CHURCH HISTORY—FIRST 500 YEARS A long-standing principle of business is that it’s a lot easier to start a company than to grow one. Each year many new businesses gear up, led by passionate, hard-working entrepreneurs who oversee the details of every aspect. Many times these new ventures have tremendous initial success, necessitating rapid growth. That’s when the problems begin. As the business takes on new levels of management or perhaps branches out with franchises, many new people are hired. Most are neither as passionate as the founders about the product nor as willing to work long hours. Communication becomes more difficult. Quality control breaks down. And before you know it, the new company that seemed to be going gangbusters has simply gone bust—financially and emotionally. It’s a tricky business to grow at a rate fast enough to service all the new customers without compiling so much overhead that the end result ceases to be worth the effort. CENTURY ONE The church isn’t a business as such, yet it has faced many of the same problems and challenges in addressing the needs of its “customers” while growing in size for almost 2,000 years now. The first-century “start-up” was a tremendous success, as we have seen. Now we’re going to look at a sketchy timeline of what took place during the first five centuries of church history. THE FIRST HALF OF THE FIRST CENTURY We noted in the previous chapter that by the end of the first century, Paul was already having to rebut a number of doctrines that either directly opposed or subtly twisted the truth of Christianity. This was a trend that would continue. By the end of the second century, a Christian named Irenaeus had recorded 217 such “religions,” and the 21st-century church continues to face a number of not-quite-right doctrines seeking to distort the truth. All these varieties of religions would probably not have been much of a threat if the church had remained in Jerusalem and continued to be a united body. For a while it seemed that Christianity might have an easy road to success. Since it had come out of Judaism, it wasn’t perceived as particularly threatening to the Romans. The Jews had already shown a lot of resistance to any attempts to “Hellenize” them—to impose upon them Greek culture, religion, and such. They wouldn’t condone any emperor’s claim to be divine, and they wouldn’t even perform lip service to the numerous gods and goddesses of the Greeks and Romans. But neither did they present any serious threat to the Roman Empire, so the two cultures had learned to coexist. The Jews were allowed to worship at the temple and attend their synagogues, and the Romans didn’t hassle them too much. So when the Christian church sprang up, centered around a Jewish figure and led by Jewish believers, the Romans didn’t discern much of a difference. Consequently, the church had considerable freedom at first. But gradually that grace period came to a close. At first the main opponents of the church seemed to be certain powerful and influential Jewish leaders. Some of them had finagled the crucifixion of Jesus and later attempted to impede the work of the apostles. They were also the ones who stoned Stephen to death, creating the first recognized Christian martyr (Acts 6:8—8:3). We are told that, “a great wave of persecution began that day” (Acts 8:1). The apostles remained headquartered in Jerusalem, but many of the other believers hightailed it into surrounding areas. We know that Herod Antipas put to death John the Baptist and was involved in the trial of Jesus. His successor and nephew, Herod Agrippa I, killed James—the first apostle of Jesus to be put to death for his faith. When Herod saw how much James’s death pleased the Jewish leaders, it motivated him to attempt further acts of persecution (Acts 12:1-4). And things were only going to get worse. THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL (A.D. 48 OR 49) A council was held in Jerusalem where church leaders discussed the problems that were arising because of the conversion of Gentiles. (This meeting was mentioned in the previous chapter.) The agenda and “minutes” of this meeting are described in Acts 15. Paul and Barnabas had just returned from their first journey where they had made contact with several of the newly formed churches, so they were welcomed as guest speakers. It was a crucial debate. Some of the new believers (they weren’t being called “Christians” quite yet) had been high-ranking Jewish officials. Others were Gentiles who had little if any religious training and might not even have had basic reading skills. Those with a traditional Jewish background were uncomfortable with opening church membership to people who had little if any comprehension of Jewish law and ethics. But the council could not dispute the testimony of Paul and Barnabas that the Holy Spirit was definitely at work among the Gentile believers as well as the Jewish ones. The final ruling of the council was that circumcision was not a requirement for church members. Although strong opinions were held for both points of view, this controversial issue didn’t split the church. The first big test was passed with flying colors. THE BIG FIRE OF ROME (A.D. 64) As we have said, for several decades the new Christian church enjoyed much freedom because of its Jewish ties. Yet now in its adolescence, it was beginning to experience some growing pains. Not exactly Jewish, and by no means secular, the church began to feel a bit of persecution from both sides. Out of this persecution they would be forced to establish their own identity. By the time of Nero’s reign when a great fire destroyed much of Rome, the Christian segment was merely a hanging chad on the ballot that was Judaism. Some suggest Nero personally ordered the fire, but evidence is inconclusive. Regardless of what actually happened, the Christians—not the Jews—got the blame. Persecution against them began to intensify. DESTRUCTION OF HEROD’S TEMPLE (A.D. 70) When it comes to politics and social concerns, any significant group of people are going to have diverse opinions. (Oil lobbyists and Greenpeace volunteers might all be Texans, for example, but that’s where the similarities end.) This was true of the first-century Jews. Some were pacifists; others were more radical. But at one point the militant segment took action and pushed the Romans too far. This conflict escalated over decades, but one of the first dramatic events was a Roman siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The Jews trapped in the city faced great suffering from April until September, when the city fell at last. And as the Roman soldiers stormed in, they looted and leveled the temple. The destruction of the temple forced the Jews out of the city and into various scattered synagogues for their worship. Gentiles could sit in to learn the Scriptures and perhaps develop some basic reading skills from the better-educated Jews. (Gentile involvement at the temple had been limited.) In addition, a lot of Gentiles were jaded with the impersonal and numerous Greek and Roman deities. The concept of not only a monotheistic religion, but also one where God actually cared what happened to His people, was quite appealing to many of them. And when the Christian church started to break away from its Jewish roots, the churches formed much along the lines of the synagogues, and many Gentiles began to join. So even though the temple was a prime Jewish symbol, its fall had an effect on the Christian church. CENTURIES TWO THROUGH FIVE It didn’t take long for the church to develop something of an identity crisis. It was no longer exactly Jewish; on the contrary, it soon became predominately Gentile. The apostles who had been left in charge were dying off from various causes—mostly beheadings, crucifixion, and the like. The single church “body” formed in Jerusalem had quickly become dozens or hundreds of localized “bodies,” with numerous local pastors and/or traveling preachers who checked in only occasionally. Various questionable doctrines were being promoted—some seeking to keep Christianity tied to Judaism and others attempting to blend it too heavily into paganism. What was a young new church to do?! It had been so easy (though they hadn’t realized it) when Jesus was leading the way and all everyone else had to do was tag along and listen. And even with the apostles taking over, the transition had been a smooth and natural one. But now, with the ever-changing political climate, the deployment from Judaism, the ongoing persecution, and the numerous threats of heresy, the church needed a plan. The first part of the plan required a firm determination about what, exactly, they believed. With all the various teachings attempting to leech into church doctrine, the church needed to determine which writings were truly inspired by God and which weren’t. Next, they needed to decide who would be in charge of things now that the apostles were no longer around. CREATION OF THE CANON The word canon comes from the Greek word kanon, meaning “measuring rule.” So the “canon” of Scripture is the collection of individual writings that have become the standard we know as the Bible. The determination of what to include began almost as soon as some of the works were written. Just as the New Testament writers already had a body of work established as “the law and the prophets” (essentially our Old Testament), they realized that significant writings about Jesus would need to be added. By about A.D. 144, a canon of Christian writings had appeared. By A.D. 200 the collection had become essentially the same as our existing New Testament. The four Gospels, the historical book of Acts, and the writings of Paul were (almost) universally accepted immediately. Some of the other books received a bit more debate but were soon included. And by A.D. 397, the Christian church, for the most part, had finalized its canon. In determining the original canon of what to include or exclude, several factors were considered, including: • The authority of the writing itself. Since “all Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16), any clear message of God to His people was a prime factor in including it among the books of Scripture. • Endorsement of human authorities. The modern world is accustomed to expecting hoaxes when it comes to potentially valuable documents. (Recent years have turned up fakes of Hitler’s diaries and Howard Hughes’s will, to name just a couple of examples.) The ancient world also had its share of writers who would like to have had their writings published as being as authoritative as Scripture, even though they weren’t. So the canon of Scripture was closely examined, questioned, debated, and eventually approved by numerous official councils before anything got into our Bible. • Clear statements by human authors. Paul made it clear that he was writing as a designated apostle of Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1-2; 2 Corinthians 14:37). Peter also endorsed the writings of Paul as being “the wisdom God gave him” (2 Peter 3:15-16). Other New Testament writers appeared to quote from one another in places. And in certain spots, such as John’s writing in Revelation, the authors made it clear that readers should not add to nor take away from what was being said (Revelation 22:18-19). The early church had no qualms about accepting what the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ teachings had to say. In addition, Jesus had foretold that one of the roles of the Holy Spirit would be to “guide you into all truth” (John 16:12). As the Holy Spirit moved certain people to record the gospel of Jesus, the history of the church, instructions for Christian living or church leadership, or anything else, those writings were accepted by the first-century believers and Christians ever since. Every so often a cult or religious splinter group attempts to introduce “new” divinely inspired writings to add to the Bible. But the Christian church considers the matter closed. God has provided us with what we need to know, and the Holy Spirit is at work to help us understand and apply those teachings. We are not to accept extrabiblical writings as being inspired—at least, not on the same level as the Bible. INCREASED AUTHORITY OF CHURCH LEADERS So rather than being dependent on oral tradition, Christianity based its authority on the Word of God and wrote down the official version in black and white. Yet with the spread of alternative doctrines and spurious writings also attempting to pass themselves off as inspired, the need arose for people to speak with authority on behalf of God and truth—to endorse the written Word as being legitimate and sacred. As time passed, the original eyewitnesses to Jesus died off, leaving the job of teaching and training to others. The rise of “bishops” (church overseers) is viewed differently through Protestant and Catholic lenses. Both groups concur that strong leadership was needed to teach new converts, rebut and reject the false teachings that threatened the church, maintain church order, administer the sacraments, and so forth. But in general the Catholics feel the leadership roles were to be filled by those designated by the original apostles, the next openings filled by those who had been previously chosen, and so forth. Most Protestants aren’t so convinced of the importance of “apostolic succession.” Such differences of opinion are due in part to the lack of historic detail in regard to first-century and second-century church life. Paul had provided a number of guidelines for choosing qualified church leaders, but nowhere in the New Testament do we find a detailed organizational chart for how the church should be set up. As sketchy as the details are for this early period of the church, many of the available writings during that time reflected the dangers of heresy and the need for church-based interpretation of truth. It seems logical that during this time the tradition arose of having a single bishop take primary authority for each individual church. In this role, the idea was that he would be “first among equals” in regard to other church officials, yet the title of bishop has certainly carried with it a lot of power during periods of church history. INCREASED PERSECUTION Believers needed the assurance of God’s promises to them because the early persecution of the church was nothing compared to what followed in the second and third centuries A.D. Prior to the year 300, more Christians died at the hands of their fellow community members than from any kind of government mandate. Much of the early persecution of the church took place because of misunderstandings. To the Romans, Christians were considered atheists because they refused to pledge allegiance to any Roman deities. Christian references to partaking of the “body and blood of Christ” led others to think they practiced cannibalism in their services. All the talk of love led to additional speculation concerning orgies, incest, and other misguided claims. For a while the levels of persecution varied with the degree of interest the current Roman leader had with Christianity. Some of the rulers’ family members, if not the leaders themselves, were being influence by the Gospel; others weren’t. Meanwhile, Christians were becoming viable members of society to the extent they were able, including service in the Roman armies. In the year 300, the primary emperor of Rome was Diocletian. He had divided the empire into four jurisdictions, appointing a ruler over each segment while remaining in power over them. Diocletian had ties to Christianity, perhaps through his wife and daughter. But he also saw Christianity as a potential source of division in his empire. In addition, one of the “junior emperors” named Galerius was quite hostile toward those involved in the relatively new religion. In an attempt to remove Christians from the fighting ranks, laws were passed requiring soldiers to offer sacrifices to the gods, with death for those who refused. This put Christian soldiers in a dilemma. Within three years Galerius had stepped up his attack by decreeing that Christian writings and places of worship be destroyed. At first Diocletian forbade any executions, but the senior emperor’s declining health eventually allowed Galerius to act with impunity. Christians faced harsh persecution, and thousands of deaths ensued. In some geographic areas, Christianity disappeared altogether. But Galerius wasn’t as tough as he thought he was. When dying (perhaps from stomach cancer), he revoked the laws that threatened Christianity and asked Christians to pray for him. MARTYRS OF THE EARLY CHURCH Below are a few of the better known martyrs in the early church. There were many, many others, of course. • Clement of Rome, thought to have been tied to an anchor and tossed into the sea in A.D. 101 or 100. • Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria, who died in the arena in 110. • Polycarp was sentenced to be burned at the stake in 156. According to Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, his body wouldn’t burn as he sang amid the flames, so he was speared until he lost so much blood that the fire was extinguished, as was his life. • Justin Martyr defended Christians against several false accusations being leveled against them. For his efforts he was labeled a subversive and put to death in 165. • Perpetua was a young woman who refused to renounce her Christian beliefs when commanded to do so. Her journal, one of the few surviving ancient works written by a female, conveys her thoughts up to her execution (by sword) in 203. • Erasmus (St. Elmo) was an early Christian bishop martyred around 303 under the persecution of Diocletian. CONSTANTINE AND THE COUNCILS AT NICAEA (A.D. 325 AND 381) The westernmost area of Diocletian’s reign had been assigned to a man named Constantius Chlorus, the father of a leader named Constantine. After the death of Diocletian, the various leaders began to struggle for primary leadership. After a dozen years or so, Constantine finally emerged as the sole emperor in 324. He attributed his success to a vision he had of a cross of light above the sun, with a sign attached reading, “Conquer by this.” He soon legalized Christianity and tolerated other religions that were peaceful. Whether or not Constantine was “converted” as we use the word is debated. Some people consider his faith as genuine and legitimate. Others suggest he saw in Christianity an opportunity to unite his followers. Regardless of his intentions, the church found itself in an unprecedented time of peace and acceptance. It wasn’t long before Constantine sponsored the first worldwide church conference, attended by about 230 bishops from throughout the empire. Constantine might have been attempting to curry favor, but still the timing was good for a church get-together. Now almost three centuries after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, the church was still trying to figure out all the theology about who He was. A prominent figure named Arius had begun in 318 to promote the idea that Jesus was not quite on the same status level as God the Father. His thinking was that God the Father was not created but had always existed. Jesus, however, had been born just like all the other beings created by the Father. So no matter how highly the church held Jesus, He would never deserve exactly the same glory due God. Questions concerning the nature and divine position of Jesus had been debated throughout church history. But it was at this point that both Constantine and the church leaders wanted to reach a consensus. If people were putting faith in Jesus as the source of salvation, yet He wasn’t exactly God, what did that mean to the church? To rebut Arius arose a man name Athanasius. His reasoning was that Jesus had to be every bit as much God as God the Father in order to effect salvation for humanity. He argued that Jesus was “begotten” by God, not created in the same manner as the rest of us creatures. And, in a crucial distinction arising from Nicaea, Athanasius determined that Jesus was “of one substance” with the Father. In describing this, he used a Greek word (homoousios) which was a philosophical term not found anywhere in Scripture. But better than anything else it expressed the thought that Jesus was every bit as much God as the Father (and for that matter, so was the Holy Spirit). The council drafted a creed to express the truths they agreed on. Although the logic and reasoning of Athanasius made sense to most of the representatives at Nicaea, Arius still had his supporters. And since this was new spiritual terrain for them, the council adjourned to think about what they had discussed. In 381, a second council of Nicaea was called. By this time, most of the representatives were comfortable with what they had previously determined, and they reworded the Nicene Creed to be a bit more specific. Many churches continue to use this creed, now over 1600 years old. The councils at Nicaea were significant for a number of reasons. To begin with, they succeeded in achieving a uniformity of thought for what church members were expected to believe. In addition, it was the first major cooperative effort between the church and big government. Never before had an empire taken such an interest in Christianity. And finally, the councils set a precedent for using Greek philosophical terms to apply to church theology. Each of these points was a potential cause of concern, but with the ongoing expansion of Christianity, most of the representatives saw the need for hashing through all these issues. THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (A.D. 451) As religious people pondered the results of the councils of Nicaea, many were soon scratching their heads. They had all basically agreed that Jesus was God every bit as much as God the Father. Yet Jesus had also been human. So questions kept popping up about the nature (or was it natures?) of Jesus. It was a perplexing concept. To address this issue, the new emperor Marcian borrowed from Constantine’s strategy and called together a council, this time at Chalcedon, which was near Constantinople. The council dealt with some tough questions: • When the “Word” became flesh, was God’s nature potentially changed, weakened, or threatened? • Did Jesus have the body of a person and the soul of God? • Did Mary give birth to “God” or to the human Jesus? • Did the human and divine natures of Jesus work at odds with one another, creating a sort of spiritual schizophrenia? We can’t get into the whole debate here, but the result of all the discussion was a basic agreement that Jesus was one person consisting of two natures. Each of His two natures—the human and the divine—“carries on its proper activities in communion with the other.” Not everyone could agree, and certain representatives began to pull away from the group to continue to promote their dissenting opinions. As we will see in the next chapter, this was only the first of many church divisions yet to come. CHURCH COMMITTEE MEMBERS FEEL THEIR PAIN If you relate to the old song that begins, “Don’t know much about history,” then this chapter (and the next couple) may seem like Greek to you. Yet the contemporary church owes much to the people who first set out to do some heavy theological thinking. It’s a simple matter for us to grab a commentary or Bible dictionary off the shelf and see what we ought to think about the nature of Jesus, His humanity, His divine aspects, and so forth. But consider what it must have been like to write the first drafts of such deep spiritual matters. The church of the 300s, 400s, and 500s had come a long way from meeting in a single room “as one” and talking about the good old days when Jesus had walked among them. Jesus was just as vital to these later centuries of church life, yet they were being forced to think of Him in new ways. We can hardly do justice to 500 years of history in a single chapter, but we’re going to try to cover twice as much time in the next chapter. If you still have questions about people and/or events, be assured that plenty of good resource material exists. If you wish to plow ahead, go to it. If, however, you want to conduct some further research at this point, stop for a while and consult some good references on church history. The rest of this book will still be there when you’re ready. KEY CHURCH LEADERS OF THE FIRST 500 YEARS Here are just a few more of the people and events that were important to the time period covered in this chapter. • Tertullian (160–225) served as a wise and witty defender of Christians and their faith. Late in life, however, he lost the support of many when he joined the Montanist movement. • Origen (185–254) was a legendary teacher and immensely prolific writer. • John Chrysostom (347–407) earned his last name (“golden-mouthed”) because of his clear preaching and personal application of Scripture. • Jerome (347–419?) was a serious Christian scholar commissioned by the pope to translate the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures into Latin so that “regular” people could have access to them. His translation of the Bible is known as the Vulgate. • Patrick was a British teenager when Irish raiders invaded his village sometime in the fifth century and took him a slave to Ireland. He eventually escaped, but later returned voluntarily to teach unbelievers about Christ. He has since become quite a popular and legendary figure.
Posted on: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 09:15:15 +0000