July-September 2000
Volume 3 Number 3.1
Apostolic Christianity: Is it Meant for Us?
Early Christianity, whether called apostolic, authentic, primitive, real, or true, may surprise you. Encountering it could deepen your understanding of the New Testament. Does it define "the Way" we are to live?
If some televangelists are correct today's Christianity differs radically from that of the first Christians. This should come as no surprise. Two thousand years is a long time. The question is how relevant are the customs, traditions, and beliefs of early Christians to the way you and I live our lives?
The culture of the early church period must be understood within the dynamic milieu of first-century Judaism and its problems and opportunities. Nearly two millennia removed this is no easy task. If we are to understand the nature of apostolic Christianity then we have to come to terms with the Judeo-Christian nature of the ancient Church. This is critical to coming to know the meaning of the New Testament in its own time and to set forth its importance for the present day. To this end we have created a new feature at BibArch� called The First Christians. We hope you will find it helpful.
The New Testament reflects the first-century Judeo-Christian perspectives of the apostles. While it comes down to us in Greek the underlying thinking throughout the New Testament is Semitic. As a distinctly Judeo-Christian compendium the New Testament needs to be understood in this context. The New Testament reflects the values, personalities, and general background of its writers as well as the culture to which they belonged.
During the New Testament period, also known as the apostolic age, conflicting ideologies and infighting between opposing Jewish groups was commonplace. The Judaism of the first century consisted of a variety of rivaling subcultures, e.g., Essenes, Hellenists, Pharisees, Sadducees, and the like. Incessant cultural conflict marked this period. It shaped the writing styles and the opinions of the New Testament writers.
Just as importantly for present-day students of the Bible, biblical historians, and biblical archaeologists, their own values, beliefs, lifeways, personality, and general background largely determine their understanding of a biblical text and the nature of the ancient church. Today Christians look at the New Testament with the eyes of well-established Gentile Christianity influenced by rabbinic Judaism not with Judeo-Christian eyes.
Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Methodists, Messianic Jews, and the like, all have established patterns of thinking which lead them to their version of �biblical truth� and to the doctrines they hold most dear. The constraints of their own culture serves them as a filtering device, heightening some perceptions and dimming others, to arrive at what they believe is objective truth binding them to their own belief systems and providing meaning to events. All too often we Christians, clergy and laity alike, do violence to the biblical text through stereotyping and cultural filtering devices.
The dogmas of a denominational or theological frame of reference, or paradigm, all too often result in oversimplification of issues and in perpetuation of myths. |
We must also recognize that there were many unique cultures and subcultures in biblical times. Our study of the early church must consist largely of the analysis of its ancient culture and its unique belief systems. Focusing on cultural issues helps sensitize us to ethnic differences and to the Semitic ways of thinking and behaving underlying the New Testament. This effort, however, usually proceeds along ideological lines for persons of deep religious conviction and internalized denominational dogmatism project their belief systems on the biblical text and read the Bible in ways that are consistent with and which maintain their own way of life.
The dogmas of a denominational or theological frame of reference, or paradigm, all too often result in oversimplification of issues and in perpetuation of myths. Such an approach, which reveals as much about the interpreter as the sociocultural system under study, is detrimental to unbiased biblical study and to the search for fact and truth.
Culture, as a system of values, beliefs, and philosophical concepts, is a far more powerful force than most people recognize. In fact, it is so powerful that individuals normally hold to their own worldview and to their own particular cultural conditions to such an extent that they cannot perceive of any other way of life than their own. The constraining character of their culture, its blindness, impedes their ability to discern. This characteristic of culture was as powerful a force in Jesus� day as it is now. Knowing this helps clarify the attribution of blindness by Jesus and his disciples to their non-believing opponents. When confronted with this behavior the apostles attributed it to people being blind to the gospel. Coming to terms with a first Century Christianity at odds with their own is difficult, if not quite impossible, for many Christians today.
First century Christianity, the Judeo-Christianity of apostolic times made up of ethnic Jews and Gentiles, was a radically different sociocultural system than those of today. If one�s task is to discern and to understand the values, beliefs, and worldviews of the first Christians, and to make them meaningful and intelligible in today�s world, then one must cautiously minimize cultural constraints and bias. Enculturated, or more crudely put, conditioned by the prejudices of his or her own time, every exegete approaches the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament with a set of preconceived notions and convictions. They seek to impose upon early Christians religious beliefs and practices identical to their own�as Baptists, as Catholics, as Evangelicals, as Messianic Jews, and the like. Be aware, however, that true objectivity, or detached analysis, is illusory.
Detached, theoretically-oriented theology does not exist. The praxis (practical application) of theologians, ministers, and religious writers cannot be separated from their theology. Or, as some state it, faith informs learning and scholarship. Hence, even though he or she vehemently denies it, the faith of any theologian, historian, or Bible student influences if not directs his or her scholarly conclusions. They do not separate their scholarly work from their internalized real-world values.
Those who most sincerely believe they live by the �biblical pattern� are usually the most inhibited from viewing early Christianity in an impartial manner. |
Some people become uncomfortable when they read the New Testament. Encountering its authoritative language, alien concepts, and difficult symbolism, they find it hard to understand and at variance with their own beliefs. What they experience is cultural dissonance. This is a mild form of cultural shock. This phenomenon arises when they confront a first-century Judeo-Christianity in the New Testament far removed from the comfort of their own. When encountering significant inconsistencies in their belief systems people tend to filter out contradictions to lessen cultural dissonance. Moreover, people have a tendency to reject incongruent beliefs to avoid the effects of cognitive dissonance. They fall back on the comfort of their own established set of beliefs. Those who most sincerely believe they live by the �biblical pattern� are usually the most inhibited from viewing early Christianity in an impartial manner. To come to grips with the facts in this matter one has to get beyond his or her emotions, cultural defense mechanisms, and feelings.
Today�s Christianity, the result of the process of religious syncretism and of adaptions to changing social and political conditions over nearly two millennia, differs significantly from that of the first Christians. The process began with the early Church itself. At first Judeo-Christianity spread over the Roman world by word of mouth and through the evangelization of the synagogues of the Jews, by the apostles and their followers, resulting in the formation of many small house-churches and some fledging Christian synagogues. In its second decade Judeo-Christianity admitted Gentiles into its fellowship thereby opening itself to the introduction of conflicting value systems and cultural conflict. Its fragile infrastructure resulted in considerable independence for these small groups leading to the blending of Judeo-Christian teachings with varied Gentile beliefs and practices outside the Jewish homeland. After CE 135, marked by thousands of house churches, the rise of powerful overseers known as bishops, diffused authority, a non-centralized sociocultural system, and religious syncretism, Gentile congregations separated from those of the Judeo-Christians. This established the basis for the rise of the highly diverse Christianity of today�s world.
Today, steeped in nineteen centuries of christianized cultural traditions, the minds of most people remain quite closed, or at least not open, to alternative belief systems�particularly that embodied in Judeo-Christianity. Cultural constraints impede their ability to discern other reasonable, even more accurate, alternatives for belief and practice. Such cultural disability leads to ethnocentrism, anachronistic thinking, and eisegesis. This does not mean that their attitudes, beliefs, or culture remain static. In fact attitudes, beliefs, and culture undergo constant change and are quite dynamic.
Often people become more open to new ideas and change when prompted by a major life transition. The triggering phenomenon appears to be a material change of circumstances such as a divorce, a new career, the death of a loved-one, a move to a new location, a child leaving home, or marriage. People appear to be more susceptible to change, and sometimes more vulnerable, at these times. They are more resistant to new ideas, and less apt to change when secure in their comfort zones. Nevertheless, the old adage that �a person convinced against his or her will is of the same opinion still� is all to often the case.
Objective study of the New Testament involves the study of its cultural framework. Cultural context and careful, objective analysis of details are important when studying the Bible if one�s purpose is to understand the Bible in its original setting. The Hebrew Scriptures consist of a set of Semitic documents reflecting the Semitic thinking of its authors. Although the New Testament has passed to the present day through the Greek language it remains a collection of Judeo-Christian literature containing underlying Semitic thinking, illustrations, and values. It is not a Greek, Roman Catholic, Byzantine, or a Protestant compendium. It is a set of Judeo-Christian writings, albeit preserved in the Greek language, to be understood in terms of their Judeo-Christian context and the praxis of the ancient church.
In an academic sense people can learn a great deal about the cultures of Bible and early Christian praxis by reading, taking courses, surfing the World Wide Web, watching documentaries, traveling to the Levant, visiting museums, going to church, studying the Bible, and engaging in discussions. The deepest understanding, however, is experiential and comes through participation. You will gain the deepest understanding of the way of life of the first Christians, "The Way", if you take some time to participate in it and to develop some familiarity with biblical languages.
Knowing the New Testament with firsthand knowledge has great value, if not more, then knowing about it from second hand knowledge provided by someone else. This suggests that the best equipped to understand early Christianity are those deeply familiar with the rites, conditions, personalities, and beliefs of early Christians, and who participate in the praxis of early Christianity as insiders. While most people will not invest the time and effort it takes to do that you can experience the lifestyle by selectively adopting some of their customs for a short period of time. Observing and living a Judeo-Christian lifestyle for a short time will permit you to experience the difference and to develop a heightened sensitivity toward the cultural practices and values of early Christians.
Since our cultural background largely determines the interpretation we make, or have, of a biblical text we cannot really come to know the meaning of a scripture in an actual sense unless we become part of it. For example, in reference to God a psalmist wrote �all who follow his precepts have good understanding (Psalm 111:10 NIV).� The psalmist suggests that by living by the precepts of the Law of Moses a religiously observant Jew can gain a good understanding of that way of life. Similarly by living by the Law of Christ one can gain great understanding of the Christian way of life and its relevancy for our day.
To know the Bible one has to experience it through living by its precepts. To know what it means to be a Jew one has to become one. To know Muslim culture one must be a Muslim. To know Christ is to be a Christian.
Page last edited: 12/17/05 01:32 PM
|
starting web/internet resource by the
