Where is the Church? No 2.

 In a recent blog on this topic (see June below) I detailed many of the issues I saw wrong with the modern church. I alluded to the fact that I believed the early Celtic church had much to teach us about how Jesus intended His church to be.

In this blog, and future blogs, I want to take a more positive view and look at what can be done in a positive way to express the power and function of the Kingdom of God in the 21^st century. To do this I first want to sketch the historical aspects of the Celtic Church in its high point in the first 9 centuries or so, and more specifically in the first 5 centruries, before it began the period of decline under pressure from Rome. It was in these early centuries that the ideal of the church was seen, as it developed away from the pressure of European hierarchical church development.

The western extreme of the Roman Empire, the British Isles,was insulated from the rest of the Empire for quite a period of time. When the Roman troops left England in the 5^th Century, the English church was able to continue, uninterrupted, in its development. Whereas the closer you got to Rome, the more influence the remnants of the Empire had on the church. This was especially so during and after the time of Emperor Constantine in the 4^th century, when the Church became an organ of Roman society, officially recognised and favoured.

The beginning of the English church is shrouded in legend, but there are enough hints to draw reasonable conclusions as to its early days.

But firstly why am I concentrating on the English church? The early church had its foothold in the Middle East,  Asia Minor and North Africa. This was its nursery and growth area.  The Gospel reached England very early on, possibly even in the late first century. With the withdrawal of Rome from England, the church there was isolated from many of the factors affecting Europe.

The Celts were throughout the Roman Empire, especially in Northern Europe. There is some evidence that Paul’s letter to the Galatians was written to a Celtic people from Gaul.

With the rise of Islam from the 7^th century onwards, the historic churches in Europe, the Middle East, etc,  were essentially wiped out. Even the great centres of the Byzantine Empire were focussed on survival, rather than expansion.

This meant that the isolated western regions across the English Channel were far from major interference from Constantinople or Rome, the two great centres of Christendom.

From earliest ties we can find reference, blurred in detail but rich in legend, to the English Church. For instance Wikipedia reports thus:

“According to medieval traditions, Christianity arrived in Britain in the 1st or 2nd century. Gildas's 6th-century account dated its arrival to the latter part of the reign of the Roman Emperor Tiberius: an account of the seventy disciples discovered at Mount Athos in 1854 lists Aristobulus as "bishop of Britain". …. The earliest certain historical evidence of Christianity among the native Britons is found in the writings of such early Christian Fathers as Tertullian and Origen in the first years of the 3rd century, although the first Christian communities probably were established at least some decades earlier.”

“Archbishop Restitutus of London, are known to have been present at the Council of Arles in 314.^[27] Others attended the Council of Sardica in 347 and that of Ariminum in 360. A number of references to the church in Roman Britain are also found in the writings of 4th-century Christian fathers”.

These are just hints as to the existence and extent of the earliest, Celtic, Church in Britain. There was a great missionary expansion of the Gospel from these churches throughout the first millennium, but especially prior to the Synod of Whitby in 664 AD. This synod was called as a result of the incursion into England of the mission under Augustine of Canterbury who was sent by Pope Gregory to “civilise and evangelise the barbarians of Britain”. In effect the Synod was an exercise in determining which form of the faith would predominate in England. The particular matters for discussion, the date of Easter and the form of the clerical tonsure (shaved head), seem trivial to us. But the basic issue at hand was the question of power and prestige.  Would the Northumbrian Church, and the church throughout Britain, be free, open, loosely organised, evangelistic as was the Celtic Church? Or would it be powerful, prestigious with elaborate rituals, buildings and clerical caste as was the Roman model?

The result was a defeat for the indigenous church and a victory for power and prestige. The effects of this were worked out over the next 500 years as the Roman Church gained power over a weakened and persecuted Celtic Church.

By the end of the millennium the Celtic church only existed on the edges of the British Isles. However its influence was not extinguished. It continued its task of preserving the Scriptures, sending out evangelists and church planters and training men and women for ministry.

While the Roman Church retreated into monasteries which sought to protect people from the incursion of the world, the Celtic “monasteries” continued to be training centres for mission and outreach. It was the conflict that we still see today between the “COME to us” mentality and the “GO into all the world” command.

It is for this reason that a study of the early Celtic Church is so important. I believe we need to capture the enthusiasm and vitality of a church that is focussed on going into the world with the words of Life rather than having endless events designed to make us acceptable to people we invite to church. It is the conflict between the seeker sensitive model versus the “Go into all the world” evangelistic model.

What then is this Celtic pattern that was so effective in the early days of the Church?

That is for the next blog.