To get a good flow going I would probably get each person to get at least 2 people to make copies of the letter and get each additional person to do the same. What I would like to do is to get a person from each state and see if it’s possible to get “textual traditions” flowing in each state. I would probably include in the letter a return address so that by the alloted time people know where to send this letter to. Realistically I don’t expect more than say 20 or 30 copies but then again if it hits off I could get thousands. Obviously with this in mind I want to think through things and judge the best way of going about this all but before I do it’s best to see if people are interested in getting involved in my “little” experiment.

The idea is to get a rapid transmission of texts while trying to simulate as much as possible the original conditions. Therefore some guidelines are needed such as if you make a mistake and notice it, you cannot rewrite it but mark it and add the correction as a marginal note et cetera. People as well for example couldn’t use lined paper but only blank paper. I would encourage people to make notes and observations on the text as well and see if these are eventually included into the actual text itself. As well it wouldn’t matter who copied the text, it can be whoever is interested and wants to be involved. Young or old, believer or unbeliever; it simply doesn’t matter. People can spice things up if they want to as well. For example they might want to dictate the text to someone out aloud and get them to copy it that way.

Also, some people might want to purposely corrupt the text and make it say something else. Others then may need to look out for corruptions and may need to correct the text to make it more orthodox in its tone. I will probably help things move in these areas by making the text ambiguous in certain areas and use certain techniques to help cause people to lapse into some of the textual errors we see in the NT. All of this is to see how well we would do in the 21st century. I honestly think we will do a lot better not only due to better literacy but also due to English having a lot of handy features such as spacing between words! I won’t know for sure though until we bring this thing to a close :)

Anyways, let me know of  what you think and any thoughts or ideas you might want me to add! Also, if you’re interested in getting involved, shoot me an email.

Until next week, God bless!

One of the most interesting developments within the Church is the focus on Mary. There are numerous theories as to how this all came about but one of the more common ones is that the church was infiltrated with pagan concepts that took over and eventually caused a dramatic shift and change in its theology to place an over emphasis on Mary. I would disagree with this assessment but I will not rule it out completely. I think from what I’ve seen, the development started due to a continually increasing respect held for Mary that eventually shifted gears into a veneration for her.

The reason I would disagree with pagan influence being the primary factor is that these theological developments started too early or too late for any significant pagan influence to occur, at least in my opinion. The development of the concept as Mary as a perpetual virgin, her assumption, her being called the Theotokos and her immaculate conception was all fairly early on. At least within the first 4 centuries with exception to the later which was around the 5th or 6th I believe. These beliefs were held during a time where the church was being persecuted and at such a time where it was more refined and less likely to be infiltrated with half hearted men and women tainting it with pagan concepts. To be a Christian was to be someone taking a risk.

Then you have later theological developments such as Mary being a co redeemer with Christ and a mediator between us and Christ. These concepts can be seen in works of those like Thomas Aquinas who lived in a time dominated by the Catholic church and thus there is essentially no existent threat at the time from pagan influences. Both periods where we see these emphases on Mary develop are times unlikely for pagan influences to creep into the church. What I see happening is the respect for Mary and Jesus continually increasing until the reverence for Christ makes Him less personal and more distant and thus creates a gap for Mary to fulfill; a gap for a mediator. This is somewhat of how I see things progressing but I am by no means an expert.

Anyways, without any further introduction I’ll briefly describe some of the above doctrines and wrap up with an interesting observation concerning Mary in the Catholic Church.

The Theotokos

We see at around the middle of the 3rd century that Mary is beginning to be referred to as the “Theotokos” which can be translated as “the God bearer”. She is consistently referred to as such and the terminology was crystallized so to speak at the 3rd ecumenical council in Ephesus where the alternative title ‘Christotokos” (Christ-bearer) was rejected and labeled as heretic (as it was seen to split Christ into 2 separate natures). The title though used to simply be respectful obviously led to further adoration of Mary.

What’s interesting at this point is though Mary is referred to by this title she has not yet been given the other attributes we would commonly ascribe to her from the Catholic position. For example whilst Augustine refers to her by the above title it is interesting to note that at one point he refused to comment on her sin nature due to respect for her as the mother of Christ. This would imply he doesn’t believe she is sinless. In other works of his we see as well mentionings that Christ alone is sinless.

Perpetual Virginity

Another concept that developed early on is that of Mary’s perpetual virginity. It’s interesting to note that the most famous source for this concept is not within scripture itself but within a pseudepigraphal document called “The gospel of James”. It’s within this work where we see Mary as a perpetual virgin. She marries an widower (Joseph) who already has children (thus explaining away Jesus’ siblings in those troublesome gospel narratives) but he doesn’t touch her. She gets impregnated with Christ and continues on as and dies as a virgin.

By the time we get to the 4th century this doctrine is cemented as can be seen in numerous church fathers who attest to this doctrine. The only real exception I am aware of is Tertullian who in the 3rd century wrote against the belief but other than him we see a general consensus for this view of Mary as a perpetual virgin.

Assumption of Mary

We see that by about the late 3rd to early 4th centuries in apocryphal writings that Mary was assumed to have ascended to as Christ did in the early verses of Acts. I guess the development of this doctrine was an outpouring of the respect for Mary to emphasize her devout and holy life. When people think of those raptured up into heaven they think of Christ but also Enoch, Elijah et cetera who were holy men of God. This development though not as early as the above seems to indicate a progression of thought that would affirm my position that this was a gradual development based on good intentions that went bad rather than pagan influences.

Immaculate Conception

This teaching is begun to be seen at about the 5th century and once again seems to indicate a gradual development of thought. The doctrine concerning the  immaculate conception refers not to the birth of Christ as many think (and what I thought as well until recently!) but it actually refers to Mary. It teaches that Mary was born sinless. The reasoning behind it I imagine is that in order for Christ to be born sinless he needs not only a sinless father but also a sinless mother and this fit the bill. Of course it also helps to further emphasize  her as being a holy and devout saint which ties in again with the earlier doctrines and teachings.

Co-Redemptrix

This is where things start to get interesting. This concept (though not officially Roman dogma, yet) basically teaches that Mary partakes (at least indirectly) in the redemptive work of Christ. This and all the other teachings tie in together as a knot helping solidify and further push Mary more and more into the spotlight. The reasoning behind this is that since Mary gave birth to Christ willingly, suffered with him under the cross and was willing to sacrifice for the benefit of mankind, she should basically get a little bit of credit. From what I can see the earliest reference to this concept is by Pope Leo XIII in reference to the works of Thomas Aquinas. If Thomas Aquinas did believe in such a concept he was alone for the most part from what I can see until Pope Leo XIII and like the concept of Mary as a mediator didn’t really take off until the late 19th to early 20th century.

As we can see the Roman Catholic church isn’t done with Mary yet and I suspect that this will soon become official Roman Catholic dogma definitely within my lifetime, and perhaps along with a few other developments as well to boot.

Mediartrix

Lastly we see Mary being held as a mediator between Christ and man. As her being a co-redeemer we see that this doesn’t really seem to take off until the late 19th century though we see traces of it early on in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and some early church fathers. This development is the ultimate conclusion once you begin to elevate Mary. The problem lies in that many things work together to get a doctrine like this into place. On one hand its the gradual increase of respect for Mary and on the other it’s the increasing reverence of Christ that creates a gap for her to fill. Christ becomes more and more distant and impersonal and displeased with mankind that we need an intercessor for our intercessor.

I think what helps shift theology towards an impersonal God is ritualization of church practices and the use of icons and statues for the use of worship. Though once again they tie in together I see them being vicious circles further causing man to move away from the real personal God to images and castings made by man. This though is another topic for another time.

Conclusion

So in conclusion we looked at some aspects of early church thought concerning Mary and some developments that have really solidified today in the current Roman Catholic Church. One additional thing that I find interesting, almost a side note is that after Papal Infallibility is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, some of the earliest teachings declared infallible concern Mary. These being her Assumption and her Immaculate Conception.

It’s amazing at how much of a focus we have developed on her since the writings of scripture. It’s amazing to see someone who is barely mentioned in scripture (and I don’t think referred to by name at all by the Apostle Paul) has become so idolized.

Anyways! Until next week, God bless!

A few week ago I posted on some of the hierarchical developments that progressed until it became the Roman Catholic Church. This week I want to focus on some of the development of theology and emphases in certain thoughts that led to the Roman Catholic position that we know of today.

Baptismal Regeneration

I don’t know which one of these would of been the first to have been emphasized but this or the works aspect would be good candidates. Very early on in the church we see a correlation between baptism and forgiveness of sin. Most thought that baptism would offer forgiveness of original sin and other past sins and thus we see that more and more people begin to get baptized later on in life as this thought gets developed. Some people like Constantine left baptism until their deathbed to ensure forgiveness of all sins up until that point.

Unfortunately in the early church the only real reaction against this we see is from Pelagius who unfortunately didn’t believe in the necessity of baptism only because he didn’t believe in original sin. He also didn’t believe in sin nature and thus man was entirely capable of his own volition not to sin any further. I’d have to have a look as to how this thought was developed but perhaps passages like Luke 3:3 would of moved people towards this view.

Jewish Responsibility for the Crucifixion

It’s hard to sometimes whether or not texts have an influence on people’s thoughts or rather the thoughts are an indication of thoughts currently held. I think a bit of both is true. We see in apocryphal scripture a further and further emphasis on the Jews and their responsibility for the death of Christ, it in fact soon becomes to be outright hatred for them.

We see this view being emphasized in apocrypha like the Epistle of Barnabas and even in the writings of certain church fathers. It’s due to this we see that by the middle ages a great resentment towards the Jews. It’s in cases like this where the epistle is a litmus test of Christian thought of the day but also a propagator of further hatred by its view as scripture up until a formal canon is developed in 367AD.

Monks Retreat

Unlike the other theological developments I find it hard to find a scriptural basis for the development of the thoughts that lead to people seeking to becoming monks. I mean, the closest figurehead would perhaps be John the Baptist but even then a single figure who features in very little of the gospel narrative to have such an impact is quite amazing but perhaps its cause is otherwise. I have heard as well that another reason for its development could be due to the lack of persecutions after 313AD.

Up until that point one would express devotion to Christ through martyrdom but such an option was no longer available. Now living for Christ in an ascetic lifestyle was but one’s only expression of faith and reliance. It’s definitely something I should look into. Once again like the rest of the developments here there is an early emphasis and some of the church fathers that had great input into the church (i.e. Jerome) were monks. Once again it’s easy to see how popular individuals who sought monasticism to express their devotion to Christ, impressed others to do the same.

Sexual Repression

As above we see this as an indicator of Christian thought of the day due to several apocryphal writings like the Acts of John and the Acts of Paul and Thecla where celibacy is praised and held as a virtue. In some writings (like the Acts of Paul and Thecla) salvation is obtained through chastity and celibacy. It’s easy to see how some of the writings of Paul were over emphasized and this position developed. Unfortunately due to these writings and views any expression of sexuality was considered carnal and corrupting to a person, even within a marriage context.

Works Emphasis

We see very little grace in the early church. An early emphasis of works is given and grace is almost left out of the picture. I think it was J.B. Lightfoot who said something to the effect of “The only person who understood the Apostle Paul in the early church was Marcion, and even he didn’t understand him”. We see this in the works of various church fathers and we see this in various debates in the early church. For example an early problem was whether or not Christians who recanted the faith during persecution should be allowed back into the church. A significant minority thought not. It’s very easy to see the thought of “faith without works is dead” lead to the development of works + faith = salvation.

Conclusion

I hope this was yet another beneficial look into church history for you all. I seem to be on a roll with this subject :) I just can’t help myself though. I’ve been obsessed with the topic and it’s been on my mind constantly. Once again I look forward to any further input or insight or even suggestions on some topics within church history that y’all might be interested in me delving deeper into! Anyways, hope y’all enjoyed it! :) Until next week, God bless!

Note: Before getting into the post I want to clarify a few terms. When I say “orthodox” I don’t mean it as in the view held by the Orthodox Church but I use it in the sense of it being what is “true”. When I say “heterodoxy” or “heterodox beliefs/systems” et cetera I am referring to any non orthodox view of Christianity which can also be called “heretical” or “false” views. When I say “proto-orthodox” I refer to the set of beliefs held by those before these modern scholars believe they became the dominant and thus “orthodox” beliefs.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading, listening and watching concerning the following topic and after finishing up listening to the “Early Christianities” side of the story, I want to share some thoughts overall about the subject coming from the view of the general consensus.

Overview

One of the more common views seen today is the view that orthodox Christianity wasn’t always the predominant “Christianity”. What I mean by this is that for the most part the general consensus was that orthodox Christianity was the pure bred version of Christianity that sprouted from Jesus Christ’s teaching and then after time aberrations occurred which resulted in various heterodox belief systems up until about the 4th century when “proto-orthodox” Christianity became dominant. These heterodox teachings up until this point were considered small offshoots that never really took root and that proto-orthodox Christianity was always the dominant view.

However in writings from the early 20th century up until today there is an increasingly popular revision on church history that considers this view to be spurious. It states that after the death of Jesus Christ various groups of people looked back at the teachings of Christ and came to different conclusions. So at the very beginning of Christianity you have various branches of understanding that were going about and you notice that by the 2nd century the most predominant forms of Christianity practiced in various Christian hotspots are actually heterodox forms of it. There are very few areas that actually have predominant areas of proto-orthodox practitioners outside of Rome, though you see the Roman church seeking to influence other churches. This they argue was due to the wealth and power the Roman church had due to their ever increasingly growing members taken from the Roman elite that had both power and money to throw around.

So with that in view, I’d like to point out some flaws I see in this theory.

Heterodoxy within Scripture

Heterodox beliefs are found within the NT scripture. We see various writers writing against and refuting heterodox beliefs. Heterodoxy has been there from the get go and it certainly isn’t something new to the church. The church has been exposed to such issues early on and it continues even today to fight against heterodox beliefs. Such evidence however doesn’t prove the point of critics in that Christianity must of had multiple sources. What we see in the NT scriptures is that these heterodox teachings are not common place or even massive opponents but rather they are simply serious errors. The view given is that of a general consensus with an infiltrating force trying to find its way inside.

Early Heterodox Use of Scripture

Reasons to suggest that such heterodox beliefs are minor offshoots (at least in the beginning) is the fact that early heterodox systems used proto-orthodox scripture as the basis of their teachings. Groups such as the Ebionites and the Marcionites used proto-orthodox scripture albeit with necessary modifications to suit their teachings. The creation of scriptures for each heterodox system isn’t seen until approx mid 2nd century. Up until that point they are piggybacking off the proto-orthodox lifelines. It would seem somewhat unusual for the  predominant heterodox systems to hitch onto scriptures of what is argued to be a minority group at the time. The fact that these heterodox systems are using proto-orthodox scripture, at least early on is an indication of the proto-orthodox position being the predominant view, even early on.

Late Development of Heterodox Scripture

The development of heterodox scripture is seen to have developed after the creation of the NT canon. The NT scriptures are seen to have been completed even with unbelieving critics (like Ehrman) by the close of the 1st century. We don’t start seeing heterodox scriptures until much after that point and even then the nature and character of these writings closely resemble proto-orthodox apocrypha. By that I mean they are unlike the NT canon quite legendary in terms of the miracles performed and the narratives told. Other developments seen as well is an increasingly growing hatred for Judaism and an attack on any expression of sexuality (i.e. Chastity was idolized and often married characters in the narratives are seen taking vows of chastity to keep themselves pure et cetera). These writings lack the distinguishing marks of the accepted scriptures.

Also, since I’ve been primarily dealing with other heterodox systems I wanted to comment on Gnosticism.  We see that the development of Gnosticism (which according to these critical scholars) which was a predominant view wasn’t actually centered on Christianity to begin with and actually had its founding outside of Christian teachings. Gnosticism was blended with Christianity and thus Gnosticism as we now understand it was born. Evidence that leads us to this conclusion is the findings of the Nag Hammadi library which included Christian and non-Christian versions of these Gnostic texts.

Disregarding Early Church Records

Eusebius was an early church father and considered as well as the father of church history. It is thanks to this man that we know what we do about most of these heterodox systems. If it wasn’t for his lengthy and detailed descriptions we wouldn’t have known that anything but orthodox Christianity existed in times past. It is only recently due to the findings of some texts that we can somewhat piece together ourselves a bit of these heterodox systems. Even now though, the many books he has quoted from and named remain unknown to us except by his mentioning of them. Yet, this very man who gave us all this knowledge is criticized as doing a shifty job at piecing together church history. It is charged that he edited history to make it look like that his belief system (proto-orthodoxy) which had by his time starting becoming dominant  recorded it as having always been dominant. The main evidences to support this as already mentioned is the predominance of heterodox Christianity in most of the Christian “hotspots”.

Conclusion

While I believe that in the history of Christianity that heterodox systems have grown in and out of prominence that by no means discredits the orthodox position. As I have already mentioned before, there are things toconsider that show that the proto-orthodox position was an early and dominant view. To quickly cover those points again (and add one more):

• The earliest Christian scriptures are that of the proto-orthodox position
• The earliest heterodox systems used proto-orthodox scriptures with modifications to suit their purposes
• The development of heterodox scriptures are much later than the proto-orthodox
• To argue for a multi-source theory we must discredit an otherwise credible man
• The predominant apocryphal scriptures found are that of the proto-orthodox position

Anyways, I hope that gives y’all something to chew on and hit me back if you wish to dialogue on these points at all. I definitely want to clarify any misunderstandings or possible errors in my post.

Until next week, God bless!

So without any further delay, let’s take a quick look at these 3 areas!

Doctrinal Development

In the early church there wasn’t a consensus on what books were to make up the New Testament until the 4th century. Up until that point there were disagreements over various books of the NT and people made little distinction between canonical and non canonical books. Both were kept and used, obviously with different levels of authority in mind. People didn’t really make it a priority to agree on what was canonical until their lives were on the line. During different times of persecutions sometimes Christians were forced to give up the scriptures to be destroyed otherwise it would cost them their lives. The last thing someone wants to do is lose their life over a non-canonical or even spurious piece of Christian writing.

We also see heresies help develop the understanding of Christian doctrines that we hold today. The early church dealt with numerous heresies but probably the most known would be those dealing with Gnosticism and Arianism. These errors and others helped form a consensus of the orthodox view of Jesus Christ as both man and God, the trinity, salvation, Christian living and so forth and so on. Some of these errors almost seem to be mincing with words but when we think about it we realize that these errors though at first glance may not seem so serious but if we follow them to the logical end we have grave problems. The early church went through the hard work for us in working out all the finer details in all these various doctrines.

Spiritual Development

You generally know someone is serious about something when they pursue it despite the fact it costs them. It can be time, money, friends, family or even their life. The early church suffered persecution on and off until the beginning of the 4th century when the Edict of Milan was passed allowing Christians to freely worship. Yet this persecution was to a degree a blessing in disguise. It helped keep the church filled with serious Christians. You didn’t have very many half hearted Christians in those days and it helped create an environment that was spiritually minded. The Christians were known for their love towards one another and for their good works.

When the church was made the official state religion it became quite advantageous to be a Christian. Obviously in such an environment it is easy to see how Christianity quickly spread and people began to take Christianity less seriously than they did once before. The spiritual zeal was lost in the overall feel of the church over time and developed into what it is today in the Roman Catholic Church. The same has been seen throughout history whenever conversion becomes beneficial for the masses, whether that is socially, politically or even financially. Where my parents are from the Ottoman Empire invaded and conquered the region and put everyone under subjection to their rule. If you were not a Muslim you had to pay extra taxes, you were viewed as inferior and had less say concerning the law (i.e. a Muslim’s word was taken with greater weight than a non Muslim), you were ostracized from society and in every which way and it’s not surprising to see that about half the population converted to Islam.

Practical Development

Practically, and this may not seem (and probably isn’t) as important as the other 2 points but conflict help develop the church in practical ways as well. Things that we take for granted in most churches with regards to our services were fought over in earlier times. Though quite recent in comparison the the early church, it was still many years ago for most of us. Music is a good example. Were songs allowed? If so was it only hymns? What instruments were allowed and were they considered worldly? More recent issues we’ve seen in today’s churches include the use of projectors and Powerpoint presentations. All these things were (and to various degrees still are) all practical things that the church fought over. Even radio and television broadcasts are good examples of technology being used in a practical way to the glory of God was at one point hotly contested. These points admittedly are still debated in some circles but the church as a whole has moved forward through these controversies and has helped it think through these things with a biblical mindset when it was taken for granted beforehand.

Application

I realize it’s very easy to say conflict and persecution are blessings in disguise without having to go through all of it myself. It’s almost a back handed comment when you’re telling someone who has seen people die for their faith that it’s a blessing in disguise. In saying all this though, I know in my limited experience that the trials and conflict I’ve went through has helped to develop me and in some cases develop the people around me. I think it’s important to realize the good that God brings out through tough circumstances. This is not at the expense of the hardship we go through or the hurt we are feeling or had felt.

So the next time we’re involved in some sort of trial we should see this as a time of personal development that the Lord has provided and we should work through it seeking to glorify Him in the process. In the years to come such issues that are hotly debated today have been fought and won and taken for granted in that generation of Christians just like we take for granted what the church has fought hard for us today all those years ago. Let’s look to the future and more importantly to God through these times.

Until next week, God bless!

One of my lecturers has a saying that goes something like “Everything heads toward decay”. This of course is not just true in the physical sense but also the spiritual. I guess you could say he had a very pessimistic view of churches as a whole but it is rarer to see a church move from error to truth than to see it slip away from the truth into error. Unfortunately, slipping into error doesn’t require one to take massive giant leaps. It is often small steps, so small in fact that it’s hard to say “Now is the exact point they entered heresy”. The same is true with the Catholic Church. It’s hard to say when it was and when it wasn’t but most would say that be the time of Pope Leo I it had all the general fittings we would ascribe to the Catholic Church.

There are several factors that helped pave the way to Catholic Church and none of these things in of themselves were “wrong”.

The Universal Church

One of the key contributions to the development of the Catholic Church is the sense of unity the early church had. Churches worked together and supported each other and had a sense of oneness that we have so very little of today. From the writings of Ignatius we see very early early on the sense of unity. He was the first to call the church “Catholic” which means “universal” and from his writings up until Cyprian we see this drive towards this concept of unity amongst all the churches. With Cyprian’s writings we come across the quote “He can no longer have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother”. It’s hard to say what he really meant by this comment. It could be that he was talking in a spiritual sense (i.e. the invisible church) but regardless of his intentions it’s easy to see how statements like this help shift the church in the Roman Catholic direction.

Hierarchical Leadership

It was not very long after the founding of the church that a hierarchy started to develop within the church government. By the time of Ignatius we see that the Bishops and Elders were split into two different roles with the Bishop at the top, Elders following and Deacons coming last. This development occurred early on as it was understood that the role of a Bishop and Elder were two different offices as opposed to clear scriptural teachings regarding the fact they are synonymous roles. With time the hierarchy developed and the roles in church leadership became a prominent position not only within the church but within the community. At first in the early church it was non uncommon to have slaves as elders in a church with their masters as members. However with the development of the hierarchy it became less and less likely for the lower classes to have such positions.

Authoritative Positions

Even earlier than the above developments we see an emphasis on submission to church leadership. We see this from the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Cyprian and so forth. Submission to church leadership was important in the early church’s eyes and alongside the developing hierarchy it is not hard to see how the two combined can become a force to be reckoned with. Submission was seen as important to help keep unity within the church as well as help protect it against error. With time there arose a dichotomy between the laity and the clergy and they were eventually seen as two separate rather than interconnected groups.

Apostolic Succession

Thanks to the works of Cyprian and others the focus on Apostolic succession became great in the early church. The intention behind Apostolic succession was to guard against error. It was figured by the early church that if they could trace a decent back to the Apostles they would have themselves an untainted and pure line of descent that would guard themselves against error. After all it was figured if someone allowed another to succeed them you would think they would only allow one who shared their beliefs into that office? Obviously their mentality did not produce the fruits they were seeking after.

First Among Equals

The last and defining point of the Catholic Church is the rise in power of the Roman Bishop to whom now we would call the Pope. It’s not hard to see this occur after looking at the focus on church hierarchy and the authority given unto them. In the early church there was several key churches that had been assigned some sort of authority I guess you could say. However with time and for various reasons these authoritative churches fell out of the scene and left only the church in Rome for others to seek guidance. Alongside the writings of Jerome and Cyprian we see an emphasis on the Roman Bishopship.

Conclusion

So with these points in mind we can see how the Roman Catholic Church came into being. While some of these points were probably not the best step there are some that were actually really good steps but combined together all these tiny steps started heading down the wrong direction. Though they may have had good motives as the saying goes “The path to hell is paved with good intentions”. Now as with all things the development of the Catholic Church was a complicated task and it wasn’t just due to the church in of itself moving towards this direction but external forces did also come into play which I did not deal with in this post. A further shift in the authority of the church for example is when it became the Roman state religion in 381AD.

Application

As individuals and as churches we need to be very careful with the steps we take. Each individual step doesn’t seem like a big deal now but after the succession of many little steps we may be in a position we couldn’t have imagined seeing ourselves in all those years before. I thought I’d add this thought in since I didn’t really elaborate on this point last week but we really need to judge our motives when we make dramatic shifts on our position on some thought. This application doesn’t just apply to music but most every area of our lives. The steps we take regarding our jobs, our friends, our entertainment and our hobbies all can cause a shift in the wrong direction if we are not careful. We need to be discerning and we need to be careful about every decision we make.

So, until next week, God bless!

Throwing Down the Gauntlet

Okay, I’ll be straight up. I think music is amoral. I don’t believe any particular note or set of notes can be classed as moral or immoral. I know for a fact that this teaching isn’t found in scripture but I’m willing to see if there is any principles people think you can derive. I do believe however the moral quality of the music is affected lyrically. Without the lyrics the music is plain. Now of course I know people may disagree with me but I’d like to see scriptural arguments to prove me wrong. There is nothing that I can see that suggests music has a moral quality or *gasp* we must listen only to Christian music.

What About Association?

Now the common rebuttal that people throw against this view is “What about association!?!??!?!?!?”. In other words can I grab a R. Kelly, Michael Jackson, 2Pac, Justin Beiber, Rihanna or Eminem song and chuck Christian lyrics to it and still have it being a “moral” song? My answer is: Uhh.., yeah! Association isn’t enough to class something as sinful (food offered to idols anyone?) though someone with a weak conscience can sin if they chose to listen to such music if their conscience tells them otherwise.

Rockin’ the Church

Well, won’t the church be turned into a house of entertainment if we used all those modern music styles? Church will always be entertainment for some people and music can be one of those ways. As with any change we should always ask ourselves: Why? Depending on that answer we might not be able to introduce that particular music as it won’t be for God glorifying reasons.

Let the “Discussions” Begin!

Anyways, let’s get this show on the road. I may not be the most knowledged in this area but I’d love to see other viewpoints and perhaps we can all engage in a meaningful dialog?

Until them, I’ll be listening to some Lecrae ;)

Until next week, God bless!

When we’ve had tragedy hit us we are quick to respond out of emotion to those around us. As the saying goes “Hurting people hurt people”. This can and generally does make a bad situation worse. This is especially the case when we are experiencing hurt from a loved one. We may react more violently than we would to the average John Doe if they did the same thing.

Breaking Bad News

I do a lot of reading online. I come across a lot of atheist, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Christian cult websites. I also read sites that promote different theological viewpoints to what I hold. In my reading I come across a lot of testimonies of Christians changing views or former Christians who leave the faith because they’ve become atheists or their lifestyle conflicts with Christianity and they don’t want to give up the former.

Almost unanimously those people have had negative experiences relating this news to their loved ones, especially their family. Time and time again people are ostracized, given ultimatums, yelled at and threatened. I’ve read of people who have barely declared that they are no longer Christian who have family members screaming violently at them that they are going to burn in hell. Some even seem to say it with a grim satisfaction.

News Flash: Wrong Reaction

The way we react will leave a profound impact on these people. If people are leaving the faith, we’re confirming what they have believed to be true; Christians are hypocrites. If people are changing their views that are sacred within “Cultural Fundamentalism” and they are treated as anathema by those whom they use to have tender fellowship with, once again they’ve confirmed in their minds the falsehood by the obviously bad fruit resulted of such views.

It’s understandable that we are hurt. If someone is moving away into what you perceive to be error it can be extremely painful to see them do such a thing. This of course tempts us to react in anger, frustration and as a result attack the people we love. Sometimes these wounds do not heal and we have to live with the consequences.

Breath in and Breath Out

Being slow to speak is a great advantage in such situations. Respond in love. Let them talk and reaffirm your love for them. This is something they have probably long feared to tell you because they wouldn’t know how you’d react. They’ll feel relieved to know despite your differences you still love and care for them. Of course this doesn’t dismiss your differences and you can let them know you don’t agree but leave the debate for another time when you both calm down emotionally.

If you’re not familiar with the issue, research it. Look at the issue from multiple angles (I can assure the other person probably has done the same, so study up) to get an in depth grasp of the issue. Depending on your background you may be completely oblivious to certain viewpoints. Rest assured though that there are a lot of books on the many topics that could possibly be brought up.

Whether the issue is theology, music, dress, translations, mental illnesses or even *gasp* homosexuality you will find resources on the issue coming from a wide spectrum. Spend time reading up on the issue and touching base with the person. Once you’ve got a grasp of it or if you are already familiar with it; open up the dialogue with them.

Conclusion

I don’t claim to be an expert in such issues but I’ve read time and time again the accounts of many people who experienced negative reactions and what they would have liked to have had happen. In my own personal experience I’ve had to struggle with my family and I’ve lost friends due to my beliefs.

This is nothing compared to what I’ve seen others go through so I am almost embarrassed mentioning it but I do so to say this: In the situations I’ve been in I would have liked it if the people I knew responded this way rather than emotionally. Ostracization is probably the most painful reaction and I suggest at the very least you don’t respond in such a manner.

Personally, I’ve got a habit of responding emotionally to personal hurt but I’m working on it and whilst doing so I encourage people now to begin reading up on various issues in order to be able to respond biblically when the time comes. We may very well not let loose but if we haven’t a biblical answer to their perceived problem than that isn’t much good either.

Until next week, God bless!

I’m throwing my thoughts out here so to speak, but what do you think of when you think about “The will of God™“?

Many Christian, both young and old have a continual struggle “discerning God’s will for their lives™“. They may spend a lot of time praying and seeking counsel and reading the Bible and reading many good Christian books and so on and so forth on this seemingly never ending quest to discern God’s will for their life. This isn’t even for their ultimate path in life either. It’s also for their careers, future partner, church ministries and so forth. People sweat drops of blood in intense prayer to find this ever so elusive will of God™.

Often times preachers get up without really explaining what God’s will is and how to find it, but they will inform you that if you don’t know what God’s will is than you are probably in sin. That’s helpful! Time is wasting away and we never seem to find God’s will. We don’t even know what we are looking for either. Is it a feeling? Is it some sort of miraculous circumstance that cannot be explained otherwise? We don’t know. The only thing we do know is that we don’t know :)

Finding the will of God

Now, I might be sounding a little “radical” here but I think God’s will is not as elusive as we make it out to be. For example, how many of us discern “God’s will™” to find out what we should eat for breakfast? Do I pray and fast many hours before hand earnestly seeking to find out whether God wants me to eat Coco Pops or Rice Bubbles? I trow not. How about what you wear to work or school? Maybe you do it when you consider how you are going to get to work? Perhaps before you read your Bible so you know what to read for that day? I could go on but I think we get the point. We don’t need to get a “clearance” with God for every little thing that we do. That’s a given.

So how does this apply to our lives ultimately? Well, I think (and once again I could be “radical” here) God doesn’t really care what you do with your life. I mean that in the nicest way possible. Now of course I curb that statement with “so long as it’s not sinful™“. Whoever you want to marry, whatever you want to do for a job or whatever field of education you want to choose; it’s all open to you.

The only restrictions God places there that I’m aware of in scripture is that whatever you do mustn’t be sinful nor should it take precedence over God or your church life. God hasn’t reserved a single job for you, nor has He reserved one sole person to be your “soul mate” and neither is there one vocation He has in mind for you that if you choose wrongly will result in a “time out” in heaven.

Conclusion

Now does this mean we shouldn’t pray, seek counsel or read the Bible in relation to these matters? Of course not! What I am saying is that you will pray away your life if you’re waiting for God’s will to smack you in the face. I also add that we need to choose wisely. If I’m good with technology, then a job in the I.T. industry is probably down my alley. If I love computer games but I don’t even know how to install the games; I would probably get a job in something else or further my training first.

Same applies with relationships. Just because there is nothing wrong with marrying any girl (or boy) so long as she is a Christian it doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t apply wisdom to the relationship. Do I really want to date an attractive girl who though she is a “Christian”, despises church, gossips incessantly, nags, doesn’t read her Bible and has a critical spirit? This applies women seeking men as well. Just because I have the freedom of choice doesn’t negate my responsibility to make a wise choice.

Would love to hear your thoughts, after all I may be way off center!

Until next week, take care and God bless!

Authorized 1611 King James Bible

This is the Pulpit Edition (in other words it’s massive in size) of the original printing of the KJV. It was amazing to look at especially since according to what I knew, there was no complete editions of the 1611 left, but apparently not. It’s probably hard to see in the picture I got (because the quality sucks; I used my iPhone) but the written English is very different to our English today.

Namely, the spelling isn’t standardized by this point in history so you see “fear” spelt as “feare” and “prophesy” spelt like “prophesse”. Also noticeable is it appears to use some letters that don’t exist in current English. For example the letter “s” in “goodness” and the first “s” in “Psalms” uses a letter that looks life it’s an “f” but without the horizontal line. Also those words are spelt differently as well when compared to modern English.

What I found cool as well was the fact that what I presumed to be more of a modern invention was the pericopes at the top of the page. These basically give a summary of the content on the page. Also, on the inner and outer columns you will notice small writing, this writing is in fact translators notes. It’s amazing because they read exactly like modern translators notes. Lastly, and this is purely artistically speaking the styling of the first letter of every chapter looks really well done. I’ve always liked the look of these stylized letters.

The Saxon Gospels

The Saxon Gospels are written in Saxon (obviously :P) which is basically an early form of English. The text is probably too small to read (feel free to shoot me an email if you want the bigger pictures) but this is unreadable to the modern English speaker. I have as much luck reading French or German as I do reading this. Admittedly, I can read some of it but it’s mostly incomprehensible to me. This is made even more difficult by using characters that we no longer use in English today.

It’s really amazing how much English has changed in the last 1000 years. At least early English translations like the Tyndale, Geneva and the KJV are still readable to some degree but this is beyond a joke. I think that the few hundred years that passed from this form of English to that of the Reformers would have been incomprehensible to them as it is to us. I think this shows the importance of updating our translations continually otherwise what was the common translation all could read becomes the translation only the elite read (i.e. Latin Vulgate).

Anyways, moving from that rant I also wanted to point out that there is an English translation of the text in the outer columns if I’m not mistaken :)

The Geneva Bible

This Bible is not only awesome because it’s the Bible of the Puritans and of the early English settlers in North America but this particular Bible that is on display is supposedly the former Bible of a Mr. William Shakespeare. The influence of the Geneva Bible is seen in some of his plays and there is no doubt that this was the translations he used during his prolific years. There is debate as to whether or not this is a genuine copy of his Bible but there are a few reasons that would push one to consider it genuine.

Firstly, there is the initials “W.S” inscribed on the front cover and a (illegible) signature in the front pages. The Bible is littered with his initials alongside many verses as well as notes and commentary written alongside some that bear likeness to his handwriting, if it is a forgery it is a cleverly done one. Lastly, the Bible was given to the Bible society through an individual who got if off one of Shakespeare’s ancestors (via his sister). With this all in mind it seems quite likely to be his Bible. Nevertheless it’s still breathtaking to me to see something so old so well preserved, regardless of whether or not it was truly Shakespeare’s Bible.

The Polygot Bible

I’ve saved my favorite one until last. The Polygot Bible is a Bible that consists of numerous translations of scripture, including the original languages. It came in several volumes and the first volume is here for display. The languages contained in this edition are: Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, Persian, Latin and Samaritan. All of the languages are accompanied with a Latin translation of the text. I found the Hebrew, Syriac, Latin and Persian fairly easy to read. The Greek and Latin was too small for me to really read it properly and the Samaritan was in between those extremes.

Though I have a limited grasp of these languages it nevertheless puts me in awe looking at this historic text and see the amount of diligent work put into writing it. It was all done by hand and you can see the care put into trying to make it as readable as possible. Funnily enough, the curator told me that if you look further into the book you can see the author getting tired and therefore a bit more sloppy with his margins :)

Conclusions

Today is the last day there, and after this I’m on my way to check them out again. I’d encourage you to check them out if you get a chance (they’ll be going  back to Canberra I believe after this) and stand in awe of our Christian history. Feel free to ask any questions  you may have and I’ll answer them to the best of my ability. Also, feel free to email and request the photos (I’ll be taking hopefully better ones today). God bless and take care until next week,