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 21st 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 5th
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 4th 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 7th 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.
