Sermon Library
“To Know the Future of Faith is to Know the History of Faith”
Rev. Dr. Gregg R. Anderson
June 06, 2010
Service Theme: Pentecost II-2010
Source: Revelations 18: 2, 16 – 17
Pentecost II-2010 June 6, 2010
To Know the Future of Faith is to Know the History of Faith
Revelations 18: 2, 16 – 17
By Gregg Anderson
Introduction
To understand the future of faith, it is best to understand the history of faith. This statement seems simple enough, perhaps even innocuous, but its implications are enormous. This discovery does take some extra digging, but the gems of knowledge are there. Indeed, it has been through archeological digs as well as looking under a few obvious rocks that scholars and historians have made significant discoveries which changes some of our long term assumptions about religion and Christianity. Gaining a closer look at our past will give us a better look for our future.
I also believe that this search is most in-keeping with the purpose of this Aspen Chapel which was stated during the ground breaking ceremony. One of those sentences in the back of our bulletin each Sunday is, “To this place gather, in lively encounter, leaders of religious thought to redefine spiritual values, to question, to seek relevant answers in a troubled world.”
I love the simple title of Professor Harvey Cox’s new book The Future of Faith and I am, personally, more than interested in this particular subject. Dr. Cox has helped me to realize along with hundreds of other contemporary religion scholars today that the best way to understand the future of faith is to understand the history of faith. And today, we can understand the history of faith better than ever before. That may sound strange, but as we have progressed in technology and communication, so have we progressed in religion.
Four Developments in Historical Research
Dr. Cox states that there are “four developments in historical research which have radically altered our understanding of the first centuries of Christianity, producing a far more accurate portrayal of the time of Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian church. I will mention these four very briefly.
The first is the recent discovery of many ancient texts and scriptures in Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1946 and translations of such in the early 1960’s. One of these text’s is the Gospel of Thomas which is becoming known as the first gospel. This gospel is different than later gospels and is being considered to be closer to the sayings of Jesus than other Gospels, especially the Gospel of John written 60 to 70 years after the life of Jesus.
The second factor is the new communication between biblical scholars and other historical scholars. These people and interests had different worlds in the past, but over the past fifty they have shared information in a far more open forum and historical comparisons. Ancient philosophy and theology have always had a keen relationship, but recently so called secular historians and religious historians have had a mutual dialogue unlike any time before.
A third factor is the fact the common history or “people’s history” has become more evident than before. History of the past is often kept by a certain hierarchy and elitism and holders of powers. It has been said that history is typically written by the winners. Our Christian history has been preserved by those in authority and have therefore presented a truncated, indeed mutilated, history that leaves out 95 percent of those who actually constituted the Christian movement. The history we have been given before is the history authorized by the Roman church and early bishops. Today, however, scholars have gained access to archeological discoveries which are unearthing the life of the common people and the many texts written by faithful people, but not sanctioned by the domineering religious and political leaders.
The fourth dynamic is also about religion and politics. The dogma and orthodoxy of the church developed four to five hundred years after the time of Jesus segregated religion and politics. This was done not to protect religion from politics, but set religion as greater than politics. They developed an hypothesis that Jesus was more interested in a spiritual world or a kingdom of God in heaven than Jesus was involved in a Kingdom of God on earth. The second coming was more important and heaven was above, hell was below, and the earth was in between. Today we have clearly understood Jesus as a proponent of God’s kingdom on earth as opposed to the Caesar’s kingdom on earth. Jesus was trying to establish a kingdom of peace on earth which countered the kingdom of dominance and control of the Roman Empire. Jesus was as political as he was religious. His purpose was not just to wait for a heavenly kingdom to invade the earth from above, but for the people of earth to create a heavenly kingdom on earth then and there.
Another reason which I would like to add, a fifth development, we know more about our history today than yesterday is the practical reality of modern technology and communication. Archeologist, historians and scholars can now share information with one another all over the world instantaneously and corporately. In one minute findings can be shared with hundreds and thousands of interested people reconfirming and potentiating discoveries.
So, we know more about our history today because of more discoveries, a mutual collaboration between secular and religious scholars, a broader scope of history, a more realistic understanding of politics and religion and advancements in technology and communication. There are many other reasons as well, but these happen to be a few that Harvey Cox mentions in one chapter of his book The Future of Faith.
Three Examples of Applying History of Faith
He then provides three examples among many other example of how this better understanding of history can be applied toward our future of faith, religion and specifically Christianity. He lifts up three assumptions about Christianity that have been passed on throughout the centuries that we now know are inaccurate according to our advancements in historical research. And these changes will make a difference in how we approach our faith for the future.
He writes, “My initial understanding of Christian beginnings was defective in three important respects. First, when I attended seminary, most historians conveyed the impression that once upon a time there was a single entity called ‘early Christianity,’ but that gradually certain heresies and schisms arose on the margins and disrupted the initial harmony. Second, they also assumed that what they called ‘apostolic authority’ took shape right away, as did the creeds and hierarchies that seemed necessary to combat these assaults from the edges. Third, they taught that although the Roman Empire formed the political and cultural locale in which the early Christians lived, it was mainly just the ‘background’ and, except for the persecutions and the martyrs, had little to do with how early Christian leaders shaped their own ideas and actions.”
In the last few decades, however, all these assumptions have proven erroneous. The following are now evident. First, there never was a single ‘early Christianity’; there were many, and the idea of ‘heresy’ was unknown. Among the various congregations scattered throughout the Roman Empire from Antioch to Gaul, there was no standardized theology, no single pattern of governance, no uniform liturgy, and no commonly accepted scripture. In faith all focused on Jesus, but there were decisive differences in interpretation. Some, especially around Jerusalem, emphasized the historical Jesus; others, the universal Christ; and still others, a mystical inner Christ.”
There were simply many differences among early Christians, yet they had the commonality of following this Jesus as each understood Jesus. “What bound them together was not an organization or a hierarchy, nor a creed. Rather, it was a powerful confidence that they shared the shared the same Spirit and were all engaged in the common enterprise of following Jesus and making his message about the coming of God’s Reign of shalom known to the world. Thus, it is now clear that the ‘official Christianity’ that eventually emerged was only one among a range of ‘Christianities’ that thrived during the earliest years.” We are now learning much about the validity of these other and fervent Christianities. Cynthia Bourgeault has dedicated her life to making these better known to us.
Second, it was not the apostles themselves, but subsequent generations who invented ‘apostolic authority,’ and both creeds and hierarchies emerged much later than had been thought. Paul taught that the mission of Jesus had been to break down the Jewish-Gentile barrier once and for all and that his own mission as the ‘Apostle to the Gentiles’ was to make this message known to everyone. Paul referred to himself as an ‘apostle,’ which simply means ‘messenger.’ Most important, as we look for the appearances of hierarchies and the claims to ‘apostolic authority’ on which they were based, Paul never claimed that his authority derived from previous apostles. In fact, he often denied it. It came from his personal encounter with Christ in his own mind and experience. He did not believe that the apostles should hold some unique kind of higher sway, but taught that the Spirit distributes among its members all the varied ‘gifts’ a congregation needs. And he underscored time and time again that the greatest of these gifts was love.”
“What happed, instead, was that, later on, the concept was read back into the earlier history. It was read back by those who, after the original apostles were dead, wanted to claim authority for themselves. When we realize that the idea of apostolic authority did not originate with the apostles, who themselves placed their confidence in the authority of the Spirit’s presence among the people, this has major implications today for the future of global Christianity.”
“Third, an essential key to comprehending the earliest Christians, including those who wrote the New Testament, is to see their movement as a self-conscious alternative to the empire that tyrannized them. The first Christians understood themselves as an essentially anti-imperial movement, one whose vocabulary, organization, and rituals created an alternative to those of the Roman Empire, whose imminent collapse they expected.”
Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan have recently devoted much of their recent research to this new and enriching realization which we have been talking about extensively this past Christmas and Easter. We are now discovering that the Book of Revelation is not about the Armageddon of the world, but of the Roman Empire at the time. “The book of Revelation is an invective against Roman rule, written probably around 120 CE by a man named John, living as a political exile on the craggy island of Patmos. ‘Babylon’ here is a code word for the city of Rome, capital of the empire, where the emperors decked themselves out in purple and scarlet. For the early Christians, including John of the book of Revelation, what was about to end was the imperial world of Rome, not God’s physical creation. Jesus had taught that God’s Kingdom would come on earth. Early Christianity was a fiercely anti-imperial movement, and for good reasons. Representatives of the Roman Empire had crucified Jesus, hounded his disciples, and sent the next generation of his followers into the arena with the wild beasts.” Religion and politics could not have been more incorporated than in the lives of the early followers of Jesus.
In this chapter I am referring to today by Harvey Cox, he talks about the difference the Gospel of Thomas has made on our understanding of early Christianity. Elaine Pagels wrote a best selling book on the Gospel of Thomas six years ago. For a period of about 10 days during that summer, it was the number one selling book in this country. Since then, Elaine has been researching and writing about the Book of Revelation. It should come out this summer. I suspect that it is going to be in line with what Harvey Cox has stated in his book. Elaine is a Christian and an historian. Her book on the Gospel of Thomas has changed Christianity for many people. Her book on Revelations will undoubtedly do the same. I can’t wait. To understand the future of faith, it is best to understand the history of faith. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Gregg R. Anderson
Aspen Chapel
0077 Meadowood Drive
Aspen, Colorado 81611
http://www.Aspenchapel.org