20 Centuries in 20 Posts Part V - Appendix

The Coming of Christendom Appendix: The Arian Controversy

9th Century Image of the
Council of Constantinople

Intro | Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V a | Part V b |Appendix

Readers of the previous post in this series may have been surprised when they noticed a sizable gap in the history of the third and fourth centuries. While there important political developments that occurred after Constantine’s rise to power in the early 300’s, some famous theological achievements also occurred to. Punctuated at either end of the century by the first and second ecumenical councils, the fourth century had been described as the achievement of orthodoxy. Indeed you are more than likely familiar with the narrative; that in the year 318 “a wicked Alexandrian presbyter called Arius chose to propound a doctrine of relation of the Son to the Father which was completely unorthodox and heretical, and which was condemned by the first General Council of the church in Nicaea in 325, but that by various means the base and crafty supporters of this heretical doctrine managed to keep the orthodox out of influential positions and to continue to propagate their wicked ideas for another 60 years after Nicaea, until, almost wholly through the selfless efforts of a noble and courageous champion of orthodoxy, Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, the their politics were frustrated, their heterodoxy exposed, and the truth enshrined” in the creed of the Council of Constantinople in 381 (Richard Hanson, The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the fourth century AD).

The problem with this account of history is that it bears no resemblance to what happened. Orthodoxy had been passed down for the proceeding three hundred years through the rule of faith, the Roman baptismal creed (which has most likely come to us as the Apostles Creed), the scriptures – primarily the fourfold Gospels, and the gospel itself. But across those preceding centuries emerged different strands relating to the theology of the person of Jesus: North African theologian Tertullian developed an idea of the ‘economic trinity’; Alexandrian Origen talked of the eternal generation of the Son. Even the language used to describe the relation between the Father and the Son – ousia, hypostasis, substantia, persona etc. ¬ had different meaning depending on whether you spoke Greek or Latin. The Arian controversy was one that resulted in determination of orthodoxy, rather than one consisting solely in the defense of orthodoxy.

When Arius’ teachings in Alexandria were brought to attention in 318, he found many supporters, such as Eusebius of Caesarea and the powerful Eusebius of Nicomedia, who understand him standing in one of these “orthodox” traditions. Arius’ doctrine may have been motivated by a rivalry between him and his bishop, Alexander. But at the heart of Arius’ struggle was an attempt to grasp with the metaphysical and soteriological implications of the New Testament’s witness of a suffering God. Exploiting the Hellenic philosophical heritage of the ancient world, the Arian answer to this issue was to postulate the existence of two gods: one high impassable God, and a lesser God who suffered for him. According to the eminent historian of this period Richard Hanson:

“The Arians were among the few theologians of the early church who seriously understood the scandal of the cross. But the price which they thought it necessary to pay for this theology was too high.”

As a lower God, the logos was of a different essence and status to the Father. Using philosophical logic, the Arian position reasoned that the Son, as the first born over creation (Colossians 1:15) was an emanation of the Father. He was important, but in the words of one Arian song of the day "There once was a time when the Son was not".

Nicaea was intended to end several years of back and forth between Arius and his supporters and Alexander and his supporters. Arius was exiled, the doctrine of Alexander and his young deacon Athanasius upheld, and almost all present at the council signed the Creed under Constantine’s pressure for one unified church and empire. But the words of the Nicene Creed only added to the confusion. It taught the Son was ‘from the substance’ of the Father, ‘consubstantial’ with him, and condemning anyone who taught that the Son was ‘from another hypostasis or ousia’. But what these two words meant could be interpreted by different sides. The word homoousios (same substance) was also inserted into the Creed because it had been specifically rejected by Arius. But given it’s etymology in Gnosticism, it too was disputed by the Arian supporters who continued on the fight after Nicaea – the subordinates led by Eusebius of Nicomedia. In its place was proposed the word homoiousios (like substance).

The Nature of the Debate

Athanasius
Patriarch of Alexandria

Debate continued for the next several decades over the interpretation of the words in the Creed. Athanasius (296-373) succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria in 328. He is famously said to have stood alone against the world in his defense of the Nicene position. Athanasius was exile five times over the course of his episcopacy with the rise and fall of theological parties at the Imperial court in Constantinople (although he was also ostracised for a period of twenty years for his abuse of power and use of violence in suppressing his enemies in Egypt). It was a debate that was largely conducted in Greek philosophical categories. All sides appealed to the Scriptures, and biblical language was used by both sides. Both sides then were driven to using the only alternative vocabulary at their disposal: Stoicism, Middle Platonism and Neo-Platonism. There was none other available. But it was language that was used for theological purposes rather than for strictly philosophical ends.

It was a debate that was carried out in the political sphere as well. Each party attempted to bring Constantine and his successors on side.

“And inasmuch as the peace and stability of the Empire was to some extent bound up with the peace and stability of the church, it was virtually unavoidable that the Emperor should become involved. But because the secular power was involved, it does not follow that the controversy was simply a story of man grasping at secular power under the mask of theology” – Hanson.

The majority of the theologians of the fourth century were bishops. They all had pastoral responsibility, charged with the spiritual welfare of their flocks, the men and women who held them account. “They were conscious of a praying and worshiping church” (Hanson). And the words they used to describe orthodoxy come from the word eusebia, which besides meaning ‘true’ and ‘correct’ meant ‘devout’ and godly’. It is a mistake to consider the debate of the fourth century as either an abstracted intellectual exercise, or the political machinations of a few. At the heart Christianity stood both monotheism and the worship of Jesus Christ (rather than the cult of a deified man). This was the faith for which thousands of Christians had in the preceding years died for. The two convictions needed to be reconciled.

Neo-Nicene movement towards 381

The process of reconciliation began in 362. The new pagan Emperor attempted to cause disruption to the church by recalling all exiled bishops. Athanasius returned to Alexandria and used the opportunity to gather Christians from both the Nicene and Subordinate parties. The Council of Alexandria allowed the term homoiousios to be reconciled with homoousios. This provided for people of orthodox persuasion to use homoiousios legitimately when describing the co-equal relationship of the Son to the Father. This was affirmed again at a council in Antioch in 363, and in a letter to the eastern churches from Pope Damasus. This new found unity moved the debate away somewhat philosophical concerns and back to the language to salvation and revelation.

“God become man, so that man might become God” – Athanasius, On the Incarnation

Gregory of Nazianzus
Patriarch of Constantinople

The long term effect of all this was to re-establish the prominence of the term homoousios, and a dispelling of the ambiguity which had been inherent in the term at Nicaea. And so emerged a new ‘Neo-Nicene’ orthodoxy—a fuller and more robust version of the theology which had initially been outlined at Nicaea. This Neo-Nicene faith was embodied primarily in the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus). It was their doctrinal acumen, with the support of Emperor Theodosius that laid the ground work for 381 by shifting the emphasis and grounds of debate. They denied that neither the Son nor the Spirit are subordinate to the Father, but are share an equality that is unaffected by the order with the Trinity. By doing so, they able to argue forcibly for the full humanity and full divinity of Jesus Christ:

 “The unassumed is the unredeemed” – Gregory of Nazianzus

The Council of Constantinople met from May-July 381. The most prominent feature of the Council of Constantinople was the adoption of a creedal statement, reaffirming and clarifying the Nicene position. Constantinople retained the inclusion of homoosiuos, and unequivocally stated the Jesus – and the Holy Spirit – is fully God: one ousia in three hypostases.  This was the solution to questions that had long vexed the church. It gave rise to other problems, such as the incarnation, but it excluded the Arian formulation of a high God beyond suffering and a lower God who may experience pain. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers excluded the use of the pre-incarnate logos as a philosophical device to explain how a transcendent being could come into contact with transience and human experience without compromising himself. Jesus is either wholly God or he is not God at all. This is still the confession of the church through the Nicene‐Constantinopolitan Creed today.

“Athanasius above all recognised that if we take the New Testaments seriously we must concluded that Christ is not a safeguard God the Father involving himself with human affairs, but a guarantee that he has done so” – Hanson .

APPENDIX: Comparision of the Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople*

The Nicene Creed (325)

The Nicene‐Constantinopolitan Creed (381)

We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is from the being of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, will come to judge the living and the dead; And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, ‘There was when He was not,’ and ‘Before being begotten He was not,’ and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different substance or being, or is subject to alteration or change—these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematises.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being, who because of us men and because of our  salvation came down from the heavens, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day, in accordance with the Scriptures, and ascended to the heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom there will be no end; And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life‐giver, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified, who spoke through the prophets; in one holy catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins; we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come. Amen.

* Changes in the Nicene‐Constantinopolitan Creed italicized.

Further Reading:

Athanasius, On the Incarnation.

Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit.

Richard Hanson, The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the fourth century AD, The Making of Orthodoxy, ed. Rowan Williams, 1989.

Richard Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 1988.

Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2001.

To See The World

As Alison was reminded of earlier this year, we live in a beautiful world that has been marred by evil. Even the wide open vistas of regional Australia carry the stain of sin. What we see today is, in the words of David Bentley Hart, the 'long melancholy aftermath of a primordial catastrophe: that this is a broken and wounded world." Yet the hope of the Christian gospel helps us to see the world rightly. That although this world 'languishes in bondage to the "powers" and "principalities" of this age' (Hart), it will be made new; that the trajectory of this world lies in the body of the resurrected Jesus Christ. That this world is not merely "nature", but God's creation, and the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

'To see the world as it should be see, and so to see the true glory of God reflected in it, requires the cultivation of charity, of an eye rendered limpid by love...But what the Christian should see, then, is not simply one reality: neither the elaborate, benign, elegantly calibrated machine of the deists, smoothly and efficiently accomplishing whatever good a beneficent God and the intractable potentialities of finitude can produce between them ; not a sacred or divine commerce between life and death; nor certainly “nature” in the modern, mechanistic acceptation of that word. Rather, the Christians should see two realities at once, one world (as it were) within another: one the world as we all know it, in all its beauty and terror, grandeur and dreariness, delight and anguish; and the other the world in its first and ultimate truth, not simply “nature” but “creation,” an endless sea of glory, radiant with the beauty of God in every part, innocent of all violence. To see in this way is to rejoice and mourn at once, to regard the world s as a mirror of infinite beauty, but as glimpsed through the veil of death; it is to see creation in chains, but beautiful as in the beginning of days.' - David Bentley Hart, The Doors of the Sea, pp. 60-61.

20 Centuries in 20 Posts Part V b

The Coming of Christendom cont.
Intro | Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V a |Appendix

“And now, all rising at the signal which indicated the emperor’s entrance, at last he himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendour of gold and precious stones. Such was the external appearance of his person; and with regard to his mind, it was evident that he was distinguished by piety and godly fear.”   – Eusebius 

The largest gathering of Church leaders ever assembled at that point of time met on 20th of May 325 within the Imperial palace in Nicaea. Over 200 bishops and prelates from across the Roman Empire and the known world had come to Nicaea at the summons of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Although the church had been free from persecution for 12 years, the wounds of the past were still fresh in living memory. This was poignantly brought to mind when Constantine kissed the mutilated eye bishop Paphnutius of Thebes had lost during the last batch of persecutions. Here was the scion of the throne of Augustus, Nero and Diocletian, resplendent in purple and gold, embracing a former enemy of the Empire. The power of Rome was at the disposal of the church, and it remained to be seen how the body of Christ would respond.

It was that question which would shape much of the church’s story for the foreseeable future. Rome was not the first state to tolerate Christians. Nor was Rome the first state to officially accept Christianity as the state religion (which Rome did under the Emperor Theodosius in 391). But this was Rome. And the question of the church and state’s relationship was never far from surface in the theological tensions that punctuated the fourth century. 

One of the immediate responses to “Constantine’s Settlement” was a withdrawal from civil society. The monastic movement had been a growing phenomenon since St Anthony first ventured alone into the wilderness in 270. The monastic movement continued to grow in Egypt and Syria after Constantine’s consolation of power. It has been suggested that this growth had something to do with a growing discontent with the world. The blurring of the church and the world would lead some to maintain their purity in the Libyan Desert. They sought to maintain the separate society of the church amidst a corrupt world. It was this desire which also lead another group out of society.

When persecution broke out in Carthage and North Africa in 303, there were many clergy – including bishops – who handed Bibles over to be burnt by the authorities. With the coming of tolerance in 313, these clerics – described as traditors or surrenders – and other priests ordained by them were readmitted to the church. This was perceived by some as being undisciplined and unorthodox. A group of Christians led by the presbyter Donatus refused to recognise the Episcopal authority of the traditor Caecilian in Carthage, and insisted that traditors needed to be rebaptised and re-ordained. After initially appealing to Constantine to settle the matter, Donatus and his supporters split from the church, organizing their own society and church hierarchy (a similar split had happened in the North African church in the third century: the Novatianist controversy) . With their alternative society, by 350 the Donatist church was the largest church in North Africa. 

Besides withdrawing from society or creating distinct communities, the most common response to the new political situation was to openly embrace it. This can be seen in the many Arian officials who vied for the Emperors support between the councils of Nicaea in 325 and Constantinople in 381. But perhaps the most well known ecclesiastical supporter for the new political climate was Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius’ work gave later imperial propagandists their foundation for giving the Emperor a place in the cosmic divine order. For Eusebius the ascension of Constantine completed Christ’s victory over the Roman tutelary deities. His argument followed the line of many second century apologists; that it was no accident that the church arose at the time when the world had been united under one political power. But Eusebius’s thesis was novel. The political world had been united under Augustus, the spiritual world united under Christ, and Constantine had united both realms in his body. It is with such eschatological certainty that Eusebius writes of the Christian revolution:

“The ancient oracles of the prophets, delivered to us in the Scripture, declare this; the lives of pious men, who shone in old time with every virtue, bear witness to posterity of the same; and our own days prove it to be true, wherein Constantine, who alone of all that ever wielded the Roman power was the friend of God the Sovereign of all, has appeared to all mankind so clear an example of a godly life.”

Constantine’s victory was God’s victory. But had the Parousia come in this Christian Emperor? It was not until the end of the fourth century that an alternative vision began to emerge. It was by-and-large Ambrose of Milan alone who articulated this vision (in the late fourth century Milan was arguably the most important city in Italy). Whilst “Constantine’s settlement” was seen to be a victory over the evil powers – Rome had come to obey Christ – this was not the eschaton. 

For Ambrose, Constantine and his successors might be Christians, but as earthly authorities they belonged to the old order of things. They would one day have to throw their crowns before Christ. Within the emerging movement we now know as Christendom, the task of the church was to remind the government of this. The rulers and authorities would have to one day give account of themselves before the Lord, and they were expected in the meantime to behave as a Christian (O’Donovan, 1996, p 199). And within the emerging Christian society, the church needed to remind itself that it was a separate polity, whose allegiance belonged first and foremost to the resurrected Jesus Christ. It was for this reason that Ambrose refused in 385 and 386 the request of the Emperor Valentinian II to make church buildings available for Arian worship. Ambrose refused to discuss the matter in the imperial palace, arguing that “Matters of faith should be handled in the church before the people.” The laity gathered with their bishop inside the church building, proved their identity as the Christian society. The church building took on a status akin to a modern embassy (O’Donovan, 1996, p 200).

In 390 Ambrose refused to admit Theodosius to communion for several months until he had done penance for the actions of his troops in massacring 7000 people in Thessalonica. Ambrose, who was neither ordained nor baptised when he was selected bishop, was able to require that the Emperor act like a Christian. His theology of church and state would be given further intellectual credence in the fifth century by his pupil Augustine of Hippo.




__________________________
The fourth century witnessed a revolution. It was a revolution won not through strength of arms, but through the obedience of faith as Rome bowed her knee to Christ. It was the beginning of a social, political and religious transformation that grew from the ground up. Contrary to some opinion, Christianity was not imposed from above; when the Emperor Julian attempted to dissolve “Constantine’s Settlement” in 361-363 and restore paganism within the Empire, he failed due to the entrenched nature of Christianity. He complained that:

“These impious Galileans not only feed their own poor, but ours also; welcoming them into their agape, they attract them, as children are attracted, with cakes.”

The fourth century begins the period known as Christendom, that cultural and political era that would last for 1500 years. It has in recent times been remarked that this period more so than any other did great damage to the progress of the gospel. There certainly was a temptation within the fourth century, as O’Donovan has noted, “to see the conversion of the rulers as achieved and complete, and to abandon mission.” But that would be to misunderstand Christendom. “Far from seeing Christendom...as an age in which the missionary challenge of the church became derailed, we have to understand that it was perpetually preoccupied with that challenge” (O’Donovan, 1996, p 197). For 300 years Christianity had sought the transformation of society, as individuals came to Christ. It should be expected than that after such widespread social change, that there would be political transformation too. With the population turning to Christ, it would be expected that their political leaders would seek to govern in such a way so as to confirm with the gospel. But this was never the goal of mission. Political transformation followed social transformation. Across the following centuries the church would struggle with knowing which response – Donatist, Eusebian or Ambrosian – to follow. The challenge was to remember that the new political situation was not the end of Christian mission. 





Further Reading: 
Oliver O'Donovan, The Desire of the Nations, CUP 1996.

Biblical and Systematic Theology

Having come through the Anglican Church in Sydney and the EU at Sydney University, Biblical Theology feels like the air that I breath. The impact of Graeme Goldsworthy's books (such as Gospel and Kingdom or According to Plan) has been massive, so that the phrase "God's people, in God's place under God's rule" can rightly be described as well known and widespread in Sydney. And although there are other types of Biblical Theology out there, such as those developed by Vos, Brevard Childs, or even N.T. Wright, it is the three-stage epoch of Don Robinson, further developed by the likes of Goldsworthy, Bill Dumbrell, Barry Webb etc. that holds sway in Sydney.

Put simply, Biblical Theology is concerned with the movement of Scripture's narrative across time from Creation to New Creation, with Christ standing not only at the centre of this narrative, but also the key to understanding the parts and the whole of Scripture. The IVP New Dictionary of Biblical Theology identifies the following features as being distinctive to Biblical Theology:

• Exegesis. At the heart of Biblical Theology is exegesis. Biblical Theology is concerned with a slow, careful reading of the text within its context. At the centre of this exegesis is Jesus, through whom Biblical Theology makes understanding of both the past and the future.
• Pace. Biblical Theology is a slow, methodical meditation on scripture.
• Unity. Biblical Theology is determind to uphold the unity of Scripture when it exegetes a text whilst also being sensitive to the particularities and complexity of the Bible.
• Time. Biblical Theology is concerned about time, such as when things happened, and unfolding progressive self-revelation of God.
• Genre. Related to all of this, Biblical Theology seeks to exegete texts in a way that makes sense of it's literary genre. Biblical Theology seeks appreciate and understand speech/act.
• Narrative. Biblical Theology traces the story, and not just certain themes within the narrative. At the same time Biblical Theology is interested not only how words are used from across the Bible, but also in following the development of themes throughout Scripture.

However, it has been observed that to be intelligble to society, Biblical Theology often requires the services of Systematic Theology. Biblical Theology, though it can’t escape the cultural influence, attempts first and foremost to be inductive and descriptive. Systematic Theology looks to rearticulate what the Bible says with regards to engagement with culture. Systematic Theology is a logical, topical, hierarchical (of ideas) and synchronic organisation of Scripture.  Biblical Theology traces out the history of redemption, and is profoundly inductive, comparative and diachronic. In organising the data that Biblical Theology has collected, Systematic Theology is then able to intelligble engage with culture.


Most of this summary comes from separate chapters of Brian Rosner and Don Carson, in the IVP New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. 

For further reading: Graeme Goldsworthy, Christ-Centred Biblical Theology.

Christianity in the Public Square

"We are but of yesterday, and yet we have filled all the places that belong to you — cities, islands, forts, towns, exchanges; the military camps themselves, tribes, town councils, the palace, the senate, the market-place; we have left you nothing but your temples."

- Tertullian, Plea For Allegiance

Praying for the World

Out of all the things the Christian church in the west is in need of, books about prayer are certainly not in short supply. There is a plethora of prayer books available, covering everything from the why and how of prayer, to the “who” and “what” to pray for. Litres of ink are spent each year detailing how to overcome blockages of prayer, or using the prayers of others as a model for contemporary prayer life. You can books on the prayers of the Puritans, the prayers of Paul, the prayer of Jabez...the prayers of the past three and a half millennia are examined and dissected in the attempt to produce rich and fruitful prayer lives.

Yet if there is one New Testament passage on prayer that is overlooked more than any other, it would have to be 1 Timothy 2.1-7. Even books that promise a spiritual revolution through the apostolic prayers pay this passage merely a courtesy visit. Perhaps it's due to the exclusion of the church from the public sphere since the enlightenment. Perhaps it's due to our inability to recognise the political nature of the gospel. Whatever the case, the instruction of 1 Tim. 2.1-2 is one we often neglect. And that is a real tragedy; the second chapter of 1 Timothy contains wisdom that, if grasped by the church, would help enable us to not only please God, but also understand God's world and mission.

Paul urges Timothy to "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way." In response to false teacher having arisen amongst the church in Ephesus, Timothy is urged to pray for all people, for kings and all in authority. These false teachers have driven the church apart by their teaching, causing dissension and quarrelling within the church. In particular the teaching and interpretation of the scriptures has resulted in an elitism and introspection within the church. But what they have failed to grasp is God's ordering within his creation (from οἰκονομίαν in 1 Tim. 1.4); hence their instruction to abstain from good parts of God's creation like marriage and food (1 Timothy 4.3). As they don't understand this ordering of the world, they have disengaged from the world and society at large.

However, Paul urges that the church moves from introspection to outwards focused prayer; to turn from being disinterested and disengaged from the world to praying for all people, for kings and those in authority. From this passage we learn three things:

Firstly, the church's concern and care for the world is driven by God's concern and care for the world. This is highlighted four times: i. there is only one God, and he desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth; ii. Christ Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all people; iii. the apostle Paul is a herald of this gospel to the Gentiles (i.e. all people); so iv. it is fit and proper for the church, in every way and in all circumstances to pray for all people. The church is not only to be concerned with its own life, but the life of the world around it. Therefore the authenticity of a church’s love and service of the world will be seen in the way the church prays for the world.

Secondly, governments have been tasked by God to maintain this order, and it is right then that the church pray for those in authority. The gospel declares that Jesus Christ has been given authority other every other claimant to authority and the day will come when those in authority will lay their crowns before Christ. The Bible is painfully aware that governments are able to abuse their authority, seeking to recreate civilisation or extend their grip on power. In such cases the authorities will be held accountable for such blasphemy. Yet verse 2 is entirely consistent with how the New Testament views the role of government, as ministers and servants of God (cf. Romans 13.1-7 and 1 Peter 2.13-17). Whilst they may not have ultimate authority, they still have a divinely appointed role in maintaining peace and justice, and are therefore deserving of the church’s prayer that they would exercise that role with wisdom and equity. This is also a helpful and liberating way for Christians to engage with government. When we disagree with our governments, when they frustrate and disappoint us, when they are unaware that their authority has been instituted by God, and even when they are violently opposed to Christianity, the church is to regularly, and in every way possible, pray for those in authority.

Thirdly, the government’s role in maintaining order and stability enables the church to get on with its business of being the church. Whilst it is quite nice that good government allows Christians to lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity, this is not an end in itself. Paul links the peace and stability that come from good government to mission. As Andrew Errington has written:

“Paul urges prayers be made for government so that people will be able to live in peace – so that people can get on with normal life, uninterrupted by the chaos that flows from the absence of political authority. Interestingly, Paul sees this as right precisely because of God’s desire for everyone to be saved... This makes sense, of course: mission is not aided when people are fearful simply for their survival, or when communication and mobility are impeded. Peace and what is here called “quietness” perhaps free people up to hear the gospel and to engage in the relationships that facilitate mission."

Good government provides the social conditions for the church to freely and without impediment proclaim to all people that Jesus Christ is Lord.

When the Christian community gathers together as the church, during their time together they are to include prayers for all people and those in authority. Praying for the world is an opportunity for each of us to show our love and concern for a world that Jesus gave up his life for. It is an opportunity for each of us to move beyond our own introspection and look outwards to the world. It is an opportunity for us to pray for justice and peace in the world, and to particularly pray for those who are in authority over us who are tasked with maintaining that peace and justice. It is an invitation to move out of our holy huddles and thoughtfully engage the world in prayer. 1 Timothy 2.1-7 is a dense little passage. Paul connects the role and place of government with God’s desire for all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Yet following Paul’s urging will allow us to discern God’s ordering of the world, and so know, love and serve the world as God does.

_______
Postscript: One of my favourite reflections on this passage is this one by Ruth Brigden.
This post is based on a sermon I recently gave at church.

Equip Those Saints!

Rory Shiner, formerly of Frankly Mr Shankly, has started a new series of posts on his church website about "Forgotten Ministry Models". His first post captures an idea I've slowly been coming round too these past couple of years, what Rory describes as the "The Clergy-run church service".

The "priesthood of all believers" is a catch cry of those Christians who have had their worldview shaped by the reformation in some shape or form. But is church the place to express that? What if our church services are the place where believers are to be equipped for ministry, so that they can go out there and do it? You'll find Rory's answer here.

Rory ends by reflecting on the Anglican liturgy (the way to my heart...). He says:

"The Anglican service ends with the priest saying to the congregation: “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.” Quite literally, the clergy told the people at the end of church, “now off you go to do ministry”. That is, they didn’t just serve the Lord in church; they came to be equipped at church to go in peace to love and serve the Lord. Their ministry almost began when they left church. And something about that is right. You might even call it missional."

40 Years worth of Education

Having commenced a formal theological study this year, I sometimes wonder what I've signed up for. Four years can feel like a long time, especially right now when I'm learning Hebrew verb paradigms:

קָֹטַל
קָטְלָה

קָטַלְתָּ

Anyway, I stumbled across a magazine in the college library today that was honouring the ministry of Oliver O'Donovan (he's retiring later in the year). There was a quote from a 2008 report on an Anglican catechism by the Global South Anglican Theological Formation and Education Task Force (which O'Donovan was apart of) that drove home one of the reasons why theological college is and should be a long and thoughtful process:

"The clergy must be ready to think theologically for themselves, and not only say just what their congregations (or bishops!) are expecting. All of them have to be able to go on thinking and preaching, faithfully to the Gospel, for perhaps forty years after they leave college. Some of them will have to take the lead in criticizing and interpreting movements of thought that have not yet even come on the horizon. And they have to be able to resource the theological needs of tomorrow’s church." - Anglican Catechism in Outline: A Common Home Between Us

Again, like Barth's advice for novice theologians, it is humbling to read this.

Christ was Anguish

Christ was all anguish that I might be all joy,
cast off that I might be brought in,
trodden down as an enemy
that I might be welcomed as a friend,
surrendered to hell’s worst
that I might attain heaven’s best,
stripped that I might be clothed,
wounded that I might be healed,
athirst that I might drink,
tormented that I might be comforted,
made a shame that I might inherit glory,
entered darkness that I might have eternal light.
My Saviour wept that all tears might be wiped from my eyes,
groaned that I might have endless song,
endured all pain that I might have unfading health,
bore a thorny crown that I might have a glory-diadem,
bowed his head that I might uplift mine,
experienced reproach that I might receive welcome,
closed his eyes in death that I might gaze on unclouded brightness,
expired that I might for ever live.
O Father, who spared not thine only Son that thou mightest spare me,
All this transfer thy love designed and accomplished;
Help me to adore thee by lips and life.
O that my every breath might be ecstatic praise,
my every step buoyant with delight, as I see my enemies crushed,
Satan baffled, defeated, destroyed,
sin buried in the ocean of reconciling blood,
hell’s gates closed, heaven’s portal open.
Go forth, O conquering God, and show me the cross, mighty to subdue, comfort and save.

- Puritan Prayer from The Valley of Vision.

Advice for Rookie Theologians

"The theological beginner should concentrate on his study in its own right during his few years at the seminary or university, for these years will not return. It is no doubt unwise, if not dangerous, when, instead of such concentration, the beginner flings himself beforehand into all sorts of Christian activities and ruminates on them, or even stands with one foot already in an office of the Church, as is customary in certain countries.

Nevertheless, this admonition does not alter the fact that the service of God and the service of man are the meaning, horizon, and goal of theological work." - Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology, pp. 186-87.

The Word of God is not Bound

"The word of God is not bound. God speaks, and the world is made; God speaks and the world is remade by the Word Incarnate. And our human speaking struggles to keep up. We need, not human words that will decisively capture what the Word of God has done and is doing, but words that will show us how much time we have to take in fathoming this reality, helping us turn and move and see, from what may be infinitesimally different perspectives, the patterns of light and shadow in a world where the Word's light has been made manifest. It is no accident that the Gospel which most unequivocally identifies Jesus as the Word made flesh is the Gospel most characterised by this same circling, hovering, recapitulatory style, as if nothing in human language could ever be a 'last' word. 'The world itself could not contain the books that should be written' says the Fourth Evangelist, resigning himself to finishing a Gospel that is in fact never finishable in human terms." - Rowan Williams, The Martyrdom of Thomas Cranmer - Sermon at Service to Commemorate the 450th Anniversary

The Elizabethan Divines

This is just a theory of mine, but it feels like this second Elizabethan reign has been a golden age for British theology. Not that a British Institutes or Church Dogmatics has been written during this time - don't would be totally un-British. But over the past few decades, they has been an amazing group of theologians lecturing, publishing and serving the church in the UK and around the world. They are all theologians born during or in the period immediately after WWII: Rowan Williams, NT Wright, Oliver O'Donovan, Richard Bauckham, Colin Gunton, John Webster, Jeremy Begbie, Alister McGrath and so on. Building on the work of the like of Moule, Caird, Torrance and Chadwick, they've all contributed to the growth of the church in their own unique way.

As they start to retire, it will be interesting to see who replaces them in the church and the academy.

What Heaven Wants

I've been reading an article for college by William H. Willimon (of Resident Aliens fame) on the power of the Spirit of the Risen Jesus to create unity amongst cultural diversity and plurality.

The gospel is deferential and accommodating to no particular culture; rather, it is indoctrination, inculcation into a new and oddly based culture, namely the church. Thus Peter remembers Joel's prophetic vision of the crossing of gender, age, and social barriers (2:17-18). The result of Pentecostal empowerment by the Sprit is baptism (2:38), adoption by and enculturation into a new people, a holy nation, a light to all other nations, cultures, clubs, and means of human gathering. Thus many interpreters have seen Luke's list of hearers as an echo of the list of nations in Genesis 10. Pentecost is a day in which the linguistic divisions of Babel (Gen. 11) are healed. The same God who scattered the nations in order to prevent a united nations against God, now gathers and unites the nations in a new nation convened by God. The church is a sign on earth (2:19) of what heaven wants.

Willimon concludes the article with these heavy hitting words:

Acts says we are right to see the multicultural composition of our congregations as a kind of test of the fidelity of our preaching. I think Acts would also tell us that, whenever by the grace of God our preaching overcomes some cultural boundary, we are right to rejoice that God continues to work wonders through the word. Whenever we hear "multicultural" we are supposed to think "church," that peculiar cross-cultural people gathered by nothing other than the descent of the Holy Spirit.

It makes we wonder if we in increasingly diverse Sydney would meet this standard. "...[T]he multicultural composition of our congregations as a kind of test of the fidelity of our preaching."

Tremble

I've been working on a sermon for church on Jesus crucifixion. On reflection, I can't think of any other event that has been so consistently mediated upon. This one moment in human history has been the subject had been reflected in poetry, in prose and in paintings. I find that quite incredible. I've had the song "Where you there when the crucified my Lord?" rolling around my head this week - I remember singing it at an early morning church service at Easter a few years ago. But when it's in my head, I always imagine Johnny Cash singing it:

Ash Wednesday

Prayers from the Service of Commination (for Ash Wednesday) from the BCP 1662.

"O LORD, we beseech thee, mercifully hear our prayers, and spare all those who confess their sins unto thee; that they, whose consciences by sin are accused, by thy merciful pardon may be absolved; through Christ our Lord. Amen.

O MOST mighty God, and merciful Father, who hast compassion upon all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made; who wouldest not the death of a sinner, but that he should rather turn from his sin, and be saved: Mercifully forgive us our trespasses; receive and comfort us, who are grieved and wearied with the burden of our sins. Thy property is always to have mercy; to thee only it appertaineth to forgive sins. Spare us therefore, good Lord, spare thy people, whom thou hast redeemed; enter not into judgement with thy servants, who are vile earth, and miserable sinners; but so turn thine anger from us, who meekly acknowledge our vileness, and truly repent us of our faults, and so make haste to help us in this world, that we may ever live with thee in the world to come; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

TURN thou us, O good Lord, and so shall we be turned. Be favourable, O Lord, Be favourable to thy people, Who turn to thee in weeping, fasting, and praying. For thou art a merciful God, Full of compassion. Longsuffering, and of great pity. Thou sparest when we deserve punishment, And in thy wrath thinkest upon mercy. Spare thy people, good Lord, spare them, And let not thine heritage be brought to confusion. Hear us, O Lord, for thy mercy is great, And after the multitude of thy mercies look upon us; Through the merits and mediation of thy blessed Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

THE Lord bless us, and keep us; the Lord lift up the light of his countenance upon us, and give us peace, now and for evermore. Amen."

Guest Post: Ideas About Landscape

A Guest Post by Alison Moffitt. Originally Posted Here.

We're home now. During our long drive we saw lots and lots of beautiful landscapes and I spent a lot of time mulling over the things I saw.

Often I get sad thinking about how the beautiful landscapes I love now might disappear when Jesus comes back. When he makes the new heavens and the new earth, who's to say it will look like the same?

But then maybe when we are completely and finally sanctified and standing with Christ we won't want to look at these landscapes anymore. We turn a blind eye to it now - it's easy to forget that these beautiful landscapes are marred by sin. How many people have been dispossessed for others to take and shape the landscape? How many workers have been oppressed to clear fields and build the dams that divert the water further up the catchment? How many habitats have been ruined and how extensive the environmental degradation for the sake of turning a profit? When you think about it, many of the beautiful landscapes we revel in now are tainted with the greed and opression of past generations.

I'm sure that in the new creation we will have landscapes which are just as beautiful as the ones we love here, but where no one's blood is crying out from the soil.

For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth,
and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.
But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create;
for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy, and her people to be a gladness.
Isaiah 65:17-18

20 Centuries in 20 Posts Part V a

The Coming of Christendom

Intro | Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Appendix

It is no exaggeration to say that the fourth century had (and continues to have) an impact on the church. For three hundred years Jesus words “If they me persecuted me, they will persecute you” had been a feature in the life of the church inside and outside Roman Empire. Yet, as we saw in the previous post, the more the church was persecuted, the more it grew. “The blood of the martyrs,” declared Tertullian, “was the seed of the church”.

The imperial campaign against the church continued in the fourth century. However, by the close of the fourth century Christianity had moved from being an illegal, “destabilising” movement within the empire to the imperially endorsed religion of the state. The paradigm of how the church had related to society and the government for three hundred years suddenly changed. The coming of Christendom, as we now know it, turned the old realities on their head and created a moment of confusion for the Church. Many readers will be familiar with the theological reverberations this caused; the fourth and fifth centuries witnessed intense and often violent theological debates about the nature of Christianity. Who is Jesus, and how does he relate to the Father? We’ll explore these debates much more fully in the post five. In this post, I want to focus on the impact the fourth century had how the church conceived of government and itself. Firstly, let me set the scene.

Background
When Diocletian died in 311AD, the outlook for Christians within the Roman Empire looked grim. As Emperor, Diocletian had instigated a wide spread campaign persecution against the Christians in 303AD, which continued unabated after his abdication in 304AD. What we now know as the Diocletianic or Great Persecution was the last imperial persecution of Christians. It was also the widest ranging and the most violent.

It is said that Diocletian was inspired to renew the anti-Christian actions of the third century when, on a visit to the prophet in Didyma to obtain a divine oracle, he was told the presence of Christians in the empire had rendered the god silent. Beginning on 23 February 303, the feast of the Terminalia, for Terminus, the god of boundaries, the program to terminate the Christian presence within the empire began. In a series of edicts, Christians gradually lost their rights: churches and Bibles were destroyed, Christian senators and soldiers lost their rank, former slaves were re-enslaved, and Christians lost the right to properly defend themselves before the courts. Christians were also forced to make sacrifices to the Roman gods; those who refused faced imprisonment, torture and even death. The fourth century writer Eusebius records that the Roman prisons could not handle the volume of Christians being arrested and ordinary criminals had to be released from prison.

Diocletian’s successors continued to wage war on the Church after his abdication, even through six years of civil war. The decisive moment came in 312AD when the Emperor Constantine defeated Maxentius in the Battle of Milvian Bridge, leaving Constantine as the sole ruler of the western empire. However, Constantine claimed to have freed Rome from the yoke of tyranny in the name of Christ – his soldiers having fought at Milvian Bridge with standards that displayed the "Chi-Rho" symbol ☧, formed from the first two Greek letters of the word Christ.

Over the next 25 years of his reign, Constantine not only made a large impact on Roman politics, uniting the empire under his rule; he has played an important and increasing role in the life of the church: he officially ended the persecution of Christians (in the western empire through the Edict of Milan in 313, and in 324 in the eastern empire); launched a large scale campaign to build churches throughout the empire (such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and the original St Basilica’s in Rome), moved the capital city to Byzantium (dedicating the city as Constantinople solely to Christ and not the ancient gods of Rome); and organised the first ecumenical council to determine the theology of the church at Nicaea in 325.

With one exception, Constantine’s successors continued these policies; in 380 Christianity was effectively declared the state religion of the empire. In 392, with the structure that had supported it for centuries crumbling around it, pagan worship was banned within the empire. Rome – long the persecutor of the church, was now lead by Emperors who not only endorsed but also sought to actively promote the interests of the church.

How would the Christians respond to these new circumstances?



Images:

Top: Christ Between Peter and Paul, 4th century; Catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter on the Via Labicana. "Christ with the book of the Gospels is seated between Peter and Paul. Below, the Lamb is standing in the centre on a hill, from which flow out the four symbolic rivers of Scripture. To the sides are the most venerated Martyrs, with their names: Gorgonius, Peter, Marcellinus, Tiburtius, all acclaiming the Lamb" (Christian Catacombs of Rome).

Middle: The Battle of Milvian Bridge, by Giulio Romano. From the Vatican City, Apostolic Palace.

Bottom: A coin of Constantine (c.337) showing a depiction, and on the reverse his labarum with the "Chi-Rho" symbol ☧ spearing a serpent.

Church and the Word

"The community is confronted and created by the Word of God. It is the communion of the saints because it is the gathering of the faithful [believing]. As such it is the confederation of witnesses, who may and must speak because they believe.

The community does not speak with words alone. It speaks by the very fact of its existence in the world; by its characteristic attitude to world problems; and moreover and especially, by its silent service to all the handicapped, weak and needy in the world. It speaks, finally, by the simple fact that it prays for the world.

The community does all this because this is the purpose of its summons [into existence] by the Word of God. It cannot avoid doing these things, since it believes." - Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology

Sober Words

"The English evangelicals who arranged for Richard Johnson to be chaplain to the first fleet had envisaged the distant new settlement as a place from which the Christian gospel would emanate. Such a thought was hardly likely to have occupied the attention of the first settlers with the exception, perhaps of Johnson himself. It was no doubt far from the mind of the Christians among the convicts, transported across the world against their will.

Yet, however unwittingly, however imperfectly, however inadequately, they did carry the knowledge of Christ to these shores. But the Christian settlers were few and their light was feeble. It is one of the great tragedies of the recent history if Australia that true Christianity was for so long so very difficult to discern in the life of this outpost of a distant nation which called itself Christan." - John Harris, One Blood.

HGP Relfections II

I recently completed a ministry traineeship at Sydney University with the EU Grads Fund and the Sydney University Evangelical Union. Over the next couple of days I'll be posting some of my reflections on the past two years.

Love the Church

"And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church..."

Over dinner at a conference I recently attended I heard a theological college graduand explain his decision to head into full time student ministry in 2012. He said he wanted to be involved in a ministry where he could pastor people, teach the bible and especially see people transformed by the Spirit of Christ and grow in their faith. And as far as he could see, there was no opportunity at all for this to happen in church-based ministry. Hence his move into student ministry.

It was a conversation that made me quite sad. If Ephesians one is right and the church really is the Jesus' body, than the church is something to be loved, and not despised. Jesus is the head, the church is his body, made up of his people, and so you love his church. And I don't just mean your local congregation you meet with on Sunday. I'm talking about the one true holy catholic and apostolic church, the church that God works through to make his wisdom known to the world (Ephesians 3.1-10), and the church that Jesus died for (Ephesians 5).

One of my peculiarities is that I've spent the past five years working parachurch organizations: three years with CMS and two years with the EU Grads Fund/Sydney University Evangelical Union. During my traineeship I've had time to reflect on both organizations and something that has impressed me about both organizations is that they know who they are. They understand that they are not churches, but as parachurch groups they exist to serve the church. Not every parachurch organization remembers this.

For a long time now I've been impressed by how the SUEU and the EUGF have sought to be a blessing to the church. The students in the EU are exhorted and encouraged to not only belong to, but to also thoughtfully serve their local church. The training they receive as students will hopefully equip them to serve not only during their time at uni, but also for the rest of their lives. And vision of the EUGF is to see hundreds and thousands of Sydney Uni graduates flood the church ready to serve wherever they find themselves. It's all about helping the church be the church.

Love the church, because it's Jesus church.

HGP Reflections

I recently completed a ministry traineeship at Sydney University with the EU Grads Fund and the Sydney University Evangelical Union. Over the next couple of days I'll be posting some of my reflections on the past two years.

Jesus is Building his Church

"...I will build my church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it."

Jesus promises to build his church. And he does - in two ways. Sometimes it is like the mustard seed in Mark 4. This tiny, most insignificant of seeds, grows into a tree that is so large that there is room for all the birds of the air to nest in its branches (a reference back to Jeremiah and Ezekiel for the Gentiles coming to nest in Israel). Jesus grows his church as more and more people are brought from death to life. And praise be to God, during my two years we saw over 40 university students put their faith in the risen and reigning Lord Jesus.

Jesus builds his church in both size and breadth. He also grows his church in depth. His church grows as people understand him more and more and live out the implications of knowing him. One of the joys of my two years at Sydney University was being apart if people's lives and helping them in submitting every aspect of their life under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. This may have been in helping students develop a "Biblical worldview" and be shaped by a Christian mind. This sometimes looked like helping students think through how the should think or feel about different things. And sometimes this looked like helping students repent of various deeds and take a different course of action. And though it all people were growing in their faith and conviction.

Jesus is building his church. He's on for church growth; and we should be too. Not even death will overcome his church. Jesus builds his church.