Spiritual Autobiography Part II: Brushing Up on Church History

...Continuation from  Part One

Up to this point I have really glossed quickly through the first part of my spiritual autobiography. There’s more that could be said, of course, but the more interesting part is what has been happening in the past years and currently.

I was completely content with being open minded and agnostic regarding the ranking of churches or Christian denominations and traditions as “better/worse” than others, at least with regard to orthodox, evangelical Christian churches. I see God moving and working in a wide spectrum of good churches in this city that all cater to a different demographic and have a different worship style.

But as I grow more mature in my faith, I began to be unsettled with my ‘agnostic’ view regarding important practices of faith such as communion, baptism, ‘steps for salvation’ and other social norms such as alcohol use and birth control. I came to a point where I wanted to know what I believed about these issues. And “seeing both sides” wasn’t working for me anymore as a well-informed Christian. I don’t tend toward dogmatism, and wouldn’t necessarily impose my determination on others, but I thought I should know what position I believed was the most supportable by Scripture. How should I reach a conclusion? One insightful way is to look at what the Christians who lived closest to Jesus’s time believed about these otherwise up-for-debate issues.

Providentially, some friends in a small discipleship group suggested that we spend the summer studying the Early Church fathers. Basically, this refers to the men and women who lived during Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection and learned from Jesus himself (Apostolic Church Fathers), and the individuals who learned from the twelve disciples (Ante-Nicene Church Fathers) and the future leaders that they mentored and taught. This takes us from the years of Christ through the Council of Nicea which determined the creeds of the Church, and the foundational doctrine of what Christians believe from that time until today. The years in question are 0-330 or so.

While I haven’t been able to delve deeply into what they believed about the certain subjects in question, I have been astounded by the implications of the early church. In looking at early Christian Church history, it does appear to me that there was only one single formal Christian Church from the time of Christ’s resurrection to the 1500s when the protestant reformation occurred. That was 1500 years of unity before the schism that sent Christianity in several directions, many of them dying and unglorifying offshoots, such as the relativist, unorthodox mainline denominations who do not view the Bible as objectively true and authoritative.

This raises an interesting question of how we think of and read the church fathers. We trust them to establish orthodox creeds of the church, to eventually compile scripture and to pass on the teaching from Christ to his disciples, to their disciples, and down the line. So, should what the church fathers believe about the spiritual practices in question inform our own understanding of how Christ wants his people and his church to act? For example, did they believe in the Real Presence (literal presence of Christ’s body and blood) in Communion? How, then, can we claim that it is a symbol?

And more interesting for a protestant, what happens if the early church fathers regularly accepted, believed in, and engaged in practices that the protestant church later spurned during the reformation? If early Christians we deeply trust did such things as praying for the deceased, praying to the saints, holding traditions about Mary’s ever-virginity, and her sinlessness and lack of mortal death, should we then also believe those things?

I don’t know, but the Church History discussion has kept the wheels turning in my mind. More on my current spiritual growth spurt in Part Three. And I think that’s it for the Church history bit.