Random Ruminations…
pensively penned by Joseph B. Ostrander
I’ve recently listened to Sarah Shotwell’s June 26th message covering early church history (great job Sarah!). It was a thoughtful look at the highlights of Christianity’s nascent growth from Day 1 to the rise of Constantine and the official (state sanctioned) age of religious tolerance. Sarah concluded her historical review with a brief explanation of the early church’s first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325 A.D. I thoroughly enjoyed her scholastic approach and delivery as it ‘sounded’ like a fantastic experience I wish I could’ve heard in person.
I must confess, although Church history’s not a topic that appeals to every saint’s intellectual taste, it does hold a certain fascination to me. I do like the consideration of what it would be like participating in an early church dynamic that was devoid of any detailed systemic theology that later became the jot-and-tittle of doctrinal purity and dogmatic certainty.
Here’s what I think held the early church’s messy learning curve all together in unity: Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. ~1Peter 4:8
Whether or not the issue of illiteracy was a limitation for those early saints, their minds were just as keen, and curious, and theoretical, and questioning, and vivid as any that either had preceded them, or came after. When it comes to theological considerations, those early saints were in no way at a disadvantage compared to what is categorized as the philosophical musings during the Age of Enlightenment (or the Age of Reason).
As integral as all of the first seven early church councils were to the development of some of the finer elements of orthodox theology, I think the more fascinating elements of the historical record actually have to do with the reason(s) the council was/were held, who the key players in the drama were, and how does such findings/conclusions impact us and my faith today? Should the early church councils be considered the ‘final word(s)’ about the topics discussed and any official findings that were then strictly binding (no alternative viewpoints welcome)?
Segue: here is an interesting viewpoint espoused by one of the most influential theologians today:
“Translating the New Testament is something, in fact, each generation ought to be doing…Just as Jesus taught us to pray for our daily bread, our bread for each day, we can never simply live on yesterday's bread, on the interpretations and translations of previous generations.” ~N.T. Wright
I mention it at this point in my ruminations since it raises a very intriguing consideration that seems to run counter to the idea that, “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!” certainty. I would hope, though I can only surmise, that the teachings we have been blessed with here at Coastlands Vineyard Church have indeed challenged at least some fraction of closely held, and oft times hotly defended, sacrosanct theological notions of every stripe from every Christian (orthodox) faith tradition…
Really Ostrander???
Yeah.
Really…
And just for good measure I now will throw out a consideration that could be a bit unnerving for those that hold to a strict inerrancy viewpoint of Holy Writ (the bible)…
If, by any worthy notion, N.T. Wright’s outlook has somehow resonated with your own spirit, may I suggest this very non-sacrosanct ‘what-if’…
What if God (the Trinitarian One) decided to allow the writing and compiling of Holy Writ to accurately include mankind’s skewed, or incomplete depictions of divine character and motivation simply to challenge each generation to rediscover the very Deity they claimed allegiance to???
Let me clarify: just like there are blatant mischaracterizations of God’s nature and character that are publically represented today by the weird, the wacky, or the extreme crazy uncle Christianese celebrities and/or ministry expressions today, could El Queso Grande simply permit all the current and historical kookiness in His name merely to help us sort out the chaff from the wheat???
Maybe???
What if the Old Testament writers penned their versions of the stories passed down through the oral tradition from generation to generation without letting their own uneasiness cause them to pause for more than a few minutes, and actually start to question the way Yahweh was being depicted???
And yes, I happily wear the molted skin of the Devil’s Advocate as caricaturized in Genesis 3:1…
Bear with me for a moment (at least those that actually read these musings…)
I want to reference a disconcerting element of the Gospel accounts where Jesus seems to distance Himself from the Mosaic Law that was supposedly dictated to Moses by Yahweh Himself (through divine revelation)…
Let’s look at relevant portions of scripture where Jesus (The Logos), goes to specific ‘lengths’ to avoid taking responsibility for being the Author, or divinely ‘authorizing’, the uncomfortable issue of divorce…
Review with me the Matthew 19 discourse (verses 3-9) where Jesus puts the onus on Moses, not the Father or the Spirit, for permitting a ‘certificate of divorce’ to be issued under the guidelines detailed in Deuteronomy 24. And then review too the deliberate nullifying of Mosaic Law prerequisites in Matthew 5 (beginning in verse 21) – (oh that poor scapegoat Moses!)…
You may wish to consider the phrasing used by Jesus in Matthew 19 to simply be an interesting ‘rabbinical contrast wording convention’ regarding the topic, but here is the theological ‘rub’…Jesus implicates Moses for simply being ‘inaccurate’ in his understanding of God’s true (original) motivation and purpose. And Moses was noted to have spoken to God face-to-face, and was also his friend???
Oh my…
And that, dear saints, is the consideration I wish to present to you this very summery Central Coast Saturday…
Think about it…
And then think about it some more...
Amen.