Holiday Ebenezer

Now if you talk to my wife, she would claim that I am very much like the character Ebenezer Scrooge during the Holidays. I personally have no warm feelings towards any particular holiday and yes that includes Christmas.

This proclamation makes many friends and family cringe. They don’t understand how I cannot enjoy the day that Christ was born. But I see little attraction to this day, or others, marked on a calendar. I think that it’s great that others enjoy observing them and I will probably start when I have kids, as it creates a memorable way to teach them, but for now they serve no real purpose in my mind. So I will continue wandering around the house, muttering things that are best summarized by, “Bah Humbug.”

However, this past Sunday I was reminded of a very interesting fact; the definition of Ebenezer.

“The men of Israel rushed out of Mizpah and pursued the Philistines, slaughtering them along the way to a point below Beth Car. Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen. He named it Ebenezer, saying, “Thus far has the LORD helped us.””- 1 Samuel 7:11-13

An Ebenezer is marker, or reminder, that God has helped us to a particular point. This concept of “Ebenezer” is a better definition of what the holidays should be.

With Thanksgiving upon us, the importance of being thankful has been especially laudable in recent years, as everyone has been forced to make tough financial decisions (some more than others). Though universally what we should be thankful for is that we have survived another year and that God has provided our basic necessities.

Holidays serve as easy reminders of time passing and of times of reflection. Christmas, New Years, Good Friday, Easter, and Fourth of July are some times that should make us stop and pray a prayer of thanks for our blessings and make these times more than just holidays, make them Ebenezers of our lives.

Shift from Yourself

It has been said in different ways, but I don’t think that it hurts to hear it again and in another way.

Each day I struggle with the concept of “Yourself” or “Myself”, and I know that many others do as well.

However, for Christians this is something that universally does not concern us. This is especially true of those who have overcome, or abstain, from obvious sins (drinking, swearing, smoking, adultery, etc.). What this leaves our culture with is a self-elevation of “Myself”.

In the Old Testament there are common references to “Yourself”, as all commands are given down this way.

Example: “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” – Exodus 20:4

In contrast the New Testament Gospels seem to be seemingly void of this type of “Yourself” commandment. In fact, in Matthew there is just one, can you guess it?

That’s correct, “Love your neighbor as yourself” – Matthew 22:39.

It is obvious that while the Old Testament is good and useful, there was a shift with Jesus’ teachings. He reframed the “Yourself” concept to be about others.

I am not sure that our culture has yet to understand this type of thinking, just as Jesus’ disciples struggled to understand two centuries ago.

But this is a struggle that is worth a lifetime.

To Church or not to Church, that IS the question…

In my last post I spoke about believing in God and in this post I am going to once again voice my concerns about the church of today. Now do not get these two confused. I know that all “good” Christians attend church, but maybe this is part of the problem.

As I grew up in the Church, I knew that there was this expectation to attend, be involved, contribute, and be a part of the overall health of the organization. I did not come to know this necessarily by example, but by teaching and implied expectations.

As I got older and had various run-ins with the Churches I was either involved in or worked for, and I began to have times when I drifted away from corporate worship. Now do not translate this as drifting away from God, as what my wife believes, but rather I drifted away from the people that I wanted to trust and feel safe around. Unfortunately, these unsafe-people were the ones (mostly collectively, sometimes individually) who let their church implied ethical desires over-rule their Christ-like desires within the church.

Implied ethic; for some, internal defenses just reached Defcon 1, while others know exactly what I am talking about. In every church, or every religious tradition for that matter, there are implied acceptable and unacceptable ways of acting, dressing, or conducting oneself. In general some examples of do not’s are: do not smoke, do not get drunk, do not cuss, do not commit adultery, and do not be caught in blatant sin. Some general do’s are: do shower, do look moderately presentable, do observe and preserve your church’s traditions, do provide for your family, do provide for the church, and do respect your religious leaders. In addition to these some particular’s of my religion are: do not use instruments in worship, do not question the validity of the Bible, do limit women’s roles in the church, and it is ok to look down on others if you are doing it in outwardly loving way.

While there are many conversations that can stem from my above slightly accusational list, what I want to concentrate on is the last one.

A few years ago I worked for a church and I was constantly frustrated how people would begin coming to our church and then slowly drift away to attend another church nearby. From this I would blame our programming, the worship, the sermon, the lack of community outreach, or the church leadership (including myself). To say the least I was miserable. However, after being detached from that situation for some time now I am beginning to understand that many of those within that church had come from a long line of leaders and teachers that loved only those similar to them-selves. So it was not that the church was not providing enough, it was their inability to love outsiders.

Churches are a dime a dozen in today’s society. I used to think this created a need for marketing, a good developed sales pitch, and relentless advertising until a church became the only one people thought of. This is the way of the world; promote, promote, promote. But it is not the way of Christ.

Christ did not promote himself. He did not put up billboards, pass out fliers, or advertise a free BBQ with child-care. Rather he loved people. Openly and honestly, he loved people. He served them by attending to the sick, teaching them about a better life, and being an example to his disciples.

Mark 6: 34-37

When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things. By this time it was late in the day, so his disciples came to him. “This is a remote place,” they said, “and it’s already very late. Send the people away so they can go to the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” But he answered, “You give them something to eat.”

The Church I currently attend has this wonderfully subservient ministry where they help people financially. I think that this is a great need based ministry as a largely lower-income area surrounds our Church. About a year ago our church saw this ministry growing beyond the capacity of one full-time minister and rather than hiring another, they asked church members to get involved. So now as classes takes place on Sunday mornings, a particular group meets and attempts to provide for the physical needs of our neighbors.

My wife tried to get me involved in this ministry, but something deep inside me resisted. It was only this evening that it dawned on me why.

When we read about Christ serving others, we read about it coming from himself and his abilities; though today we allow the Church to do this dirty work. We sit in our pews and put money in a collection plate (or use bill pay in my case), and entrust the church to divvy out what we tithe to God. So I have a suggestion, why don’t we do it OURSELVES?

Yes, we should contribute enough to have a place to worship and even pay for our full-time ministry staff (they really do have a tough job), but how much more personal, how much more loving, would it be for us to write a check to help keep someone else’s lights on? We are told to attend to one another’s needs. By pulling out that cash or using that personal check, our bank accounts take a hit and it finally becomes personal to us.

This personal connection is what our churches need today. It is what American culture is missing as we do not have a real understanding of community. We do not share and we do not serve unless it is in an appointed time and place. So what if, just what if, we began doing that sacrificially everyday?

Would the Church look different?

I think so.

Would people’s needs be met?

I think so.

Would we have the ability to connect with others?

I think so.

Would Christ-like love be displayed?

I think so.

With something so simple we could change the tradition of the Church and its ability to love.

God of Testing

I am constantly wondering why people struggle with the reality of God. For me his existence does not come without doubt, but it has never reached the point of blatant disbelief.

I can sympathize with those that can’t comprehend that which they cannot touch. I also can understand those that struggle to believe because they have experienced “God” from people who have alternate, or unholy motives. I however cannot understand/sympathize with those that have replaced God with science and math. To me this seems unfathomable.

It is obvious from science and math courses that much of the universe can be understood through a reverse-engineering process (we try to understand what already exists). However, even to this day there are limitations of this. We may understand how things grow, are molecularly created, and we can even use technology to mimic or ‘improve’ the process. Though we (humans) are not the original creators.

The common thought on the origins of the world is the “big bang” theory. Essentially, “the Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day” (Wikipedia). For me this is beyond my ability to understand or believe; so my only question is, where did the “primordial hot and dense initial condition” come from?

Maybe it is my simplistic nature, but the fusing of molecules, perfect temperate conditions, and the fact that atoms are held together by some mysterious force, all lead me to believe in a Creator.

The universe that we live in appears to be created and designed by something greater than ourselves. A higher power that, because we were Created, we have no real concept of. Thus the simplistic explanation provided through Biblical texts.

1 john 4:1-6

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
Undoubtedly, the writer is speaking of those teaching about false religions, but what about the “Spirit of truth” in today’s times? Would that not be a teaching of science and math?

The faith of today is in fact a faith of self-exaltation. We as humans have raised ourselves up to be all-knowing gods. So the command to challenge these teachings are ours. While most of us cannot, nor should we vainly attempt, to disprove the scientist’s beliefs/findings; what we must do is test them for ourselves. Does a chance existence make sense in opposition to a created universe?

To each and everyone, this is the first and most important question before true belief/faith in God can exist.

Voice in my head

I have always lived in my head. I constantly talk to my inner-Voice. Not the one that tells you whether to do, or not do something. But the one that makes it seem like you are not alone in your thinking. Sometimes this Voice is helpful. It helps me remember things that I have forgotten. Most times it is completely useless, as it never has any original thoughts of its own.

—–

As a kid this Voice played out the many voices of the different action figures that I played with. It had a different Voice for each one, voices that I could not mimic in real life. The action figures would go heroic adventures, winning by amazing feats. These voices not only served as dialog between the heroes, but also personified the personalities each of the characters. The more heroic ones had deeper voices, while the less heroic had timid higher voices. But in time the action figures were replaced with water guns and swimming pools; football and wrestling; girls and parties.

—-

The Voice never left me though; it just changed as I did. It is constantly there. It is more or less that inner-Voice that I imagine everyone has. Maybe it is my conscious. But I have always equated my conscious to a moral compass. If that is true, then these are two completely different things. The Voice is more of a sketch board. Before I say anything, write anything, the Voice is there to edit.

—-

I grew up as the son of a school teacher and an artist. Normal for me is not “normal” for everyone else. As the child of a school teacher you are expected to accomplish all school related assignments with proficiency and accuracy. However, as the child of an artist, creativity is expected to exude as well. So the dilemma began, do I accomplish assignments to the teachers expectations (as all “good” students do) or do I accomplish them my way, using some creative expression that will more than likely be misunderstood, at best. Maybe this is where the Voice has proved the most helpful and the most worthless. The Voice edits my thoughts into socially acceptable forms of communication, thus allowing me to complete school/work with ease, yet making creativity completely unnatural.

—-

The lack of creativity in my inner-Voice is irritating at times. I think that everyone should be creative in their own way. It is what makes us unique. Someone could be creative in the normal ways; play an instrument, write a novel, sing a song, paint a picture, draw a portrait, etc. Or there are those that claim no creativeness, but typically talk in a unique way, build something new and useful, have a peculiar way of thinking, etc. My inner-Voice needs to start making contributions. I wish I could rely on it to do more than just edit what comes from brain, but maybe this editing is needed as well. I know that in many circumstances if I would have said what I was thinking, I would be living with a great deal of regret.

—-

I have constantly worked with people that I do not care for, I imagine everyone has. These people are not necessarily rude, but many times they are; they are not always mean, but they could use an inner-Voice like mine. Regardless, for whatever reason I do not see eye-to-eye with them. These are people that at work, social events, or even church, who I find myself avoiding (a here they come, there I go, type of thing). With these people, there always comes that one encounter where I am faced with the option to speak my mind or bite my tongue.

Once there was this man who had two sided face. Out of one side he would say how he liked me and thought I was a good person. But out of the other came venomous attacks on how I did things. To this my Voice edited down my comments to where there were no snide remarks, but it left me feeling weak.

—-

I hate that my inner-Voice makes me feel weak. I believe that I should always strive to be a better individual. But this voice seems to rob me of this at times. A good example is my difficulty with public-speaking. As I constantly have this Voice editing what I say, it is hard to monologue. I am constantly listening to what is happening in my head. A one-on-one conversation is easier, as there are natural breaks to listen to the Voice. But not in public speaking; well at least not for me.

—-

I have held various jobs where public speaking is a requirement. When it came time to perform this particular aspect of my job, I was struck with anxiety attacks. Typically an anxiety attack causes sweating, exhaustion, head-aches, heart-racing, soreness, and many other minor things. These are less severe than they sound, but they always make me feel ill. Maybe it’s just fear, but I think that my trouble stems from the stupid Voice in my head. I get started just fine, talking away, and then my mind goes blank. It is like my inner-Voice is upset that it has no input, so it just blocks all cognitive process. I begin to stumble over my words, my body starts to slightly convulse, which causes me to want to just close my mouth and walk off stage. While this is what happens without fail; I do somehow get through whatever it is that I am suppose to deliver, but the delivery lacks any grace.

—-

I bet Jesus did not have an annoying inner-Voice. He seemed to always be gracious towards everyone. He never held back or acted weak, yet always spoke courageously. He seemed to have an innate ability to speak publicly, as people constantly commented how he taught with authority. Through the stories he told and the way he communicated, it would be hard to not call him creative. I bet that Jesus did not have the inner-Voice that I do.

But for better or worse it’s stuck with me, and I am forever stuck with it.

The Glory of God?

Doxa (δόξα) is a Greek word meaning common belief or popular opinion, from which are derived the modern terms of orthodoxy and heterodoxy (provided by internet source). However the translation of Doxa taught in Biblical Greek class was “glory” or “praise”.

If we consider the use of Doxa as a ‘common belief or popular opinion’, it would be difficult to not question Paul’s use in 1 Corinthians 11:7. Paul states, “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man”.

Is this stating that Doxa is the general opinion? Or that it should be?

Man glorifies God with his actions, just as the woman glorifies the man (which is referring to the fact that Eve came from Adam; the word woman = ‘from man’ or ‘for man’; see: Gen 2).

In all of this we must remember that Paul promoted a society of honor between man and woman, especially to the Corinthians, who lacked this in many regards. Earlier in 1 Corinthians, Paul spoke of the man remaining sexually faithful to his wife in 1 Corinthians 7 (as it was common for the man to commit adultery with no consequence). Thus it was equally important for the woman to demonstrate respect for her husband (e.g. wearing the head covering or refrain from speaking during public meetings).

These are cultural examples taken from a letter written for a particular purpose. While the message of 1 Corinthians 11:7 is that man and woman should honor one another and God over themselves.

So possibly, Paul was confirming that glory (Doxa) given to God, from Woman and Man, should be common practice. But regardless, we can say that neither the Corinthians, nor Christians today have done this consistently well.

If you want to listen to the best sermon series I have ever heard on the book of 1 Corinthians go to, http://amarillocentral.com/ (You’ll have to go to their media page, and scroll down a bit on the media player. Look for the verses in 1 Cor.)

Communion Thought (5-24-2009)

Mark 14:3-9
While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly. “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”

This morning I had the pleasure of giving the Communion thought at the Central Church of Christ. Typically, this seems like a difficult task. I don’t want to risk sounding like just another individual saying the same mantra and letting the message fall on deaf ears. What I do want is for people to take a minute and truly contemplate what we are honoring through the Lord’s Supper.

As I was reading I noticed the story of the woman anointing Jesus (Mark 14:3-9), and how Mark placed this in between the chief priests contemplating arresting Jesus and Judas’ agreement to help (in Matthew and Luke, these events are placed together). As I re-read this passage a few things stood out to me.

1st – Jesus was anointed. This is very reminiscent of the anointing of the Jewish Kings in the Old Testament. It was as though Jesus’ closest companions did not see him as King, but this ‘woman’ did and honored him as one.

2nd – The financial Sacrifice. This woman did not use some everyday perfume. As those in Jesus’ presence pointed it out indignantly, this perfume could have been sold for more than a year’s wages. She did this willingly, breaking off the top of the bottle to ensure that every last drop was dispensed.

3rd – Jesus’ rebuke. There are various times that Jesus rebukes his followers and each time it is a sobering event. While we can see that those in the crowd were trying to be good people (i. e. giving to the poor). However, Jesus rather pointed to the fact that his death was coming soon and this anointing is another sign (preparation) for his coming burial.

4th – The woman was honored. For her act of financial sacrifice and willingness to honor Jesus, Jesus in turn honored her by stating, “wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her” (v9). Likewise, we should be confident in believing that as we sacrifice and honor God today; he will be faithful in honoring us as well.

Edict of Milan, the Council of Nicea, and the Council of Chaledon

Introduction

Throughout history, there have been many pivotal moments that have affected the way that humans view Christianity. These pivotal moments began with the Apostles witnessing the death, burial, and resurrection, as they finally understood what their rabbi had been teaching them for three long years. From this point they sought to instruct others in accepting a message of eternal love and salvation. As time progressed, the message became less of a revelation and more of universal creed. This however did not come without many moments that progressed or limited the Christian faith. Three of such instances are Edict of Milan, the Council of Nicea, and the Council of Chalcedon.

Edict of Milan

Christians had lived in a culture of constant turmoil due to the various rulers of the Roman Empire. At times the emperors would simply ignore the monotheistic believers. While at other times they openly persecuted them due to their growing popularity. The Edict of Milan, “was the outcome of a political agreement concluded in Milan between the Roman emperors Constantine I and Licinius in February 313. The proclamation, made for the East by Licinius in June 313, granted all persons freedom to worship whatever deity they pleased, assured Christians of legal rights (including the right to organize churches), and directed the prompt return to Christians of confiscated property” (Edict of Milan, Encyclopedia Britannica Online). This was a cosmic step for the Christian church as they moved from being an underground movement, to a recognizable religion in Rome and the surrounding territories. In fact, the edict itself states that, “we (the emperors) thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion, of that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts, may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence. Therefore, your Worship should know that it has pleased us to remove all conditions whatsoever, which were in the rescripts formerly given to you officially, concerning the Christians and now any one of these who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation” (Edict of Milan, gbgm-umc.org). Without this edict establishing the freedom of religion, one must consider if Christianity would have been as wide spread or accepted with such reverence that it eventually received.

The Council of Nicea

After Constantine defeated Licinius in 323, thus ensuring the preservation of religious freedom, the Christian’s themselves began to fragment over the Arian controversy. The Arian controversy began, “as a debate between the bishop Alexander and the presbyter (pastor, or priest) Arius. Arius proposed that if the Father begat the Son, the latter must have had a beginning, that there was a time when he was not, and that his substance was from nothing like the rest of creation” (The Council of Nicea, Columbia.edu). This controversy agitated Constantine, but he called the council together in 325 and “presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem” (Council of Nicea, Encyclopedia Britannica Online). From this gathering of “some three hundred bishops”, the word, “”homoousious” or “consubstantial” meaning “of one substance”” was coined and used to refute Arius’ assertion (The Council of Nicea, Columbia.edu). From the concept of Christ being homoousious, the council sought to prevent additional disputes in discovering what Jesus was.

The Council of Chalcedon

The Council of Chalcedon met in 451 and “confirmed the decisions of Nicaea, and responded to new debates of which had subsequently erupted over the humanity of Christ” (McGrath, 1998, P. 33). Presided over “by the emperor Marcian, it was attended by about 520 bishops or their representatives and was the largest and best-documented of the early councils. It approved the creed of Nicaea (325), the creed of Constantinople (381; subsequently known as the Nicene Creed), two letters of Cyril against Nestorius, which insisted on the unity of divine and human persons in Christ, and the Tome of Pope Leo I confirming two distinct natures in Christ and rejecting the Monophysite doctrine that Christ had only one nature” (Coucil of Chalcedon, Encyclopedia Britannica Online). While this council convened to primarily to approve the work of previous councils and creeds, yet it provided a model of constantly checking and revising what previous theologians have taught as.

Conclusion

Through their many functions, the Edict of Milan, the Council of Nicea, and the Council of Chalcedon, each had a long lasting effect upon the Church or culture as a whole. First, the Edict of Milan was a major milestone, marking a vast acceptance of various religions, but most importantly Christianity. Progressing it from an underground religion and into everyday Roman life. Rome’s established freedom of religion could be argued to be a model for the forefathers of the United States constitution, thus providing a model for today’s religious acceptance or tolerance today. The Council of Nicaea was the first large gathering of church leaders to answer the Arian Controversy. From this council the edict of Christ being of one substance or homoousious, was established and is no longer a key issue for the church today. Additionally, the convening of this council set precedence for churches then and now. Following the model of Acts 15:4-22, the council of Nicaea sought to be orderly and unified on key issues in the Christian faith. Finally, the Council of Chalcedon convened primarily to ratify what other councils and creeds set forth as norms close to a century before, thus, establishing a clear example of constantly looking backwards to see what our predecessors have done and how that is impacting us today. Through each of these aspects of theological history we begin to see and accept how the church of today was formed and shaped by these key instances. This must remain in the forefront of our minds as we continue to influence the church today.

References

Council of Nicaea. (2009). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/413817/Council-of-Nicaea

Edict of Milan. (2009). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/382119/Edict-of-Milan

Council of Chalcedon. (2009). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/104580/Council-of-Chalcedon

McGrath, Alister E. (1998) Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Blackwell Publishing. Malden, MA.

The Council of Nicaea. (2009). Columbia.edu. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm

The Edict of Milan. (2009). The Bible: The book that bridges the Millennia. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from GBGM-UMC.org: http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/milan.stm

The Patristic Period

Introduction
“Historical theology acts a major resource to those studying church history, allowing them to understand the specific nature of the ideas which affected the church at critical periods in that history” (McGrath, 1998, P.12). However, the implications of historical theology extend much beyond the classroom as, “Christianity often unconsciously absorbs and values from its cultural backdrop” (McGrath, 1998, P. 13). In doing so, culture begins to define the lessons of the Bible, rather than the original messages defining how we view culture. To constantly keep this problematic viewpoint in check, the church and its ministers must be dedicated to the topic of historical theology through their studies. In studying historical theology one realizes that, “it is virtually impossible to do theology as if it had never been done before. There is always an element of looking over one’s shoulder, to see how things were done in the past” (McGrath, 1998, P. 12). To achieve this we begin by recognizing the four distinct time periods, which mark when significant changes took place in theological thought. These time periods are, the Patristic period; the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period; the Reformation and Post-Reformation period; and finally, the Modern period.

Periods of Historical Theology
The Patristic period (c. 100 – 451) was the first, and arguably one of the most influential periods of church history. Credited to this time period was the formation of apologetics, the adoption of Rome, the recognition of theology as a disciple in itself, as well as specific issues and people that had long lasting impacts upon the Christian faith. Then, the Middle Ages and Renaissance period (c. 500 – 1500), marked a time of volatility. The fall of Rome shook Europe, while the tension within the Christian world that led to a, “final break between the Catholic west and Orthodox east [churches]…[in conjunction to] the rise of the monasteries” (McGrath, 1998, P. 95). Next came the Reformation and Post-Reformation period (1500 – 1750). This period was marked by a time of new ideas. “The most significant development was the Reformation, a movement which sought to return the western church to more biblical foundations in relation to its belief system, morality and structures” (McGrath, 1998, P. 156). Finally, we enter the Modern period (1750 – Present Day). As an ongoing reality many churches seek to continually accomplish that which defines this period, a rescue of Christianity from crisis and indifference. Each of these historical periods have had positive and negative impacts on Christianity as a whole, but special attention must be give to the Patristic period as it laid the foundation for the spread of the Christian faith throughout various cultures and lands in Europe

The Patristic Period
The impacts of the Patristic period can be seen within the culture it suffered and thrived in. During this time the Roman Empire comprised of most of the Mediterranean world. This included the birthplace of Christianity, the region of Judea. Under the Romans, Christianity laid its foundation and was met with apathy, fear, persecution, and finally acceptance. The Roman Emperor Constantine converted from paganism to Christianity after a “decisive battle [that] took place on October 28, 312” (McGrath, 1998, P. 20). From this establishment of Christianity as an accepted religion, “theology thus emerged from the hidden world of secret church meetings, to become a matter of public interest and concern” (McGrath, 1998, P. 20). Due to the public interest, contention began to surface as the once independent churches began to debate on who’s theology was correct. Subjects such as, Christology (the person of Christ), the Trinity (God, Son, and Holy Spirit as one), and Church consensus became the specific issues, which the Churches disagreed and Constantine sought to rectify. Through individuals such as, Justin Matyr (c. 100 – c. 165), Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130 – c. 200), Origen (c. 185 – c. 254), Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225), Athanasius (c. 296 – c. 373) and Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430) (McGrath, 1998, P. 24-26) who became the voices of wisdom through letters and debates. These influential people challenged doctrine (correct and incorrect), establishing the New Test Cannon, developing apologetics against the rise of Gnosticism, establishing sanctioned traditions, the giving argument to the validity of scripture as a whole, and developing creeds recognized by the Christian religion as a whole. Each of which has lasting impacts upon every church today.

Conclusion
Historical Theology seeks to fill the gaps where Churches, or Church-goers, accept something as truth even though they have little understanding of why it is accepted as so. By understanding the progression from the Patristic period; to the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period; to the Reformation and Post-Reformation period; and finally into the Modern period, we are able to see how our Christian beliefs were formed and the influence great thinkers have had upon those beliefs. Most notably was the Patristic period as it was the first building block for the Christian churches. Aspects such as the New Testament Canon and the creeds are commonly accepted with little or no objection. Also belief in the Trinity, disbelief in Gnosticism, and the teaching of apologetics is also common teachings for Christians of all denominations. Through all of this one can see that variances in beliefs have been debated, but settled throughout time. Today we must follow the example of the Patristic period and continue to seek a more harmonious consensus as we are all praising the same God.

References
McGrath, Alister E. (1998) Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Blackwell Publishing. Malden, MA.

Self – Redefinition or Better Clarification

While seeking new employment and being on the verge of completing my degree, I have to struggle with redefining myself or just trying to better clarify who I already am.

This may confuse many people. However, a majority of Americans define themselves by the career they hold. This is keenly the case for me as both of my parents were career focused individuals. So as I seek new employment, do I become defined by my job?

For instance, if I get a job as a minister, am I defined as holy or as a good person? Or, if I get a job as a trash collector, am I defined as an underachiever due to my degree? If I get a job working at an office in a cubical, am I considered just another average Joe?

The fact of the matter is that we are defined by what we do. If our jobs pay more, we are considered successful. If we are paid less, then we are judged as less successful. The unfortunate aspect in this realization is that my preferred profession (working with people) will never pay well. So while I may be defined by my work, I know that my work provides me with a sense of worth.

It is this sense of worth that provides better clarification to the person that I am.

Working with teens teaches me that I am not first (or second), in fact I realize that I am typically considered last. Teens are focused on their needs first, and as I work with them I tend to become a servant.

In fact, real self-clarification typically comes through serving others. Just ask a mother, father, or minister. These are all people who truly know themselves in a humble way, and stand as true models for us as people and as Christians.