Autonomy of the Early Church

[Nanopants]

I don't put much stock in the common understanding of holiness, as if the masses knew enough to correct those called out ones, especially since similar words were said to David when he returned to Jerusalem. Yet of the world, David said:

The earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness,
The world and those who dwell therein. -Ps 24:1

And Isaiah:

“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts;
The whole earth is full of His glory!” -Isa 6:3

There is a pattern among the lives of the saints in scripture: God brings them out that He may bring them in to where ever it is He leads them, but since God can choose our delusions, and because scripture discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart, fastening some people into chains, "church" can be worse than the "world."

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I think there's a huge difference comparing the Desert Fathers, those who where hermits (they were sought out for spiritual knowledge because they chose to not be married to the world) and those who are in fellowship with others by whatever means.
Hermits didn't seem to have an accountability factor whereas anyone who is ever in contact with other believers has opinions/biases/(fillinblank)
Only hemits can be deemed lonewolf .... and imho Paul may have advocated that

 

[luckyfredsdad]

The Early Church was a federation, chiefly Alexandria, Ephesus, Antioch, Rome and
Jerusalem. Constantinople was admitted to the Power structure because as Rome was, she was the capital of the Roman Empire. Christ was indeed King, or Head with the Holy Ghost, His link man.
The Federation idea fell apart when Rome sought to usurp the place of the Holy Spirit and expelled Constantinople.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I think there's a huge difference comparing the Desert Fathers, those who where hermits (they were sought out for spiritual knowledge because they chose to not be married to the world) and those who are in fellowship with others by whatever means.
Hermits didn't seem to have an accountability factor whereas anyone who is ever in contact with other believers has opinions/biases/(fillinblank)
Only hemits can be deemed lonewolf .... and imho Paul may have advocated that

They were certainly respected and revered, but there asceticism could take incredibly strange turns. Simeon Stylites sat on a pillar for decades and ate the worms that came to chew his gangrenous ankle. And that's a tame example. There's also the case of the "Holy Fool" like Diogenes of Sinope, who ran into women's bathhouses naked, dragged a dead dog around behind him, and threw chestnuts at women during church.

There are venerable traditions of hermeticism within Christianity, the chief example being St. Anthony, credited by St. Athanasias of Alexandria (perhaps wrongly) as the founder of monasticism.

But better, I think, is the tradition of cenobites or communal monasteries, where people live together and work for the benefit of each other, participating in rounds of worship, prayer, and work, both for the benefit of the community and, increasingly, the outside world. That tradition begins (in Christianity) with Anthony's contemporary Pachomius, and is generally made more regulated and more service-oriented through the work of first Basil of Caesarea, then Evagrius Ponticus, John Cassian, Benedict of Nursia, and Columbanus.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The Early Church was a federation, chiefly Alexandria, Ephesus, Antioch, Rome and
Jerusalem. Constantinople was admitted to the Power structure because as Rome was, she was the capital of the Roman Empire. Christ was indeed King, or Head with the Holy Ghost, His link man.
The Federation idea fell apart when Rome sought to usurp the place of the Holy Spirit and expelled Constantinople.

Actually Jerusalem was admitted to the patriarchate after Constantinople. Before Constantine's conversion, it was probably Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus, Antioch, and Carthage. Then Constantinople in 330, and Jerusalem only in 449-451.

But your basic point is completely right.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

They were certainly respected and revered, but there asceticism could take incredibly strange turns. Simeon Stylites sat on a pillar for decades and ate the worms that came to chew his gangrenous ankle. And that's a tame example. There's also the case of the "Holy Fool" like Diogenes of Sinope, who ran into women's bathhouses naked, dragged a dead dog around behind him, and threw chestnuts at women during church.

while not being Desert Fathers per se they would make good Halloween characters ... well maybe not.

There are venerable traditions of hermeticism within Christianity, the chief example being St. Anthony, credited by St. Athanasias of Alexandria (perhaps wrongly) as the founder of monasticism.

But better, I think, is the tradition of cenobites or communal monasteries, where people live together and work for the benefit of each other, participating in rounds of worship, prayer, and work, both for the benefit of the community and, increasingly, the outside world. That tradition begins (in Christianity) with Anthony's contemporary Pachomius, and is generally made more regulated and more service-oriented through the work of first Basil of Caesarea, then Evagrius Ponticus, John Cassian, Benedict of Nursia, and Columbanus.

Again not the Desert Fathers but the monks had different reasons for veneration, while they did want to avoid worldly contact. The Desert Fathers also protested heirarchy in particular.

 

[elliott95]

It seems to me that we have polar opposites here.

Hermits removed themselves from the world for the sake of holiness, but from all I have read did not seem to reject the Church itself.

The approach I thought we were discussing here usually involves removing oneself from the Church, but remaining in the world.

I agree that the chances of this effecting holiness are "slim" (or much worse, in fact). But it really seems the opposite of what ought to be, if we see any wisdom in the desert fathers/hermits/etc.

Throwing off the guidance and accountability of the Church and the fellowship of the faithful and all the associated benefits - in an environment of the world that is is largely opposed to holiness - just seems to me like a dangerous path.

I know what God led me to do, which is supported Scripturally and taught by the Church, and I went through a lot of difficulty in order to be obedient to that, to my very great benefit, for which I am thankful.

As I said before, I feel badly for those who truly have no choice, but for someone to deliberately choose such long-term, seems likely to be a matter of rebellion, and most unwise.

Could be.

Defined as someone who cuts themselves off from the Church and remains in the world sounds more like secular than anything Christian to me.

So far, 'Lone Wolf' can mean anything that we want it to mean. Mostly it seems to be used as an in-house flame, I think, doesn't it?

Until someone self-describes as a lone wolf, and responds, the label is being applied from the outside of the phenomena.

 

[~Anastasia~]

They were certainly respected and revered, but there asceticism could take incredibly strange turns. Simeon Stylites sat on a pillar for decades and ate the worms that came to chew his gangrenous ankle. And that's a tame example. There's also the case of the "Holy Fool" like Diogenes of Sinope, who ran into women's bathhouses naked, dragged a dead dog around behind him, and threw chestnuts at women during church.

LOL, you make a good point!

It was some of the strange aspects of that brand of asceticism (and honestly - most of what I read was strange on some level, or outright bizarre) that put me off from looking into it at all for some time, and very nearly kept me from pursuing early writings altogether.

It's still something in many cases that I prefer not to think about, though I can at least understand (if not truly appreciate) the much tamer examples than you gave here.

I suppose I am guilty of divorcing the teachings from that, preferring to glean only what seems profitable and turning a rather blind eye to some of the rest.

There are venerable traditions of hermeticism within Christianity, the chief example being St. Anthony, credited by St. Athanasias of Alexandria (perhaps wrongly) as the founder of monasticism.

I'm more familiar with him, LOL.

But better, I think, is the tradition of cenobites or communal monasteries, where people live together and work for the benefit of each other, participating in rounds of worship, prayer, and work, both for the benefit of the community and, increasingly, the outside world. That tradition begins (in Christianity) with Anthony's contemporary Pachomius, and is generally made more regulated and more service-oriented through the work of first Basil of Caesarea, then Evagrius Ponticus, John Cassian, Benedict of Nursia, and Columbanus.

And I have to agree with you. I think there is much more - applicable - spiritual truth to be learned from those kinds of asceticism. Obedience and the communal good, for example.

Thanks for the splash of cold water in the face. As I said, I sometimes prefer to forget the more bizarre aspects!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Could be.

Defined as someone who cuts themselves off from the Church and remains in the world sounds more like secular than anything Christian to me.

Good point.

So far, 'Lone Wolf' can mean anything that we want it to mean. Mostly it seems to be used as an in-house flame, I think, doesn't it?

Well - tbh you may be right. I prefer not to consider it a flame, but I suppose it depends on a person's frame of mind. It can be intended that way, and it can be taken that way.

That's the danger of having only words on a screen to communicate. The intent can be lost or misunderstood, and often is.

The tendency is probably exacerbated by the fact that the ones so described often take it upon themselves to attack the Church or her particular teachings as well.

Defensiveness is the natural result on both sides, and gets in the way of reasoned discussion, perhaps.

Until someone self-describes as a lone wolf, and responds, the label is being applied from the outside of the phenomena.

And this is true. But for the sake of discussion, a label is needed. People do self-describe their beliefs, prejudices, animosities, etc. It does in fact become clear that there are some who prefer to separate themselves from the Church, and then make no secret of their opinion of her.

What we have here is a natural result - and I think the OP's desire to explore the phenomena is sincere. I prefer to ascribe sincerity to everyone, until they completely demonstrate the opposite. (And I do fail here - I am guilty of misjudging others, though I wish I did not. I try not to though.)

But in order to discuss the phenomena, it is easier to use a label of some sort. Again, we are restricted to words between us, so some need to be used.

I suppose it might be more palatable if those ones who fit the description came up with their own designation, and we used that instead. But I am not aware of any.

I don't think anyone is posting in bad faith, although you are right that it might offend some. But it's an honest attempt (I believe) to understand motives and reasons.

I guess we all often fall short. Lord have mercy on us all.


ETA: I should also be completely fair and note that the OP did not use the term "lone wolf" but simply said "those who prefer to go it alone" after explaining what he meant.

 

[Albion]

Well - tbh you may be right. I prefer not to consider it a flame, but I suppose it depends on a person's frame of mind. It can be intended that way, and it can be taken that way.

Slang, maybe, but the term is commonly used to refer to a loner, that's all. I don't think anyone's used it it be insulting. If it's seen that way, a whole lotta people are guilty of flaming because they used similar terms that, while not flattering, aren't slurs, either.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

....
ETA: I should also be completely fair and note that the OP did not use the term "lone wolf" but simply said "those who prefer to go it alone" after explaining what he meant.

What does ETA mean?? All I can come up with is 'estimated time of arrival' but I know that can't be it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Slang, maybe, but the term is commonly used to refer to a loner, that's all. I don't think anyone's used it it be insulting. If it's seen that way, a whole lotta people are guilty of flaming because they used similar terms that, while not flattering, aren't slurs, either.

That's why I didn't really consider it to be meant to be a flame either.

It's a common enough term in general society. And there are a lot of people who self-identify with it (in society) and often are quite proud of it.

So ... I took it merely as a descriptive term, and not one intended as a slur.

But I guess you never know. There are people who will get upset at nearly any label. I never saw it that way though.

 

[~Anastasia~]

What does ETA mean?? All I can come up with is 'estimated time of arrival' but I know that can't be it.

My apologies.

In this case - Edited to Add ... if I change my posts more than a few seconds after I post them, other than to fix a typo, I usually put that on there. Just so it can be identified to have been added later.

If it's really critical information, I will usually change the color of the text.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

My apologies.

In this case - Edited to Add ... if I change my posts more than a few seconds after I post them, other than to fix a typo, I usually put that on there. Just so it can be identified to have been added later.

If it's really critical information, I will usually change the color of the text.

(now I know)

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think there's a huge difference comparing the Desert Fathers, those who where hermits (they were sought out for spiritual knowledge because they chose to not be married to the world) and those who are in fellowship with others by whatever means.
Hermits didn't seem to have an accountability factor whereas anyone who is ever in contact with other believers has opinions/biases/(fillinblank)
Only hemits can be deemed lonewolf .... and imho Paul may have advocated that

If it's the case that one is called into the wilderness or any type of wilderness in order to find refuge and freedom from the corruption in the world, then the term "lone wolf" would be as accurate to describe them (even though used as a demeaning term many times) just as the term "Holy Roller" would be accurate with describing someone who is zealous for Christ.

The term "lone wolf" is an interesting one since I never took it as a negative in the majority of contexts - especially when considering the ways that many were called that simply because they did not tend to make friendships easily and seemed disconnected from crowds. There are aspects of independence that are highly beneficial at times (specifically if it allows for one to be innovative in eras where things have been done according to formulas that are more detrimental than beneficial)- and others where it really is a matter of personality.

And for others, if it was wrong to be 100% alone, then we must also say that it was wrong for others to be alone such as Elijah and the hermits of Carmel (I Kings 17-18) and others who themselves were essentially what others are today.

I Kings 17
"Leave here, go east and hide in the Wadi Cherith, east of the Jordan. You shall drink of the stream, and I have commanded ravens to feed you there. So he left and did as the LORD had commanded. He went and remained by the Wadi Cherith, east of the Jordan. Ravens brought him bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the evening, and he drank from the stream. After some time, however, the brook ran dry, because no rain had fallen in the land. So the LORD said to him: "Move on to Zarephath of Sidon and stay there. I have designated a widow there to provide for you."
​

This tradition was continued on Elisha when it came to the company of the prophets - a school that did not seem to be based on participating in the Levitical priesthood at the time or other dynamics connected to living in the system....even though they spoke out on many occasions (I Kings 19:19, II Kings 2:13-18, II Kings 4-5, II Kings 8, II Kings 9, etc.). In many ways, St. John the Baptist continued this tradition when he was in the wilderness. And the Desert Fathers (whether nthony the Great, Abba Arsenius, Abba Poemen, Abba Macarius of Egypt, or Abba Moses the Black and many others) emulated the same. As noted in part 5 and part 6 of his work Conferences, John Cassian wrote the following (more here in Conferences: Contents ):

"This practical life then, which as has been said rests on a double system, is distributed among many different professions and interests. For some make it their whole purpose to aim at the secrecy of an anchorite and purity of heart, as we know that in the past Elijah and Elisha, and in our own day the blessed Antony and others who followed with the same object, were joined most closely to God by the silence of solitude."


....."So then there sprang from that system of which we have spoken another sort of perfection, whose followers are rightly termed anchorites; i.e., withdrawers, because, being by no means satisfied with that victory whereby they had trodden under foot the hidden snares of the devil, while still living among men, they were eager to fight with the devils in open conflict, and a straightforward battle, and so feared not to penetrate the vast recesses of the desert, imitating, to wit, John the Baptist, who passed all his life in the desert, and Elijah and Elisha and those of whom the Apostle speaks as follows: "They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being in want, distressed, afflicted, of whom the world was not worthy, wandering in deserts, in mountains and in dens and in caves of the earth."​

For a modern-day example of this in action, I'm reminded of Fr. Lazarus living in caves:

BBC: Extreme Pilgrim - Ascetic Christianity - YouTube

Additionally, as another noted on the matter (for brief excerpt):

In the early centuries of the Church’s history, spreading as it did along the trade routes of the Middle East and the Mediterranean and Aegean coastlands, places of worship were the homes of believers or the open air, wherever they could meet unseen because there was much persecution of the followers of Christ. This all changed early in the 4th Century, when the Roman Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity, elevating it to the state religion through the Edict of Milan in 313 AD and by doing so ushered in a major cultural shift. After 3 centuries of ‘being homeless in the world’ Christians began to find themselves in favour, rather than persecuted. The result was confusion and bewilderment in those who had accepted themselves as aliens and strangers in this world. Many accepted Constantine’s edict of toleration but it resulted in the cutting edge of the Church’s life being blunted as for the first time nominalism took root (believers in name only) further resulting in mediocrity, accommodation and compromise as social standing became the reason for faith and not love of Jesus Christ.

It was at this point, when Christians began to find themselves at home in the world, where those who had previously persecuted the Christians were putting out the welcome mat and sitting in the ‘same pew’, that the response to the ‘call of the desert’ began to gain momentum, beginning at first with a few, and then a multitude. Thomas Merton wrote “It should seem to us much stranger than it does, that this paradoxical flight from the world attained its greatest dimensions (I almost said frenzy) when the ‘world’ officially became Christian.” Was this Christian withdrawal into the desert purely a negative move? Was it a retreat from all the complications and compromise in those attempting to Christianise society? Was it a judgmental act, motivated to shame those Christians who had decided to stay and work out their salvation in the city? Which group of Christians made the right response to this new and ‘favourable’ situation, those who stayed in the ‘city’ or those who withdrew to the desert? In the mystery of God the answer has to be – BOTH. ........The Desert Fathers and Mothers retreated to the outskirts of the cities and into the Deserts of Egypt, Syria and Palestine to think through the meaning of such change and to find a different way of being a Christian in the world.​

Additionally, Some of this has been discussed more in-depth elsewhere - as seen here:

I'm no historian, but I do think that the monastics are essential to keeping the Church "on course". They have operated, at times, as the conscience and at other times the memory of the Church.

It seems the Holy Fools are not unlike the desert monastics, but recognize the desert in "civilized" locales.

..

[/COLOR]Desert Fathers & Mothers: Humility as the Path to God ​

The flight of these men to the desert was neither purely negative nor purely individualistic. They were not rebels against society. True, they were in a certain sense "anarchists," and it will do no harm to think of them in that light. They were men who did not believe in letting themselves be passively guided and ruled by a decadent state, and who believed that there was a way of getting along without slavish dependence on accepted, conventional values. But they did not intend to place themselves above society. They did not reject society with proud contempt, as if they were superior to other men. On the contrary, one of the reasons why they fled from the world of men was that in the world men were divided into those who were successful, and imposed their will on others, and those who had to give in and be imposed upon. The Desert Fathers declined to be ruled by men, but had no desire to rule over others themselves. Nor did they fly from human fellowship--the very fact that they uttered..."words" of advice to one another is proof that they were eminently social. The society they sought was one where all men were truly equal, where the only authority under God was the charismatic authority of wisdom, experience and love....

-Thomas Merton...Sayings from the Desert Fathers of the Fourth Century
​

......
Specifically, I'm reminded of the Bahitawis, the Holy Men of Ethiopia who've worked in Ethiopian Orthodoxy (more shared here in The History of Ethiopia - Page 174 as well as The Ethiopian Tewahedo Church: an integrally African church - Page 60)---with them being very similar to Nazarites in the way they chose to live a consecrated lifestyle...and many of them did the same as the Desert Fathers when it came to addressing many things occurring within Ethiopian Orthodoxy that may've led to mess---with them ending up persecuted as a result. Their example is something that has been very inspiring to me, alongside the world of Ethiopian Orthodoxy (as said before ) and Oriential Orthodoxy in general

• Fr Abdel Messih el Habashi: The Ethiopian Hermit | Citydesert

Fr Abdel Messih el Habashi The Ethiopian Monk - YouTube

ABBA QIDDUS KEDUS KIDUS & The Bahitawis & Debteras | ​

Death to the World - The Last True Rebellion

The parallel is apt - most 'punks' I knew (and the movement in general) were a reaction against values held by the status quo. (I think the DiY movement was more interesting, as it was not a "reaction against" something, but had a similar ethos). As with Dada - this sense of 'something is wrong' can be found in Art, Literature, Philosophy, etc.

It's just that monastics had the answer - the heart, and Christ, and thus the remedy ... As one priest said, "the Church is a Hospital, and the Monasteries the ICU".

I think it is interesting to note that those fighting against rethinking/restructuring the status quo of the way Church looks sort of have a vested interest in keeping things as is - issues of power, authority, heirarchy, etc., all come into play. Just like, as we were discussing elsewhere with the ecumenical councils - there's a lot more going on under the surface than just debates on whether couches and candles are allowed in church.

I can only imagine how the Desert Fathers felt when it came to where they naturally went in differing directions than others in Imperial Christianity---and how wise they were to leave when they did since difference of thought were not supported many times, based on who had State Power to enforce a view.

And today, there are many others who've sought to do the exact same as they have in honor of their tradition. I'm thankful others have followed in their footsteps doing similar. In example, one can go here ...Or here to the following:

• Milking the Desert"
• Deir Mar Musa, Syria
• Deir Mar Musa
• A journey to Deir Mar Musa
• the road to mar mousa el-habashi

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Thank you for the above post GxG .... that was really well written and informative

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Man I really, really need to do the circuit around Lake Tana, Gondor, Axum, Debre Damo, and Lalibela.

 

[Albion]

That's why I didn't really consider it to be meant to be a flame either.

It's a common enough term in general society. And there are a lot of people who self-identify with it (in society) and often are quite proud of it.

So ... I took it merely as a descriptive term, and not one intended as a slur.

But I guess you never know. There are people who will get upset at nearly any label. I never saw it that way though.

Yes, it makes you wonder what might be called "derogatory" by someone or other who has mischief in mind. I don't see much in "lone wolf" to take offense to. BTW, I do think "Holy Roller" is generally considered to be a slur.

 

[elliott95]

I have no problem with being compared to a wolf, rather than sheep, or being labeled as sheeple. It is a bit more macho, and less unthinking than being called sheeple, as atheists often refer to Christians.
In the Christian context nevertheless, being compared to a wolf is never to be associated with something good.

Unwise, rebellious, bad theology and sola scriptura, are how lone wolf has been interpreted here, however the OP meant it.

One need only to change the term from lone wolf to describe individualist Christians to wolf pack to describe congregationalist Christian to understand that the term is not neutral.

Indeed if the term was neutral, as I rather obtusely determined it to be, then there ought to have been no objection to my describing the desert fathers and St Anthony as a lone wolf.

 

[elliott95]

Yes, it makes you wonder what might be called "derogatory" by someone or other who has mischief in mind. I don't see much in "lone wolf" to take offense to. BTW, I do think "Holy Roller" is generally considered to be a slur.

There is no mischief in my mind.

Is their mischief in your mind to keep on coming after me so aggressively?