The Early Evolution of Christianity The first 400 years LENT 2015

Whoever does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in flesh is an Antichrist. Whoever does not acknowledge the testimony of the cross belongs to the devil. Whoever says there is no resurrection or judgement is Satan’s firstborn child. (Polycarp Phil. 7.1-2)

How judgmental is that!

It is often stated that Jesus was the originator of Christianity. It is perhaps more logical to state that Christianity developed as a response to his teachings. However, that view is also simplistic. The story is much more complex.

The establishment of Christianity as a formal “religion”, with its associated Institutional structure, various creedal statements and liturgical practices, has emanated from the designation of Jesus as, in some sense, supernatural and possessing miraculous powers with the view that he was to “come again”. Indeed, many still believe that he may yet do so!

But the story is also one of power struggles, philosophical disputes, politics, intolerance and opposing religious concepts. Not only following the death of Jesus, but continuing through history. And continues to the present day.

Many would prefer to regard Christianity as absolute and unchanging. However, if one looks at its origin and development, that is clearly not the case. It should, perhaps, be more properly considered as a religious/philosophical phenomenon which has always been, and still should be, in evolution. As should be all systems of belief and faith. Change is the only constant. But the hierarchical institution of the Christian Church seems to take pride in adherence to ancient beliefs, restrictive statements of faith, historic creeds and tortuous religious language which has become largely meaningless. Such a practice is counterproductive to the advancement of personal spiritual and religious thought.

A reasonable question is---“How did the convoluted, supernatural religion of “Christianity” evolve”?

JESUS AS A REBEL

Prior to the birth of Jesus, there were several religions which were dominant. These included Judaism , Buddhism and the ancient religion established by Zoroaster which dates from the beginning of the first millennium BC. But there were many others, particularly from the East, which involved the concept of multiple Gods ( with Christianity subsequently attributing the derogatory term “Paganism”” to encompass those ideas---Fox). With the “Silk Road” as a trade and ‘ideas” route traversing through the homeland of Jesus, it is likely that Jesus would have been exposed to a multiplicity of views in addition to those which he gained from his Jewish Heritage (Vermes).

His teachings and concepts were certainly not unique. Historically, virtually nothing is known about Jesus. His predominant, yet quite brief, teaching legacy is his parabolic and other teachings, at least as far as those have been

recorded. However the written records concerning his activities were not set down until many years after his death. Accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

But what seems undeniable is that he had the strength of conviction and character to challenge established Jewish ideas and the priestly authority of his time, together with the powerful, punitive and mind-controlling concept of God. As such, Jesus was regarded as a significant threat by the Jewish priestly hierarchy, a potential destabilizer of their authority, a rebel and, at times, an aggressive and unacceptable irritation. This despite his message being centered around his concept of God as a loving “Father” rather than a punishing God who was to be feared and to whom sacrifices needed to be made.

As a result, Jesus was condemned by the Church to which he belonged and was handed over to the ruling Roman authorities and recommended for trial. The result, based on allegations made, was crucifixion.

That should have put an end to the matter. But it did not.

THE JEWISH/JESUS MOVEMENT

Prior to his trial, Jesus had gathered around him a group of men whom he encouraged to spread his message in the event of his being put to death. As a result of their efforts, the period after his death saw the development of people within the Jewish tradition who started to become accepting of his teachings. Instruction to the Jews concerning those teachings was carried out by the Apostles, primarily in Jerusalem (Frend), apparently with James as their leader (Tabor) in accordance with the wishes of Jesus prior to his death—if the record in the Gospel of Thomas and the subsequent writings of Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius are accurate. This was the Jesus Movement---also known as The Way. It did not seek to detach itself from Judaism (Wilson).

Then, from AD30 to AD50, it would seem that many of those within the movement started to spread beyond their Jewish homeland into Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece and Rome as they travelled and resettled. And, within these 20yrs, these Jewish followers of the Jesus philosophy formed small groups and began to mix with non-Jews while James continued his leadership work in Jerusalem where he continued trying to pass on the message that Jesus had proclaimed (Vermes). However, the ultimate fate of James was death at the hand of the Jewish Sanhedrin in AD64. James is recorded (Tabor) as being thrown from the Temple enclosure into the Kidron valley where he was stoned and beaten to death (Josephus, Eusebius and Hegesippus). Clearly, the Sanhedrin did not approve of his work.

But these very, very small communities remained under the umbrella of powerful Roman rule and were not, at least at this stage, regarded as being particularly significant, nor being adherents of a new religion. The title “Christian” was certainly not applied to them. They were still Jews----- but with a Jewish understanding of the new Jesus movement.

However, a dramatic change was to come.

AN ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT

Paul, traditionally regarded as a Jewish tentmaker from the port city of Tarsus, was born a Roman citizen. He is not recorded as ever meeting Jesus, yet his life and work after a curious “conversion experience” changed everything.

Approximately 7yrs after Jesus’ death (Tabor), Paul saw a blinding light “from Heaven” and heard a voice which he believed was that of Jesus. This changed him from someone who had been employed by the high priest to persecute and suppress the followers of

Jesus into one who subsequently and passionately devoted his life to proclaiming him! Paul became convinced of the reality of his “supernatural” experience and the nature of that remains unquestionable to many believers. To them the story is fact. But not to all.

Another explanation is possible. Following research into the neurobiological function of the Temporal Lobe of the brain, it is now clear that aberrant, transient electrical activity in that area of the brain, often following periods of personal stress or crisis, can produce the personal illusion of a God experience, often with visual and auditory correlates (Persinger). Such a phenomenon is compelling and convincing to the person who has had that experience. The phenomenon is perceived by that person as being really real.

In the case of Paul, whether this is to be regarded as God/Jesus speaking directly to him, (as many Christians would believe), whether the story is written in mythological terms (Bultmann), or whether his “experience” was due to spontaneous or induced aberrant activity within his Temporal Lobe is irrelevant. Paul was converted. His letters, which date from the 50’sAD, namely 20yrs or more after the death of Jesus, give an indication of the ideas and concepts which he developed during a long period, perhaps up to 17yrs, he seems to have spent in obscurity somewhere in Arabia and Damascus following his “conversion experience”.

His views contrasted with those of James and the early “followers”(Wilson) who had been endeavoring to incorporate the teachings of Jesus into the Jewish ways of thinking and practice. Paul began to portray the crucifixion as a moment of glory and Jesus as the one who “gave himself for our sins” and “rose from the dead”, thereby becoming “Saviour”. He preached this during his travels among communities of non-Jews (Gentiles) in Asia Minor, and, in addition, stated that converted Jews should be free to abandon their adherence to Jewish Law and escape the need for circumcision. He thereafter maintained a measure of contact with these groups through letters, some written by him personally and others being attributed to him, but still espousing his views which were to bring him into conflict with the teaching being conducted in Jerusalem.

Had the views of James predominated, the history of Christianity would have probably remained centered within Judaism. But it did not. It took a very different, more supernatural path.

In order to understand the background to the story, it is worth mentioning that Paul had grown up in a port city with a mixed population of pirates, seafarers and worshippers of Mithras (Wilson). The Mithraic mystery cult had, as a distinctive feature, the ritual drinking of the blood of a slain, sacrificed bull or the drinking from a chalice of wine as a symbolic representation of power and new life beyond the grave. Sacrificial salvation. Paul must have been conscious of these practices. Also, he was, as a Roman citizen, familiar with the fact that Rome, although tolerant of various religious beliefs and religions, had developed its own form of Imperial Theology in order to legitimate Roman rule. For instance, Octavian became “Augustus”, meaning he who is to be worshipped and revered. He was also heralded as “Son of God” and “Lord” and called the “saviour of the world” who had brought “peace on earth”. His birth was the beginning of the “gospel”, the “good news”. Stories were told about his Divine conception and these titles were used by his successors. Roman domination was regarded as being divinely inspired. All this was mixed with Paul’s claim to have Jewish heritage and an educated knowledge of Jewish literature and prophecy, a claim disputed by several modern Pauline scholars (Maccoby).

It has been stated that “out of his despair and agony, Paul created his powerful myth” (Maccoby). But whether that is correct or not, the environment and religious background of the time certainly provided a powerful linguistic context for much of the early Christian language about Jesus. Jesus as the “Son of God”. Jesus as “Lord”. Jesus as “Saviour”. Jesus who brings “Peace on Earth”.

The Roman political system had become intolerable and this way of thinking about Jesus provided many with a way to cope with oppression and look towards the glorious future that they believed their God had promised. A religion was about to be born at a time of political crisis and a time when the end of the world was considered imminent. Two powerful motivations. The new message was that it was God’s son who had died on the cross for all people, both Jews and non-Jews (once the circumcision debate had been resolved), and had been resurrected to heavenly glory to sit at God’s right hand. This would ultimately become the Christian “message”. But not without conflicting views, hostility and loss of life---including that of Peter, but also of Paul by execution after a period of imprisonment in the reign of Nero, perhaps in AD64.

James, Paul and Peter. Now all dead. What next? Certainly many arguments, disputes and the evolution of a literature and an ecclesiastical hierarchy which reflected and adopted the views of Paul rather than those of James.

EARLY DISPUTATIONS

The total number of people within the very small, widely scattered communities of Jesus followers numbered only about 2000 by the year AD 60 (Borg). But writings by a wide range of authors from AD 50 to AD 300, including a limited number from AD 50 (the first letter of Paul) to AD 150 (2 Peter) which are in the New Testament as we now know it, recorded and often dramatised the “gist” of events relating to stories about Jesus as well as recounting something of his teachings. Based on oral transmission and being produced over so many years after the crucifixion, these writings must inevitably be regarded as containing inaccuracies of memory. But there was, in this 250yr period, an additional tendency to record issues and events through the use of mythological language, to incorporate key ideas which were ready at hand from the Old Testament, to re-interpret those ideas and to then to apply them to Jesus and his mission in order to harmonize the apostolic message with the ancient prophecies (Kelly). Using the past to create a new and inspiring story.

At this early stage of the 1st Century, none of these writings were regarded as authoritative. Certainly not in the way that the Jewish Torah was regarded by all Jews, including Jesus! Some now seem quite bizarre, though were clearly considered as sacred by their adherents. But they were certainly not considered to be divinely inspired at the time. And that included the books of the Christian New Testament as we know it. As such, the teaching of the emerging Church was being drawn from the Prophets (who were simplistically regarded as having predicted “The coming of the Lord” in advance) and the Apostles (who were preaching “The Gospel” of Jesus as they understood it).

It was through this claim of having an oral link ( either directly or through a defined chain) to the Apostles that the concept of “Church Tradition” started to emerge. “Tradition” became defined as that which denoted the body of “unwritten doctrine which the Lord bestowed, the Apostles proclaimed, the Church Fathers safeguarded and which was committed to the Church”. Thus creating a second strategy of Church authority, the first being the authority of ancient Scripture. That of the New Testament was yet to be added.

All this, either wittingly or unwittingly, provided the basis for the next phase of intellectual combat and opened the door for a multiplicity of interpretations from the latter part of the 1st Century.

Not surprisingly, power struggles began to develop. This erupted during the Pre-Nicene period as a number of influential intellectuals appeared on the scene. These early “theologians” attempted to construct their individual versions of reality on the basis of their perception that Christianity could be regarded as a “religion of revelation” and was “the world’s only legitimate faith” (Wright). They also claimed that it required special interpretation. By themselves! But they, of course, had a vested interest in making such a claim.

A more extensive and more formal Church hierarchy followed, developing from the early 2nd

Century onwards (though this emerged slowly and at different times and in different locations). Once this was established, it was officially promulgated that the “ministers of the Church”, by virtue of their endowment with “the true Spirit”, were “divinely authorized custodians of Apostolic teaching” and that the Bishops were the “guarantors of purity of Doctrine” (Kelly)---“doctrine” becoming the formal word applied to the teaching of the Church. This started at the beginning of the 2nd Century, thereby imparting to Doctrine a special significance and authority. Heresy was also now invented. Ignatius warned that those who dissented were to be cast out. Heretics, in his view, were those who “mix up Jesus with their own poison, like those who administer a deadly drug in sweet wine” (quoted by Wright in his book entitled “Heretics”).

The times were changing. The priests which Jesus had come up against were now being replaced by a new, formidable, ecclesiastical class seeking power within embryonic Christianity. Wars of theology became waged by Christians against Christians (Hodges).

“Rules of Faith” started to be laid down and excommunication, even at this early stage, became the penalty for non-conformity. The Didache (The teaching of the Lord through the twelve Apostles to the Nations-- 2nd Cent AD or earlier) disappeared, until rediscovered in 1883 (Chadwick), though indicating a form of “faith” more in accord with what Jesus had proposed than that which Paul had conceived. And Irenaeus of Lyons began to claim that the “Tradition of the Church” was independent of the written documents and had been “committed orally” to the Church by the Apostles. But the concept of “Tradition” was yet to be elaborated upon.

As the Church became more authoritative, it began to claim that it held the “Canon of Truth”, was “the home of the spirit” and that “correct exegesis was (its) prerogative’ (Kelly). The right to interpretation was limited to a few intellectual elite, though both Irenaeus and Tertullian steadfastly maintained that their own ideas were all based on the “absolute authority of Scripture and (that) whatever it taught was necessarily true”. The power to determine correct teaching was now captured by the hands of a few.

But even major philosophical issues could not be agreed upon. Not what constituted a “Church”, an acceptable “belief” structure, or a formal “Christian religion”. Added to this, the Bishop of Rome, who had purloined the title of “Pope” (though this title had been in common use elsewhere), elevated the status of the long deceased Peter to that of first Pope despite the assertion that Peter was never a Bishop of Rome. The “elevation” itself was pronounced in the 2nd Century prior to a canon of scripture being decided upon (AD 367) and prior to a definitive Creed of acceptable belief being agreed upon (Nicea AD 325). The blatant aim was to justify Rome’s prestigious position over fellow churches (Norwich) and to lay total claim to having “Apostolic Authority” (AD 256). It was an ingenious strategy (Farrar). The struggle for power was taking over. Christianity was becoming progressively institutionalized.It is therefore not surprising that, in due course, anger built up.

The now “lost” religions of Adoptionism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Docetism, Marcionism, Montanism, Monophysitism, Monotheletism, Gnosticism and the views of the Ebionites all appeared. But the so-called “orthodox” group, which slowly became dominant, adopted an attitude of persecution against all who did not agree with them, with arguments being put forward by those who are now now referred to as the “Early Church Fathers”. These included Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna (grouped together as the Apostolic Fathers), Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, and many others including the Greek Fathers, the Cappadocian Fathers, the Latin Fathers and the Syriac Fathers together with John Chrysostom (Archbishop of Constantinople) and Cyril (Bishop of Alexandria). Not that all agreed with each other!

The simple intentions of James, now dead, had been marginalized. Paul’s concepts had stirred up a “hornet’s nest”. This could not have been anything like that which Jesus had envisaged or intended. The question is—What were the factors which caused things to get to this point?

EARLY WRITINGS

The “New Testament”, together with what was “in” and what was “out”, was clearly part of the problem! Of itself, it provided a fertile field for endless speculation. And to this was added the curious claim of the Christian Church that it had “inherited”, from Judaism, the concept of the “Divine Authority of Holy Scripture”, namely that of the Old Testament. This term was subsequently applied to the New Testament after it had been canonized “as an authority co-ordinated with the Old Testament”. It was then considered that both Testaments were “written by the Holy Spirit (with) the human author serving as God’s instrument (and) exempt from error and containing nothing that was superfluous (Kelly).

But there were a great many other quite fascinating writings, revered by many devout people as sacred, that did not make it into the “New Testament”. At least 17 non-canonical gospels, 5 non-canonical Acts of the Apostles, 13 non-canonical epistles and related writings, 7 non-canonical apocalypses and revelatory treatises and 5 works under the classification of “canonical lists” (Ehrman). These are now readily available and illuminate the religiosity and culture of the period. However, the group who promoted the books which were ultimately included were trying to achieve concord, asserting that theirs was the only legitimate faith (Wright). They regarded themselves as right. Alternative beliefs were then totally regarded as ”Heresy”. All other books were cast aside.

But it should also be noted that it took 400yrs before a final form of canonical agreement was reached, despite the earlier efforts of Irenaeus (martyred AD 200) and Athanasius (in AD 327). And even then, there was no absolute unanimity (Kelly). It is therefore quite illogical to hold the view that the New Testament is the authoritative “Word of God”. It was, is, and remains a collection of writings, many by authors unknown, which were put together after long, hard, harsh and heated debates by an internally diverse group who held sway. It was they who, unwittingly, became the facilitators of Christian orthodoxy. Further, the way that the books of the New Testament were ordered effectively disguised the obvious evolution of thought. If one studies the books in chronological sequence, rather than as encountered canonically, a curious theme emerges (Borg). It may then be seen that ideas and stories clearly changed over time. A progressive series of theologically motivated traditions emerged as the decades became removed from the place and time of the crucifixion (Tabor). If one book is to be selected, it is the Gospel of John, written some 60 yrs after the death of Jesus and with its use of evocative religious language, which really began to influence and shape the ancient Christian understandings of Jesus. But such understandings tell us very little about how Jesus viewed himself (Borg).

The New Testament itself emerged out of human religious and intellectual conflict. God had nothing to do with it! It is therefore misleading to think of it as “The Word of God”. it is the interpretation of these writings by the leaders of the early Church which largely determined the present Christian system of belief. Those “leaders” subsequently contrived Doctrines which were regarded as authoritative and essential to what it was to be “Christian”.

CLASSICAL CHRISTIAN TEACHINGS

Initially, “Rules of Faith” began to be formulated during the Pre-Nicene period from the close of the 1st Century. These represented the progressive emergence of set beliefs, particularly about the nature of Christ. But this period of the Early Church was one of the most befuddled in Christianity’s history. Ideas about which texts were acceptable, about

how to confront the Jewish past and about the very identity of the “Son” and “The Father” were getting out of control and gathering momentum (Wright).

The ideal of a single, unified “Christian Faith” must have seemed elusive. How could a viable religion be based on the “unknowable” (God) and incorporate the “Imponderable” (Jesus as Man but also as God’s own Son, resurrected after experiencing a sacrificial death on behalf of the sins of others who, in any case, had free will). This would normally be regarded as impossible. If one was cynical, one could say that a possible solution would be to------ Establish “Doctrines”; set up a Creed (even if only under political pressure); excommunicate those heretics who disagreed; create an era of persecution; use psychological scare tactics; offer Salvation to the select group who believed; offer personal resurrection after death and a wonderful “life everlasting” with heavenly reunions and even sex (yes! That was seriously debated as a possibility), and offer the opportunity to meet up with God.

That would be a terrific plan. After all, the Church needed a way to exert its authority and, in any case, the end of the world was at hand. The future of Christianity was at stake.

Believe, be saved and have life everlasting after death. Reject and be dammed in Hell. This was a powerful formula----though not deliberately constructed as such. An “Insurance policy” emerged which was simply too good not to take up! No wonder the Christian message spread like wildfire.

Assistance came through Constantine who legalized Christianity in AD 313 following his Milvian Bridge success. Christians could worship freely and the content of the “rules of faith” statements became more hotly argued. The debates reached their climax by AD 320 with the flaring up of Arianism (Kelly). This looked like destabilizing the Empire! So much so that Constantine took steps to unify his empire, requiring the formulation of a “Nicene Creed” in AD 325, largely to refute the views of the “early christianities” (Schaff). But that was not the end of the matter. Arius and his followers fought back and the Bishops went on teaching as they had before (Armstrong). Greek philosophical thought was also having an influence through Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus who were all trained in Greek philosophy.

Accordingly, in AD 381, Theodosius convened another Council, the Council of Constantinople, and a Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed emerged as a modification of the Nicene Creed, thereby raising the status of the Holy Spirit and trying to construct a form of words to better express the details of required belief. But this was passed only after a period of chaos (Freeman) in relation to the chairmanship of the Council and after the learned Gregory of Nyssa had been replaced by Nectarius (“an elderly senator….who appeared to know no theology”).Thereafter, Theodosius would not tolerate further dissenting views (though this revised creed was not formally assented to until 70yrs later at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 51). He issued a decree that all his subjects were required to subscribe to a belief in the Doctrine of the Trinity, perhaps the most mysterious and tortuous of all Doctrines of the Christian Church (Heine). The imposition of the Trinity had become an Imperial matter and the vast resources and estates of each diocese were only distributed to those Bishops who moved within the boundaries of the imposed formula (Freeman). Looked at retrospectively, this was an exercise in bribery and coercion. The edict of Theodosius defined Christian Orthodoxy and brought to an end all other interpretations which were declared as heretical. Further free thought was suppressed. The Church had acquiesced in the face of the power of the Emperor.

Classical Christian Systematic Theology would state that this Doctrine is totally “peculiar to the religion of the Bible” (Hodge). However, it should be noted that pre-dating the time of Christ or Christianity, God had already been worshipped in the form of a triad or “Triune God” in regions as far distant as China , Mexico, Egypt, India, Tibet and the vast deserts of

Siberia. The number three was sacred. Indeed the ancient emperors of China sacrificed, every three years, to “Him” who was regarded as ”One and Three”(Doane). The idea of calling the second person of the Trinity the “Logos” or “Word” also predated Christianity. It was an Egyptian feature---- if Bonwick’s “Egyptian Belief” is correct (quoted by Doane).

It has been written that “to say that the Trinitarian doctrine is incomprehensible is to say nothing more than must be admitted of any other great truth, whether of revelation or science”(Hodge). If has also been formally stated that “the Trinity….should not be seen as a literal fact but as a paradigm that corresponds to real facts” and that “it only (makes) sense as a mystical or spiritual experience…..being not a logical or intellectual formulation” (Armstrong). All those hours of debate, argument, trashed reputations and political pressure---yet a document that is, and remains, incomprehensible and can only be “grasped intuitively and as a result of religious experience”. Yet a Doctrine to which intellectual assent was, and still is, required.

Beyond 400yrs The desire of the Church to impose its will continued. More Doctrines emerged as the relationship between God, Jesus and the Sprit were further pondered over, together with the issues of sin and original sin---around which the presumed meaning of the resurrection and the concept of salvation revolved. But Jesus was a particular problem. How could he possibly have two natures and, if so, at what times. Subsections of Theology emerged, including Bibliology, Christology, Pneumatology, Soteriology, Anthropology, Hamartiology, Angelology, Ecclesiology and Eschatology. From these, more Doctrines emerged and Christianity became a religion of Dogma and Doctrine. Indeed the only one in the Roman World (Ehrman).

This plethora of doctrines was built upon upon the constructs of the early Theologians. In reality, it was they who had led the claim to revelation and tradition under the umbrella of the Church which had self-styled itself as the only authority. At the time, anyone who disagreed was a heretic, but this was particularly so from the end of the 4th Century by which time most of the major requirements of “the true faith” had been set.

Through all this, the early Church had begun to adopt the title of “catholic Church” in the early 2nd Century (from about AD 110) as a means of claiming universality under the leadership of Bishop of Rome. Power started to become centralized through the Pope as the self-styled “Vicar of Christ on Earth”. The Papacy became an “absolute monarchy” (Norwich). This power increased, both in theory and in reality, with the implementation of excommunication, the threat of purgatory, the use of canonical penances and the practice of indulgences, all while teaching that it was “the one true Church”.

But eventually, in AD 1054, there was to develop a massive split between the views of the Eastern Church and the Western Church, resulting from a long series of ecclesiastical and theological disputes together with, after another 500yrs, the emergence of Protestantism after the 16th Century reformation. Dissent was always rearing its head.

The Catholic Church fought back. At Vatican 1, in 1867-1870, the statement of Papal infallibility and the establishment of the Magisterium became powerful. Speaking infallibly, Pius IX introduced the doctrines of the immaculate conception of Mary and the assumption of Mary. In addition, he elaborated upon the concept and structure of the “Magisterium” in determining authentic teaching (of the Catholic Church). And then recently, following Vatican 2 in the 1960’s, the Apostolic letter “Solemni Hac Liturgia” of 1968 (Paul VI) appeared, subtitled a new “credo of the people of God”. This was put forward as a “solemn utterance…to be, to a high degree, complete and explicit…(for) the need of light…by all those in the world….who are in search of the truth”. It ends with “Blessed be God Thrice Holy. Amen”.

Christianity is now the Worlds largest religion with 2.4 billion adherents of which, in 2011, catholics were estimated to number 1.214 billion (in other words 17.5% of the world’s population). An astounding testament to mind-control (Sargant) and authoritarianism with the addition of imaginary, but highly attractive, promises in relation to salvation and life everlasting. It was the dominant influence on Western Civilization from late antiquity to the dawn of the modern age. Great good has resulted----but also great harm and, through prolonged periods of its history, the suppression of knowledge through adherence to ancient Doctrines, the major ones of which began their development in the first 400yrs of the Christian era.

THREE QUESTIONS

“Most clergy, never mind lay people, ….are baffled and bewildered by the frequently confusing vocabulary of Christian Theology (and) the apparent unintelligibility of much writing in the field” (McGrath).

To that I would add the problems of finding authors who do not have vested interests, preconceived ideas and beliefs and the focus on a particular readership---be it atheistic, fundamentalist, literalist or academic.

But the conclusion must be that the early period of evolution of Christianity as an institutionalized religion and philosophy, with its core of Doctrine, Dogma and Tradition, was almost totally determined by power struggles, philosophical disputation, politics, intolerance, opposing religious concepts, authoritarianism and vested interest.

Personal belief clearly did play a part, but so did human self-interest and elitism. Very little had to do with Jesus other than as a subject for debate and analysis. The subject of God, the key to all Theology, was taken for granted, having been inherited from Judaism (Armstrong). The ordinary “believer” had no need, and was not afforded the right, to have a view-----not being regarded as able.

From the beginning, Christianity was unique in the Roman World for its almost total emphasis on Doctrine (Ehrman). Namely those formulae of faith which stated what was required to be personally believed and assented to----rather than the life lived. What had to be believed outweighed everything. This contrasted to the situation within the Pagan religions where personal belief played almost no role and what one believed about the Gods was irrelevant to the religion. As such, the concept of heresy was unknown. Not even Judaism felt a need for Doctrines about God. Belief in the one true God was, for Jews, simply accepted (Ehrman). Being a good Jew meant following cultural customs and Laws.

The first question, therefore, is----Why did Christianity require “correct belief”?

It would seem that this was because of the nature of the claims about Jesus himself. In particular, claims made by Paul and subsequently elaborated upon in written works subsequent to the death of Paul. Those claims, concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus, were taken to be the way of personal salvation and indeed of the entire world. Accordingly, knowing the “correct” things was essential. Only by assent to correct belief was justification by faith possible. Not by works or law. Proper belief, correct knowledge and acceptance of the “message” was the only way one could be a Christian and be right with God. Jesus was “the only way” with the end of the world thought to be at hand.

The second question is-----How was the “correct” belief to be had?

Given many could not read, have access to documents or understand the writings (even if they could read), no one was thought to be able to work it all out for themselves---unless, perhaps they could understand the significance of what they heard from the mouths of others. And even then, could they be permitted to think for themselves? They might get it wrong! The Church provided the answer and, within a short time, claimed itself to be the “home of the spirit” and further claimed a line of “succession” back to the apostles. It had therefore stated that it had the absolute and sole right, through self-proclaimed divine authority, to be regarded as the only avenue through which correct interpretation was possible. This put the Church in a powerful position---though it first had to work out what the “correct” interpretation was! For that it relied on the early theologians and the emerging church hierarchy. No wonder there were fights and bitter struggles over various concepts and interpretations. It is not surprising that the Church has endeavored to sanitize all this.

The third question must therefore be------- What “justification” is there for the Institution of the Christian Church to continue to claim special authority in matters of faith and morals or even that its scriptures and traditions reflect, or are, “The Word of God”?

In the past, Christianity has been very successful in preaching sin and judgement, while also offering redemption and salvation to those who hold “correct” beliefs. Its success through that philosophy, which is rather like an Insurance Policy, was clearly developed by Paul and then subsequently elaborated upon. It has created a powerful institution, able to influence and control the hearts and minds of its adherents--largely through indoctrination. Predominantly of young minds and those in emerging societies( Sargant). Once programmed, thoughts implanted are extraordinarily difficult to shed and considerable psychological destabilization often results (Newberg) from long held views being challenged by the proposal that Christianity is, in reality, a human invention rather than having been handed down by God. It is “all a matter of faith” becomes the stressed, unthinking response.

But the development of a supernatural concept relating to the person of Jesus involved human rivalry in the face of a belief that the end of the world was imminent. The process of selection of the least bizarre, so-called “authentic”, books for inclusion in the New Testament as the “Word of God” involved human rivalry and conflict. The development of Doctrine involved human disputation. The development of Creedal statements had political overtones. And the development of the Institution of the Church, with its concept of “tradition” (as denoting that body of unwritten, privileged information which was “authoritatively delivered” to the Church) and the deeper questions of “apostolic succession” and of doctrinal “Magisterium” claimed by, and exercised by the Church, was, at the human level, a desire for control, influence and power. Finally, the desire to replace the Jewish Priestly Class with a new Christian Ecclesiastical Class and an “Absolute Monarchy” was an exercise in human self-interest---though claimed to be under the direction of “The Holy Spirit”! Whatever it was, it certainly laid the basis for the creation of an institution of great political influence and incredible wealth.

There seems no doubt that the early theologians of the first 400yrs truly believed the Pauline construct and that a significant number of early Christians died because of their faith. But the theological conflicts and arguments of the 1st 400 yrs were nevertheless such that it could not be claimed that “God” was involved in the evolution of this new Christian religion. And the emerging church, with its vested interests, would seem to be far cry from that which Jesus had intended.

Christianity, as an emerging religious force, was a human construct. God had nothing to do with it. And the person of Jesus and the “Christ” of Paul were the vehicles around which the construct was invented and woven. For the church to claim and try to maintain special

“authority” on the basis of its early and subsequent history and tradition is something which, with the advancement of knowledge and rational analysis, is unjustified.

Only one defence remains, namely the default option that “it is all a matter of faith”.

FOR THE FUTURE---WHAT THEN OF GOD, JESUS AND CHRISTIANITY?

Knowledge has increased. Access to both ancient and modern writings is available. The world is now global. Thoughts have changed. Attitudes and Cultures have changed. We are no longer creatures of the first 400yrs. There is no reason why ancient beliefs should continue to dominate and the Church suppress independent thought. Just because the beliefs of the Church are ancient does not make them “correct” and unquestionable. It is a privilege to think freely without constraints imposed by past beliefs and mythologies. It is now time for inclusive spiritual advancement.

if only the Institution of Church would set out on the journey with those to whom it ministers!

Change is the only constant.

RELEVANT READING LIST--------from GDB Personal Library

(ranging from 1871 to 2014-----covering 143yrs of writings)

Armstrong, Karen “A History of God”. (1993)Borg, Marcus “The Evolution of the Word” (2012) E-BookBorg, Marcus “Speaking Christian” Audio Book (2014) Bultmann, Rudolf “Jesus Christ and Mythology”. (1952)Chadwick, Henry “The Early Church”. (1993)Doane,T.W. “Bible Myths and their parallels in other Religions”. (1882)Ehrman, Bart D. “How Jesus became God”. (2014) E-BookEhrman, Bart D. “Lost Scriptures”. (2003) E-BookEhrman, Bart “Greatest controversies of Early Christian History” The Courses. A-BookEhrman,Bart “From Jesus to Constantine;History of Early Christianity”The Courses, A-Book Ehrman, Bart “Lost Christianities” The Courses. Audio-Book (2014)Farrar, F.W. “The Early days of Christianity”. (1882)Fox, Robin Lane “Pagans and Christians”. (1986)Freeman, Charles “AD 381 ; Heretics, Pagans and the Christian State”. (2009)Frend, W.H.C. “The Early Church; from the beginnings to 461”. (1991)Heine, Ronald E. “Classical Christian Doctrine”. (2013)Hodge, Charles “Systematic Theology” (1871)Hodges, George “The Early Church; From Ignatius to Augustine”.Kelly, J.N.D. “Early Christian Doctrine”. (1993)Kelly, Joseph F. “The World of the early Christians”. (1997)Maccoby, Hyam “The Mythmaker: Paul and the invention of Christianity”. (1986)McGrath, Alister “Christian Theology”. (1997)Newberg, Andrew “The Spiritual Brain; Science and Religious Experience” Audio BookNorwich, John Julius “Absolute Monarchy; A history of the Papacy”. (2011Persinger, Michael A. “Neuropsychological bases of God beliefs” 1987 E-Book Sargant, William “Battle for the Mind”. (1957)“Solemni Hac Liturgia”(Credo of the people of God) Apostolic Letter. Supreme Pontiff Paul V1 1968Schaff, Phillip“The History of the Creeds”,Vol 1,Creeds of Christendom. (MMX111) E-Book Tabor, James D. “Paul and Jesus” 2010 E-Book

“The Didache; The Lords Teaching etc” . Late 1st Century. E-BookVermes, Geza “Christian Beginnings” ((2011) E-BookVermes, Geza “Jesus the Jew” (1973)Wilson, A.N. “Paul; the mind of the apostle”. (1997)Wilson, Barrie “How Jesus became Christian” (2008) E.Book(2011)Wright, Jonathan “Heretics: the creation of Christianity”. (2011)

GDB

Lent 2015