source: Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians, chaps. 2-3, ACW 1:85-86)
(15) MegaShift, by James Rutz, page 216 (or source: Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:8-9, J. B. Lightfoot, translator) emphasis mine.
(16) Early Christian Writings, translated by Maxwell Staniforth and Andrew Louth (Penguin Books, England 1987), Ignatius to the Ephesians, page 61, emphasis mine.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

The Emerging Role of Bishops

Image via Wikipedia

With almost all of the original Apostles dead, growing Gnosticism, no Bible (as an authoritative standard for “sound” doctrine), and increased persecution— someone needed to step up to the plate and lead the struggling church into her divine destiny. The first of such leaders was Clement.

As already noted, Clement was Rome’s fourth bishop. Besides Clement’s own testimony as compiler of the Apostolic Constitution (various teachings purportedly originating from the original Apostles), we don’t really know a whole lot about him, except that he had some rather novel ideas about the role that bishops should play within church government.

In his epistle to the Corinthians (around 95 AD), he declared his opinion that:

“The high priest has been given his own special services, the priests have been assigned their own place, and the Levites [meaning deacons] have their special ministrations enjoined on them. The laymen [translation: non-clergy] is bound by the ordinances for the laity [non-clergy].” (1)

— Clement to the Corinthians, 44:4

And in case you didn’t catch that, with one fell swoop Clement introduced a doctrine whose origins were as foreign to Christianity as the Gnostic deviances from which the Christian clergy vigilantly protected the flock. Such thinking created a caste system (clergy vrs. non-clergy) that did not exists in 95 AD in very many places outside of Clement’s vivid imagination.

In mixing Roman ideology with the Jewish Levitical priesthood to form a new Christian hierarchy, Clement allocated a tremendous power shift to the clergy rulers, (conveniently placing himself at or near the top, as Bishop of Rome).

“[Clement’s] split between clergy and laity was like fastening the wrong button at the top of your shirt; by the time you get to the bottom, everything’s out of kilter. Think of the traditional church as a mile-long shirt with 10,000 mismatched buttons.” (2)

Clement’s views were out of step with the vast majority of believers in his time, however such ideas would eventually spread and be picked up and promoted by others. Over time, they would be accepted as the “Orthodox” or “approved” beliefs of the Christian faith — the very traditions handed down to the Roman Catholic Church by the Apostles themselves. History is ever written by those who choose to write about it. And those who haven chosen to write about it from within “the Church”, have often been cut from the same cloth.

___________________________

Next up: Martyrdom: a silent seal on doctrine (part 1)
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

---

Footnote References:

(1) MegaShift, James Rutz, Page 215 (org source: As translated in The Early Christian Fathers by Henry Bettenson, Oxford Univ. Press, 1996, capter 40, p. 32, emphasis mine)

(2) MegaShift, James Rutz, Page 215
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Facing the Giants Within

Image via Wikipedia

On the home front, with no Apostolic authority to turn to, the doctrinal battle lines from within became even more tense. As already mentioned, Gnosticism was a growing concern. Long gone was the admonition to “not trouble those from among the Gentiles who were turning to God” with Jewish law — or the newly organized Christian Law.

“[A] marked featured of this period was the development of doctrine. In the apostolic age faith was of the heart, a personal surrender of the will to Christ as Lord and King, a life in accordance with his example, and as a result the indwelling of his Spirit. But in the period which we are now studying, faith had gradually come to be of the mind, an intellectual faith, believing in a hard and fast system of doctrine. Emphasis was laid on correct belief, rather than on the inner, spiritual life … doctrine was becoming more and more the test of Christianity.” (1)

With the growing “organized” church structure (bishops, elders, deacons) — and the division of clergy and laity — came the responsibilities of enforcing Church law.

If We’re Going to Get Together — 
There’s Got to be Rules

Have you ever noticed that no matter what the group — organizations have rules.

Your neighborhood association has bylaws, monthly meetings, and recourse administered to those who act contrary to rules of the association.

Committees have meetings, they “judge” by consensus, and designate responsibilities to members involved.

Even being a member of a sports-oriented club such as fishing, will require attendance at meetings, participation in club dues and a certain number of competitions, and most importantly — an adherence to club policies.

If you want in, you’ve got to sign on the dotted line. Apparently, it’s no different with church. As Christianity, moved from the shadows of persecution, into the limelight of “official” religion, the pressure for more structure would only increase. But in the meantime who writes the rules and on whose authority are those rules based?

You might answer, “Why, they would have been based on the Bible, of course!” Ultimately yes. But how do you base your rules on an authority that does not yet exist?

Church with No Bible? Not my Church!

The Bible holds such a central place in today’s Christian faith, that it’s hard to imagine “church” without it. Sure, in modern-church settings, Scriptures are projected across mega screens illuminated somewhere near the front of the sanctuary, so many leave their personal Bibles at home. But the Bible is universally central to the Christian life (regardless of denomination) providing guidelines for Christian living, moral standards, and historical beliefs.

So what would church look like without a Bible? I pose the question, because during this slice of history, there was none — at least not in the “Old” and “New” Testament form that we have it today.

“It is a neglected fact, perhaps, but the Church had been preaching the gospel, saving souls, and founding congregations all over the Near East for at least ten years before a single line of the New Testament was written. She had been doing these things for over fifty years before the final line was completed. At the time of Clement’s conversion a new believer might possibly have been introduced to Matthew’s Gospel and perhaps one or two letters from Paul — but even these would have been circulating loose as individual works; over three hundred years would have to pass before they ever came to be bound together in one authoritative canon. So clearly, the traditional appeal to the Christian Bible as we know it today just was not an option.” (2)

So, again I ask you, “On whose authority would the rules be written?”

___________________________

Next up: The Emerging Role of Bishops
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

___________________________________________________________
Footnote References:

(1) Jesse Lyman Hurlbut, The Story of the Christian Church, page 48-49, emphasis mine.

(2) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002), page 54, emphasis mine.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

And So It Begins

Palace of Roman Emperor Diocletian

Simeon (bishop of the church in Jerusalem, successor of St. James) is said to have attained the age of 120. He was crucified by order of the Roman governor of Palestine in 107 A.D.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, was more than willing to go to his death and wrote letters to the church stating that it was his hope that he would not lose the honor of dying for Christ. He was thrown to wild beast in the Roman amphitheater in 108 or 110 A.D.

Marcus Aurelius saw Christians as innovators who subverted his plan to return to the simplicities the Roman life and the ancient religion. For this reason, many thousands of believers were beheaded or devoured by wild beasts under his reign from 161-180 AD.

Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, long coveted martyrdom in some half-crazed zeal that it would forever seal his devotion to Christ and secure salvation on his behalf. Misguided, though he was, he attained his desire at the age of 86. He was burned to death.

Justin Martyr, a Christian philosopher, was martyred in Rome in 166 A.D.

But the mother of all persecutions, occurred under Diocletian (and his successors)  from 303 to 310 A.D. Diocletian was vehemently opposed to the Christian religion and it is said that he erected a pillar inscribed, “In honor of the extirpation of the Christian superstition.”

Under a previous Emperor, (Caracalla, 211-217 AD), citizenship had been conferred upon every person who was not a slave. This benefited Christians, because as citizens, they could no longer be crucified or thrown to the wild beasts.

However, Diocletian reversed the protections afforded by Carcalla, when he ordered that all sacred writings of the Christians be burned, that all churches which had arisen during the last half-century be torn down, and that all who would not renounce the Christian religion should lose their citizenship. Churches were burned to the ground, often with their congregations locked inside.

In either an ironic turn of events (or as a new devilish master strategy — you decide), within 70 years, Christianity became the official religion, and all persecution ceased.

The very Baths of Diocletian, which were erected in Rome, were later transformed by Michaelangelo into the Church of Santa Maria degli Angeli.

Next up: Facing the Giants Within
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

The Persecuted Church — AD 100-313

Although persecution certainly existed during the Apostles time in sporadic bursts, it increased dramatically during the first and second centuries — hence this period is generally known as the age of the Persecuted Church.

There’s something strange about persecution; it either makes you want to hide in a closet or get caught up in a cause! As persecution increased, the church actually grew. Sometimes it’s easy to get swept away by a movement (belonging to a group with a “just cause”) and forget that Christianity is still about a person — and a relationship with that person.

Why Were Christians Persecuted?

It is a startling fact that some of the wisest and best emperors opposed Christians, while some of the most worthless and evil emperors ignored Christians. What made Christians stand out that warranted their persecution? It’s always interesting to examine the threads that formed the basis for past persecutions — because our generation is not exempt from a repeat of history.

Christians were Exclusive

In an pagan age, filled with hundreds (even thousands) of so-called deities, the addition of the Christian’s god made little difference to the average pagan. It was the Christians’ exclusive claim that their god was the one true God, which put a bad flavor in everyone’s mouth.

Christians Were Considered ‘Against Government’

Ironically, it was Christianity’s break with Judaism that bred patriotic distrust.

“In the first generation of the Christians, they were regarded as somehow connected with the Jews, and Judaism was recognized by the government as a permitted religion, although the Jews lived apart from the idolatrous customs, and would not even eat food from the idol-feasts. This supposed relationship for a time preserved the Christians from persecution. But after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., Christianity stood alone with no laws to protect it’s followers.” (1)

The worship of the Emperor (just another of the many accepted “deities”), was also viewed as a test of loyalty — a form of Patriotism. The pagans didn’t have a problem with Christians forcing “their god” into the mix; but turn around was fair play. It’s a small thing to express loyalty to one’s own Emperor, by simply dropping a handful of incense on an altar once a year. But when Christians refused to participate in this annual event (and were reputed for giving worship to “another King” — King Jesus), well it had all the smells of a revolt in the making. Perhaps Christians were really disloyal citizens plotting revolution? And so the rumors spread. Their “secret meetings” before sunrise and late at night (in caves or underground catacombs) only gave credence to revolutionary suspicions.

“The church endured little persecution as long as it was looked upon by the authorities as part of Judaism, which was a religio licita, or legal sect. But as soon as Christianity was distinguished from Judaism as a separate sect and might be classed as a secret society, it came under the ban of the Roman state, which would brook no rival for the allegiance of its subjects. It then became an illegal religion and as such was considered a threat to the safety of the Roman state.” (2)

Christians Were Suspected of Cannibalism!

Misunderstandings about the Lord’s Supper (excluded from non-believers), lead to charges that Christians were cannibals. Of course, Jesus’ symbolic words, “eat my flesh and drink my blood” didn’t help matters.

Christians Negatively Impacted (certain) 
Business and Trades

Obviously the Christians anti-pagan ideals affected idol sales among the converted.

Christians Were Regarded as Anarchists

Because Christians believed in treating all men equal — slave, nobility, male and female — it was assumed that they were subverters of the social order of their day. By today’s standards, we might have accused them of propagating socialistic agenda.

But being “equal under God” is not necessarily the same as having a political agenda to overthrow the government, to level the classes, and redistribute the wealth.

Ironically, scriptures that would have spoken to the times as “authoritative proof” of church held beliefs (specifically regarding slaves and masters), would not be available to the church in an official “canon” until after this wave of persecution had passed. It would however, be available to “the Church” once the New World was discovered and with it an opportunity to establish a new way of doing government. Here Christians would fight on both sides of the argument — whether or not to end slavery once and for all.

Christianity Doesn’t Blend Well

I give the above commentary not to state that if Christians had been smarter or more willing to blend with society, they might have avoided persecution altogether. Rather, I am merely pointing out that from a non-Christian perspective, persecution seemed at least a little justified. After all, Christians have always been a peculiar bunch.

By and large, it was because pagans misunderstood the Christian faith — not withstanding an occasional stubbornness in doctrinal ideals on behalf of extreme believers — that prompted persecutions. There’s not a lot you can do about misunderstandings. You can try and explain, but being “misunderstood” is a highly effective plan of the enemy to initiate persecution — both within and without the walls of Christianity.

The admonition of scripture comes to mind, “If possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18 – KJV). Sometimes it isn’t possible. And sometimes, it really doesn’t depend on you. Such became the case toward the end of the period known as the Persecuted Church.

“The persecutions in the first century by Nero (66-68) and Domitian (90-95) … were simply outbreaks of frenzy and hate, with no reason except the rage of a tyrant, spasmodic, occasional and not long continued. But from 250- to 313 A.D. the church was subjected to a systematic, relentless, empire-wide series of attempts by the government to crush the ever-growing faith.” (3)

___________________________

Next up: And So It Begins
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

---

Footnote References:

(1) Jesse Lyman Hurlbut, The Story of the Christian Church, page 41-42

(2) Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries – A History of the Christian Church, Third Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), page 8

(3) Jesse Lyman Hurlbut, The Story of the Christian Church, page 43)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Meet The Players Within Early Christianity

Image via Wikipedia

Early Christianity was a very eclectic and diverse group. Some believe that (if possible) it’s diversity exceeded today’s Christianity, including our growing number of denominations and branches. There were at least five main umbrella groupings that vied for ‘Christian’ status: Gnostics, Ebionites, Manicheans, Montanists, and what eventually became known as ‘Orthodox’ (the winning view). Early church leadership was kept plenty busy trying to sort out the doctrinal views of each and were perplexed on how to keep ‘the flock’ from being duped by a variety of religious deceptions and heretical beliefs.

‘Christian’ of a Different Kind: Enter Gnosticism

If deciding which Jewish laws to pass along to converting Gentiles seemed a big hurdle for the Jerusalem church to tackle, the next generation of Christians were about to meet their Goliath: Gnosticism.

The Gnostics (Greek, gnosis, meaning “knowledge”) believed that out of a supreme God arose a large number of inferior gods — some good and some evil. This accounted for the good and evil which was seen in the world. Gnostics believed that all humans were divine souls trapped in a material world, created by an imperfect god, known as “demiurge” (believed to be the Abrahamic god of the Jews).

Gnostics believed that through special knowledge humanity could be reminded of their true origins within the superior Godhead, and thus would be able to escape being trapped inside this material world (a form of “salvation” if you will). Gnostics considered themselves Christians and therefore their popularity caused quite a stir in the early church.

There were 217 forms of Gnosticism (by one count) — so variations abounded. The early church fathers were immensely afraid that Gnosticism would take over Christianity — indeed end Christianity.

Ebionites

The Ebionites were Jewish Christians who insisted on the necessity of keeping the Jewish law. They refused to acknowledge the writings of Paul because his writings recognized Gentile Christians. After Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, Ebionites found little sympathy among the Gentile Christians they had opposed for so long and they eventually died out by the second century.

Manicheans

The Manichees or Manicheans were of Persian origin and believed that the universe was divided into two kingdoms: good and evil. Each was struggling for mastery within nature. They believed in a “celestial Christ” — but rejected Jesus. They believed that through renouncing worldly pleasures (including marriage) one could attain a higher spiritual state. They were persecuted by both heathen and Christian emperors.

Montanists

The Montanists were considered a heretical sect by early Christians — but many of their views might not seem so outlandish to Christians of today. They desired to return to the simplicity of the primitive Christians. They believed in the priesthood of all believers (not in hierarchal “orders” of the ministry), adhered to strict discipline, and believed the prophetic gifts had not died away. Tertullian embraced their views during the latter half of his life and strongly wrote in their defense.
___________________________

Next up: The Persecuted Church — AD 100-313
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

The Apostolic Church — AD 30-100

During the Apostolic Church age, the prevailing concern was spreading the gospel and preserving “sound” doctrinal beliefs. Of course, who determined what was sound? The original Apostles, for a rather long time, still thought that Christianity was a Jews-only religion. Paul, quite against his will, was forced to come to the understanding that it was God’s desire to “save” Gentiles as well.

Even after Paul had long been preaching to the Gentiles, Jewish Christians still had many questions about who could be saved and what constituted salvation. Some believed, if you were Gentile, then you had to also accept Jewish law (for instance, you needed to be circumcised). It was kind of like the stepping stones of faith: you converted to Judaism first, then you could become a Christian. Others believed baptism was required.

Observations only confused matters. Paul and Barnabas had witnessed God’s mighty hand in miracles performed among the Gentiles and observed their changed lives as they turned to Christ — and this absent from keeping Jewish law. Peter had beheld personally the conversion of Cornelius and his household (a non-Jewish group) and watched as the gift of the Holy Spirit descended upon them. An event he was not expecting, which occurred while he was yet preaching and certainly before anyone had an opportunity to be baptized (Acts 10).

The experience of these men, left questions, but not too many died-in-the-wool answers. That God was working among the Gentiles was easy enough to conclude. But the specific definitives of salvation were yet a mystery.

Because opinions abounded, (and persecution tends to follow strong opinions), we read in Acts 15 of a council in Jerusalem that resulted in the common consensus. Paul, Barnabas, the apostles and elders — indeed the whole church gathered — agreed that since it was obvious God was working among the Gentiles that they should not also be burdened by Jewish law. Instead they encouraged them to abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.

By today’s standards, it seems a strange set of advise to give new believers. But it was advise relevant in that day to those believers — who were turning from a pagan lifestyle. In different generations, diverse groups or emerging cultures — some things will always seem to stand out as more important (for a time) than others. This was the case in the early church — it was the case as different ages set upon the church — it is the case today.

___________________________

Next up: Meet The Players Within Early Christianity
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Running With Blind Faith

The Church History of Eusebuis

Indeed we must believe with a blind faith that the pure motivations of those who ruled the newly organized church weren’t susceptible to normal human failings that included greed, need for power, and the greatest motivator of all within religious circles: fear. For without fear, religion simply cannot exist.

Not surprisingly then, the entire papacy tradition is now being held on very unstable ground. In the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace in 1995) we find a footnote — associated with Euseibus’ Church History in regards to the first three bishops of Rome — that adequately reflects this suspicion.

“The actual order of the first three so-called bishops of Rome is a greatly disputed matter. The oldest tradition is that given by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. 3. 3) and followed here by Eusebius, according to which the order was Linus, Anencletus, Clement. 

Hippolytus gives a different order, in which he is followed by many Fathers; and  in addition to these two chief arrangements all possible combinations of the three names, and all sorts of theories to account for the difficulties and to reconcile the discrepancies in the earlier lists, have been proposed. 

In the second chapter of the so-called Epistle of Clement to James (a part of the Pseudo-Clementine Literature prefixed to the Homilies) it is said that Clement was ordained by Peter, and  Salmon thinks that this caused Hippolytus to change the order, putting Clement first. Gieseler (Eccles. Hist., Eng. Trans., I. p. 107, note 10) explains the disagreements in the various traditions by supposing that the three were presbyters together at Rome, and that later, in the endeavor to make out a complete list of bishops, they were each successively elevated by tradition to the episcopal chair.

It is at least certain that Rome at that early date had no monarchical bishop, and therefore the question as to the order of these first three so-called bishops is not a question as to a fact, but simply as to which is the oldest of various unfounded traditions.

The Roman Church gives the following order: Linus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus, following  Hippolytus in making Cletus and Anacletus out of the single Anencletus of the original tradition. The apocryphal martyrdoms of Peter and Paul are falsely ascribed to Linus (see Tischendorf, Acta Apost. Apocr. p xix. sq.).

Eusebius (chap. 13, below) says that Linus was bishop for twelve years. In his Chron. (Armen.) he says fourteen years, while Jerome says eleven. These dates are about as reliable as the episcopal succession itself. We have no trustworthy information as to the personal character and history of Linus. Upon the subjects discussed in this note see especially Salmon’s articles, Clemens Romanus, and Linus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. (1)

Rather than spend more time debating the legitimacy of Apostolic Succession, let’s take a closer look at the prevailing concerns and beliefs of the early church fathers and those who “led” the church throughout the first several hundred years. As motivations are made clear, perhaps we will gain a new interpretation to Paul’s words,

“For I now this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29 – NKJV).

How ironic is it that the fear borne within the Christian community from these very words, would prove to open the door and pave an easy pathway for wolves to undisputedly rule the Christian world for many generations future.

___________________________

Next up: The Apostolic Church — AD 30-100
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

___________________________________________________________
Footnote References:

(1) Eusebuis, The Church History of Eusebuis, NPNF2-01 Eusebuis Pamphilius: III. 3. 2
(Footnote on Linus No. 1)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.