Category: history

These are my notes from Ken Rees’ presentation at FPC Edmond, 10/25/2006

The point we have been making up to this point in this class is that roots of Christians in reformed traditions go back much further than the reformation

In 1517, the world was quite different: (1517 was when Luther nailed the 95 theses to the church door)
– 4 nations of Europe (Spain, Portual, France and England) have strong monarchs
– Germany was more a collection of states with German speaking people, hadn’t been
– Italy more like city-states of ancient Greece (one is Vatican City)
– Renaissance was in full-flower (hard to put a date on it, people do argue about what it meant and means) – Michaelangelo and Da Vinci were at work
— in Medieval times, people were encouraged to stay where they were with their thinking
— now you have people thinking in new directions, starting to adopt the idea that the human is the center of the universe (growth of humanist movement)
— people becoming more interested in the human side of things, idealistic conceptions of humanity

Key technologies into the West
– gunpowder from China
– compass (had really limited mariners before this time)
– most important: printing press (just around for 60 years) – turned
– “America” recently discovered by Columbus, Cortez just starting conquest of Mexico, age of exploration

Muslim world: In last 50 years they were kicked out of Spain (Iberian Peninsula)
– occupy north Africa, Middle East, most of Greese and into Eastern Europe
– Ottoman Turks are a rising power

Africa is an unknown continent except for some posts where traders stop

Eastern Orthodoxy
– Constantinople: Fall meant that eastern Orthodoxy suffered a huge reversal
– center of orthodoxy has now moved to Russia, which had been evanglized by
– Russia had been ruled for a time by the Mongols, have shaken them off and emerging as a strong
– Moscow developing as replacement for Constantinople as center of orthodoxy

Other roots leading up to 1517
– 14th century: had been rival popes
– John Wyeclif became leading Oxford professor in 1372, entered the controversy about whether all authority over humans flows from God through the Pope regardless of the morality of church practices
— argues that the English king can discipline corrupt church officials
— rejected the idea of levels of sanctity for believers
— argued every righteous believer is equal in God’s eyes (dominion founded in grace)
— he was a zealot

These were novel ideas that the church hadn’t been
– Wyeclif “got this” message by studying the scriptures, going back to the source
– he wanted to see the whole church structure shorn of its wealth which had corrupted it
– felt the church didn’t need to be ruling like princes
– went beyond that: Said Rome doesn’t have all that authority vested in one person
– started studying Revelation and came to believe (and preach) that the Pope was the antiChrist

Focused on idea that God knows all the believers who will be in his church
– if that is true, how could we bargain with God via indulgences and penances?
– Wyeclif claimed these acts didn’t and don’t have anything to do with our salvation, because God knows who the ‘saved’ are
– encouraged focus on good preaching, not the sacraments
– at this time many priests were largely illiterate, many learned their job
– had some powerful friends among the nobility

Stayed at Oxford, and eventually crossed the line and argued that in scripture no where did it say for communion that the bread and the wine literally become the body and blood of Christ
– that caused his supporters to finally kick him out of Oxford
– preachers he taught went out into the countryside, sharing the message that everyone is equal in the eyes of God
– peasants started to question paying
– group was called the Lollards, were harshly put down by the English government who feared a broader peasant revolution

John Hus was a professor at the Univ of Prague
– picked up on Wyclif’s ideas in 1396 and began preaching them
– was excommunicated
– pled his case at the Council of Constance but was handed over to the Inquisition
– refused to recant and was burned at the stake in 1415

Biggest reason Martin Luther was able to lead the reformation starting in 1517 was Guttenberg
– by 1517 there were not only printing presses, but also publishers
– other reasons: Luther was fortunate to be in a good position
— may have been a more persuasive preacher, persuaded some princes that gave him sanctuary

Another important transitional figure: Erasmus
– was a scholar’s scholar
– didn’t have the zeal to overturn everything, he had a zeal for truth
– in the universities there was an argument that the Renaissance leaves you open to search for truth wherever you can find it
– Erasmus learned Greek to translate the New Testament from Latin into Greek
– published “A Handbook of the Christian Soldier”
– he stayed within the church, because he felt his mission was to reform the church
– later he was accused of laying the egg that Luther hatched as the Reformation

Another thing that happened in 100 years is the Papacy lost more of its power and influence
– had lost a lot of moral authority when there were two popes, three popes, some popes going to battle
– Pope wanted to be a partron of the arts like other Kings were, wanted to me a Medici
– cost a lot of money to build the Basilica of St Peter, church resorted to selling indulgences
– offering people the chance to buy salvation, and buy salvation for others to liberate them from purgatory

All that is left now of the temporal power of the Pope now is Vatican City
– that is the remnant of the former power and authority of the Catholic church

First time Luther heard the sermon on indulgences and become enraged
– had been a monk, and also a professor
– Luther was overburdened by the power of sin in his life early on
– in 1515 he began to study the book of Romans, when he found “the just shall live by faith”
– came to understand it is not something you have to DO to become free of sin: justified not by your own doings, but rather by the act of Christ on the cross

Luther decided the entire idea of “treasury of merit” was a crock
– idea was that the “saints” had stored credits in heaven, who had more than they needed
– that was and is why many people appeal to the saints for help

1517 Luther posts 95 theses to Wittenberg church
– argued that authority does not reside with humans
– we are invited to approach God through Christ on our own
– we have that level of freedom: we don’t need the intercession of people living and dead (priests and the Saints) to approach God
– source of authority was and is NOT the church
– says scripture is the authority for our faith and practice

University training in general at this time did not have different degrees
– Wittenberg was not a theological seminary: but everyone studied theology
– everyone who obtained a university education probably until the last century had a background in theology from the university

Popes at that time were paying large bribes for their positions
– parish priests tended to be less literate, and just knowing the liturgy they’d learned on the job

as we moved into the 16th century, more people were learning to read and had access to the written word

Earlier Popes going back to Benedict said there were 7 sacraments
– Luther said he could just find scriptural support for 7 sacraments: The Lord’s Supper and baptism

Luther called for the priesthood of all believers
– tried to narrow the gap between the priesthood and the pew
– before that time often, the cup was only taken by the priest
– now, both the cup and wafer were taken by the people
– in the past during communion, the priest used to take communion facing away from the people, similar to how the priest would go into the holy of holies

Luther did NOT have the radical idea that Wyclif had that the bread and wine were just symbolic
– Catholic church believed in transsubstantiation (trans: cross over from physical elements to the literal body and blood of Christ)
– Luther came up with idea of consubstantiation (con: idea of “with” – elements maintained their physical characteristics but also become the bread and body of Christ.

Luther was immediately attacked by the church, Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther
– German king declared Luther an outlaw
– Duke of Saxony hid Luther, during which time he translated the Bible into German and got it to a printer

Luther was a Renaissance man in many ways, he was also a musician
– said we shouldn’t just listen to a choir doing chants in Latin, he said in the early church they sang hymns
– he introduced congregational singing into the life of the church
– he wrote several dozen hymns, including “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God”

Luther viewed salvation as NOT mediated by a sacrament

KEN ACTUALLY CITED “I FOUND A WEBSITE THAT SAID LUTHER DID NOT ADOPT BAR SONG MELODIES” – NO INDICATION OF THE WEBSITE SOURCE!

Luther’s message of freedom provokes a peasant revolt which was ruthlessly put down after he failed to support the peasants
– later in life, teaching veered into anti-Semitism

Augsburg Confession was written in 1530 without Luther:
1- salvation by faith alone, not works
2- All authority is from scripture, not Roman Church
3- Church is the priesthood of believers
4- essence of Christian living is serving God in any useful calling, lay or clergy

MY THOUGHT: LACK OF STRONG CENTRAL AUTHORITY IN GERMANY AT THIS TIME WAS CRITICAL TO LUTHER’S CONTINUED SURVIVAL AND THE GROWTH (EVENTUAL SUCCESS) OF THE REFORMATION

Ulrich Zwingly in 1519 in Switzerland, influenced by Erasmus and more radical reforms of Luther, lead movement toward austerity
– trying to avoid idolitry at all costs
– were first to get the principle of infant baptism
– couldn’t find scriptural support for infant baptism, so said it had to be for believers “of the age of understanding”
– were called “anabaptist”
– believed in freedom from state authority
– were pacificsts, believed in individual conscience, didn’t have a church hierarchy (congregationalists)
– setup confession in 1527: wanted to be witnesses in a transformed style of living
— saw themselves called to be Nazarites like Sampson
— foresweared accumulation of wealth
— this idea was so radical: no princes supported Zwingly
— tried to lead a popular movement, took a lot of heat
– pushed into rural areas of Eastern Europe, Jakob Hutter was one of those leaders (Hutterites)

1532 radicals under Jan of Leiden, similar to David Koresh and Branch Davidians

Differences between Lutherans and Anabaptists: Anabaptists were just surviving, not very widespread
– Lutheranism established itself as a force to be recognized
– Omish had their roots among the Anabaptists

Separation of Church and state, focus on independent thinking are roots of our form of government here

Man being qualitatively equal before God is rooted here

Next week: Calvin!

Notes from Pastor John Gruel’s lecture at First Pres Edmond 9/20/2006

Stratification of church which evolved during this period:
– Martyrs: (the Saints) those who died for the faith
– Confessors: those who stood
– The lapse: those who sin / fall short

Question came up: can renouncers be forgiven?
1- one answer: the church can’t forgive, only God can forgive
2- some said yes, the church can forgive sin
— at one time, a Bishop that was forgiving people who had been caught in the sin of adultery (Callistus)
— made analogy to Noah’s ark, clean and unclean animals together

2 groups
– those who said church must be kept pure, society of saints
– church is school of sinners, we need to be able to forgive

Sense that martyrs for who they were had a special level of holiness, had extra merit
– started talking about “treasury of merit” that eventually led to the selling of indulgences, praying to martyrs

Confessors were also thought to have a higher status

Cyprien, bishop of Carthage, said he wasn’t sure about martyr and confessor thing
– if you could make the penance match the level of sin, then you could forgive
– the decision of whether someone could be readmitted into the church laid with the bishop
– church started becoming this mix of worthy and unworthy
– power of the bishop to convey divine forgiveness

Main body of the orthodox church marched forward with “school of sinners”
– penance became a sacrament during this era
– salvation was at that point in the hands of the church, and specifically in the hands of the bishiop

When the church granted the power of forgiveness to the bishop, catholic christianity was complete

this model of leadership drove the church well through the era of the Roman empire

Christianity caught on, there was increasing interest among people of reason, the intellectual class
– some people like Paul began to write in a fashion more understandable to Greeks, communicating the gospel in a contextual way
– Tertullian was against this, didn’t want to reconcile the teaching with greek thought and philosophy

Are faith based approaches during this time, and reason-based approaches like what Paul wrote
– go to Acts 2 and read Peter’s sermon at Pentecost (fidaistic – faith based, more from the Hebrew tradition)
– go to Acts 17 and read Paul’s sermon in Athens (more contextual style)

These shows the contrast in these two preaching styles

struggle with gnosticism
– showed that greek thinking could be a threat, because of an inability to engage greek thought leads to heresy

Had a school developed in Christian gnosticism, was engaging the gnostic thought but providing orthodox answers
– fast forward to the 20th century
– think about CS Lewis: doing the same thing that Pandues was doing
– communicating with the philosophers of the day with where they are, he speaks their language, and inserts an orthodox theology
– read some of “The Abolition of Man”
– Francis Shaeffer also did the same thing

Sept 19th in Wall Street Journal
– what Pope Benedict thinks
– Christianity is informed by dialog between reason and revelation, the dialog between Athens and Jerusalem
– faith and reason are essential in the Pope’s view now

Student Clement become one of the first really Christian scholars
– combines with Christian thought and scripture
– “Just as the Jew had the law to teach his heart and guide him to the gospel, so too the Gentile had philosophy”

Origin succeeded Clement around the year 200
– carried on his work
– trying to bring all Christian truth into focus
– both stressed the aim of philosophy as the ethical, by focusing on that ethical they could reject the gnostic claim that creation is evil

Origin is noted for system for interpretation of scripture, threefold model
1- literal and plain meeting
2- moral application
3- spiritual and allegorical application (how does it relate to Jesus)

Origin: not all his allegories are as direct as Nathan’s story of the sheep to David, relating to Uriah and Bathsheeba

Origin was one of the first to do systematic theology
– at a basic level: this is taking the things we know from scripture, the doctrines we develop from those (revelation, creation, etc) and try to make those fit together in an organized way
– a system of thought that it all links together
– challenge is: there are always grey areas
– Origin did this for his desire to fit this into greek thought and philosophy
– got himself in trouble because he was kind of a universalist

Universalism holds that some day God will reconcile all people to himself

Clement and Origin took that risk of going too far to accommodate Hellenistic thought

Different philosopher-theologians crop up in history to interact with different types of thought: St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas

These are notes from our Wednesday night class on church history, this evening (13 Sept 2006) taught by our Associate Pastor at FPC Edmond, John Gruel. John is a former doctor and orthopedic surgeon, and has a wonderfully intellectual and insightful approach to ministry, as well as the interpretation and application of God’s word in our daily lives. John gave me permission to podcast his presentation this evening, which is the fourth session in a 15 part study on this history of the Christian church. For our primary historical text we are using Bruce Shelley’s “Church History In Plain Language Updated 2nd Edition.”

What does “catholic” mean? Universal. From the inception of the followers of Jesus through about the first three centuries, there really was just one expression of “Church.”

The early church was molded or formed by several things:
1- the exclusion from Judaism
2- persecution from Roman culture
3- the development of heresy (beliefs that challenged common thinking and led the church to develop its orthodoxy and common scriptures)

When we left off last week, Christians were really a subset of Jews (Romans had been giving some slack to Judaism)
– as soon as Christians were no longer a subsect of Judaism, they started to experience persecution by the Romans
– unlike forbearers, Christians were very active in proselytizing
– in the past you could become a Jew, but Jews were not very active trying to convert people
– because of several factors, Christians were seen as more of a threat
– in the 60s under Nero particularly, Christians began to be seriously persecuted

Interesting: that women in higher classes as well as lower classes were active in spreading Christianity

Reason Christians experienced persecution:
– called themselves “saints” (that didn’t mean perfect, but in a strong sense it meant set apart, holy ones)
– people are always suspicious of those who are different
– early Christians lived simply and by Jesus’ teachings, that becomes almost a condemnation of the current culture
– rejecting the Roman gods made them social misfits, couldn’t do any crafts associated with pagan temples, work in pagan hospitals, etc
– soldiering was a treacherous occupation
– were regarded as atheists, rejecting the gods: seemed in the culture to be people without faith
– different ideas about marriage and sex, about slaves, about economics
– in early times, Christians often worshipped in secret

Because worship was secret, some rumors about orgies (from the kiss of peace) and cannibals (drinking blood and eating flesh)
– because of worship without any images of the Deity and not worshipping Roman gods
– Nero blamed the Christians
– superstitions led people to blame the Christians for many things

At same time the growth of emperor worship was happening in Rome, Christianity was on the rise
– emperors began to be seen as the embodiment of Rome and deities: in death and later under Nero in life
– by end of 1st century, it was common to demand emperor worship and see him as a god/king
– emperor worship made compulsory in 3rd century

Uncompromising faith of the early Christians really got them in trouble
– led to increases in persecutions
– were 10 Roman Caesars in the Roman period before Constantine
– Nero probably had both Peter and Paul killed
– Domician was probably the one who banned John to Patmos
– Trajan passed laws against Christianity, had Ignacious burned at the stake
— you could be forgiven for

What was the result of this persecution
– the church always thrives in an era of persecution
– in Eastern Europe after the Berlin wall came down, mission
– it has always been the case that persecution strengthens the faith

As the church grew and develop
– heresy: “out of bounds” (too far in one area)
– orthodoxy: “in bounds” or accepted thinking
– these questions led to the rise of theology (God talk, words about God, the study of God) – theos = God
– theology is always a secondary enterprise, primary things are God’s revelation (through scriptures, actions of others– through the scriptures and through the life of Jesus)
– scriptures and their meaning are all subject to interpretation: the theology is the interpretation of these things

Our primary response to God’s revelation should be praise and worship
– secondarily: to seek to understand these things

In a community of belief, it is the community that eventually defines what is clear thinking and what is out of bounds. Several things led to the need for theological thinking:
1- movement of Christianity from a Jewish tradition into a Gentile tradition (Jews has a worldview already that included God’s active hand in the lives of his people. Greeks, however, did not and were more philosophically oriented) Jewish believers accepted Jesus as part of what God had been up to.
2- Gentiles

Creeds developed, from Latin “credo” (I believe)
– Romans 10: Confess with your lips and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord: this was likely a creed
– Things reinforced by creeds: Jesus came in the flesh, was bodily resurrected
– credo of the trinity was being developed, look at the end of Matthew

2 main flavors of heresies concerning Jesus
1- people who say Jesus was a great GUY but not God (emphasize humanity of Jesus)
2- People who emphasize Jesus’ deity

Orthodox thinking has attempted to hold together both views: That Christ was 100% human and 100% God
– Ebionites were one group that defined Jesus as a human primarily
– “Jesus Seminar” curriculum take the this tack also (Jesus was wonderful but in the end just a man)

Trinity
– had been traditions of God as spirit in the OT
– didn’t really hammer out the doctrines until the Councils started meeting, but these thoughts were already developing

Docetists said Jesus was all spirit (all God, not human)

Then came the biggest challenge: Gnosticism
– took hold around the end of the 1st century
– gnosis means knowledge or “to know”
– was a broad movement with several common elements
— 1- sense of secret knowledge (secret knowledge imparted by Jesus and it has been passed along, Da Vinci code is an example)
— 2-

Like orthodox Christians, gnostics did accept idea of one God, salvation
– had a sense of dualism: Universe is setup with balance of good and evil
– they saw spirit as good and matter as bad

Christian view of death is “I will be resurrected” but we still carry some of this spirit good/matter bad in our views
– Gnostics held that if matter is bad then God couldn’t have anything to do with humans
– have weird sense of material and spiritual, and the dualism that permeates gnostic teaching
– the gnostics did hold that Jesus came to redeem the world, but he wasn’t clear in his teachings so you need to get in on the secrets

Some of earliest Christian creeds: earliest written one was Apostle’s Creed
– these were statements that battle these three elements of heresy
– humanity needs salvation by a savior, not by secret knowledge
– salvation is through what Christ DID, not through secrets that he passed along

As church leaders were debating on orthodox beliefs, they had to determine which of the writings that were developing were authoritative

Formative event

Saducees just believed in first five books: The Torah
Pharisees

When did plenary inspiration come in? Mid 19th century. In those days religious leaders did not consider all scripture equally authoritative. Torah could trump later prophetic writings.

Paul used a lot of “echoes of scripture” in his writings (there is a book by Hayes that shows a lot of echoes of the Apocrypha in Paul’s writings)

What does “scripture” mean: something authoritative to you, that guides your life
– for us it has become a closed canon

Bible is formed by the witness of the worshipping community
– self-evidencing power to transform people’s lives
– if it is useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking– it has this “self evidencing” quality– that is how it becomes scripture

Scripture has this ability: it is living an active, sharper than a two edged sword, separates joint from ligament (Hebrews)
– has this ability to be ALIVE
– that is one of the tests you can apply to scripture! Do this! Read some of that stuff that didn’t get included. It does not have the same quality and power
– that is how things become canon
– look at lists of books from early church fathers: Ireneus, Origen, etc (just like with the Jews, everyone includes Torah, most of major and minor prophets, and same was true with the four gospels)
– some cited gospel of Hebrews (none cite the gospel of Thomas!)
– most letters of Paul, first 10 at least
– some others are not always there: Revelation, Jude, others
– some books that we don’t have as our canon: Clement’s letter to Corinth, the Shephard of ____ (at one time these were held up as almost as authoritative of scripture, but they did not become part of the canon)

Apocrypha includes 12-15 books not included in the Hebrew canon
– apparently a dispute between Martin Luther and someone caused Luther to declare that Protestants do not accept the authority of the Apocrypha

One of the earliest lists of these books is dated to 190: The Muratorian Canon
– widely accepted by churches
– is a bit different from the Bible we have now

Books to be included had to either be apostolic or closely associated with an apostle (Mark associated with Peter, and is thought to have written Peter’s testimony)
– mid to late first century for books authorship
– within the next century, we had acceptance

Most gnostic literature was written later
– how were these letters distributed? It is hard to bind that type of material

Marcion developed idea that OT God was bad, and NT God was good
– threw out Matthew
– about 140 he was influenced by gnostics

Montanus around 160 began preaching as a new prophet with a new message about an imminent return of Christ
– this was a lot like Mormonism
– this was a challenge to try and add more to the canon

Key thing: the development of the Canon took place over time as a gradual process
– big question: is it worth dying for? Officials would come to kill a church leader or ask for their holy books
– some books would be kept, others turned over

The idea that Peter was crucified upside down is in “The Acts of Peter” not included in our canon

The development of what we would call a catholic Christianity

Next time: development of leadership of the church and theological thinking

Our Wednesday night dinners and classes at church started this evening, and I joined the “Back to the Future” class that is being co-taught by Ken Rees and John Gruel. It will be a 15 week course, and as a text we’re using Church History In Plain Language by Bruce L. Shelley. This may sound like an extremely dry subject to some, but I am actually very enthused about it– in no small part due to the fact that both Ken and John are fantastic teachers and scholars, and I know I’ll learn a great deal just going to class! However, unlike many of my high school, undergraduate, and (sadly, yes) even graduate classes– I really want to do the assigned readings each week to get even more out of the study. Yes, the road to certain places is paved with good intentions… and I’ve started out courses with similar pledges (“Yes, I WILL do all the assigned readings!”) but hopefully this will be different. The fact that I’ll be able to blog my reflections and notes will certainly help, I think. I considered tonight starting an “Eyes Right” podcast, and among other things I may see if Ken and/or John will let me record and podcast some of their lessons.

Mainly for my own edification (but perhaps for yours as well) here are my re-written notes from tonight’s class. I actually didn’t take a laptop to class (gasp!) and took hand-written notes (a rare occurance for me these days) but that oversight shall be remedied next week!

There are several reasons we are doing this study of church history:

1. To better understand each other! Even in a “Presbyterian” church, we have a very diverse group of members who share a diverse set of religious experiences. It is important to know “where we come from” and where the church has been, to better understand its present as well as its future.
2. We are studying the history of the church to better understand how God has preserved His church. One major evidence of God’s active hand in the affairs of men and women today as well as throughout history is the fact that the church still exists and is strong! At so many points of its history, you would think the church was going to be killed off! Yet it still survives. This is good to know and appreciate, because it is a testament to God’s faithfulness as well as his active role in our lives.
3. As a church congregation, we are seeking to recapture for our own time the real missional calling of THE CHURCH. Like the old kid’s rhyme goes, “The church is not a building, the church is not a steeple, the church is not a meeting place THE CHURCH IS THE PEOPLE!” And we are called to be missional! We are not supposed to go to a church building on Sundays and maybe other days of the week, and just fellowship and be “fed.” We are also to go and SERVE. Studying the history of the church will give us all a better understanding and perspective on what it means to be “missional” today in the 21st century.

Early Roman Church History

The circumstances surrounding the birth of the Christian church really were remarkable and unique. It was no accident that God chose to send his Son into the world at the precise moment of history that he had chosen. Had Jesus lived 100 years earlier, or 200 or so years later, the Roman empire would have been at a very different stage in its development. At that time, Rome was a very unique innovation in the world. Rome represented about 20% of the world’s population and a large percentage of its commerce. Rome’s government was very unique: People could be Roman citizens (like Saul of Tarsus, later to be named Paul) even if they were not born in Italy, and even if they were Jewish. Rome was one of the first truly multi-ethnic states. Jews were even given special dispensations by the Roman Caesars. They did not have to have Roman images in their temples, for example. This was a quid-pro-quo for assistance the nation of Israel had given to Rome in previous years.

Rome introduced roads to many parts of the world, and although these were established primarily for military purposes they also brought many associated benefits. Rome was the first nation with the strength to have a navy which patrolled sea lanes in the Mediterranean, and their suppression of piracy (at least some of it) was a historic first.

The Romans didn’t push their language on everyone. Latin was spoken in Italy, but Greek was the predominant language in much of the Mediterranean and was a common and unifying language to a large extent. About one third of the population in Rome during this era were slaves, and they had a pretty hopeless existance with little chance for freedom. Slavery at that time was NOT based on race. There were many ways a person could become a slave, and not many ways to become free.

People during this era were alert to the idea of a Messiah coming. The Jewish Zealots would periodically have a leader arise who would claim to be the Messiah, and that person along with his followers were violently put down by the Romans. Still, people were attuned to this idea and alert to the possible arrival of a Savior.

When the dark ages came (approx. 500 – 1500 AD) a real window of opportunity for the spreading of the Christian gospel throughout the Mediterranean via the Roman empire closed down.

I HAD SEVERAL THOUGHTS OF MY OWN DURING THIS LESSON TONIGHT, NOT MENTIONED BY THE TEACHER BUT WORTH RECORDING HERE:

• I THINK A CASE CAN BE MADE THAT A “WINDOW” FOR SPREADING THE GOSPEL AGAIN OPENED AROUND 1500 THROUGH THE WORK OF LUTHER AND THE OTHER REFORMERS. TO A LARGE EXTENT, DURING THE DARK AGES I THINK THE PERPETUATION OF THE GOSPEL MESSAGE WAS RELEGATED TO MONKS ISOLATED IN THEIR MONASTERIES. LUTHER BROUGHT THE GOSPEL MESSAGE AGAIN TO STAGE CENTER AND HELPED THE CAUSE OF CHRIST IN MANY WAYS. OF COURSE TECHNOLOGY (THE PRINTING PRESS) PLAYED A HUGE ROLE IN THIS PROCESS OF DYNAMIC CHANGE– WHICH WAS VIOLENTLY OPPOSED BY THE CHURCH WHICH HAD BY THAT TIME BECOME INSTITUTIONALIZED.
• ALL OF JESUS’ TEACHINGS WERE BASED ON THE OLD TESTAMENT. WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT HE DIDN’T HAVE THE NEW TESTAMENT TO REFER TO OR TEACH FROM, BECAUSE IT HAD NOT BEEN WRITTEN. WHEN PEOPLE ASK QUESTIONS REVEALING THEIR MISCONCEPTION THAT THE GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT WAS A DIFFERENT GOD THAN THE GOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO POINT THIS OUT. JESUS WAS THE FULFILLMENT OF OT PROPHESY, AND IT WAS HIS LITERACY OF THE OT (AS WELL AS THE LITERACY OF OTHERS, LIKE PAUL) WHICH WAS PIVOTAL IN CARRYING THE MESSAGE TO MANY OF THE JEWS.
• JESUS HAD MANY ROLES IN LIFE, BUT ONE OF HIS PRIMARY ROLES WAS THAT OF AN EDUCATOR!
• PAUL WAS A WRITER, AN ENCOURAGER, A COMMUNICATOR, AND AN EXHORTER!

Jesus’ message was unique and contrasted sharply with that of many others living at the same time.

• The Essenes were a monastic group that retreated away from the world. Jesus always remained in and engaged with the world. He did retreat at times to the wilderness and other places to rest and restore his body and spirit, but he always returned to engage. This is a good model we should keep in mind and follow in our own lives!
• Unlike the Jewish Zealots, Jesus advocated peacemaking and coexistance with Roman rule.
• The message of Jesus consistently focused on the concept of a “new kingdom.” At times it was unclear if that kingdom was in the present or future, and if in the future in the near or long term. “Kingdom” was a unifying theme, however.

The Sadducees were the elite in Jewish culture because they were in charge of Temple worship. They were very “cozy” with the Romans. The Pharisees’ name means “separated ones.” They were not necessarily wealthy, but were distinguished primarily by their focus on legalism and following the law. They were interested in purity and generally withdrawing from “unclean ones,” which contrasted sharply with the example of Jesus who embraced the sick, the poor, and the ritually unclean. Pharisees were focused on synogogue worship, which had sustained the Jews throughout the Babylonian captivity when the Temple was destroyed and not available for worship.

Jesus didn’t give his disciples a standardized test to measure their aptitudes! He was also very unique in his day because he included women in his circle of close confidants. Leaders selected by Jesus were empowered with a variety of charismatic gifts, which means “gifts of the spirit.” His instructional model included direct instruction followed by internships as the disciples went out two by two, and then came back to report, reflect, and share. Jesus modeled his servant-style of leadership during the Last Supper as he washed the feet of his disciples.

After the death/crucifixtion and resurrection of Jesus, Peter is transformed from a coward and a very awkward speaker to a powerful spokesman challenging established Judaism. In the early church, Christians were called “the way” and both thought of themselves as a sect of Jews and were regarded that way by others. They practiced traditional Jewish customs and rituals but also added their own, like gathering on Sundays to share about their faith.

There were two primary groups of Jews in this era. The Hellenistic Jews were Greek speaking, and had a more rationalistic/scientific approach to thinking. They generally preferred Greek to Hebrew. The family of Jesus was very important in the early years following his death and resurrection. We don’t read much about Jesus’ half-brother, James, during the years of his ministry. However, James played a very important role in leading the early church after Jesus’ resurrection. After Stephen’s death in 36 AD, most of the Hellenistic Jews left Jeruselum for Antioch and other locations. This was a phase of the Jewish diaspora.

Much of the growth of the early church happened in the cities rather than in smaller, rural towns. About 60 AD, Nero led Rome and he really thought he was a “god.” Paul and Peter were both executed in Rome approximately 66 AD as part of Nero’s persecutions of the Christians. Nero blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome. This period of persecution led to a final breach between those who continued to call themselves “Jews” and those who become known as “Christians.”

THIS WAS A GREAT START TO THIS CLASS AND I LOOK FORWARD TO LEARNING MORE! OUR LESSON FOR NEXT WEEK IS TITLED, “PERSECUTION AND ORTHODOXY.” OUR ASSIGNED READING IS CHAPTERS 4, 5 AND 6 OF OUR TEXT, SO I BETTER START READING SOON! 🙂