It's been quite a few years since I read The Shepherd of Hermas. Reading it anew I was reminded of how alien it is to Evangelical sensibilities. For my part, I found the second century work refreshing if a bit of a slog. But some of that perception is merely cultural. We are certainly impatient in our day and so many of the older works can seem tedious.
Once again my thoughts drifted back to Catholic claims
regarding the Fathers – ones echoed by nineteenth century figures like Cardinal
JH Newman and John Nevin. While I will once again grant that the Magisterial
Reformation and its Evangelical progeny may find the waters of Hermas strange,
I still contend they are something other than Roman Catholic.
The appeal to pilgrim status, and the condemnation of riches
are ubiquitous throughout the work and emphatic – a point often returned to by
means of the various visions. It's a point that a minority within the Roman
tradition can resonate with but sadly such Kingdom sensibilities are almost unknown
in the Magisterial Protestant tradition and in many cases rejected with
something akin to disdain.
By the use of metaphors such as the branches and stones,
repeated exhortations are made to persevere. The soteriology of Hermas is neither
the sacerdotalism of Rome nor the Sola Fide paradigm of the Magisterial
Reformation – let alone the Cheap Grace gospel of Evangelicalism.
Faith is the basis of salvation but this is defined in
Biblical terms – trust and obedience
and the sixteenth century contrivance of Justification by Faith Alone is nowhere to be found. Faith is a
central even dominant theme. And I daresay the author would have no problem
with speaking of faith 'alone' as long as it was qualified. And yet the
Evangelical understanding of it is both absent and problematic. Additionally, the
all too popular Once Saved Always Saved
is not only absent but by implication categorically rejected. The New Testament
certainly teaches assurance and a kind of eternal security in terms of a generalised
concept with reference to the sovereignty of God and believers – but in terms
of individual praxis, the calls to perseverance, struggle, and repeated warning
are almost overwhelming and in keeping with the New Testament, this is the
focus within Hermas. The later Scholastic anguish of trying to reconcile this
duality or paradox is not present. The Biblicism of some of the Fathers is
refreshing to say the least.
And yet it must be noted (as many have) that for all the
vigour, warning, and exhortation, there seems to be contra-Montanist strain in
how these topics are dealt with – as there is definitely a promise of
restoration by means of repentance. There is therefore a deep understanding of
grace. The soteriology of Hermas is not some form of legalism.
For many Protestants, the soteriology of Hermas and the other
Early Church Fathers is problematic. Either they were lost people who didn't
understand the gospel or one is forced to embrace a Progressive Orthodoxy. If
someone were to appear today in Protestant circles arguing for Patristic
soteriology akin to Hermas they would be decried as heretical and viewed as
lost. And yet why is it okay for Hermas? It's because of Progressive Orthodoxy.
Apparently the gospel was broader or more lax in times past. Few would want to
put it that way, but that's tantamount to what they are saying.
In other words, the Church progressively came to the truth
and now that the truth has been found, that's the standard and formula everyone
is held to. But this too is problematic. Because this argument is wed to a
narrative concerning the Magisterial Reformation of the sixteenth century and
the confessions it issued during that period and the following century. One has
to embrace a narrative that says these movements captured the essence of New
Testament Christianity and with them all progression ceased. One cannot go back
to the previous views or move beyond the orthodoxy of the confessions.
Everything is locked in as it were into this historically rooted narrative. It's
treated as almost like a Second Pentecost.
The Magisterial Reformation's claims regarding Sola Scriptura
need to be understood in this light. In other words, it's not the doctrine that
many think it is. It's actually rather limited as some within that camp will
admit. They will even boast of this when engaged in polemics vis-à-vis
Restorationist movements, and argue for catholicity over and against claims of
Biblicism. It's very convenient when they try to defend their select use of
Roman Catholic tradition when it comes to liturgy, the Church calendar and the
like, and yet when it comes to soteriology – they break with tradition and rely
on what (in terms of historical theology) must be classed as innovation. They
may be critical of medieval scholasticism at times and yet when the Biblicism
and unelaborated theology of the Fathers is appealed to – suddenly they employ
a battery of philosophical-theological arguments to combat their teachings.
This is what must be resorted to when one embraces not just a progressive
orthodoxy but an argument which weds its cessation to a theological reading of Church
history and a narrative attached to it.
It's hardly surprising to find that many have not accepted
this stopped progression argument or
even the premise of it. And so if it's dispensed with, then we're left with a
new set of questions about the narrative of Church history and the Magisterial
Reformation's core theological assertions. Once again, this is not an argument
in favour of Rome. By no means is this is the case, even though many come to
similar conclusions and do find the answer in Rome – or so they think. The
answer is found of course in the Scriptures and in a different reading of
Church history – and thus Historical Theology.
In contrast to Anabaptist claims, I found Hermas' tree
imagery to be intriguing to say the least. The Invisible Church concept is
clearly spelled out and yet it is common to hear Anabaptists argue that the
doctrine was nowhere to be found until Augustine came along and forged the
doctrine by means of a Platonic synthesis. I have always rejected this argument
as the doctrine is taught in the New Testament itself and Hermas only confirms
that the doctrine was extant centuries before the Bishop of Hippo elaborated
it.
As a few other authors have suggested, the invisible/visible
distinction does not have to be wed to a Constantinian framework – which
admittedly corrupts the doctrine and creates a context for cultural
Christianity and all of its worldliness, along with the corruption and
confusion of the identity of the Church – conflating the visible Church with
the culture, nation, state, or some variety thereof. And consequently dissent
in such a framework has often led to persecution – a lesson we would do well to
remember in today's context.
But it must be argued, this Constantinian framework and its
dangers were nowhere on the horizon in the time of Hermas. Condemn
Constantinianism to be sure, and do so heartily, but do not allow its abuses
and corruptions to re-define concepts of Church membership and identity. This
discussion plays no small part in the question of paedobaptism which is often
viewed by Anabaptists through the lens of Constantinianism. But once again, the
New Testament practice is well documented in the annals of the Early Church,
generations before Constantine initiated his redefinition of Christianity and
paedobaptism was corrupted and became wed to citizenship. It's also noteworthy
that the move away from paedobaptism that occurred in some quarters during the
fourth century was not due to any kind of Baptistic argument but was rather
rooted in how the Church understood its meaning and efficacy. No 'first step of
obedience' or even some kind of empty 'covenant membership', echoing the language
of the New Testament, it was tied in with the removal of sin, redemption, and
salvation.
Further it must be emphasized that the reality of the
Invisible/Visible distinction or dynamic does not cancel out the hope and goal
of a Believer's Church even if that goal is always to some degree hypothetical.
Acknowledgment of this insoluble dynamic does not mean we 'shrug the shoulders',
and allow in pagans – nor are the children of believers to be viewed as such, a
point many Protestant paedobaptists seem to struggle with. If they are baptised
– they are Christians. Now whether they persevere in that profession is another
question, but in terms of how they are to be reckoned, they are considered as
believers and raised as such.
Finally, to the dismay of Magisterial and Confessional
Protestants, it's abundantly clear that Hermas treats the Old Testament Apocrypha
not as some kind of ancillary canon but as Old Covenant Scripture. The Early
Church utilised the Septuagint (LXX) and the Greek translation included the
books that later became known as the Apocrypha. And yet this somewhat
misleading designation did not arise until the time of Jerome – whose many
Biblical and doctrinal proclamations are dubious at best. Jerome gave the books
the label and yet the Church largely ignored his designation and the books were
treated as Scripture throughout the Middle Ages – a point Magisterial
Protestants continue to twist and manipulate. The notion that these books were
not recognized by Rome until the Council of Trent (1563) is simply inaccurate
and dishonest. The fact that early Protestant Bibles all included these books
also testifies against this narrative. Both the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611
King James included these books.
Under the influence of Jerome and others, the Masoretic Text
was embraced but questions remain as to its origin and acceptance. There are
disputes over whether a previous Alexandrian Hebrew text and canon existed –
not to be confused with the New Testament Alexandrian Text, which is a separate
issue.
A case can be made that Jerome not only corrupted the
Scriptures by means of his translation – the Vulgate, but also shifted the
narrative with regard to the Old Testament text. The Early Church used the LXX
as does the Eastern Orthodox Church to this day. The overwhelming majority of
New Testament quotations of the Old Testament come from the LXX – but this is
not exclusive. It's a complicated issue to be sure, but one thing is sure – the
narratives of both Rome and Magisterial Protestantism don't quite square with
the record found in the Early Church. Sadly, under the influence of the great Father
of Textual Criticism – Martin Luther, the Protestant tradition went down a very
different road that is still bringing forth a rotten harvest even in our own
day.
I must say that when it comes to the so-called Apocrypha, I
am amazed to listen to Protestant scholars. It's as if all of the sudden they
fully embrace the lexicon and ideological foundations of Higher Criticism and
turn these polluted guns on these books – apparently not realizing that in
granting validity to the canons and assumptions of theological liberalism at this
juncture, they open themselves up to the same arguments being employed against
the rest of the Scripture. This warrants a larger discussion, but reading Early
Church writings I am repeatedly struck by their repeated and unabashed use, as
well as the distance between the doctrine, ideology, and ethos of these men
with that of Magisterial Protestantism. This is not to grant anything to the
likes of Newman or Nevin. The answer is not found in Rome but somewhere else. I
believe and have argued extensively that ancient Christianity persevered for
centuries and underwent a revival in response to the Gregorian Reforms of the
eleventh century. Sadly, the Magisterial Reformation all but eradicated these First
Reformation movements, corrupting them from within, embroiling them in its
politics and wars, and ultimately swallowing them up.
These are chapters of Church History that even now have not
yet been properly reckoned with. They need revisiting. Considering the state of
things, the case can be made for reformation, not merely a rehashing of the
Magisterial legacy and its Confessionalist-Scholastic narratives but one that
challenges its largely bogus claims to Sola Scriptura and its supposed return
to New Testament Christianity. The historical and doctrinal record tell
otherwise.
Read the Ante-Nicene Early Church Fathers and reflect on
them. They are not infallible by any means and yet they reveal a Christianity
that often seems strange and foreign to many today. Why is that? Is orthodoxy a
progressive concept? Rome thinks so, and though they deny it, the heirs of
Magisterial Protestantism think so too. Their record testifies to this.
The answer is found in a return to the New Testament and its
doctrines. It contains the answers to epistemology and provides us with a
Christian hermeneutic by which to understand all Scripture. This approach will
resolve all these questions, even the tough ones concerning the text and canon
of the Old Testament. Hermas is not Scripture, but there are aspects in which
it is both edifying and refreshing and drives one back to the Scriptures and to
deeper reflection.