Waldensians in North Carolina
Last Saturday, I drove Margaret and Miranda half way to Tennessee to meet Margaret’s sister. Margaret and Miranda went back to Tennessee to spend a week with them. We picked the place to meet based on a restaurant recommendation.
We met in a small town called Valdese, NC. As we were driving through the town, we noticed several signs about the Waldensians. That was when I made the connection between Valdese, NC and the Waldensians.
Are you familiar with the Waldensians? They were a pre-reformation group of Christians who were persecuted by the established church. While some claim connections to the apostles, most historians agree that the Waldensians began in the 12th century with Peter Waldo.
Waldo was a wealthy merchant who gave up all his riches and began preaching the gospel in the streets of Lyon, France in 1177. While the church was glad that Waldo was interested in preaching the gospel, the pope commanded Waldo to cease from preaching until he was given permission by the local clergy. Waldo, and those with him, continued proclaiming the gospel, and were therefore labeled as heretics.
They faced continuing persecution for the next several hundred years in France and Italy. They even survived a crusade against them. While they shared many beliefs with the Catholic Church and remained on the edge of Catholicism, they officially moved away from the Catholic Church in the early 1500’s, when they adapted their beliefs to the Reformed Church and joined the reformation.
They continued to face persecution and were almost wiped out in the 19th century. In the late 1800’s, many Italian Waldensians emigrated to the United States to cities like New York City, Chicago, Galveston, and Rochester. Some Waldensians from the Italian Alps moved to the small town of Valdese, NC which now claims to be the largest Waldensian settlement.
There are several historic locations in and around Valdese, NC. There is also an open air play about the history of the Waldensians put on there every summer.
It was great to see a little bit of church history played out just down the road from where I live.
Peter Waldo and those with him refused to stop proclaiming the gospel in spite of persecution and death. I think we could all learn from the Waldensians.
Homogeneity in the early church? No… and yes
As I’ve mentioned in several posts previously, the early believers took much of their understanding of meeting together from the early synagogue. (see “Why should we study the first century synagogue?” and “Points of comparison between the early synagogue and early church” for example) Besides a focus on community and certain activities, we should also consider another similarity between the early synagogue and the early church… they were not homogeneous… that is, the synagogues differed from one to another and those early gatherings of believers probably differed from one another as well.
First, consider what two authors say about those first century synagogue gatherings:
The ancient synagogue may have held a significant place in common Judaism, but the institution was not a monolithic entity, nor should it be treated as such. (Susan Haber, “Common Judaism, Common Synagogue? Purity, Holiness, and Sacred Space at the Turn of the Common Era,†in Common Judaism: Explorations in Second-Temple Judaism (eds. Wayne O. McCready and Adele Reinhartz; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 64)
The Second Temple synagogue was a heterogeneous institution in its size and plan and in its function and role within the Jewish community. (Lee I. Levine, “The Second Temple Synagogue: The Formative Years,†in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity (ed. Lee I. Levine; Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1987), 10)
Those early synagogue meetings were different. A synagogue meeting in Nazareth would look different than a synagogue meeting in Alexandria, both of which would look different than a synagogue meeting in Rome. Why? Because, at this time, the synagogue was still primarily focused on community support. Since the needs of the Jews in each city would be different, then the synagogue meetings would look different as well.
Now, carry this over to the early church. As the Christians gathered together from city to city, it also seems that they were focused on community development – not what we call “community development” today, but helping each other growing in maturity in Christ and live as citizens of the kingdom of God. Since the communities were different, their meetings would look different. Since the communities needs were different, their activities would be different from other meetings of other believers with other needs.
So, just as it would be incorrect to talk of a certain form of synagogue meeting, it would be incorrect to talk of a certain form of church meeting. The early church meetings were heterogeneous…as different as the people who were gathered together.
On the other hand, there were homogeneous facets of early synagogue and church meetings. In fact, when NT authors mentions their church meetings, they rarely prescribe certain activities. But, they often described how the believers should interact with one another, regardless of what activities were taking place (i.e., love one another, forgive one another, serve one another, care for one another, consider one another as more important).
In fact, this seems to be Paul’s main point in 1 Corinthians 14. For Paul, both prophesy and tongues were manifestations of the Spirit, but he was not as concerned with the activities themselves; he was concerned with the motivation (love) and result (edification) of those activities. If the activities could not be carried out in love and if the activities did not edify the people, then those activities should not be performed (even if those activities were the results of manifestations of the Spirit!).
I’ve mentioned two of the “homogeneous” concerns of the NT writers for church meetings: love and edification. But, I think there are a few others. For example, I think that the NT authors indicate that mutuality (i.e. “one anothering”) was necessary for church meetings. They do not command that teaching occur at every meeting, or that prophesy occur at every meeting, but they do indicate that the believers should work together (speaking and serving together) for the benefit of each other and the community as a whole, whatever activities take place.
I think this idea of heterogeneity of activities but homogeneity of motive/purpose/etc. is very important, and often missing the church today. What do you think?
First century synagogues in their Greco-Roman context
By the time of Jesus there were synagogues wherever there were communities of Jews in the [Roman] empire, both in Palestine and abroad. In many respects these were not unlike the gathering places of like-minded individuals among non-Jews, where certain religious activities occurred and prayers were said. Greco-Roman “associations” were commonly organized, for example, for workers of the same trade in a locale, who might share a range of common interests. And it was not unusual to find other associations organized for the purpose of periodic social gatherings, where members would pool their funds to provide ample food and drink and, perhaps strangely to the modern observer, provide, through a reserve, a proper burial for their deceased members.
Rarely, though, would such organizations, whether trade associations or funeral clubs, include men, women, and children; rarely would they meet together every week; and rarely would they devote themselves principally to the purpose of prayer and discussion of sacred traditions. To this extent, Jewish synagogues were distinctive. (Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000 , 37-38)
Clement on appointed elders
The First Epistle of Clement is a very important early Christian letter. The letter was probably written in the late first or early second century, which makes it one of the earliest Christian writings outside of the New Testament.
Traditionally, the letter is attributed to Clement of Rome, although his name does not appear in the letter. Instead, the letter itself says that it is from “the church of God living in Rome” (1 Clement 1:1). Similarly, the letter is written to “the church of God living in Corinth” (1 Clement 1:1).
So, why did the believers in Rome write to the believers in Corinth? Apparently, some people in the church in Corinth had decided to longer recognize the elders in the church in Corinth. While there are many interesting questions that we could discuss in this letter, I was intrigued by a certain passage dealing with the elders themselves.
In a description very similar to Luke’s own in Acts 14, the letter describes how the apostles helped the churches appoint or recognize elders after they had been “tested” or “approved”. But, what happened after the apostles left the scene? Was there some kind of succession, where one elder or group of elders would then appoint those who would follow them?
This is what the First Epistle of Clement says:
Therefore, we do not deem it right to throw away from service those appointed by them [that is, the apostles] or later by other accountable men along with the approval of the whole church, that is, those who also blamelessly served the flock of Christ with humility, peace, and a disinterested spirit, that is, those who have been well spoken of by all for a long time. (1 Clement 44:3 – author’s translation)
According to this passage, at the time this letter was written, elders had been appointed (or recognized) by the apostles, and later, after the apostles left the area or after the apostles had died, elders were also chosen by “accountable men”. Interestingly, the phrase “along with the approval of the whole church” goes with both “by them [the apostles]” and “later by other accountable men”. Thus, both the apostles and later accountable men only “appointed” or “recognized” elders with the approval of the whole church.
Also notice what these elders are known for: 1) for serving the flock; 2) humility, peace, and a disinterested spirit (this is a difficult term to translate), and 3) a long, long experience with the church such that all have spoken well of them for a long time.
I wonder how elders and churches today would be different if elders were known for these same qualities.
By the way, according to the reasoning of 1 Clement 44:3 there would be reason to unacknowledging someone as an elder (or whatever you want to call it) if that person was not approved by the whole church, if that person was not humble or peaceable, or if that everyone had not spoken well of them for a long time.
Points of comparison between the early synagogue and early church
In his book From Synagogue to Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), James Tunstead Burtchaell compares and contrasts the early synagogue (before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.) to the early church. His points of comparison help us to understand what the early Christians (who were also Jews) brought with them from their synagogue experiences:
As regards the program and undertakings of the two social units, there are multiple similarities. The synagogue and the ekklesia both typically met in plenary sessions for prayer, to read and expound and discuss the scriptures, to share in ritual meals, to deliberate community policy, to enforce discipline, to choose and inaugurate officers. Both maintained a welfare fund to support widows and orphans and other indigents among their memberships. Both accepted the obligation to provide shelter and hospitality to members of sister communities on their journeys. Both arranged for burial of their dead, and maintained cemeteries. (pg. 339)
The Jews gathered together in order to maintain their identity as God’s chosen people. While this would certainly include times of reading, teaching, and discussing Scripture, these activities alone do not account for the existence of the synagogue. The synagogue existed because the Jewish community existed and to maintain that community’s identity, existence, and propagation.
Thus, the primary activities that took place when the synagogue convened were community-building activities. For example, Josephus gives an account of a political discussion that begins on one Sabbath, and continues for two or more days as the community continued to come together in order to make some important decisions. (Josephus Life 279ff)
As Burtchaell points out (in the quote above), the early Christians gathered together for similar reasons. Their desire was to maintain their identity as God’s people – that is, those who had been set apart (made holy, called saints) by God. Obviously, this would include the reading, teaching, and discussion of Scripture, but it would include much more as well.
Thus, we see the early church eating together, taking collections for those in need, offering hospitality to those traveling through their region, making community decisions, etc. It would be a mistake to separate these activities from the community’s understanding of “worship,” but it would also be a mistake to only consider the scriptural focus as “worship.”
Instead, the church (as with the synagogue earlier) did not separate their lives into worship activities and other activities. Each activity and each part of life was to be lived as worship to God, whether reading or discussing Scripture, eating together, taking up a collection, or making a decision.
Their “worship” when they gathered together as the church consisted of any activity that would help maintain and build the community of God’s people.
Why should we study the first century synagogue?
For the last few weeks, I’ve been studying the development of the synagogue through the first century. This study will be included in my dissertation. Why? If my dissertation is about the church, why study the synagogue?
In the books that I’ve read, several authors have mentioned the importance of the synagogue in understanding the early church. In fact, one author stated that the synagogue was the most important aspect of Judaism that affected the early church. While I think that “most important” may be overstating it a bit, I do think it is important for us to understand the synagogue in order to understand the church as described in the New Testament.
First, remember that the first Christians were Jews. They were familiar with the synagogues around Jerusalem, in the Galilee, in other areas of Palestine, and in the Diaspora (Jews scattered around the Roman empire). In the Gospels, we even learn that it was Jesus’ habit to attend synagogue meetings.
Second, remember that the early disciples were often found in the synagogues. We see this especially in Acts when Paul begins by proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ in the synagogues. When these disciples were forced to leave the synagogue in order to meet together, we see similarities (and differences) in their meetings.
So, how did the synagogue begin, and why is this important for our study of the early church?
There is no direct evidence that tells us where, when, or how the synagogues first began. We have evidence from inscriptions in Egypt that synagogues met there in the third century B.C. We also have some archaeological evidence from about 100 years later. However, none of this evidence tells us exactly why Jews began meeting together in synagogues.
Despite the lack of evidence, scholars have suggested two possible hypotheses for the beginning of the synagogue. The first hypothesis posits that the synagogues began while many Jews were taken away from Israel into exile in Babylon. In this case, the synagogues replaced the temple. Since the Temple had been destroyed, and since the Jews were so far from Jerusalem, they needed another location for their worship.
Another hypothesis suggests that the synagogue developed from the O.T. practice of meeting together at the city gates. In many passages in the Old Testament, people met together at the city gates for political, social, and even religious reasons. However, as the culture shifted toward Hellenism, the Greco-Roman practice of meeting in the city center – or forum – replaced the city gates. In Greek or Roman cities, these Jewish meetings came to be known as synagogues.
So, which hypothesis, if either, is correct? Well, it’s impossible to know with certainty. But, we should remember that after the rebuilding of the temple (the Second Temple), synagogues continued to exist, even in Jerusalem. Thus, it does not appear that the purpose of the synagogue was the same as the purpose of the temple. Instead, it seems the two played complementary roles.
Also, archaeological evidence shows that the synagogues of the first century (and earlier) did not contain the same worship and liturgical symbolism found in synagogues after the destruction of the Second Temple. So, the synagogue did eventually take on some of the roles of the temple, but that did not occur until after 70 A.D.
Instead, archaeological and textual evidence shows that the synagogue play a more social (less religious) role. Now, it’s impossible to completely separate the social and religious roles (from anything) in the first century. But, the early synagogues were used for such things as political meetings, community gatherings, legal activities, trade, and meals, as well as for gatherings to discuss Scripture.
Thus, it seems that the first century synagogue were more like the gatherings at the city gates of the OT than the temple, having more of a social purpose than a religious or worship purpose.
What does this mean for the early church? If Jews were accustomed to gathering together for social purposes, then there is no reason to think that this changed. When they gathered together with brothers and sisters in Christ, they continued to gather for social purposes. Yes, as with their synagogues meetings, they would discuss Scripture, but there were other reasons for gathering together as well. And, these reasons for gathering together were just as important (and just as necessary) as gathering to discuss or teach Scripture.
As we gather together with other believers today, maybe we should also consider how our assemblies can demonstrate a broader purpose, perhaps recognizing the important social role that has been lost to alot of churches.
Words have a way of turning around without meaning to
Vocabulary has a way of becoming stylized. This is a widespread human experience. A devout and purposeful woman gathers others of like generosity to live and work in a community. Their style is frugal and unadorned: they simply tie white kerchiefs about their heads. Four centuries later those muslin bandanas have evolved into starched linen headgear that is neither frugal nor unostentatious. What was intended to preserve the past has in effect discontinued it.
It is much the same with words. Feminism that is not all that feminine; a Servant of the Servants of God who expects to be obeyed; waiters who are always in a hurry: words have a way of turning around without meaning to. Often a word is put to use in its original sense. For instance, Jewish synagogues and Christian churches had staff members called hyperetai = diakonoi = servants. In time the Christian diakonoi evolved into powerful administrators. Their title had taken on new overtones. It no longer came across like “employee,” or “assistant.” When translated into other languages it could no longer be replaced with an equivalent word, for to call these executives “servants” would be incongruous. And so diakonos could not be translated at all: it was simply brought across as “deacon.” (James Tunstead Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, 276)
Quote 6 from Your Church is Too Small
This week (March 14-20, 2010), I’m taking part in a blog tour of John H. Armstrong’s new book Your Church is Too Small. Armstrong begins each chapter with quotes from various writers throughout church history. Each day this week, I’m going to highlight one of those quotes.
Sectarianism is seeking unity in uniformity rather than unity in diversity and expecting other Christians to comply fully with my views before I have genuine fellowship with them. -Rex Koivisto.
Quote 5 from Your Church is Too Small
This week (March 14-20, 2010), I’m taking part in a blog tour of John H. Armstrong’s new book Your Church is Too Small. Armstrong begins each chapter with quotes from various writers throughout church history. Each day this week, I’m going to highlight one of those quotes.
Only in Christ are all things in communion. He is the point of convergence of all hearts and beings and therefore the bridge and the shortest way from each to each. -Hans Urs von Balthasar
Quote 4 from Your Church is Too Small
This week (March 14-20, 2010), I’m taking part in a blog tour of John H. Armstrong’s new book Your Church is Too Small. Armstrong begins each chapter with quotes from various writers throughout church history. Each day this week, I’m going to highlight one of those quotes.
I believe very strongly in the principle and practice of the purity of the visible church, but I have seen churches that have fought for purity and are merely hotbeds of ugliness. No longer is there any observable, loving, personal relationship even in their own midst, let alone with other true Christians. -Francis A. Schaeffer