Skip to main content

Right on the small, wrong on the big

I've spent a good bit of time these past weeks reading in early medieval Britain. Fortunately for me, the books have been mostly translated into modern English. Except for one from the 1800s that left the most important quotes in the original Latin. Shows a bit of a focus change in education: Latin was once a bigger deal than it is now. Of course, I'm now going to be spending this summer getting a better grasp of it…

Moving on, one of the situations I learned about in this process was the conflict in the fifth and sixth centuries between Celtic and Roman expressions of Christianity. It seems that the distance between Britain, Ireland, and the centers of Christianity in the Mediterranean region had caused a division in the way that church practices and calendars were set. Ireland had, since it was never under Rome, developed a fairly independent mindset, while Britain retained a connection with Rome in both government and religion.

Ireland, home of many of the Celtic peoples, had come to the Christian faith primarily under Patrick. As they had come to faith under a missionary monk, missionary monks were held in high regard. So, Celtic Christianity developed many monasteries and sent out missionaries. They also celebrated Easter a week different from Rome, owing to an older source used to set the date. Two other distinctives existed: the style of haircut, or tonsure, for monks and the manner of confession. Celtic Christianity favored private confession and penance while the existing Roman system was more public. The Celts believed in "seal of the confessional:" the priest should be free to hear anything without having to disclose it. The Romans? The tight connection between church and state did not allow, then, for the priest to hear confession of criminal activity and not report it.

Simply, the Roman expression ran the opposite of the Celtic. The Roman Christians of the time saw a connection between church and state, and so expanded the Gospel only with allied nations. Wouldn't want to fight Christian brethren, after all, would you? Romans cut their monks' hair differently, celebrated Easter a week later, and had monasteries. Roman monasteries, though, were considered under the authority of the nearest bishop while Celtic monasteries were independent----and often the home of the nearest bishop.

As the missionary Celts came into Britain, they spread their faith among the people that the Romans had not evangelized. Additionally, the politics of royal marriage put together families from different cultures and therefore with different expressions of the faith. The Celts began seeking space for monasteries, and the Roman religious leaders weren't up for independent monks roamin' their territory.

By the way, what's the big deal about Easter? Well, we Baptists don't do much of it, but many traditions fast and mourn in remembrance of the cost of sin, the Crucifixion, for 40 days prior to Easter. This controversy had some Christians feasting while their neighbors were fasting---and even had a King and Queen on opposite sides.

This issue had to be settled. The view of the time was that there should only be one church---completely unified in all things. So, King Oswy called in the highest thinkers for both sides and listened to them present their views. The clinching argument? The Romans claimed that they celebrated Easter the same day Peter did, Peter held the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and you wouldn't want to upset Peter, would you?

This persuaded Oswy. It's based on the argument that Matthew 16:16-20 put Peter completely in charge of who goes to heaven and who does not. The better understanding, though, is that the "rock" on which the church is built is Christ himself—the word "Peter" comes from the Greek for "stone" while the word "rock" comes from the Greek for "big, unmovable rock." Peter is not the decision-maker for all humanity. The keys are better understood as the preaching and teaching which began with the Apostles and is now available in Scripture. So, there's no reason to stress about what day Peter ate chocolate bunnies---

In fact, King Oswy settled the debate over Easter and more than likely disturbed Peter by the end results. By favoring the Roman Easter date, he approved all of the hallmarks of Roman Christianity, including its lack of missionary interest.

The end result? Roman-British Christianity won but by its nature did not spread. As new people groups moved onto the island, Christianity began to stutter and the flame flickered a bit. The churches were big, the priests and bishops well-regarded, but their influence waned. The teaching of the faith to future generations began to collapse.

A course correction was necessary, and by the end of the seventh century, the better parts of Celtic Christianity were blending into Britain. Why? Monks of Britain hosted their brother-monks of Celtic heritage. They learned from each other, and passed that learning on. Then, monasteries became centers of learning and teaching.

Finally, efforts to spread the Gospel returned with zeal. The monks were passionate to spread the faith, not only to the wealthy but to all the people. This was a good turning in history, as the unifying effect of shared faith enabled Alfred the Great to help repel the Vikings in the tenth century. It provided a shared heritage among the people of the Britain as they progressed toward the unified nations they are today.

Yet we learn here an important fact: separate the important points of a debate. Was the date of Easter more important than spreading the Gospel? Does the haircut matter or the heart? When we make decisions based on haircuts and calendars, not hearts and obedience, we start making right decisions on small things and wrong decisions on big things.

Let's not be right on the small and wrong on the big.

Comments

  1. Good word brother. I like it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you, kind sir from the great land of Dakota. Keep warm!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

To deal with SPAM comments, all comments are moderated. I'm typically willing to post contrary views...but I also only check the list once a day, so if you posted within the last 24 hours, I may not be to it yet.

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: The Heart Mender by @andyandrews (Andy Andrews)

The Heart Mender: A Story of Second ChancesEver read a book that you just kind of wish is true?  That's my take on The Heart Mender by Andy Andrews.  It's a charming story of love and forgiveness, and it's woven into the historical setting of World War II America.  For the narrative alone, the book is worth the read, but the message it contains is well worth absorbing as well.However, let's drop back a minute.  This book was originally published under the title Island of Saints.  I read Island of Saints and enjoyed it greatly.  Now, Andrews has released it under a new title, with a few minor changes.  All of this is explained in the Author's Note at the beginning, but should be noted for purchaser's sake.  If you read Island of Saints, you're rereading when you read The Heart Mender.  Now, go ahead and reread it.  It will not hurt you one bit.Overall, the story is well-paced.  There are points where I'd like more detail, both in the history and the geog…

Abraham Lincoln Quoted by Jesus! Mark 3

Mark records a curious event in his third chapter (link). If you look at Mark 3:25, you'll see that Jesus quotes the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After all, one of the highlights of the Lincoln years is his famous speech regarding slavery in the United States where he used the phrase that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." This speech was given in 1858 when he accepted the nomination to run against Stephen A. Douglas for Senate, but is still remembered as the defining speech regarding slaveholding in the United States. I recall being taught in school how brilliant and groundbreaking the speech was, how Lincoln had used such wise words to convey his thought. Yet the idea was not original to Lincoln. Rather, it was embedded in Lincoln from his time reading the Bible. Now, I have read varying reports about Lincoln's personal religious beliefs: some place him as a nearly completely committed Christian while others have him somewh…

Book: The Gospel Call and True Conversion

A quick note: This book, The Gospel Call and True Conversion, is currently available on Kindle for $4.99. This is the second in a series of 3, and the first, The Gospel’s Power and Message, is available for $2.99.The Gospel Call and True Conversion. The title of this book alone sounds intimidating, and adding that it’s written by one of the heavyweights of American Reformed Christianity, Paul Washer, does not lessen the intimidation factor. Washer is known to be a straightforward preacher—for good or for ill.What did I find in The Gospel call and True Conversion? I found some things to like:1. Paul Washer is passionate for the truth. He wants to know the truth. He wants to proclaim the truth. He wants the truth heard. He wants you to know the truth. This is good. It is good to see someone not try to base theology on popularity or as a response to modern events, but to base it clearly on truth. 2. There is a strong emphasis on the reality that true conversion (from the title) will resu…