Excerpt from Gregory the Great: The Book of Pastoral Rule, c. 590

The conduct of a prelate ought so far to be superior to the conduct of the people as the life of a shepherd is accustomed to exalt him above the flock. For one whose position is such that the people are called his flock ought anxiously to consider how great a necessity is laid upon him to maintain uprightness. It is necessary, then, that in thought he should be pure, in action firm; discreet in keeping silence; profitable in speech; a near neighbor to every one in sympathy; exalted above all in contemplation; a familiar friend of good livers through humility, unbending against the vices of evil-doers through zeal for righteousness; not relaxing in his care for what is inward by reason of being occupied in outward things, nor neglecting to provide for outward things in his anxiety for what is inward.

The pastor should always be pure in thought, inasmuch as no impurity ought to pollute him who has undertaken the office of wiping away the stains of pollution in the hearts of others also; for the hand that would cleanse from dirt must needs be clean, lest, being itself sordid with clinging mire, it soil all the more whatever it touches. The pastor should always be a leader in action, that by his living he may point out the way of life to those who are put under him, and that the flock, which follows the voice and manners of the shepherd, may learn how to walk rather through example than through words. For he who is required by the necessity of his position to speak the highest things is compelled by the same necessity to do the highest things. For that voice more readily penetrates the hearer's heart, which the speaker's life commends, since what he commands by speaking he helps the doing by showing.

The pastor should be discreet in keeping silence, profitable in speech; lest he either utter what ought to be suppressed or suppress what he ought to utter. For, as incautious speaking leads into error, so indiscreet silence leaves in error those who might have been instructed. The pastor ought also to understand how commonly vices pass themselves off as virtues. For often niggardliness excuses itself under the name of frugality, and on the other hand extravagance conceals itself under the name of liberality. Often inordinate carelessness is believed to be loving-kindness, and unbridled wrath is accounted the virtue of spiritual zeal. Often hasty action is taken for promptness, and tardiness for the deliberation of seriousness. Whence it is necessary for the pastor of souls to distinguish with vigilant care and vices between virtues and vices, lest stinginess get possession of his heart while he exults in seeming frugality in expenditure; or, while anything is recklessly wasted, he glory in being, as it were, compassionately liberal; or, in overlooking what he ought to have smitten, he draw on those that are under him to eternal punishment; or, in mercilessly smiting an offense, he himself offend more grievously; or, by rashly anticipating, mar what might have been done properly and gravely; or, by putting off the merit of a good action, change it to something worse.

Since, then, we have shown what manner of man the pastor ought to be, let us now set forth after what manner he should teach. For, as long before us Gregory Nazianzen, of reverend memory, has taught, one and the same exhortation does not suit all, inasmuch as all are not bound together by similarity of character. For the things that profit some often hurt others; seeing that also, for the most part, herbs which nourish some animals are fatal to others; and the gentle hissing that quiets horses incites whelps; and the medicine which abates one disease aggravates another; and the food which invigorates the life of the strong kills little children. Therefore, according to the quality of the hearers ought the discourse of teachers to be fashioned, so as to suit all and each for their several needs, and yet never deviate from the art of common edification. For what are the intent minds of hearers but, so to speak, a kind of harp, which the skillful player, in order to produce a tune possessing harmony, strikes in various ways? And for this reason the strings render back a melodious sound, because they are struck indeed with one quill, but not with one kind of stroke. Whence every teacher also, that he may edify all in the one virtue of charity, ought to touch the hearts of his hearers out of one doctrine, but not with one and the same exhortation.

Excerpt from The Gospel of Philip

Before Christ came, there was no bread in the world, just as Paradise, the place were Adam was, had many trees to nourish the animals but no wheat to sustain man. Man used to feed like the animals, but when Christ came, the perfect man, he brought bread from heaven in order that man might be nourished with the food of man. The rulers thought that it was by their own power and will that they were doing what they did, but the Holy Spirit in secret was accomplishing everything through them as it wished. Truth, which existed since the beginning, is sown everywhere. And many see it being sown, but few are they who see it being reaped.

Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Matt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father."

The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene

Chapter 4

(Pages 1 to 6 of the manuscript, containing chapters 1 - 3, are lost.  The extant text starts on page 7...)

. . . Will matter then be destroyed or not?

22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their own roots.

23) For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own nature alone.

24) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

25) Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell us this also: What is the sin of the world?

26) The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin.

27) That is why the Good came into your midst, to the essence of every nature in order to restore it to its root.

28) Then He continued and said, That is why you become sick and die, for you are deprived of the one who can heal you.

29) He who has a mind to understand, let him understand.

30) Matter gave birth to a passion that has no equal, which proceeded from something contrary to nature. Then there arises a disturbance in its whole body.

31) That is why I said to you, Be of good courage, and if you are discouraged be encouraged in the presence of the different forms of nature.

32) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

33) When the Blessed One had said this, He greeted them all,saying, Peace be with you. Receive my peace unto yourselves.

34) Beware that no one lead you astray saying Lo here or lo there! For the Son of Man is within you.

35) Follow after Him!

36) Those who seek Him will find Him.

37) Go then and preach the gospel of the Kingdom.

38) Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it.

39) When He said this He departed.

Chapter 5

1) But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?

2) Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you.

3) But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.

4) When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.

5) Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman.

6) Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them.

7) Mary answered and said, What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you.

8) And she began to speak to them these words: I, she said, I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to Him, Lord I saw you today in a vision. He answered and said to me,

9) Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of Me. For where the mind is there is the treasure.

10) I said to Him, Lord, how does he who sees the vision see it, through the soul or through the spirit?

11) The Savior answered and said, He does not see through the soul nor through the spirit, but the mind that is between the two that is what sees the vision and it is [...]

(pages 11 - 14 are missing from the manuscript)

Chapter 8:

. . . it.

10) And desire said, I did not see you descending, but now I see you ascending. Why do you lie since you belong to me?

11) The soul answered and said, I saw you. You did not see me nor recognize me. I served you as a garment and you did not know me.

12) When it said this, it (the soul) went away rejoicing greatly.

13) Again it came to the third power, which is called ignorance.

14) The power questioned the soul, saying, Where are you going? In wickedness are you bound. But you are bound; do not judge!

15) And the soul said, Why do you judge me, although I have not judged?

16) I was bound, though I have not bound.

17) I was not recognized. But I have recognized that the All is being dissolved, both the earthly things and the heavenly.

18) When the soul had overcome the third power, it went upwards and saw the fourth power, which took seven forms.

19) The first form is darkness, the second desire, the third ignorance, the fourth is the excitement of death, the fifth is the kingdom of the flesh, the sixth is the foolish wisdom of flesh, the seventh is the wrathful wisdom. These are the seven powers of wrath.

20) They asked the soul, Whence do you come slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?

21) The soul answered and said, What binds me has been slain, and what turns me about has been overcome,

22) and my desire has been ended, and ignorance has died.

23) In a aeon I was released from a world, and in a Type from a type, and from the fetter of oblivion which is transient.

24) From this time on will I attain to the rest of the time, of the season, of the aeon, in silence.

Chapter 9

1) When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her.

2) But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.

3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.

4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?

5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?

6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.

7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.

8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.

9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.

10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.

Galatians 1 & 3 (New International Version)

Galatians 1

1Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2and all the brothers with me,

To the Churches in Galatia:

 3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

 6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

 10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Paul Called by God

 11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

 13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

 18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24And they praised God because of me.

Galatians 3

 1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

 6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a] 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

 10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

 15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

 19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

 21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

 23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Sons of God

 26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The Measure of Martin Luther King, Jr.

As most will affirm, history concerns more than just mere events and circumstances marking the passage of time. It is driven and created by people—men and women—whose lives and actions have affected their community and culture (and beyond) in profoundly positive and negative ways. Thus, it is not difficult to find in the historical timeline poignant contributions of such people as Augustine, Anselm, Calvin, Wesley, and the like. These greats not only touched the lives of those immediately around them; they also profoundly affected the future through their words and deeds. In many ways, what is considered good, moral, and true in contemporary time was established centuries ago.

Moreover, in their brief time on earth, these prominent men and women bravely and honestly spoke of what they believed and acted upon those principles for all to see—regardless of the consequences. They demonstrated their personal character, morality, and spirituality in how they treated others and in their advocacy and promotion of truth and goodness. Regardless of any controversy in their own time, they have become models for all to follow.

With this in mind, an exploration of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929–1968, American) is appropriate and beneficial. In consideration of his life and written works, a deeper understanding of King and what he fought for in post-WWII America can be uncovered. One can see the inter-connectedness of King’s spiritual beliefs and their application for many in the present day. Although by no means anyway perfect, it is evident that, through a careful examination, one can encounter the superb mind, gracious temperament, and unrelenting altruistic attitude of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Brief Biography of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Although King’s brief life was cut short at age thirty-nine by an assassin, his life nevertheless was a full one.  He was born to Reverend and Mrs. Martin Luther King, Sr. on January 15, 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia. Besides a typical elementary education, King also attended both Booker T. Washington High School and Atlanta University Laboratory School. Regarding his own childhood, King stated, “The first twenty-four years of my life were years packed with fulfillment. I had no basic problems or burdens. . . I sallied through high school, college, theological school, and graduate school without interruption.”[1] Considering the social problems and restrictions of his time and culture, King was very fortunate in this regard.

King was a precocious young man and despite not yet graduating from high school in 1947, he was given a license to preach. He was later ordained a Baptist minister and graduated from Morehouse College in 1948, graduated from Crozer Theological Seminary in 1951 with a BD degree. Thereafter, he was installed as the senior pastor of the Dextor Avenue Church in Montgomery, Alabama in 1954, and received his PhD in Systematic Theology from Boston University in 1955. It is clear and evident that King was a highly intelligent and resourceful man.

Beginning in 1955 (until his murder by James Earl Ray in 1968), King was deeply involved in the civil rights movement and other social causes. During these endeavors, King was elected president of the Montgomery Improvement Association in 1955, endured many threats upon his life, had his house bombed in 1956, was elected president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957, was stabbed in the chest in 1958, was jailed innumerable times,[2] led many demonstrations and peace marches, wrote many books advocating for social equality, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.[3]

In the modern cultural milieu of narcissism and self-serving political systems, it is far too easy to associate King with a multitude of social activists who serve a private, personal agenda rather than the greater public good, but this would be a tremendous mistake. Yet, King deserves his day of honor. As one reads and listens to King’s words, it is apparent that his motivation is more sacrificial than sanctimonious, more authentic than argumentative, and more compassionate than controlling. King’s actions and words speak more of a man of character and heart who lived out his inner beliefs with integrity, honesty, and humility.

Character and Social Activism

For Martin Luther King, Jr., being a Christian (and a human being) meant more than just having a passive existence in life. These two realities demanded of him a high degree of loving action, which naturally evolved into a high degree of social action. In King’s mind, every human being, every believer and non-believer, was a “child of God.”[4]  This entitled each individual to the respect and dignity God grants to His beloved creations, regardless of their appearance or biology.  This required certain sacrifices and responsibilities of the believer. He wrote,

“The Christian virtues of love, mercy, and forgiveness should stand at the center of our lives.”[5] 

The believer does not just have the title of “Christian;” the Christian should act, think, and feel as a devoted follower of Christ should, as demonstrated in the Bible. This meant, essentially, that people ought to live out their lives in similar fashion to Jesus’ expression of love to neighbor and to God.

No greater example of this can be found than in the parable of the Good Samaritan. King expressed that the Christian truly is the good neighbor who “looks beyond the external accidents and discerns those inner qualities that make men human and, therefore, brothers.”[6] The life of the believer is not to be a cutthroat, self-centered, isolated, insulated experience. Christians ought to develop and cultivate a depth of perception and kindness like that of their namesake. There is no time or justification for “pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities”[7] for the Christian.

Furthermore, as men and women of proper Christian character, an attitude of compassion should be maintained even for people perpetrating evil. King states,

“We must recognize that the evil deed of the enemy-neighbor, the thing that hurts, never quite expresses all that he is.”[8] 

Jesus’ words of “Father, forgive them for they know not what they are doing,”[9] certainly seem apropos considering King’s aforementioned pronouncement. Jesus’ words were not theoretical to King.

He summed up his call to Christian character when he writes,

“Only through an inner spiritual transformation do we gain the strength to fight vigorously the evils of the world in a humble and loving spirit.”[10] 

King’s admonition seems in complete agreement with Christ’s Biblical example. The Gospel was not meant to just be studied like a dry, outdated, historical tome; it is a trumpet call for the Christian responsibility to share God’s love with the rest of the world. Bringing the Good News to others meant taking care of them, personally and physically. This required courageous involvement in the Christian revolution, as he saw it, going on in America in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Character had to be followed by social application—the two were not separable or disconnected.

King wrote,

“Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the economic conditions that damn the soul. . . is a dry, dead, do-nothing religion in need of new blood.”[11] 

This certainly calls to mind visions of painted sepulchers and Pharisees in Matthew 23:27. For King, it was the difference between saying one is a Christian versus actually being one in word, deed, and attitude. Not surprisingly, King saw this as a call to action against the evils of the world involved in the racial oppression of peoples in the United States and the world. If all people on earth are the children of God, then segregation and prejudice are evil sins pitting brother against brother (or sister against sister) much like Cain and Abel.

Discrimination, based on selfishness and greed, only causes undue pain and suffering, no matter how it is justified in human society, and is clearly condemned in key Biblical texts. Thus, King challenged the racial prejudice that he encountered and stated,

“We Negroes have long dreamed of freedom, but still we are confined in an oppressive prison of segregation and discrimination.”[12]

He further remarked,

“Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals. . . This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.”[13] 

In his sermons, speeches, and writings, King was calling for men and women to rise up and take an active part in removing racial prejudice from American society. This action was to be applied exuberantly, yet in peaceful love. Thus, King called for passive resistance in the style of both Jesus Christ and Mahatma Gandhi.  King wrote,

“Nonviolent soldiers are called upon to examine and burnish their greatest weapons—their heart, their conscience, their courage, and their sense of justice.”[14] 

King could see in history that violence only brought out more violence; moreover, the Bible had shown Jesus’ example of dealing authentically but peacefully with His attackers. King saw these two factors and used them to maintain the loving discipline of nonviolence.  He sought to change the social structure of his time, but in a way that did not compromise the foundation of his faith, which could only make matters worse.  His desire was to fix the social problem—not fan the flames of anger and hatred—and passive resistance successfully accomplished King’s goal.

The result of the passive resistance movement was a productive one, even though the people promoting it often found their well being threatened with violence and hardship. Many black and white advocates of racial equality were jailed, abused, physically harmed (or worse) in their unwavering yet loving challenge of the social status quo in the South. Fortunately, this sacrifice seems to have been worth it, in the end. The goal of desegregation in America was legally accomplished; unfortunately, the ultimate goal of universal brotherhood and complete equality has not been fully realized in greater society, yet, but perhaps it will in time, with a great deal of thanks to people like King.

King has been a powerful example for millions of Americans to emulate in the forty some years since his death, and social equality in America can easily be linked to him. However, no one is an island, and King never attempted to run this movement alone. Truly, he only succeeded because people of all races began to work together for the common good of humanity.

Conclusion

King once stated,

“The end is reconciliation; the end is redemption; the end is the creation of the beloved community.”[15] 

Ultimately, he did not want a reversal of the social structure—that did no one any good; he wanted greater community between blacks and whites, and between all human beings and their God.  Moreover, King did not want vengeance—he only wanted loving justice. He saw his black brothers and sisters suffering under the oppressive weight of a society claiming to be Christian, but not acting in Christ-like ways. He wished to help America “transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.”[16]

Although his chosen path to promote racial equality was often controversial, through listening to King explain his motives and methods, and through seeing the man in action, it is evident that King’s motivation was consistent and noble. He sought to fulfill the greatest Biblical commandment to love God with all his heart and mind, and to love his neighbor as himself. 

This is no better understood in a passage of his “I Have a Dream” speech, given on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. in 1963. King proclaimed to his listeners that day,

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold, which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.[17]

Racial tensions still exist today, but they definitely have been lessened dramatically in the United States because of the remarkable efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr. His bravery, balance, and benevolence in attacking the problem of racial inequality in America should be appreciated for what it was—Christianity at its best. Alhough Luther has been gone for many decades, one can still hear the echoes of his calling for Americans, for all humanity, to daily and bravely live out a life of love, character, and godliness.

Endnotes

[1] Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength to Love (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963), 113.

[2] Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” 1963; http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/resources/article/annotated_letter_from_birmingham/.

[3] “Timeline of Events in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Life; http://www.lib.lsu.edu/hum/mlk/srs216.html.

[4] Martin Luther King, Jr., The Measure of a Man (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1963), 14.

[5] Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992), 21.

[6] King, Strength to Love, 33.

[7] Martin Luther King, Jr., Why We Can’t Wait (USA: New American Library, 1964), 79.

[8] King, Strength to Love, 51.

[9] Luke 23:34 (RSV).

[10] King, Strength to Love, 27.

[11] King, The Measure of a Man, 27.

[12] King, Strength to Love, 92.

[13] Martin Luther King, Jr., Stride Toward Freedom (New York: Harper & Row, 1958), 174.

[14] King, Why We Can’t Wait, 25.

[15] King, I Have a Dream, 22.

[16] King, I Have a Dream, 105.

[17] King, I Have a Dream, 90.

Christmas in the Catacombs

Naamah walked down the main street of Salonika, tightly holding her father’s hand as they made their way toward old town.  The constant wind from nearby mountains stirred up the dust in the road so that the street vendors appeared like ghosts in the smoky, brownish-orange haze.  The sellers and buyers seemed to be in a yelling-contest, and Naamah drew closer to her father, trying to put as much distance between her and the angry people.

Neither of them was smiling; in fact, one could hardly tell that they were on their way to celebrate anyone’s birthday, but who could blame them?  It had been just three days since Barnabas had been murdered--pulled from his home by a bloodthirsty mob, stirred up by the local Oracle who blamed Barnabas for the plague.

Barnabas did not resist them, nor did he fight back when they began to beat him, mercilessly.  To his last breath, he kept praying for them, quoting the holy texts, which only angered them more.   Again and again, he said, “Father, forgive them,” and “Blessed are you who are mistreated.”  The crowd hissed at him like vicious vipers getting ready to lunge.

From the shadows of a nearby doorway, Naamah’s father, Kadmus, saw the horde throw stones at the poor, old missionary until blood ran like a river from his head and his heart gave out.  Worried that he, too, would be murdered by this frenzied pack of wolves, Kadmus stole back to the safety of his home to tearfully tell his family what had happened. The loss was devastating to the whole community of believers, and it felt unbearable.

Kadmus and Naamah approached the entrance to the city cemetery. As he swung open the rusty gate to enter the graveyard, he cautiously glanced around.  The street seemed empty; few people wanted to visit such a morbid location. They slipped through the gravestones and chalky tombs to the back of the necropolis, and entered a small, marble vault.

The chamber, itself, was unassuming with plain walls, no windows, and one modest sarcophagus near the back of the room, but its looks were deceiving.  The crypt contained a well-hidden passageway leading down to the ancient catacombs that lay underneath the city.  A small oil lamp burned on the sarcophagus. Kadmus picked up a small candle from a box lying on the ground near the opening, lit it, and then holding Naamah’s hand, they moved into the catacombs. He said to her, “Stay close.”

Naamah was surprised at the smell of the underground passage. The earthiness was there, yes, but the faint odor of incense and perfume also wafted from the wall niches containing the dead. It didn’t take them long to move through the maze of alcoves before they came to a dimly-lit room occupied by several people—three men, two women, and another child.

Kadmus let go of Naamah’s hand and rushed to the eldest man in the group, and they embraced.  Naamah heard her father softly weep into the old man’s shoulder, and she saw the man gently pat her father on the shoulder.  It troubled her to see her father so sad.

“Courage, Kadmus. This is not the end; it is only the beginning,” he said. 

Kadmus responded, “I . . . know, Thaddeus. It’s just that he was the one who first told me about Yeshua, the one who saved me.” Thaddeus kept Kadmus at arm’s length, and said, “Yes, Barnabas was an amazing man who shared the love of the Father with all he could. Truly, Yeshua would have been proud of him…and you, my friend.”

“I’m not sure about that,” Kadmus said, wiping tears from his eyes.

“Believe it, brother.” Thaddeus walked to a center table in the room with one big, bright candle on it, and said,  “What I do know, friends, is that Barnabas wouldn’t want us to wallow in sorrow for him, because he’s now with Yeshua, in unimaginable joy and comfort, as we all will be, eventually.”

Naamah heard one of them say, “Amen,” and others quickly echoed her.

“Violent men are filled with darkness because their gods are false; they have no hope; they have nothing to soothe the pain in their hearts, but we do. Yeshua taught us what Love really means, and from where true hope rises, like the water from a spring that no one can stop.”

Thaddeus picked up the candle from the table and moved to the wall behind him, which was covered with unlit candles.

“They try to snuff us out, but they can never put out the light of God.”  Thaddeus held up the candle above his head. “And this light is shared by the Holy Family—Father, Son, and Holy Sprit.” He lit two candles near the top of the wall.

“God’s light illuminates the hearts and minds of all who embrace it.”  He lit three more candles underneath the top two.

“Even though some die for the faith,” he said, lighting two red candles under the five; “Even though some pass over more peacefully,” he said, lighting two white candles beside the red ones; “The love of God shines ever brighter with each believer that lovingly shares it with his brother and sister.”  Soon, all the candles were lit on the wall—a mixture of red and white luminescence.  Finally, he placed the white candle at the top of the wall.  The light cascaded down it and the whole room was filled with the candles’ radiance.

“So, as we celebrate the birth of the Savior Yeshua this winter morning, let’s not forget what was spoken to the shepherds in the fields long ago. Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.” 

They all began to sing a hymn, and Naamah felt the warmth of the candles on her face and in her heart.

Post-Reformation Drama and Diversification

Henry VIII Separates from the Catholic Church

Renown for his many wives and supremacy as the head of the Church of England, Henry VIII was a powerful yet controversial king. Coming to the throne at age eighteen, Henry (1491–1547 CE) was pushed into a marriage with Catherine of Aragon (his dead brother’s former wife) and presumed to be an advocate for Catholicism in England. Desperate to produce a male heir (and in love with another woman), Henry VIII took steps to free himself from the former matrimonial arrangement set up by heads of the English state for mainly political reasons.

When Pope Clement VII refused to affirm his annulment of his marriage to Catherine, Henry split from the Catholic Church and created the Church of England, which was Catholic-like in liturgy but Protestant in theology. He spent the rest of his life reforming (or dictating) religion in England, dissolving the Catholic monasteries, shutting down Catholic revolts in the land, establishing common English religious tenets through Parliamentary articles (1536, 1538, 1539), utilizing English Bibles (such as the 1535 Coverdale Bible) to be used instead of the Catholic Vulgate version.

After his death (and with no legitimate male heirs), daughter Mary Tudor Started her reign as Queen of England at age thirty-seven. Mary I (1516–58 CE) was a staunch Catholic despite earlier affirming the Oath of Supremacy to Henry VIII. Determined to make things right once again, she tried to return religious authority to the papacy while ironically remaining head of the Church of England. She wanted England to be without heresy, doubt, or discord. An unloved and unliked regent, she repealed much of the legislation pushed through Parliament under her Protestant half-brother Edward VI’s reign in England. Mary is most infamous for her open persecutions, imprisonment, and executions of over 300 dissenters, giving her the title, “Bloody Mary.”

Elizabeth I and the Via Media

The daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, after Mary Tudor's death, Elizabeth (1533–1603 CE) became Queen of England and promoted Protestant practices that were uniform—thus uniting the kingdom in common worship while permitting greater “comprehension” of the people and a stabilizing the political scene. Never marrying, she received the nickname, “The Virgin Queen.”

Religious life had been violent and unstable for some time when Elizabeth I took the throne of England. With counselors on both side of the religious aisles whispering advice and admonitions in her ear as a young regent, Elizabeth decided to take a more pragmatic and personal approach to solving the political and religious problems surrounding the Church of England. Unlike some of her peers and predecessors who sought to enforce a strict religious belief system in their land, Elizabeth I chose a more diplomatic and encompassing approach to satisfy her religious desires along with her political aspirations—the Via Media or “Middle Way.”

In a time when rulers often set a steadfast religious standard that many of their subjects could not follow for personal or ethical reasons, Elizabeth attempted to provide as “comprehensive” a religion as possible to unite her country under one main faith. This stabilized her country and took the wind out of the sails of many religious factions. True, there were still some on the fringe who took a rigid posture, but the majority of her subjects were able to join under a common bond of worship and faith.

The compromise that she offered was basically a reformed Catholic Church, which followed Protestant doctrine but in an episcopal structure. Thus, she was able to throw off the authority of the Pope over her while at the same time not dissolving the hierarchy that provided power and stability to the religion and country. This may not have set well with the Catholic Church or men like John Calvin, but for a ruler more interested in political gain than theology, the Via Media suited Elizabeth’s purposes rather well.  

The Dissenters

Although most branches of Protestantism in this era agreed upon main principles such as salvation by grace through faith alone and the ultimate authority of scripture, several sub-groups emerged who disagreed (or dissented) with the Church of England's religious authoritarianism. These "nonconformists" were striving for a true, full reformation of the church. To wit, they thought the continental reformers had become too political but the English reformers were too washed out.

As most advocated for religious liberty, they were also condemned as radical elements in society by the state and were eventually made illegal especially after the act of uniformity in 1548, –52, –58, and –62. These sub-groups included the Puritans, Presbyterians, Lollards, Quakers, Congregationalists, Levellers, Methodists, Unitarians, the Baptists, among others. To escape religious persecution in England (and in the Continent), many adherents of these sub-groups emigrated to America, including the Pietists.

The Lollards were a movement who closely followed the teachings of John Wycliffe. They pushed for more pious reform of the church, saying that true priests were pious people and that even pious laymen could perform the sacraments. They believed that religious authority came from piety. They upheld scriptural authority over church hierarchy. They also believed that the real church was the "church of the faithful" and definitely not the corrupt Church of Rome. They also believed in predestination and consubstantiation in the Eucharist (but not transubstantiation).

The Puritans were English Calvinists who wished to purify the church by a return to biblical religion. Even within the group, there was no complete agreement on their methods and so some sects of Puritanism were more separatist and violent than others. Still, all were opposed to many traditional elements of the Church of England. They forbid crucifixes and priestly outfits. They thought there should be no bishops but elders were allowed (based on biblical precedent). Socially, they encouraged a sober life, emphasis on Scripture, simple lifestyles, and honoring the Sabbath.

Another famous nonconformist group in England (and in America) were the Quakers. Led by leaders like George Fox and Margaret Fell, this was a mystical Christian purist movement often mockingly called, "Quakers, " because as George Fox said, "They called us Quakers because we bid them tremble at the word of God." They had no universal set of doctrines; instead, an inner light was the guiding force for members of this group. They believe in the primacy of the Holy Spirit, who had inspired Holy Scripture. A hallmark of Quaker meetings, they regularly waited in silence for God to speak to them and had no official pastor or minister but sought spiritual judgment through consensus. Over the years, they've been called many different names: Seekers, Friends, Children of Light, the Saints, and so on.

The German Spark That Lit the Church on Fire

Somewhat unsurprisingly, the Middle Ages ended as turbulently as they began. The church itself had undergone a great transformation from its lowly beginnings in the third century to the height of power and opulence in the 14th century. Sadly, it often became hard to see healthy spirituality within the church institution because of the secular tainting that had occurred over the centuries. This originated in two different ways. First, the training of priests was all too often perfunctory and unchallenging. Often times, priests and bishops might purchase their clergy/ office positions (also called simony), leading to a corruption of personal religious integrity. Second, the church had grown rich and rotten, living more in the world of man than the world of God. There was a general worldliness about about the system with its opulence, nepotism, and pluralism abundantly embraced by its leaders in a faith that demanded purity,  honesty, and sacrifice.

All this reached a head with the invention of the Gutenberg Press that launched Europe into a new literacy and print culture, providing people with new opportunities and abilities to share information in faster, better ways. Moreover, the Reformation just did not begin in the 1500s. There were several forerunners to the religious change that was about to occur in Europe including Wycliffe, Hus, and Erasmus (among others). These pre-Reformers' responses to the impropriety of the church ranged from stark rebellion to gentle reform but they all had the same critique in mind—the church had grown too secular and needed to repent.

The Reformation itself began within the church itself with one of its most educated and faithful followers – Martin Luther. Despite an earlier career plan of becoming a law student, Martin Luther entered the religious world, becoming a monk in 1505, a priest two years later, and finalized his religious edification in receiving his doctorate in 1512. It cannot be said the Martin Luther did not live and breathe the church; he knew it inside and out.

It was when the church began to sell indulgences (for the forgiveness of sin and removal of earthly penalty) that Martin Luther could tolerate it no further. In his eyes, the selling of forgiveness for sin was not real repentance, unbiblical, and was even more of a stumbling block to true grace and restoration. Indulgences being sold were done in order to finance church building projects such as the rebuilding of St. Peter's Basilica—not for the good of parishioners. Luther was aghast and wrote numerous theses about how the church had erred and proclaimed a manifesto for change, for the church had become sinful and secular.

The church authorities, of course, were indignant and resentful of Luther's "arrogance." They demanded that he recant his assertions, kicked him out of the Augustinian order, and demanded that he come back to Rome for trial. Fortunately for Luther, several German princes in the area "kidnapped" him so that they could help him fight back against religious rulers they also considered to be hypocritical despots. Luther refused to back down, pleading his case in debates with church legates, going so far in one of them to call the Pope "the Antichrist." Luther also took advantage of the new print culture, writing several different pamphlets (which were distributed widely) including "An Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation," "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church," and "The Freedom of a Christian."

Not surprisingly, Luther was excommunicated in 1521 by Pope Leo X and attended the Diet of Worms to defend himself in front of the Assembly of theologians (mostly on the side of the Holy Roman Empire). Luther would not apologize nor change his position, bravely maintaining his theological criticisms, demanding them to show where scripture affirmed their position. His teachings were condemned and so, with no other options, Luther officially broke from the church. 

First, in 1524, Luther said that priests no longer needed to wear the traditional church habit or outfits; he then proclaimed celibacy to be unnecessary and in 1525, married a Cistercian nun with whom he had they had six children, thereafter. He proclaimed two main theological innovations that ran counter to the "Catholic" way: Sola Fide (By Faith Alone) and Sola Scriptura (Scripture Only). Any other approach was dangerous and worldly.

The schism of the church was finalized and the term, "Protestantism," was coined. Later, Lutheranism as religious movement was the finalized of the Augsburg Confession, which detailed the essential Protestant doctrines and the central Catholic Church errors. Other Reformers followed such as Zwingli, the Swiss Reformer who died during the Swiss Civil War, Anabaptists Conrad Grebel and Thomas Muentzer, who wanted to take the Reformation even further, and Dutch Anabaptists Menno Simons and Balthazar Hubmaier.

C. S. Lewis, "A Christmas Sermon for Pagans" (1946)

Beautifully accurate analysis from C. S. Lewis in his "A Christmas Sermon for Pagans" (1946). I think it speaks to the Christian Existentialism of the Postmodern Age.

"As for the ideologies, the new invented Wrongs and Rights, does no one see the catch? If there is no real Wrong and Right, nothing good or bad in itself, none of these ideologies can be better or worse than another. For a better moral code can only mean one which comes nearer to some real or absolute code. One map of New York can be better than another only if there is a real New York for it to be truer to. If there is no objective standard, then our choice between one ideology and another becomes a matter of arbitrary taste. Our battle for democratic ideals against Nazi ideals has been a waste of time, because the one is no better than the other. Nor can there ever be any real improvement or deterioration: if there is no real goal you can’t get either nearer to it or farther from it. In fact, there is no real reason for doing anything at all.

It looks to me, neighbours, as though we shall have to set about becoming true Pagans if only as a preliminary to becoming Christians. I don’t mean that we should begin leaving little bits of bread under the tree at the end of the garden as an offering to the Dryad. I don’t mean that we should dance to Dionysus across Hampstead Heath (though perhaps a little more solemn or ecstatic gaiety and a little less commercialised “amusement” might make our holidays better than they now are). I don’t even mean (though I do very much wish) that we should recover that sympathy with nature, that religious attitude to the family, and that appetite for beauty which the better Pagans had. Perhaps what I do mean is best put like this.

If the modern post-Christian view is wrong—and every day I find it harder to think it right—then there are three kinds of people in the world. (1) Those who are sick and don’t know it (the post-Christians). (2) Those who are sick and know it (Pagans). (3) Those who have found the cure. And if you start in the first class you must go through the second to reach the third. For (in a sense) all that Christianity adds to Paganism is the cure. It confirms the old belief that in this universe we are up against Living Power: that there is a real Right and that we have failed to obey it: that existence is beautiful and terrifying. It adds a wonder of which Paganism had not distinctly heard—that the Mighty One has come down to help us, to remove our guilt, to reconcile us."

Cultural Contexts of the Early Christian Movement

Since the dawn of humanity, people have sought to understand the reality of the world in which they live. A common theme held by these seekers suggests that a supreme being exists (typically referred to as “God”) who interacts with the inhabitants of earth. Many people groups have expanded upon this idea throughout history and offered their own perspectives on the realities of God.

For centuries, Christian theologians have also examined, pondered, and debated the texts of the Bible in search for the true interpretation of scripture. Their studies have brought to the surface succinct tenets of what it means to be an orthodox Christian and what actually constitutes the being of God. In Westernized countries, Christianity has offered the most widely accepted understanding of God and the world. Modern Christianity embraces the belief of a Triune Deity, made up of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit—three separate personages in one. For many, this is a trustworthy explanation of the nature of God; for others, it is not so cut and dry.

These skeptics are quick to point out that amidst the formulation of religions such as Christianity, there has been much cultural, political, and social change surrounding them. Because of the ageless interactions between nations, cultures, and beliefs, many skeptic claim that unseen influences have occurred, surely influencing Christian beliefs from what they may have been, originally. These doubters sense controversy concerning the possible intersections of other religions with early Christianity—such as from African, Persian, and Greek/Roman cultures. These challenges may have some merit, so, in the interest of truth, an investigation is warranted. 

To this end, this article will first offer to the reader a general understanding of who and what orthodox Christianity believes God to be.  Secondly, the reader will be presented with the rudimentary beliefs of several religions that the early Christians would have come into contact with in their lives. Furthermore, the possibility of historical inconsistencies and weak theological integrity of these various religions will be touched upon, briefly. From these surveys, it will hopefully shed light on whether early Christianity borrowed any doctrinal ideas in the understanding of God from their regional neighbors.  

The Christian Understanding of God

Perhaps the clearest example of the Christian orthodox view of God comes from the Nicene Creed—a statement of faith composed by the early Church by the Church Council at Nicæa in 325 CE, under the authority of Constantine the Great.[1] In it, the basic understanding of God and Christianity was articulated (as well as someone so transcendent can be). The Nicene Creed states,

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made...We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and  glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and  apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.[2]

God is seen as the creator but also as a person, one with Jesus, His son, who is also God and one with the Holy Spirit, who is also God. Thus, the orthodox view of God is as a Triune entity, made up three distinctive yet encompassing persons. The key statement from the Nicene Creed for this paper’s purposes is, “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.” One can see that the statement promotes the Trinity as more than just a force or simple personage. God is a complex being, made up of three members who intricately share in their lives together—Father, Son, and Spirit.

Of course, this understanding is not without problems. The reality of the Trinity is a difficult concept to understand and questions have arisen over the centuries as to its origins. Many skeptics have pointed out that though the New Testament is replete with references to the Holy Spirit, the Old Testament lacks similar proof. Yet, although the same exact terms may not necessarily be used in both Testaments, nevertheless, a clear presentation of the Holy Spirit as Hiss own person can be perceived from a variety of scriptural sources.

Genesis 1:2 states, “The Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.”  Note the author of Genesis purposefully chose the words, “Spirit of God” and not just “God.” Genesis 1:26 states, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” The use of “us” and “our” indicate plurality of persons, not singularity. Exodus 31:3 further states, “And I have filled him with the Spirit of God.” Again, the Spirit is spoken of as a real entity, not just a mood or passion. The Spirit is seen to have purpose and intent in its actions. 

These verses demonstrate that the Spirit of God, as a unique personage with and in God, was included in the Biblical texts from 2500-4000 BCE.[3] As such, the Old Testament and New Testaments are still able to make claims to a monotheistic God. Other religions may make similar claims to Christianity, but the authenticity of their sources is often suspect due to the time frame of their arrival on the religious scene, dubious authorship, and unsanctioned alterations or additions. 

As mentioned earlier, for a full examination of the question of extra-cultural influence on early Christianity, it is essential that the religions surrounding the early Christians be inspected. Therefore, three main regions will be examined—Africa to the south, Persia to the East, and Northern Europe.

The African Understanding of God

In considering the African understanding of God, it must be acknowledged that owing to the size of that continent, a great number of divergent theologies exist.  So, to narrow down African Theistic thought to a few concepts is difficult, to say the least. However, in the pursuit of truth, some generalizations will be made. 

First of all, the “most minimal and fundamental idea about God, found in all African societies”[4] has God as “the Supreme Being.”[5] He is considered “omniscient”[6] and “knows everything, observes everything and hears everything, without limitation and without exception.”[7] At this level, African theology may have some things in commonality with Christianity;  however, from there on, the theology shifts in a dramatically different direction. 

God is considered Spirit but not in the Orthodox Christian way. For the African people, “In theory God is transcendental but in practice He is immanent.”[8] In other words, although God resides in a dimension outside of normal time and space, He still manifests Himself to humanity in “natural objects and phenomena.”[9] This belief crosses over to animism (the attribution of conscious life to natural objects or to nature itself) and pantheism (identifying the deity with the universe and its phenomena) in a variety of ways. Widening the gap further, many African tribes believe that God “does not eat, and has no messengers”[10] nor family—completely contradicting the life and nature of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as well as the whole Trinity as presented in the Bible.

Perhaps most importantly, the African understanding of the nature of God suggests that “People might know some of His activities and manifestations, but of His essential nature they know nothing.”[11] God, then, is “mysterious and incomprehensible, as indescribable and beyond human vocabulary.”[12] This concept completely disagrees with the Christian view of God. 

According to the Bible, God has revealed Himself in so many ways that it would be hard to say that humanity has no notion of His nature. The Apostle Paul proclaims in Romans 1:20,

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

Moreover, in 1 John 4:16, it states that “God is Love” whereas in African Theology, “There are practically no direct sayings that God loves.”[13]  

This lack of intimate connection with God is further exemplified in the theology of ancient Egypt. One of the more ancient civilizations that clearly should have influenced Middle East thought, Egyptian religious thought was rather superficial. Their theology “did not possess the terminology for the expression of a system of abstract thought...[they] thought in concrete pictures.”[14] Thus, the two most important parts of life to the Egyptians were the sun and the Nile and the Egyptians molded their religion around those forces of nature. 

Furthermore, as the Egyptian theology evolved, “The forms of the state began to pass over into the world of the gods.” Religion in Egypt became politicized. In Egyptian theology, through reincarnation, “The deceased Pharaoh became Osiris and enjoyed the same resuscitation by Horus and Isis, all the divine privileges, and the same felicity in the hereafter which had been accorded to the dead god.”[15] Ironically, whereas in the majority of Africa, God was a transcendent spirit, untouchable by humanity, in Egypt, God was a mortal, human pharaoh.  

Clearly, Egyptian and Christian theology have little in common. There is no Egyptian counter-part to the Trinity. In Egypt, theology was used to govern the people through power and might. In Christianity, love and servanthood were (and still are) the hallmarks of godly living.  Egypt enjoyed many separate and distinct gods but early Christianity had just one God.

The Persian Understanding of God

As Christianity got its start in Judea and Galilee, it is reasonable to wonder how much its Persian neighbors to the east influenced its development. A great deal of trading, both of goods and social conventions, passed back and forth in the Middle East and religious movements—such as the Zoroastrians, who interestingly appear to share commonalities with Christianity.

In fact, many Zoroastrians claim that “It is probable that the Jews were influenced by the Zoroastrian faith of Iran in those days—and took the concepts of heaven/hell, God’s evil adversary, the resurrection and the final purification of the world-the virgin birth, the Saviour, etc.”[16] from them. In addition, they assign a date of 6000 BCE[17] as the date of the founding of Zoroastrianism. With the similarities to Christianity and the claim of an earlier historical origin than that of both Christianity and Judaism, it appears that Zoroastrianism could have a valid claim of being a strong influence.

Yet, appearance is not always reality, and put to the scrutiny of historians, scholars, and theologians, the Zoroastrians’ assertion lacks merit. To begin with, the time frame suggested by most conservative Zoroastrians can easily be debated because “The collection of Zoroastrian teachings was not completed until the fourth century CE—centuries after the early Christian movement began, leaving in some doubt who may have influenced whom in such matters as angels, resurrection, and eschatology.”[18]

Additionally, eight hundred years is a long time to maintain textual integrity during such an intense period of social change and upheaval. Secondly, even accepting the date of 600 BCE as the birth of Zoroaster[19]—(the Greek name for Zarathustra, the founder of Zoroastrianism), the Jews in captivity in Persia had been reading for hundreds (if not thousands) of years of a God of justice, love, and mercy and of the coming messiah in David’s Psalms and Isaiah’s prophecies. To say that the Jews owed their theology to the Zoroastrians is like claiming the United States owes its freedom to the Young Democrats.

Beyond these historical problems, an in-depth study of the Zoroastrian understanding of God shows it falls far short of the Christian view. Much like the Egyptians, Zoroastrian theology is superficial and operates at a more basic level than Christianity. The Zoroastrians worship “a single god, Ahura Mazda, who is supreme.”[20] As spirit, their God “has no size, form or weight and therefore, it cannot be described physically.”[21] The Zoroastrian God, like the Egyptian god, Re, is a god of light and fire, which “is a symbol of their God.”[22] There is a strong dualistic nature to the Zoroastrian God and their whole faith.

Although the Gospel of John also makes reference to God as light, it is presented in conjunction with God coming in the form of a human being, sent to be humanity’s redeemer. In Christianity, this paradoxical and simultaneous ontology of humanity and divinity occurs through Jesus Christ. Zoroastrianism solely promotes the idea that “Humans are responsible for their own fate.”[23] Furthermore, contrary to the Christian principle of sharing the Gospel with the World, the Zoroastrians do not accept converts. To be part of the faith, one has to be born into it. Such an approach clearly suggests Gnostic tendencies.

The Greco/Roman Understanding of God

Christianity did not only have to face pantheism, polytheism, Gnosticism, and dualism in its fledgling days. It also had to contend with the Hellenism of the Roman Empire, which promoted all things Greek—including its religions. This is perhaps one of the strongest areas of debate for the skeptic because the philosophic approach of the Greeks and Romans had a sophistication and depth similar to that of Christianity. The Christian ideals of heaven, perfection, and godliness have long been attributed to platonic influences and most of the Epistles in the New Testament show form and function commonly used in the Greco/Roman culture.

Philosophic approaches aside, theologically, the Greeks and Romans were polytheists, at least in word, and had a number of Gods to choose from. The Roman gods were the same as the Greek gods but with different names. The Romans also promoted their gods in status to “state-gods and were caught up in political religion.”[24]   

Zeus, as the head deity or “sky-god,”[25] stood for “righteousness”[26] although he and the other deities were less than perfect. Often, the Greco-Roman gods suffered from poor choices and ill-fated occurrences. Zeus was often adulterous and deceptive in his dealings with mortals and immortals. Although Zeus was a supreme being, he had a father—Cronus—and a mother—Rhea.[27] Thus, he was a created, flawed, yet all-powerful being.

As the Roman Empire progressed through time, religion became more syncretistic and “a new stress on the demons, the intermediate spirits, and new gods from the east and south came in alongside the old.”[28] The Romans worried little about tainting their faith with new gods. In fact, their approach went hand-in-hand with the nature of Hellenism. The historian Polybius considered the Greco-Roman gods to be merely “an opiate for the people.”[29]  Eventually, much like the Egyptian pharaoh’s, the flawed (and often unbalanced)Roman emperors even began to be worshiped as divine.[30]

Suggesting that Christians borrowed their doctrine from Greco-Roman theology is a weak position to take for not much of the Greco-Roman gods corresponds with the Christian God. The Christian God, however, was above all one of purity, love, and goodness, but the Greco-Roman Gods were more like mortals with special powers (think “postmodern Avengers”). The Christian God required piety and self-control, but Greco-Roman gods (like Bacchus and Mars) promoted lustful, epicurean living.  In a strong sense, then, the Greco-Roman gods probably would have been considered by the early Christians as models of everything bad and therefore, undesirable.

Conclusion

By casually reviewing the various religions surrounding the early Christian church, it is easy to superficially presume that it might seem realistic that some elements of Christianity may have been borrowed from other cultures. There are hazy similarities that could lead one to propose such a theory. Terminology and religious metaphors are tossed around in such a fashion as to imply sameness. 

However, upon deeper inspection, it is clear that in most cases, in principle, early Christianity operated on a much different depth than other religions. Whereas most other religions appeared to focus on humanity’s role in life, Christianity mandated focusing on a pure and holy God. This surely lead to a high standard of consistency and integrity and one demonstrated by the words of John in the New Testament. He writes,

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this, you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.”

Likewise, in the present time of syncretistic embrace and substitutional pretense, the postmodern church should heed John’s words and keep its eyes Heavenward toward a Triune God who is authentically and authoritatively one in Person, Spirit, and Love.

Bibliography

Breasted, James. Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt. Philadelphia: University of Pennslyvania Press, 1972.

Hailey, Henry, ed. Halley’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965.

Havewala, Porus Homi, “Who are the Zoroastrians,” [Online] August 6, 2001,                                          <http://members.ozemail.com.au/~zarathus/zor33.html>

Jeffers, James. The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament. Illinois: InterVarsity, 1999.

Keller, Werner. The Bible As History. New York: Bantam, 1980.

Mbiti, John. African Religions and Philosophy. New York: Anchor, 1970.

Mistry, Pervin J., “Spirituality in Zoroastrianism,” [Online] August 6, 2001,                                              <http://members.ozemail.com.au/~zarathus/spirit33.html>

Lewis, James and William Travis, Religious Traditions of the World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

Parada, Carlos, “Zeus, Greek Mythology Link,”[Online] August 6, 2001,                                       <http://www.hsa.brown.edu/~maicar/Zeus.html>

Parrinder, Geoffrey, World Religions From Ancient History to the Present. New York: Hamlyn, 1971.

Robinson, B.A., “Zoroastrianism,” [Online] August 6, 2000, <http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htm>

”The Nicene Creed,” [Online] August 6, 2001, <http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/intro/lr-nicene- creed.html>

Endnotes

[1] Livingstone, Oxford Concise Dictionary, 400.

[2] http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/intro/lr-nicene-creed.html.

[3] Halley’s Bible Handbook, 34.

[4] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 37.

[5] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 37.

[6] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 39.

[7] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 40.

[8] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 43.

[9] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 43.

[10] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 43.

[11] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 45.

[12] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 45.

[13] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 49.

[14] Breasted, Development of Religion and Thought, 8–9.

[15] Breasted, Development of Religion and Thought, 39.

[16] Havewala, “Who are the Zoroastrians.”  

[17]  Robinson, “Zoroastrianism.”

[18] Lewis and Travis, Religious Traditions of the World, 57.

[19] Havewala, “Who are the Zoroastrians,” [Online] August 6, 2001.

[20] Robinson, “Zoroastrianism.”

[21] Mistry, “Spirituality in Zoroastrianism.”

[22] Mistry, “Spirituality in Zoroastrianism.”

[23] Mistry, “Spirituality in Zoroastrianism.”

[24] Parrinder, World Religions, 149.

[25] Parrinder, World Religions, 147.

[26] Parrinder, World Religions, 148.

[27] http://www.hsa.brown.edu/~maicar/Zeus.html.

[28] Parrinder, World Religions, 159.

[29] Parrinder, World Religions, 166.

[30] Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World, 17.

The Greatest Commandment

I love this stanza from 1 Corinthians 13:

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

And I know many people say, "Exactly! Loving others is the only thing that matters. I don't have to believe in the miracles or think that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. Just sentimental love is what I want . . . Ahhhh . . . Wuv . . ."

But that is not a careful reading of the text. First Corinthians states, "These three remain: faith, hope, and love"—not "only love remains" or "don't worry about faith and hope," but all three matter, with love binding them all together. That is great Christianity, truly, but take one of the three out of the equation, and life's questions become very difficult to be solved, if at all.

Asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus stated in Matthew 22,

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments’." 

Notice which comes first—Loving God is the greatest commandment—not just loving others (although that is integral to Godliness). And, according to Jesus, loving God means loving the Law and the Prophet—you know, the Old Testament, the Bible. Jesus loved people, of course—but He had faith in God and His Scriptures first, which gave Him the hope and purpose and power to love others that society considered unlovable until His death on the Cross. To be a Christ-follower means loving God the Father, wholly, and trusting that His ways, His words, are THE path for a good, productive life.

And, by all means love, but start with loving our heavenly Father, to whom you owe everything.  If you hold His Word and His commandments and His ordinances in disdain, if you mock others who adore His greatness and His guidelines for holy living, you are being unloving, untrusting, and unhopeful about God and to others. You are only loving yourself, which is easy and basically self-idolatry (despite what Whitney Houston proclaims in her song, “The Greatest Love of All”). Real love of God and others produces hope, which in turn produces faith, which fosters more love, more hope, and more faith in a wondrous, amazing cycle of relationship, response, and replication. 

So, if you call yourself a Christian, then first pour out your love on God, sing out His praises, tell Him what you are so thankful for, give Him that twenty-second spiritual hug that Psychologists say is quintessential for mental and emotional health, and then let that love shower down upon others around you who are in desperate need faith, love, and hope in their own lives. We must be Christ to the world; people need to see the love of Jesus in our hearts for everyone, including God.

Remember, love never fails unless people fail to love—and it all starts with the Love of God.

Why Is Evangelism Passé in Postmodernity?”

The question running through my head this morning is “Why is evangelism so disdained in postmodernity?”

Simply, it is self-evident that too many people follow gospels of their own making, which are no gospel at all (Galatians 1:6–10). Throughout biblical/church history, many ambassadors of God have shared the Good News from God, which is different from the other vacuous man-made politicized centers of religiosity available in Jesus's time and until today. Yet, although currently many lukewarm assemblies market tremulous paths of faith, their “customers” perceive them to be merely grifts (shams) of self-determinism, whose “evangelists” push programs and profits, but little peace and pomades for the soul. Instead of the transcendent Gospel of Jesus Christ, people are offered a Gnostic (secret) gospel of self-empowerment, prosperity, physical fitness, emotional placebo, and so on. Though they strive to encounter God, instead they too often find a church of humanity—ostensibly, a bureaucracy or social club, which is why they think, “Well, if that’s the case, I’ll just shop around or make my own.”

While that might help them feel comfortable for a while, it brings them no closer to God and they still thirst for everlasting divine waters. To fight off the emptiness of the void, they gather around with other like-minded frustrated seekers for consolation and acceptance. Manifestly, their gospel is 1/2 of the Greatest Commandment (Mark 12:28–34; Matt 22:34–40; Luke 10:25–28). While they may be loving their neighbor as themselves, they refuse to love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength. Ultimately, they stop short and suffer for it. As Isaiah and Jesus noted, they

"Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving" (Isaiah 6:9 & Mark 4:12).

Thus, when an authentic Evangelist comes around to share with them the true Good News of GOD (as defined in the Bible), it scares/angers people because it makes them aware of their own empty spiritual state and the foolishness of their chosen path or community. In fear or despair, they lash out and vilify the Messenger (or worse), digging an even deeper chasm between them and their salvation. It is a tragedy of their own design and making, sadly. Fortunately, no expanse is too far for God to traverse, nor any sin too wicked to be forgiven. Salvation can be found, but only through the Person—and Grace—of God.

King David said it well in Psalm 103 (TLB):

I bless the holy name of God with all my heart. Yes, I will bless the Lord and not forget the glorious things he does for me.

He forgives all my sins. He heals me. He ransoms me from hell. He surrounds me with loving-kindness and tender mercies. He fills my life with good things! My youth is renewed like the eagle’s! He gives justice to all who are treated unfairly. He revealed his will and nature to Moses and the people of Israel.

He is merciful and tender toward those who don’t deserve it; he is slow to get angry and full of kindness and love. He never bears a grudge, nor remains angry forever. He has not punished us as we deserve for all our sins, for his mercy toward those who fear and honor him is as great as the height of the heavens above the earth. He has removed our sins as far away from us as the east is from the west. He is like a father to us, tender and sympathetic to those who reverence him. For he knows we are but dust and that our days are few and brief, like grass, like flowers, blown by the wind and gone forever.

But the loving-kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting to those who reverence him; his salvation is to children’s children of those who are faithful to his covenant and remember to obey him!

The Lord has made the heavens his throne; from there he rules over everything there is. Bless the Lord, you mighty angels of his who carry out his orders, listening for each of his commands. Yes, bless the Lord, you armies of his angels who serve him constantly. Let everything everywhere bless the Lord. And how I bless him too!

Note that David is speaking about a Who and not a “What.” In his Psalm, David introduces the reader to the Being of God—not just the social schedule or activities for the Assembly. David is not acting as an agent for a church or movement, but rather as an ambassador—an evangelist—for the loving divine Entity in his life. David wants others to personally experience the wondrous relationship that he has with our wonderful God.

The Good News of David is that God is—THE—God of action, of doing, of being, of life itself. No community of humanity (or watered-down, polluted evangelism) can compete with the benefits of God. Ponder this: Those who are lost, God is able to find. Those who are hurting, God is willing to mend. Those who all alone, God is open to embrace. Nothing and no one is beyond His rescue. God pardons, heals, redeems, crowns, satisfies, renews, performs, judges, and makes known. In Him is found kindness, grace, mercy, timeliness, charity, reward, reliability, efficacy, understanding, and everlasting compassion, compassion, compassion.

In postmodernity, more than ever, people need more than a spiritual placebo—they need the Person of God and passionate people to proclaim His Power over darkness.

Sacro-Egotism and Cult Leadership

At the 2007 Association of Sociology of Religion conference in New York City, a member in the audience hearing my explanation of Sacro-Egoism (wherein individual authority and power vastly outweighs institutional or established authority for most religious issues and mores) mentioned that she thought the term, “Sacro-Egoism” (Knox, 2016), was derogatory, and she demanded that I rescind it. I replied that she probably was confusing “egoism” with “egotism.” The former, egoism, is a healthy part of normal human personality; the latter, egotism is a manifestation of neuroses (or worse) that leads to an absurd sense of self-esteem or self-importance. To wit, Webster’s Dictionary (1986) defines the ego as “. . . [T]he self; the individual as aware of himself” and also as “. . . that part of the psyche which experiences the external world through the senses, organizes the though processes rationally, and governs action,” so egoism is not a bad thing; it is part of normal human psychology. Fortunately, she seemed content with my response.

That being said, I began to consider whether or not Sacro-Egoism (i.e.—religious and political individualism) could become even more of an oppressive expression of personal will—both for the individual Christian and in any nearby church communities. If a person’s radical-individualism was hyper-inflated, specifically regarding spiritual beliefs, then that person could become a “Sacro-Egotist,” wherein his or her notion of religion and/or spirituality would be the only option for themselves and could be forced upon others. A person such as this sounds suspiciously like a cult leader.

In fact, the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology (1983) states that the word,

‘cult,’

. . . most frequently denotes a group, usually religious or pseudo-religious in nature, that exhibits the following characteristics: it deviates sharply from and strongly rejects the prevailing culture; it is dominated by a highly charismatic leader who often proclaims him- or herself to be divine or to have special access to the divinity.

This approach would take the main characteristics of Sacro-Egoism (on the part of the leader) and passive compliance (on the part of the followers) and would transform them into something much more intense and excessive (and likely harmful) than nominal religious expression.

Thus, with a Sacro-Egotist cult leader established in a position of power and influence in a fringe religious community, his or her followers would completely acquiesce to his religious demands. Clear examples of Sacro-Egotism/cults are evident in history—Jim Jones of the People’s Temple, David Koresh of the Branch Davidians, and Marshall Applewhite of Heaven’s Gate. One could possibly make the case that several post-modern leaders in the Progressive Postmodern Church Movement also lean toward a Sacro-Egotistical understanding of salvation, biblical canon, and Christian ethos—i.e., Bell’s “Love wins,” which suggests counter-biblical claims of universalism and lawlessness.

Each of the aforementioned cult leaders took their own sense of religious individualism to an extreme level, providing empowerment for themselves and submission for their followers, which is ironic, considering that Sacro-Egoism embraces the antagonism AND ambivalence to institutionalism that the Sacro-Egotistical commander will not allow. The personal/pragmatic commitment to the spiritual journey was replaced with a rigid, sacrificial commitment to the spiritual plan of the leader. Jesus and the Bible were integrated into church life where it best served the cult leader. Finally, there was an intolerant condemnation of other religious systems of faith that challenged or contradicted the superiority and authority of the Sacro-Egotist’s understanding of spirituality and/or holistic health.

The historical push (and SCOTUS legalization) of gay “marriage” demonstrates just how much Sacro-Egotism and its embrace have infiltrated American culture. Five non-elected judges attempted to decide an absolute (controversial) moral and religious code for 400 million American citizens. Still, the Bible warns about such a narcissistic approach to spirituality, religiosity, and leadership.

In Ezekiel 34, the prophet states,

Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock.

Jesus also teaches about Sacro-Egotism in Matthew 24, predicting,

“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”

In the Epistles, the Apostle Peter writes in 2 Peter 2:

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories.

And in Jude 1, the writer warns,

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord . . . These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead.

Curiously, not everyone in modern society considers cults to be necessarily negative. European sociologists Furseth and Repstad state,

Health and well-being are often important values in cults, as they are in society at large. The deviant aspect [of cults] lies in the fact that cults are critical of established religion and academic medicine, and that they seek alternative ways of attaining the same goals through healing, alternative medicine, astrology, and self-development (Furseth and Repstad, 2006).

Although the follower may be seeking spiritual improvement, the Sacro-Egotist is still mainly “on the hunt” for spiritual exploitation of adherents—a violation of the main characteristic of good, healthy leaders who use their role to better the lives of those trusting in them. This was true 2,000 years and it is still true today.

Modern American religious culture may tolerate (and affirm through passivity) the radical oppression of Sacro-Egotists, but the biblical message is clear. The Apostle John writes in his second epistle,

“Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.” 

Sacro-Egotism may appeal to the cultural aesthetics of the present age, but it is still a destructive force that needs to be remedied in love and truth. Even more, it needs to be rebuked on a personal and community level for the sake of the Gospel.

Christ's Glorious Return

The greatest irony in human history might be that the first time Jesus came to earth, wicked religious leaders despised Him and killed Him because they wanted a King, but He came as a servant. Yet, when Jesus returns, based on current rejections of biblical authority and a treacherous self-serving bias feeding their egotism, wicked religious leaders seem damned and determined to reject Jesus again because they want to reign over a slave—not bow down to a righteous King—and will be destroyed because of their embrace of evil and self-deification.

Some things to consider:

1. Jesus is coming again to rule forever.

2. The postmodern Sadducees and Pharisees have been trying to re-spin the End of Days away just as the Serpent did in the beginning of this man-made maelstrom—"Did God really say that?" Answer: Yes, He did.

3. Nothing is occurring or will occur that hasn't been heralded in the Bible (see the passages below).

4. False teachers can/will only dispense a false gospel contrary the biblical accounts and will attempt to sway or shame you into complying with their “Special Interpretation” (or else).

5. Jesus's Return will be a Glorious Day!
   
   "As the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west so also will the coming of the Son of Man be . . . Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." (Matt 24:27-31)
   
   "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God." (2 Thess 2:1–4)
   
   "Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, 'Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.'” (Jude 1:14-15)
   
   "I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with clouds of heaven! And He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed." (Dan 7:13–14)

A “Flash” Book Review of The Emperor’s Handbook, by Marcus Aurelius

When one thinks of Roman emperors, typically, a vision of malevolent, crazed, narcissistic tyrants demanding worship (or death) comes to mind. Yet, readers are fortunate indeed to have access to one of the finest minds of ancient antiquity in The Emperor’s Handbook, by Marcus Aurelius, lauded as one of the “Five Good Emperors” by Niccolo Machiavelli in the sixteenth century (Machiavelli, 1531, Book I: Chapter 10). Within this proverbial tome, Aurelius presents his advice, admonitions, and axioms regarding the path of the good life for all humanity in twelve loquacious chapters.

As in the Golden Era of Israel, in which King Solomon enjoyed prolonged peace and good fortune, the Roman culture and society that surrounded Aurelius also provided him ample and precious time to contemplate his (and others’) road to success, which he attributed to both wise choices and the providence of the gods. Rome, in this era (121–180 CE), was steeped in polytheism, so it is not surprising that Aurelius makes repeated references to the providence and beneficence of the gods in each of his journal’s chapters. Yet, unlike the fickleness of the Greek gods, Aurelius saw goodness, charity, and divine justice in the ways of the gods, proclaiming,

“But in truth, they do exist, and they do care for human beings, and they have put all the means in man’s power to enable him not to fall into real evils” (Book II, Section 11).

Ultimately, though, Aurelius’ own vision of the gods includes a humble, yet pragmatic view mankind (and of himself), wherein all mortal human beings can attain unprecedented blessings simply by taking advantage of the earthly palette of opportunities provided to everyone from the gods, if they would just set aside their unstable human emotions for a philosophy of life that is principled, purposeful, and predictive. As Aurelius concludes,

“What a power man has, to do nothing except what God will approve, and to accept all the God may give him” (Book XII, Section 11).

With such sagacious aphorisms, it is no wonder that many consider Aurelius’ The Emperor’s Handbook to be still just as relevant and resonant in the twenty-first century as it was in the second century.

References

Aurelius, M. The Emperor’s Handbook: A New Translation of the Meditations. New York: Scribner, 2002.

Machiavelli, N. (1531). Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Lives. Public.

To Know As We Are Known: A Lesson on Life and Learning

Life has many commonalities that transcend culture and time. One customary facet of human development that most people have experienced throughout history involves the educational process (both for the secular and the sacred). Sadly, over the past several decades, too many students have entered into educational environments that were academically superficial (or skewed) and came out of the journey missing the very aspects that their schooling was designed for—the acquisition of a thorough consideration of valuable knowledge for productive personal and public use. Thus, the importance of proper educational presuppositions—especially concerning seminary goals and methods—has never been so evident as when considering the radical personal approach that postmodernity currently offers to twenty-first century seekers.

For decades, a populist movement has grown within Western society, with frustrated individualists actively working to throw off the modernist cloak of scholarly tradition that vexes them and hampers their proclivities (because of traditions’ embrace of archetypes, evidence, and restricted social avenues). Rather, they seek educational institutions with “fresh” conceptions of schooling. In Christian circles, this overlaps with people’s religious edification at church and in seminaries. One could consider this new postmodern perspective to be a hybrid of Christian existentialism and practical theology.

Many scholars would agree that for most progressives, traditional Protestantism carries with it a stereotype of vaulted religion that is all talk and no action (or too much talk and too much action). In the seeker’s mind, the sterile, stifling, and rigid environments that surround traditional seminaries can hamper and hinder their personally prescribed walk(s) with God. They often feel frustrated and frenzied because of their loss of self-control and self-direction.[1]

In rebellion and opposition to their perceived outdated academies, these postmodern “splitters” have broken off from traditional orthodoxy to find (or form) their own viable centers of theological reflection. These new learning bodies tend to sponsor apologetical flexibility, alternative spirituality toleration, heterodox beliefs regarding biblical interpretations, and unfettered theological acceptance of all recruits.[2]

With this new progressive attitude, they attract and increase enrollment (at least, initially) by providing more of a relational than an overarching doctrinal approach to theological studies, offering students degree programs that are ostensibly more individualistic and personally pleasing than rigorous and thorough, scholastically. As Schaeffer puts it, “Sadly enough, there is a kind of an anti-intellectualism among many Christians: spirituality is falsely pitted against intellectual comprehension as though they stood in a dichotomy. Such anti-intellectualism cuts away at the very heart of the Christian message.”[3]

As with any movement, though, there are problems associated with this new direction of religious learning. Specifically, whenever one moves away from the right, there is the danger of landing too far to the left. Supporting this, toleration and acceptance done in love and with biblical understanding are required in traditional Christian praxis but taken too far (2 John 1:9), they can be harmful if not even heretical. As C. S. Lewis wrote, “The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it.”[4] A church full of emotion and compassion is a good thing, but when accommodation and hysteria overtake reason, it can lead to a shallow, imbalanced understanding that only tickles the ear (2 Timothy 4:3).

To counter this, Parker Palmer’s book, To Know As We Are Known, addresses these issues by offering academic understanding and commonsense guidance over what good teachers—and good educational institutions—embrace and exhibit. He begins his exploration by focusing on the archetypical foundations of learning and the dangers of the hyper-personalized ones.

The old adage suggests that knowledge is power, and Palmer recognizes this axiom. Many students work to increase their academic understanding only to increase their personal empowerment at work, at church, or in general society. Unfortunately, this political self-promotion can occur because of more than just the student’s selfish wants and demands. Often, the students become the product of the learning environment that has been designed to program them to think with a myopic agenda in mind (either of the institution or the student him/herself).

For the sake of clarity (and one quite relevant to seminary life), Palmer defines the beneficial teacher-student experience as “the study of sacred texts, the practice of prayer and contemplation, and the gathered life of the community itself.”[5] Thus, the student will be sitting on a three-legged stool, but if one of the legs is too long or too short, it can divert the student’s attention away from important facets of education.

Palmer goes on to expand upon these important truths of education and brings up the issue of objectivism versus subjectivism. He deliberates on the attributes and impossibility of being objective but also on the biased dangers of being too subjective. He offers, “The teacher is a mediator between the knower and the known, between the learner and the subject to be learned.”[6] With this in mind, it becomes a challenge to be completely objective, for the teachers cannot divorce themselves from the knowledge, but neither should they approach the matter solely focused upon themselves. This could lead to egotism and abuse. Palmer’s final advice is to embrace the knowledge—and to let it sink in deep and to engage it, personally and reasonably.            

There are many different ways of acquiring knowledge and Palmer warns against taking the safe, secure road of theoretical conventionality alone. Instead, he suggests making the knowledge matter in the heart for, truly, “to learn is to face transformation.”[7] If students are to grow in knowledge, their learning should make a difference in their own lives—and others’ lives, too. If nothing happens, then the information passed on has been pointless and just a vain pursuit.

If transmitting and receiving knowledge is so important, then, Palmer suggests various techniques for encouraging good teaching and good learning. He states, “Both obedience and understanding imply submitting ourselves to something larger than any one of us, something on which we all depend.”[8] A proper humble attitude is crucial to making the educational process a success. The teacher and the student must be self-aware enough to not let their egos get in the way of discovering truth. Neither should the teacher or student allow their fears to determine the limits of their educational involvement.

Academic or scholarly equilibrium seems to be the key. This balance is not just to be in the teacher’s approach to the student but even more so in the whole educational environment that the student steps into. Palmer proclaims, “I am calling for teachers who bring the audience into the play, who create the space that draws students, teacher, and subject alike into truth’s own drama.”[9] Seminary students need to be made aware that learned truths and fallacies daily affect their lives. They need not fear truth; rather, they need to embrace truth and trust in it (John 14:6).

Finally, Palmer sums up this powerful pedagogy when he says, “The true professor is not one who controls facts and theories and techniques. The true professor is one who affirms a transcendent center of truth, a center that lies beyond our contriving, that enters history through the lives of those who profess it and brings us into community with each other and the world.”[10] These ideas are quite astute and yet so many professors are oblivious of their significance and requirements. Lectures are often given to promote personal agendas. Professing often becomes pontification solely to boost their egos. Personal partisanship often replaces proper education with proselytizing within the classroom. Tragically, professors such as these ignore the responsibilities of their position and abuse it (and their students).

Fortunately, books like Palmer’s (from authors such as C. S. Lewis, Oswald Chambers, Bruce Wilkinson, Nancy Pearcey, and the like) offer a lens of sensible guidance for being a good teacher (and a good student). The suggestions in To Know As We Are Known are powerful; a teacher or student who follows Parker’s admonitions will surely experience greater, more productive opportunities and an insurance of a full and meaningful educational experience—if they take the chance. Of course, which is riskier—to call oneself a teacher and yet not to actually teach truths, or to call oneself a teacher and to try to make a difference in a student’s educational life? Similarly, which is riskier—to call oneself a student and yet not be opened to fully learning, or to call oneself a student and humbly try to expand the understanding of oneself, God, and how the world operates (and why)?

Seeking truth (especially biblical truth) can be a scary pursuit that demands bravery but being courageous is not just being unafraid. Being a courageous teacher, then, is purposely teaching in ways that challenge students’ childish presuppositions, even when that pedagogy might evoke political or emotional responses. Likewise, being a courageous student, then, is being willing to hear new (and old) concepts that push back against any comfortable, deeply trenched personal understandings of Christianity and human existence.

Finally, it probably goes without saying that any good teaching or learning in a seminary rests, relies, and submits to the time-honored and proven divine resource of spiritual authority and proper praxis—the Bible. As Solomon wrote long ago, “Let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance—for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:5–7, New American Standard Bible). Still, this is an excellent ongoing challenge for all teachers and seekers in the postmodern age. Even further, it embodies the spirit of a seminary after God’s own heart and His mission on earth. 

 (Originally published in the Log College & Seminary journal, Theolog 1:1, Spring 2021)

[1] John S. Knox, Sacro-Egoism: The Rise of Religious Individualism in the West (Wipf and Stock, 2016), 55.

[2] Paul Heelas, Linda Woodhead, Benjamin Seel, Bronislaw Szerszynski, and Karin Tusting, The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion is Giving Way to Spirituality (Blackwell, 2005), 68–74.

[3] Francis Schaeffer, A Christian View of the Church (Crossway, 1994), 261.

[4] C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (Macmillan, 1978), 29–30.

[5] Parker Palmer, To Know as We Are Known: A Spirituality of Education (HarperOne, 2010), 17.

[6] Ibid., 29.

[7] Ibid., 29.

[8] Ibid., 40.

[9] Ibid., 67.

[10] Ibid., 79.

Being Who You Are

“The most common form of despair is not being who you are.” ~ Søren Kierkegaard

One of the clearest indicators that you're in the wrong environment is being shamed by the bureaucratic powers that be, demanding that you abandon core elements of your identity (such as honesty, sincerity, fairness, justice, a sense of humor, and so on)—or else (professional threats)—so as to appease the arbitrary comfort-whims of a ruffled customer, client, student, or barbarian who has now become your tyrannical, unbalanced master. Where is that in your work position description?

It is compliance by compulsion for the sake of institutional cupidity, control, and comfort. It is a sign that you are working for a company who thinks that they have bought your soul with a salary.

"You are no longer ________; you work for us now; we will remake you in our image, our brand, our constantly shifting approach, our ever-tightening grip."

You suddenly discover that you are under the paternal/maternal caprices of Sparta, Caiaphas, Imperial Rome, Muslim Caliphates, City-State warlords, Borgia popes, Absolutist monarchs, cold-hearted Industrialists, Socialist autocrats, technology bureaucrats, the new AI gods, and so on.

Remember what Jesus said to His Disciples as He sent them on a mission to share the Good News to the world:

"Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts—no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, ***for the worker is worth his keep*** Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." ~ Matt 10:9–14

It's not about the money, machine, or placation of the minions; it's all about the message and the mission of the Master's men.

Honor your calling. Be steadfast in your calling. Protect your calling at all costs.

Missing my friend Tim today. From our 2017 Bible Survey textbook:

“Wisdom Literature,” God in the Details, Kendall-Hunt 2017

On Pannennberg, Jesus, and Literary Theory . . .

Wolfhart Pannenberg’s book on the historical issue of the Resurrection and the delay of the Parousia (Second Coming) presents a powerful argument for the validation of scripture and a refutation of the modern New Testament literary hyper-criticism approach. Pannenberg examines two specific aspects of the Resurrection (the after-Easter appearances of Jesus and the empty tomb) and the modern critical thought surrounding them, as well as the issue of the Parousia in lieu of Jesus’s Resurrection.

Pannenberg begins with the appearance of Jesus to Paul and argues against the idea that Paul merely borrowed from older traditions of appearances. Unlike the Disciples, Paul’s Christophany took the form of an audition as opposed to the more familiar descriptions the Disciples give. Paul’s experience also had a uniqueness about it but still was comprised of elements that gave it the signature of a biblical vision--specifically, the signature of seeing the risen Christ.

Pannenberg then goes on to examine whether or not the whole experience was just a psychological one, as some scholars he suggested. Contrary to their opinions, Pannenberg states, “Something like this did not arise as the mental reaction to Jesus’ catastrophe.” His final conclusion is that there is not enough legitimate evidence to prove or disprove that argument and so conclusions cannot be so final.

Pannenberg further asserts that modern scholars are hypocritical in their approach to the New Testament accounts for they, themselves, are applying their own biases to begin with on whether a man can rise from the dead. Beyond that, they are being inconsistent in their historiography because they are critiquing the whole experience historically while at the same time denying it is an actual historical event.

Pannenberg moves on to tackle the empty tomb and in similar fashion, takes his opponents assumptions and dismisses them one by one. He begins by pointing out the fact that the empty tomb would be impossible to fake as there was too much notoriety and public awareness of it. Furthermore, if it were a conspiracy concocted by the Disciples (or by some body snatchers), then their behavior was inconsistent in that endeavor. If they were away, how could they steal the body and if they stole the body, why did they stay? The community of early believers was a “reliable testimony for the fact that the grave had been found open.” Finally, the fact that both of these traditions came into being around the same time suggests that their assertion is that much stronger and more valid, at least historically.

Pannenberg then focuses on what Jesus’ Resurrection and coming Parousia means to humanity in the present. His conclusion is that it is just as meaningful to humanity now as it was to the early Christians, for the return of the Lord “has become promise once again for us.” We await confirmation just as our Christian forerunners did—with hope and expectation.

Pannenberg’s work for me, as a hopeful church historian, is one of assurance and confidence that it is possible to approach the Bible’s stories in a logical and intelligent way. In fact, contrary to the fanciful humanistic optimism that overtakes so many modern scholars, as a Christian, I can admire and promote my faith and the book that it rests upon as more than a psychological mirage or concocted theo-drama. There may be mysterious issues and complexities with linguistic nuances and interpretation, but there is also truth in the New Testament. These twenty-seven ancient books deserve the same amount of respect as other historical works examined by modern scholars—that is, if the scholars really desire to be critical builders of truth and not merely cynical, circular-reasoning deconstructionists.

Bibliography

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus, God and Man. Lewis L. Wilkins, Duane A. Priebe, trns. Philadelphia : Westminster Press, 1977.

Parables & References:

1) The Speck and Log: Matt 7:1–5; Luke 6:39–42

2) The Two Houses: Matt 7:24–27; Luke 6:47–49

3) The Children in the Marketplace: Matt 11:16–17; Luke 11:24–26

4) The Two Debtors: Luke 7:41

5) The Unclean Spirit: Matt 12:43–45; Luke 11:24–26

6) The Rich Man's Meditation: Luke 12:16

7) The Barren Fig Tree: Luke 13:6–9

8) The Sower: Matt 13:3–8; Mark 4:31, 32; Luke 13:19

9) The Tares: Matt 13:24–30

10) The Seed: Mark 4:20

11) The Grain of Mustard Seed: Matt 13:31–32; Mark 4:31, 32; Luke 13:19

12) The Leaven: Matt 13:33; Luke 13:21

13) The Lamp: Matt 5:15; Mark 4:21; Luke 8:16; 11:33

14) The Dragnet: Matt 13:47–50

15) The Hidden Treasure: Matt 13:44

16) The Pearl of Great Value: Matt 13: 45–46

17) The Householder: Matt 13:52

18) The Marriage: Matt 9:15; Mark 2:19, 20; Luke 5:34, 35

19) The Patched Garment: Matt 9:16; Mark 2:21; Luke 5:36

20) The Wine Bottles: Matt 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37

21) The Harvest: Matt 9:37; Luke 10:2

22) The Adversary: Matt 5:25–27; Luke 12:58

23) Two Insolvent Debtors: Matt 18:23–35

24) The Good Samaritan: Luke 10:30–37

25) The Three Loaves: Luke 11:5–8

26) The Good Shepherd: John 10:1–16

27) The Narrow Gate: Matt 7:13–14; Luke 13:24

28) The Guests: Luke 14:7–14

29) The Marriage Supper: Matt 22:2–9; Luke 14:16–24

30) The Wedding Clothes: Matt 22:10–14

31) The Tower: Luke 14:28–30

32) The King Going to War: Luke 14:31–32

33) The Lost Sheep: Matt 18:12; Luke 15:4–7

34) The Lost Coin: Luke 15:8–10

35) The Prodigal Son: Luke 15:11–32

36) The Unjust Steward: Luke 16:1–9

37) The Importunate Widow: Luke 18:2–5

38) The Pharisee and Tax Gatherer: Luke 18:10–14

39) The Slave's Duty: Luke 17:7

40) Laborers in the Vineyard: Matt 20:1–16

41) The Talents: Matt 25:14–30; Luke 19:11–27

42) The Two Sons: Matt 21:28

43) The Wicked Vine-Growers: Matt 21:33–43; Mark 12:1–9; Luke 20:9–16

44) The Fig Tree: Matt. 24:32; Mark 13:28; Luke 21:29, 30

45) The Watching Slave: Matt 24:43; Luke 12:39

46) The Man on a Journey: Mark 13:34

47) Character of Two Slaves: Matt 24:45-51; Luke 12:42–46

48) The Ten Virgins: Matt 25:1–12

49) The Watching Slaves: Luke 12:36–38

50) The Vine and Branches: John 15:1–6