An Enjoyable Correspondence with a Scholar

I had been reading some of John of Damascus in volume 14 of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2 when I saw a comparison made to Theodoret in the prologue.  Not finding the work I sent an e-mailed to a blogger in England whom I follow, Roger Pearse, since his field of study deals with ancient Christian texts.  Apparently, this good man was interested enough in the topic to post some of the dialogue.  In the end I was the one who located where to find the text in the original language, but those skills are nonexistent.  Had a French copy been available, I could possibly muddle through it adequately enough.

If you have interest in early Christian texts, I recommend Roger's blog.  He has a pleasant style.  Also there is his website The Tertullian Project which I happened upon while researching for a final paper in apologetics.  This is a treasure trove of material concerning Tertullian and his works.

Update:
Roger Pearse found a complete translated copy of the work in a PhD dissertation: An Analysis of the Heresiological Method of Theodoret of Cyrus in the "Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium" by Glenn M. Cope and available through UMI Dissertation Express.

Laodicea - Canon 22

The subdeacon has no right to wear an orarium [i.e., stole], nor to leave the doors.

During the service, the subdeacon was not to have a garb which would infer he was in a higher position.  The overseer was in charge with the subdeacons assisting.  The position at the doors was to assist the catechumens and penitents as they leave and then closing the doors behind them to sequester the faithful for communion.

Laodicea - Canon 21

The subdeacons have no right to a place in the Diaconicum, nor to touch the Lord’s vessels.

The vessels used were not to be touched by the subdeacons during the service as an attestation to the defined duties of the fourth century.

A Matter of Both Judgment and Morality

I was reading the opinion and editorial section of the Sunday paper and noted the piece written by Leonard Pitts, Jr of the Miami Herald.  He addressed the really poor judgment of those in national public office to become embroiled in sex scandals.  Individuals who swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States became involved in conduct unbecoming of someone trusted to work in the best interest of those they represent.  Instead the men in the article each placed his own interests first.  And then when confronted they dodged, played down, or outright lied about the issue and worked to put the matter behind as quickly as possible.  Mr. Pitts' article makes the point that such bad judgment undermines the public's confidence in the individual's ability to serve properly.  Bravo!  He is quite correct.  And let's face facts: public figures do not have private lives.  What occurs in private will become known eventually.  What were they thinking?

Where Mr. Pitts came short is in addressing the morals—i.e., not at all.  The Miami Herald headline was the author's take: "A Matter of Judgment, not Morality."  Excuse me?  not a matter of morality?  Of course it is.  The Founding Fathers understood that our system of government would not stand if not represented by those with high morals and regard for Christian principles.  Morals are a direct indicator of what can be expected in overall conduct.  If a congressman is self-seeking and unfaithful, that one will do the same to constituents.  He or she will not care about anything but the held office with the accompanying power, prestige, and influence.  Not that I expect moral perfection as that is not possible.  If someone does something wrong, confess it and move on.  The point of the article and my observations deal with a sustained disregard for oaths.  If a person disregards the sanctity of a marriage vow, all other promises or intentions are suspect.

Is there a way for someone like Anthony Weiner to reverse course?  Of course, but the way is painful, because it requires admitting what you are at the core and that you need help.  Rep. Weiner says he is seeking therapy.  Others have done the same.  Will it help?  There will probably be some outward change for an undetermined period of time, but only the symptoms will be addressed.  The issue is sin.  The men mentioned in the article know they were wrong, and only finding someone who can deal with the sin problem will effect any lasting change.  It is the Lord Jesus Christ who atoned for sin and paid the price of redemption.  He did this for me, and I know he did this for these men who disgraced themselves.  The question becomes: will they believe and receive it?

Give No Ground

If a theologian is asked to yield and make concessions so that peace may at last be established in the Church, yet if he refuses to budge on even a single point of doctrine—to human reason this looks like excessive stubbornness, even like downright evil intent. This is why such theologians are rarely loved or praised during their lifetime.  On the contrary, they are scolded as disturbers of the peace or even as destroyers of the kingdom of God.  They are regarded as men worthy of contempt.  But at the end of the day it becomes clear that the very determined, unfailing tenacity of these theologians as they cling to the pure teaching of the divine Word by no means tears down the Church.  On the contrary, it is this very attitude that—amid the great dissension—builds up the Church and ultimately brings about genuine peace.  Therefore, woe to the Church if it has no men of this stripe—men who would stand watch on the ramparts of Zion, sounding the alarm whenever a foe threatens to rush the walls, men who would rally to the banner of Jesus Christ, ready for a holy war!

C. F. W. Walther¹

These words from Walther struck me in light of the propensity of church leaders to:

●	acquiesce when confronted with wrong teaching
●	soften the clear testimony of scripture
●	resolve issues through expedient and pragmatic means
●	allow improper church practice

There are multiple reasons given to allow these, but they generally boil down to relevancy or tolerance.  An attempt is made to establish a reputation for a church or individual pursuing unity without contention.  Differences in doctrine or practice are relegated to the status of opinion as part of a "big tent" mentality making for easy dismissal while pursuing a common good.

While the admonition of brethren being together in harmony is quite scriptural, an "openness" policy that I have described creates a false unity based not on the Word of God but on emotional stability within a social construct.  Fellowship that should be centered around and built upon Christ is artificially constructed with worldly plans and materials rather than eternal truths.  Lack of strife and willingness to "get along" become the standards of spiritual maturity instead of Christ-likeness.

What Walther posits is a call to stand fast in what is true and right.  He uses the example from Ezekiel 33:1-20 of the watchman diligently looking for what might assail from outside.  The apostle Paul issued the same type of warning for those wolves within the flock (Acts 20:28-31).  The Lord has promised tribulation against and among his people from the enemy seeking to destroy what Christ promises to build.  The call for his church is to be singular in their mission.  Again looking at Paul's address to the Ephesian elders, what does he say was his mission and message?

I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.  (Acts 20:20-21)

This message is the message of relevancy for us today.  We must fight the good fight of faith laying hold of those weapons that "are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds" with the end to "destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" (2 Cor 10:3-6).

What is the application for the local church not currently dealing with false doctrine or false sheep?  Be faithful to what you have been taught.  Do not succumb to group dynamics such as peer pressure.  If you are faced with a matter for consideration which already has a majority for approval, do not concede.  Make an argument via scripture and sound reason.  It may be that the dissenting voice is the correct one.  And if you as the dissenter is wrong, the scripture and sound reason used by others will carry the day.  In the end, the basis for moving forward is not the whim of man but the wisdom of the sound teaching manifesting itself through the body.


¹ C.F.W. Walther, Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible, (trans. Christian C. Tiews; St Louis: Concordia, 2010), 32-33.

Laodicea - Canon 20

It is not right for a deacon to sit in the presence of a presbyter, unless he be bidden by the presbyter to sit down.  Likewise the deacons shall have worship of the subdeacons and all the clergy.

There was a proper hierarchy in the fourth-century church and onward that was evidenced by specific matters of protocol.  This carried from overseer to elder, then deacon, sub-deacon, and whomever else was in an ordained position.  The reason for this was to teach humility and curb the pursuit of such a position.

Laodicea - Canon 19

After the sermons of the Bishops, the prayer for the catechumens is to be made first by itself; and after the catechumens have gone out, the prayer for those who are under penance; and, after these have passed under the hand [of the Bishop] and departed, there should then be offered the three prayers of the faithful, the first to be said entirely in silence, the second and third aloud, and then the [kiss of] peace is to be given.  And, after the presbyters have given the [kiss of] peace to the Bishop, then the laity are to give it [to one another], and so the Holy Oblation is to be completed.  And it is lawful to the priesthood alone to go to the Altar and communicate.

This canon addressed what was to happen after the overseer finished his teaching and before the Lord's Supper.  Certain of the group were to depart, since they were not considered to be in full fellowship.  First after a prayer were catechumens, those who were being instructed in the faith but not yet baptized, followed another prayer and the penitent among them.  At this point there would only be the faithful remaining.

Three times of prayer were occurred followed by the kiss of peace to be given one to another.  Today, those who wish to practice a "passing of the peace" do so by a handshake and exchanging a formal greeting—this gesture having the same effect as a kiss in the ancient time and region.  Those wishing to be even less formal simply ask those in the pew to shake hands with someone close by.  The more formal churches tend to make fellowship artificial while the latter cheapens it.  Neither demonstrates κοινωνία in its biblical sense.

Lastly, the overseer (and only he) would approach the bread and wine to complete the Lord's Supper with the congregants.

Laodicea - Canon 18

The same service of prayers is to be said always both at nones and at vespers.

Nones were held at the ninth hour of the day (i.e., 3 P.M.), while vespers were late afternoon or evening.  Church feasts ended with prayer with the actual ending time changing based on the feast observed.  Whichever ending time was observed that service would be the same as the other service.  No difference would be made based on the hour of the day.

There may be a lesson learned from this practice.  Many local churches will have two or more Sunday morning meetings that are different stylistically.  The general intent is to draw a certain demographic to a meeting that is palpable to their subculture.  The services of the historic church were not so ordered.  The differences in the meetings held that day dealt with foci of the faith, all being presented with the same style of worship.  The modern version is to present the same focus of faith as another meeting with changes geared to an emotional response.  Emotional response of the meeting experience is placed above the spiritual need of the group or individual as the prime motivation for an order of service.  As a result, any truth that is projected will be taken as a personal truth applicable to the need of the day instead of the reality that there is a universal truth that applies equally to all people for all times.  Churches need to move away from packaging to niche markets and direct their efforts to presenting the whole word of God, first as law to expose sin, then in the gospel to provide hope all the while demonstrating the sufficiency of Christ and his work on the cross.

Laodicea - Canon 17

The Psalms are not to be joined together in the congregations, but a lesson shall intervene after every psalm.

Psalm-singing was broken up by lessons in order to prevent weariness in the congregants.  Lest the reader think this is similar to how church meetings work today moving from one thing to the next to hold interest of a soundbite culture, the ancient songs were not your typical two-minute Praise and Worship ditties but more akin to chants of whole psalms.  This was fully orbed theology sung in its fullness.

Laodicea - Canon 16

The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures.

This canon dealt with what Scripture was to be read when believers congregated on Saturday.  A reading from the Gospels was to be included in the regular meeting on that day.