Study Materials available from Pillars Course

Our latest course was Pillars of the Church: Augustine, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Ephrem the Syrian. This was a study of the most important figures in the Latin and Syriac traditions, as well as one of the most prominent from the Greek tradition.

If this topic interests you, we are making the course materials available online for independent study. The materials include a schedule of readings, eight video lectures on the reading, and eight written reflections. We are charging $20 for an individual and $100 for a group of up to 20 people.

For more information, visit our Study Materials page.

Early Church at Prayer and Worship - Registration Open

We are now accepting registrants for our spring seminar: The Early Church at Prayer and Worship. In this seminar, as you would expect, we will examine the early church's prayer and worship. We will examine a variety of sources from roughly the first five hundred years of the church, including Eastern monks, a Western bishop, an early liturgy, and the New Testament. Out of all of the seminars so far, this is the one I am most excited about. I am looking forward to how it will transform my own prayer and worship, especially as we begin the season of Lent during the course.

The seminar will run from February 1st through March 22nd, 2010. It will be hosted at Hampton Presbyterian Church in Gibsonia, Pennsylvania (north of Pittsburgh) and offered online.

Check out the Seminars page on our website for more information.

Arts Group

On October 17th, ACFI will be offering a discussion group for artists in the Pittsburgh area (location TBA). Tim Becker offers the following description:

For serious Christian artists. painters, photographers, musicians, writers, actors, +. To collaborate on an outrageous vision of everything. To send art to the frontier of existence - taking captive every thought, note, angle, color.

"pseudo-dionysius will blow your mind. that's a fact." -pseudo-dionysius*

Check it out, sign up, and more** at the Arts Group Page.

*Editor's Note: I think Tim means Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius

**Actually, not more.

Update: the cost of this group has been lowered to $15.

Eastern Christianity Study Course Available

We are happy to announce that our seminar on Eastern Christianity is now available as a course for individual or group use. It includes a suggested schedule of readings, audio lectures, and written reflections on the readings.

The course could be used to study independently at your own pace, or as the curriculum for a small group or Sunday school class. The cost is $15 for an individual or $75 for a group of up to 20 people.

For more information, please visit the Study Materials page on our website.

Registration Open for Fall 2009

We are now registering participants for our Fall 2009 seminars:

Pillars of the Church: Augustine, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Ephrem the Syrian
(In person and online)

How to Read the Bible according to the Early Church
(In person only)

Visit the seminars page to sign up.

Coming Soon

The following seminars are planned for this fall:

Pillars of the Church: Ephrem the Syrian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Augustine

Instructors: Tim Becker and Matt Bell
This course will also be offered online.

How to Read the Bible According to the Early Church
Instructor: Matt Bell

We are also exploring ways to distribute the materials from the Eastern Christianity seminar for independent study.

More information will be forthcoming soon.

Some News

The Way of the Fathers has some nice things to say about ACFI.

Also, check out Tim's new audio introduction on our website.

UPDATE: This is somewhat old news, but Pittsburgh Theological Seminary has a nice article about ACFI, both in the Panorama publication and online.

Summer Seminar Starts Next Week

There's still time to sign up for ACFI's Summer Seminar, The Gospel after the Early Church: Eastern Christianity. It starts next Monday evening for the on-site seminar in Pittsburgh and Tuesday for the online seminar. We will be reading mostly John of Damascus and Symeon the New Theologian, covering all sorts of topics. I expect it to be fascinating, challenging, and refreshing. When I read teachers like these, I realize how much I have to learn about being a Christian.

Thoughts on Jacob of Serug

This week (well, actually last week; I'm running behind) we read several of Jacob of Serug's homilies on the Mother of God. This is a challenging subject for Protestants like me, but it was quite fruitful.

Jacob's style is totally different from everything else we have read. He writes in poetic form. This took a little getting used to, but I found it wonderful and refreshing. Theology is supposed to lead us to worship. Jacob's theology in its entirety is a hymn of praise to God.

The basic problem I have with adoration and veneration of Mary is that it seems to compromise the exclusive claim of Christ. If Mary was without sin, doesn't that mean she didn't need the cross? If the role of Mary in salvation is emphasized, doesn't that take away from what Christ accomplished? If Mary is honored, doesn't that take away from the honor given to Christ? If we pray to Mary, doesn't that diminish Christ's role as the only intermediary? This is the mindset I had when I began reading Jacob.

I am not comfortable with everything Jacob says about Mary, but I was able to appreciate much more of what he said than I was expecting. When he ponders Mary, it leads him to honor and glorify Jesus. For him, the virgin birth is a subset of the mystery of the incarnation: the one who cannot be contained by the heavens chose to be born in a womb as a baby.

Jacob develops the theme of Mary as the "Second Eve who generated Life among mortals, and paid and rent asunder that bill of Eve her mother." Eve listened to the serpent and so brought the curse on the world; Mary listened to Gabriel and so allowed the curse to be overturned. Eve didn't question what the serpent said; Mary questioned what Gabriel said and only accepted it when she understood. Eve had caused enmity between heaven and earth; through Mary this enmity was ended. However, it was not simply Mary herself but what Christ accomplished through her:

The wall of iniquity which the serpent had built then,
by his descent the Son of God broke it down that it might
never again be restored.
When He descended He broke down the hedge which was
placed between the sides,
that there might be peace between dwellers on earth and in
heaven.

What I find most fascinating is how Jacob interprets Mary's visit to Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-56). John the Baptist leaps in the womb when Elizabeth and Mary meet. Jacob compares this to David dancing before the Ark of the covenant. This is strange, yet compelling. Not only that, but through Mary's voice Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on John for prophecy. This is crazy stuff! I like it, but I don't know what to do with it. It is totally foreign to the way I think about everything. It led me to worship, though.

Hilary of Poitiers - On The Trinity

Hilary begins his work On The Trinity in an unexpected way: by recounting his search to find the meaning of life. He started off by realizing that there must be more to life than the possession of leisure and riches. That thought began him on a lengthy philosophical and theological journey. Eventually he gets to the Trinity, but it takes quite a long time.

Interesting: for Hilary, the answer to "What is the meaning of life?" is found in the Trinity. Few modern Western Christians would answer in this way. It seems to me that we don't know what to do with the Trinity. Most Christians know they are supposed to believe in it, but aren't sure why it matters. Yes, it matters that Jesus is God, but much more central to salvation are what Jesus did on the cross and his invitation to have a personal relationship with Him. The doctrine of the Trinity is more of an academic construct that systematizes our theology, tying up some loose ends.

However, it appears to me that for Hilary (and Cyril and Irenaeus), the being of Christ was just as important for salvation as His actions. It is not only that the Son of God died and rose again; it is also that the Son of God united humanity and divinity in His person. The relationship of the believer with God is defined in Trinitarian terms as well. We share in the divine Father-Son relationship through our union with Christ. This union is made possible by the Son of God's becoming flesh.

Hilary brings in the Eucharist at this point:

If the Word has indeed become flesh, and we indeed receive the Word as flesh in the Lord's food, how are we not to believe that He dwells in us by His nature, He who, when He was born as man, has assumed the nature of our flesh that is bound inseparably with Himself, and has mingled the nature of His flesh to His eternal nature in the mystery of the flesh that was to be communicated to us? (285)

This is quite a sentence, and I'm not sure I understand all of it. But I gather that we share in Christ's nature through partaking of His body and blood. Thereby we enter into the very life of God, participating in the divine Father-Son relationship.

Another thing I like about Hilary is that he thought a lot about the task of theology and approached it humbly. For example:

A firm faith rejects the captious and useless questions of philosophy, nor does truth become the victim of falsehood by yielding to the fallacies of human absurdities. It does not confine God within the terms of ordinary understanding...the power of eternal infinity surpasses the comprehension of the earthly mind. (14)

The best reader is he who looks for the meaning of the words in the words themselves rather than reads his meaning into them, who carries away more than he brought, and who does not insist that the words signify what he presupposed before reading them...let us concede to God the knowledge about Himself, and let us humbly submit to His words with reverent awe. For He is a competent witness for Himself who is not known except by Himself. (18)

Quick Thoughts on Scholia on the Incarnation

I wish I had time to get into this text more, because it has been my favorite so far. But my Holy Week activities have prevented me from really digesting it.

The thing I find most striking about Cyril's Scholia on the Incarnation is the tension he is able to hold in the Incarnation. He states that God and man were united into one Christ in the Incarnation, but still holds that suffering, death, etc. are properly said to have taken place in Christ's flesh. It is his ability to hold this tension that seems to separate him from his opponents. He can say that Christ suffered in the flesh, while remaining impassible in his diety. He can also say that the whole person of Christ suffered, by virtue of his being united as one person.

I find this quite helpful.

Cyril's Old Testament exegesis is also strange and fascinating. I wish I had time to reflect on that more.

Thoughts on Cyril and Nestorius

This week, we read Cyril of Alexandria's 2^nd letter to Nestorius, Nestorius’s Reply, Cyril’s 3^rd letter to Nestorius, and The Explanation of the Twelve Chapters (a further elaboration of Cyril's 3rd letter). These documents are part of a debate concerning the relationship between the humanity and divinity of Christ and whether Mary should be called "Mother of God" (theotokos).

In my opinion, this correspondence contains two subjects of interest. The obvious topic is the Christological controversy. But I think the debate itself is interesting, as well. Here we get to see how a major disagreement was handled in the fifth-century church. That's what I want to consider first.

The most noticeable feature of this argument is that Cyril and Nestorius don't mince words. For example, Cyril says things like "certain people have scorned the teachings of the truth and filling their own minds with demonic crookedness they strive to debase the mystery of truth" and "Nestorius introduced a host of strange and profane blasphemies." And Cyril is the nicer of the two! All of this sounds very jarring to us. We more often avoid conflict and try to see how we can get along with those with whom we disagree. Accusing someone of being filled with "demonic crookedness" or of leading others astray would be seen as arrogant in the extreme and not at all "pastoral".

Despite the fact that both Cyril and Nestorius use strong language, there is a world of difference between the two. Cyril is, in fact, pastoral in the true sense of the word: he is concerned above all with building up the church. Nestorius, on the other hand, seems motivated by a personal power struggle. He sarcastically mocks Cyril's style and questions his intelligence. Nestorius also boasts of the success of his own flock and threatens to use his position of power in Constantinople against Cyril. You can practically tell who is on the right side of this debate without even considering the issue.

It's easy for our reaction to be, "what's the big deal?" That was my reaction when I first read these letters in seminary. The differences between Cyril and Nestorius seem subtle and of little consequence. We think, "I'm sure glad we don't fight over that any more" and feel that we are enlightened compared to those ancients. However, over time I have concluded that this is a pretty lame opinion to have. Here is the first reaction I wish I had: "Hey, at least these people cared about the identity of Jesus!" I happen to be part of the PC(USA), a denomination with much more divergent views about Jesus than Cyril and Nestorius, yet we are not even having a debate about Christology. Instead we are fighting about things like ordination standards (which I do think is an important issue) and control of church property (which is disgraceful).

After that artificial first reaction, here is the second reaction that I propose: "Let's try to figure out why this particular point was so important to these people." The only real opinion I had in the past was that I didn't want to call Mary "Mother of God." But I didn't get the Christological distinction. I'll try to do better now. Here are the two positions as I understand them: Nestorius claimed that the human things that Jesus did only happened in his humanity. Only the humanity of Jesus was born. Only the humanity of Jesus suffered and died, etc. Therefore, Mary could be called the Mother of Christ, but not of God. Cyril, on the other hand, said that, because the Word of God and man were united in Christ, all of Christ participated in everything that he did. Even though it makes no sense for God to suffer, somehow through the humanity of Christ, God suffered. And even though it makes no sense for God to be born, somehow through the human birth of Christ, God was born. Therefore Mary can be called the Mother of God.

I think that for Cyril, all of the work of Christ would turn on this point. If the Word of God didn't truly participate in Christ's passion, then salvation was not accomplished. If the divinity of Christ is not communicated to the humanity, then neither is humanity glorified through Christ. This is pretty important, after all.

I do not yet understand the emphasis on Mary, though. I see why Cyril could say that Mary was Mother of God, but why was it important to do so? And what implications does this have for Mary?

Irenaeus and the Starting Point of Theology

In The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, Irenaeus presents "a manual of essentials" of the faith. In modern terms, this document might be called a systematic theology. One of the things I find fascinating about this is the way Irenaeus begins. Every theology has to have a starting point: a central fact from which the rest flows. This could be a philosophical argument for the existence of God, the inspiration of the Bible, God's self-revelation in nature or creation, the event of the Incarnation, the cross, etc.

Irenaeus, however, doesn't start with any of these. He begins with baptism:

First of all it bids us bear in mind that we have received baptism for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and rose again, and in the Holy Spirit of God. And that this baptism is the seal of eternal life, and is the new birth unto God, that we should no longer be the sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and perpetual God (3).

Thus, theology doesn't begin with a proposition, a statement, or a thought; not even a statement about Christ or the cross. Rather, theology begins with an event: God's regeneration of us through the Holy Spirit, uniting us with the crucified Christ and His body, the church. I hope I am not wrong about this, but it seems like a big deal. It seems to be quite radical. Some implications I see:

• Theology is not about us understanding God but about God revealing Himself to us; not just in a general sense (Jesus reveals the Father to the world) but in a personal sense (God reveals Himself to me through the Holy Spirit).
• Belief can't be separated from action (as Irenaeus makes clear from the outset). Theology and practice are interdependent.
• Theology is a task of the church. It absolutely cannot be done elsewhere.

Having begun with baptism, Irenaeus uses the baptismal formula as the framework for what will follow. Being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is more than just an affirmation of a prior belief in the Trinity. It is what we are baptized into and thus gives shape to everything we believe.

The Mystery of Christ Thoughts on Ch. 1

John Behr's premise is compelling: our starting point for theology should be an examination of how the earliest Christians came to believe what they did. Our tendency is to start with statements such as the Nicene Creed, but the creeds cannot be properly understood apart from the process that led to their creation. Upon this premise Behr writes The Mystery of Christ, a brief systematic theology.

For Behr, then, theology starts at the cross viewed in light of the resurrection. This was the event in which Jesus was revealed as God. But even this could not be understood without Jesus revealing it to his followers, through the breaking of bread and opening of the scriptures. Already at this point I was sold on Behr's project. Here is a theology that flows directly from the Gospel accounts of Jesus, is immediately concerned with the transformation of the believer, and provides a justification for the worship of the church from the very beginning.

This theological method has some interesting consequences. Most prominently, Behr suggests that we need to "take seriously the exegetical practices of the apostles and the early Christians." This is rather challenging, because in modern eyes early exegesis often looks either esoteric or naive. I have long believed (in theory) that we should be reading the Church Fathers. But whenever I have actually done so, the things they say about scripture have often been too weird to be of any use. After reading Behr, though, I think that the problem is we assume they were reading scripture the same way we are, but coming to strange conclusions. In fact though, the ancient Christians had a whole different way of using scripture.

There is the most distance between us and them when we read the Old Testament. For the earliest Christians, the Old Testament spoke directly about Christ, and it was the only scripture they had. We don't view the OT in this way, though. Scholarship tends to view it as a Jewish story that Christians have latched on to. Evangelicals read it as the OT as the story leading up to Christ, with a few prophecies about him thrown in.

Behr describes a radically different way of doing theology. I like it very much on a theoretical level. I have not yet figured out how it will affect my faith on a more practical level, but I think it will.

Welcome

Welcome to the Ancient Christian Faith Blog. This blog will be hosting discussions for the first Ancient Christian Faith Initiative Seminar. Check back regularly for updates.