Comments

The creation of this program is to be welcomed in every way. Recent church history suggests, at the same time, that the persons least likely to profit in any even-handed way from the study of the Early Church are disgruntled evangelical Protestants who proceed on the assumption that the branch of the church they have been connected to, to date, is a "poor cousin" to the "real".

I am referring here to branches of evangelicalism which have stood on a kind of a "primitivist" foundation and thought that they were the epitome of the book of Acts today. Evangelical Protestants in confessional traditions, by contrast, (Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and some Baptists)can approach the Early Church with the healthy confidence that their branch of the Christian tradition has _already_ wrestled with the relationship of Protestantism to Christian antiquity and the relationship of tradition to Holy Scripture.This historic approach can be tested,built upon, and (where necessary) corrected.

Yet some of the most popular guides to these questions in the past quarter century have, alas, started from the disgruntled evangelical Protestant standpoint; they were past the point of finding anything from the ancient past that could affirm them in their current form of evangelicalism. The question instead was that of where else in the Christian tradition they could find a congenial home. I refer here to writers such as Peter Gilquist, Thomas Howard, Michael Harper and the late Robert Webber. Three of these were running from evangelical fundamentalism or the parachurch; one left the comprehensive Church of England for Antioch.

The paradox of this desertion-syndrome is that while disgruntled fundamentalists seek solace in a romantically-constructed facsimiles of the Early Church, the global church - oblivious to these niceties, marches on with its own Book of Acts style approach to doing church. This has disgruntled evangelicals doing embroidery, seeking the perfecting of their Christianity (even while the Western Church is moribund)while the global church advances without the benefit of this kind of theological reflection.Neither is ideal.

So, the key must be to find "resources" in the Early Church rather than a "template" to be taken up again and repeated.
If Wheaton's program can advance the first approach, the whole American evangelical church will benefit. If it even unwittingly advances the second vision, the net effect will be the further depletion of the evangelical church, which is itself a bona fide movement of the Spirit.

Ken Stewart

Posted By: Ken Stewart | April 30, 2009 1:12 PM

David, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Is this center based in a Masters program? Or are there plans for a doctoral program?

Ken, as always, you've added depth and richness to the conversation. Thanks! May we engage in truly nuanced and mature reflection on tradition, rather than using the Great Tradition as a stick with which to beat our own churches.

Posted By: Anonymous | April 30, 2009 3:08 PM

Didn't Fuller Seminary start out that way? Evangelical, even inerrantist, and today it is a seminary whose professors constitute a wide variety of Christianities and faith traditions?

Posted By: Edward T. Babinski | May 2, 2009 11:29 AM

this is splendid and exciting news, indeed.

the only degree i hold is an honorary one; but while not a scholar in traditional terms, as a pastor and chaplain who seeks to be a responsible practitioner of verities, values, forms and dynamics handed down through the centuries from ancient israel, the early church and beyond i have a vested interest interest in such studies .

when the eleanor of aquitaine character in 1968's film, "the lion in winter," uttered the words, "every family has its ups and downs," about her dysfunctional medieval nuclear family she was spot on about the larger christian family as well. in most families it seems that often the source material of those ups and downs can be traced to the very headwaters of that family. (i.e. our earliest forebears in the garden.)

i suspect that so much of what is both right and wrong with any facet of the christian family can be traced back to the patristic era. isn't it logical that the "generational curse" of the "sins of the fathers" would continue to manifest in subsequent generations (exodus 20, numbers 14, deuteronomy 5, jeremiah 32?) many have observed that there has really emerged no new heresy since those early times and that each new emergence is in fact just a re-emergence in a new era and sometimes in a new suit of clothes.

but it would also seem to follow that the various and diverse merciful riches (perhaps alluded to in the same referenced scriptures) that are embodied and enjoyed by each facet of the family have also come down to us through whichever branch of the family tree our clan happens to be connected.

in some respects i wonder if the study of patristics should not rank second only in importance to the study of the heroics, foibles and failures of all the characters in the scriptures both in ancient israel and the apostolic era. observing them we find soundings and metrics for our own lives and behavior, both good and ill. there we find understanding of our temperaments, how to celebrate our heroics and how to handle our foibles and failures.

one thing i have learned not only through lengthy sojourns among evangelicals, charismatics and anglicans but also in the ecumenical community of the robert e. webber institute for worship studies is that every branch of the family tree has blind spots and deficiencies. but i have also observed that every facet of the family also has incredible treasures in its storehouse that are hidden and unknown to the rest of us.

the study of patristics and the origins of those blindnesses and treasures can only help us become more understanding of one another on our road to becoming one as father and the son are one.

i give thanks for this program and pray an outpouring of god's abundant blessing on it!

thanks for this news david and to the authors of these other thoughtful comments.

shalom to all~

Posted By: darrell a. harris | May 2, 2009 12:14 PM

In 1963 at the encouraging of a great Black Historian at Lincoln Univ. (MO), I began doing research in church history. That effort would cover more than 250 sources and all 2000 yrs. of church history and amount to some 3000 5x8 notecards with material recorded on both sides of the cards. It was organized only by authors. The project went on for 6 yrs. The question I have for those involved in establishing this new center for the study of the early church fathers is how much will they allow for the study of those who were persecuted by those claiming to be Christians as the ones persecuted did? I remember reading about how the Montanists, Novationists, and the Donatists fled to the Alps to escape the tyranny of the state church. I also read about the Paulicians and how they would do the same. And then there was a Waldensian Historian who said there were no heretical or sectarian groups in the Alps prior to Peter Waldo, It made me wonder as I thought the Alps look like the cross roads for ever out of sync group prior to Waldo. And then there was the fact that the Inquisitor in the 1200s (R. Saccho) who stated that the Waldensians had churches even then in Constantinople and in Philadelphia (as in Rev.3 Philadelphia). I also read where the last commander of the Roman Empire in Britain was the son of the pastor of the Novation church in Constantinople and how he became the successor to his father. And then there was the committee the Waldensians sent to South India to see how the church there was doing. All these warm fuzzies of togetherness remind me that man is stll totally depraved, and when those who only think they are converted get into positions of power they will reveal their true colors in acts of horror. Mr. Lewis' That Hideous Strength rather cogently makes the point that only the coming down of Heaven to earth as in what History knows as a Great Awakening is the only hope we have. Will the study of the early fathers take that reality into account?

Posted By: Dr. James Willingham | May 2, 2009 3:04 PM

Good Evening:

I am considered a "Armchair Historian" for original Biblical Studies of the church. If you guys are serious about looking at the original church that was established in Acts chapter two; then how do you explain and teach to your students Ephesians 3 without telling them something that isn't true?

There is one Faith, Body, & Christ. If the Bible is the "God-breathed" final message to his people, then we must accept what is written as the final truth from God.

I have written (3) books. Books one and two are available from www.amazon.com and the third one is available at www.sable-publishing-house.com.

1- ISRAEL the 51st State
2- Secular Humanism
3- The Search...for the Church That Christ Built

I would like to be invited as a guest lecturer at Wheaton and present my writings to your students.

Thank you,
Morris Bowers
1.256.233.2082

Posted By: Morris Bowers | May 2, 2009 7:52 PM

Thank-you, D. Harris for your comments. They express my heart as well. While a missionary mother in Guatemala I took solace in all the Christian History magazines that came to "Christian Academy of Guatemala" and began my journey into deeper understanding of our present faith in light of our shared past. Growing up Swedish Covenant, then Presbyterian, but working among all the rainbow of denominations, I knew that our "oneness" was of vital importance.

We returned to the US in 1999, after 25 years of ministry in Latin America, and I embarked on a course of study that eventually allowed me to earn a Masters in Religion from Trevecca Nazarene University. There I thoroughly enjoyed learning the Arminian mindset (though never quite convinced that I could ever leave my beloved Lord and Savior). I continue to read and study, though the big dream of teaching church history eluded me.

Maybe I'll look into what Wheaton has to offer online, or by extention. Until then, I will continue to extend guidance and love in the spiritual development of my 4 children, their spouses, and our grandchildren. In these relativistic times, we must know who we are, where we came from, and how, with love and compassion we move into our future. Somebody said once, "Be careful how you live, not as unwise people, but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil."....

Grace and peace from God our Father.

Posted By: Linda Herod | May 2, 2009 7:58 PM

It is heart-warming to hear that such a prestigious evangelical Protestant school as Wheaton College is starting a Early Church study program.

It is especially comforting that Prof. George Kalantzis will be in charge of the program.
(I had a pleasure of meeting George at SBL last year, hearing his presentation, and being personally acquainted.)

The Church Fathers of the Early Church, especially, the Orthodox Fathers of the East are not sole property of the Greek Orthodox Church.

As their title point out, they are the Fathers of the whole Church of Christ, our common heritage.

They are the ones who assembled the Scriptures as we have now, who first started exegete the Scriptures, and who clarified and consolidated our fundamental doctrines.

As the Orthodox Church would say, the Fathers are the ones who kept what Jesus gave and the Apostles taught.

However, the Protestant seminaries have been largely ignoring the great legacy.

Thus, many Protestants like myself had to study the Fathers of the Early Church at Orthodox seminary or Catholic school and Protestant scholars have to teach at those schools.

I hope what Wheaton College is doing is spread out to other evangelical Protestant seminaries.

A word for Early Church study program at Wheaton College:

Do not approach the Early Church and the Fathers to find proof texts to back up the doctrines and practices of our Protestant denominations.

Yes, it is important to approach them as the evangelical Protestants.

However, it is more important to accurately and unbiasedly study them as they believed, said, and acted.
Let them speak for themselves first.

In reflection, we might find proofs or precedence for our own doctrine and practices, but we might also find some errorneous doctrines and practices of ours in comparison with those original and truthful ones of the Fathers.

Then, we should try to correct our errors.

If we don't "learn" from the history, what's the use of studying the history?

Posted By: Samuel Park | May 2, 2009 11:00 PM

The Old Testament
General Outlines

Who is the author of the Old Testament?

One wonders how many readers of the Old Testament, if asked the above question, would reply by repeating what they had read in the introduction to their Bible. They might answer that, even though it was written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, the author was God.

Sometimes, the author of the Bible's presentation confines himself to informing his reader of this succinct observation which puts an end to all further questions. Sometimes he corrects it by warning him that details may subsequently have been added to the primitive text by men, but that nonetheless, the litigious character of a passage does not alter the general "truth' that proceeds from it. This "truth' is stressed very heavily. The Church Authorities answer for it, being the only body, With the assistance of the Holy Ghost, able to enlighten the faithful on such points. Since the Councils held in the Fourth century, it was the Church that issued the list of Holy Books, ratified by the Councils of Florence (1441), Trent (1546), and the First Vatican Council (1870), to form what today is known as the Canon. Just recently, after so many encyclicals, the Second Vatican Council published a text concerning the Revelation which is extremely important. It took three years (1962-1966) of strenuous effort to produce. The vast majority of the Bible's readers who find this highly reassuring information at the head of a modern edition have been quite satisfied with the guarantees of authenticity made over past centuries and have hardly thought it possible to debate them.

When one refers however to works written by clergymen, not meant for mass publication, one realizes that the question concerning the authenticity of the books in the Bible is much more complex than one might suppose a priori. For example, when one consults the modern publication in separate installments of the Bible in French translated under the guidance of the Biblical School of Jerusalem [ Pub. Cerf, Paris], the tone appears to be very different. One realizes that the Old Testament, like the New Testament, raises problems with controversial elements that, for the most part, the authors of commentaries have not concealed.

We also find highly precise data in more condensed studies of a very objective nature, such as Professor Edmond Jacob's study. The Old Testament (L'Ancien Testament) [ Pub. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris "Que sais-je?" collection]. This book gives an excellent general view.

Many people are unaware, and Edmond Jacob points this out, that there were originally a number of texts and not just one. Around the Third century B.C., there were at least three forms of the Hebrew text: the text which was to become the Masoretic text, the text which was used, in part at least, for the Greek translation, and the Samaritan Pentateuch. In the First century B.C., there was a tendency towards the establishment of a single text, but it was not until a century after Christ that the Biblical text was definitely established.

If we had had the three forms of the text, comparison would have been possible, and we could have reached an opinion concerning what the original might have been. Unfortunately, we do not have the slightest idea. Apart from the Dead Sea Scrolls (Cave of Qumran) dating from a pre-Christian era near the time of Jesus, a papyrus of the Ten Commandments of the Second century A.D. presenting variations from the classical text, and a few fragments from the Fifth century A.D. (Geniza of Cairo) , the oldest Hebrew text of the Bible dates from the Ninth century A.D.

The Septuagint was probably the first translation in Greek. It dates from the Third century B.C. and was written by Jews in Alexandria. It Was on this text that the New Testament was based. It remained authoritative until the Seventh century A.D. The basic Greek texts in general use in the Christian world are from the manuscripts catalogued under the title Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican City and Codex Sinaiticus at the British Museum, London. They date from the Fourth century A.D.

At the beginning of the Fifth century A.D., Saint Jerome was able to produce a text in latin using Hebrew documents. It was later to be called the Vulgate on account of its universal distribution after the Seventh century A.D.

For the record, we shall mention the Aramaic version and the Syriac (Peshitta) version, but these are incomplete.

All of these versions have enabled specialists to piece together so-called 'middle-of-the-road' texts, a sort of compromise between the different versions. Multi-lingual collections have also been produced which juxtapose the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Aramaic and even Arabic versions. This is the case of the famous Walton Bible (London, 1667). For the sake of completeness, let us mention that diverging Biblical conceptions are responsible for the fact that the various Christian churches do not all accept exactly the same books and have not until now had identical ideas on translation into the same language. The Ecumenical Translation of the Old Testament is a work of unification written by numerous Catholic and Protestant experts now nearing completion [ Translator's Note: Published December 1975 by Les Editions du Cerf and Les Bergers et les Mages, Paris] and should result in a work of synthesis.

Thus the human element in the Old Testament is seen to be quite considerable. It is not difficult to understand why from version to version, and translation to translation, with all the corrections inevitably resulting, it was possible for the original text to have been transformed during the course of more than two thousand years.

ORIGINS OF THE BIBLE

Before it became a collection of books, it was a folk tradition that relied entirely upon human memory, originally the only means of passing on ideas. This tradition was sung.

"At an elementary stage, writes E. Jacob, every people sings; in Israel, as elsewhere, poetry preceded prose. Israel sang long and well; led by circumstances of his history to the heights of joy and the depths of despair, taking part with intense feeling in all that happened to it, for everything in their eyes had a sense, Israel gave its song a wide variety of expression". They sang for the most diverse reasons and E. Jacob mentions a number of them to which we find the accompanying songs in the Bible: eating songs, harvest songs, songs connected with work, like the famous Well Song (Numbers 21, 17), wedding songs, as in the Song of Songs, and mourning songs. In the Bible there are numerous songs of war and among these we find the Song of Deborah (Judges 5, 1-32) exalting Israel's victory desired and led by Yahweh Himself, (Numbers 10, 35); "And whenever the ark (of alliance) set out, Moses said, 'Arise, oh Yahweh, and let thy enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee nee before thee".

There are also the Maxims and Proverbs (Book of Proverbs, Proverbs and Maxims of the Historic Books), words of blessing and curse, and the laws decreed to man by the Prophets on reception of their Divine mandate.

E. Jacobs notes that these words were either passed down from family to family or channelled through the sanctuaries in the form of an account of the history of God's chosen people. History quickly turned into fable, as in the Fable of Jotham (Judges 9, 7-21), where "the trees went forth to anoint a king over them; and they asked in turn the olive tree, the fig tree, the vine and the bramble", which allows E. Jacob to note "animated by the need to tell a good story, the narration was not perturbed by subjects or times whose history was not well known", from which he concludes:

"It is probable that what the Old Testament narrates about Moses and the patriarchs only roughly corresponds to the succession of historic facts. The narrators however, even at the stage of oral transmission, were able to bring into play such grace and imagination to blend between them highly varied episodes, that when all is said and done, they were able to present as a history that was fairly credible to critical thinkers what happened at the beginning of humanity and the world".

There is good reason to believe that after the Jewish people settled in Canaan, at the end of the Thirteenth century B.C., writing was used to preserve and hand down the tradition. There was not however complete accuracy, even in what to men seems to demand the greatest durability, i.e. the laws. Among these, the laws which are supposed to have been written by God's own hand, the Ten Commandments, were transmitted in the Old Testament in two versions; Exodus (20,1-21) and Deuteronomy (5, 1-30). They are the same in spirit, but the variations are obvious. There is also a concern to keep a large written record of contracts, letters, lists of personalities (Judges, high city officials, genealogical tables), lists of offerings and plunder. In this way, archives were created which provided documentation for the later editing of definitive works resulting in the books we have today. Thus in each book there is a mixture of different literary genres: it can be left to the specialists to find the reasons for this odd assortment of documents.

The Old Testament is a disparate whole based upon an initially oral tradition. It is interesting therefore to compare the process by which it was constituted with what could happen in another period and another place at the time when a primitive literature was born.

Let us take, for example, the birth of French literature at the time of the Frankish Royalty. The same oral tradition presided over the preservation of important deeds: wars, often in the defense of Christianity, various sensational events, where heroes distinguished themselves, that were destined centuries later to inspire court poets, chroniclers and authors of various 'cycles'. In this way, from the Eleventh century A.D. onwards, these narrative poems, in which reality is mixed with legend, were to appear and constitute the first monument in epic poetry. The most famous of all is the Song of Roland (La Chanson de Roland) a biographical chant about a feat of arms in which Roland was the commander of Emperor Charlemagne's rearguard on its way home from an expedition in Spain. The sacrifice of Roland is not just an episode invented to meet the needs of the story. It took place on 15th August, 778. In actual fact it was an attack by Basques living in the mountains. This literary work is not just legend ; it has a historical basis, but no historian would take it literally.

This parallel between the birth of the Bible and a secular literature seems to correspond exactly with reality. It is in no way meant to relegate the whole Biblical text as we know it today to the store of mythological collections, as do so many of those who systematically negate the idea of God. It is perfectly possible to believe in the reality of the Creation, God's transmission to Moses of the Ten Commandments, Divine intercession in human affairs, e.g. at the time of Solomon. This does not stop us, at the same time, from considering that what has been conveyed to us is the gist of these facts, and that the detail in the description should be subjected to rigorous criticism, the reason for this being that the element of human participation in the transcription of originally oral traditions is so great.

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/3old.htm#ORIGINS%20OF%20THE%20BIBLE

Posted By: arah | May 3, 2009 1:16 PM

Please stay within the guidelines of the holy scriptures, do not cross lines, angle from side to side, but stay straight to the word. Do no pick one view of Christian history but embrase those that are proven true no matter
what is at stake.

Good luck and May God bless in this work.

Posted By: Lloyd Walraven | May 3, 2009 3:06 PM

Re: "What does George Kalantzis hope to accomplish? He is very clear that this should not be a nest from which students can swarm to Eastern Orthodoxy. It is not what the donors had in mind (although they are themselves Greek Orthodox). Instead, this program is about seeing the early church tradition as the common roots of evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox.

“By studying the early church,” George says, “we are studying about our commonalities much more than our differences.

“Our goal is to understand our common tradition, explore it, live with it, be with it, instead of just going back and plundering it—finding the eight quotes to justify whatever I want to do.”

+ + +

The irony is too delicious!

I am a former-Evangelical who traveled to the Orthodox Church via the route that Kalantzis is laying out for the students of Wheaton College, namely, I studied the writings of the Church Fathers.

Much to my chagrin, I learned that these Fathers were not proto-Evangelical Protestants! The faith that the believed, lived and died for was nothing like any of the forms of evangelical Protestantism.

Like a another famous convert from Protestantism, I learned that:

"Whatever be historical Christianity, it is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism has ever felt it...This is shown in the determination already referred to, of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men would never have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it...To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant."

To be deep in history is to cease to be a Proestant. To remain an evangelical Protestant, the e-P will be forced to do exactly what Kalantzis said that Wheaton students would not do, "going back and plundering it—finding the eight quotes to justify whatever I want to do."

Good luck Wheaton College Early Church scholars! I'll see you when you make it to your final destination, the Orthodox Church!

Posted By: Anonymous | May 4, 2009 9:52 PM

Isn't it weird that if any of the Church Fathers showed up personally at Wheaton, they would not be allowed to teach.

How could they possibly sign the Statement of Faith, when it is plainly heretical in light of the teachings of the Church Fathers?

Posted By: Anonymous | May 4, 2009 10:29 PM

I periodically teach an adult class (age 60s). Is there a good video that I could use on church history? Even something designed for home schoolers could work.

Posted By: Richard | May 7, 2009 6:44 AM

So, does that mean that Orthodox Christians will now be welcome to Wheaton's graduate programs? I eagerly requested information a few years ago and was treated very well, but was given every indication that my reservations about the Statement of Faith (which, being Orthodox, I am bound to have) would be a severe obstacle for admission. In the end I didn't apply, which is a shame, because I really would have liked to have the chance to study exegesis at a place committed to a high view of Scripture.

Posted By: Anonymous | June 9, 2009 11:34 PM

This is a very inspiring read. History is such an awesome study, it maybe about early church or the history of other nation. We get to learn valuable lessons in life and try to apply it.

Posted By: Dentist Torrance | August 25, 2009 9:09 PM

Thank you for posting. I really enjoyed reading this. If anything reading about the early church and it's history can teach us so much not only about the past but about our future. Thanks again

~andrew

312 azusa street

Posted By: andrew jones | February 2, 2010 10:59 AM

Isn't it weird that if any of the Church Fathers showed up personally at Wheaton, they would not be allowed to teach...I think so..

Posted By: du hoc uc | April 7, 2010 2:37 AM