Difficulties in Approaching Early Christian Theology
Difficulties in Approaching Early Christian Theology
The patristic period is obviously of considerable importance to Christian theology. Many modern students of theology, however, find some aspects of early Christian theology to be inaccessible and difficult to understand. Four main reasons can be given for this situation:
Some of the debates of the early Christian period seem hopelessly irrelevant to us today. Although they were clearly viewed as intensely important at the time, it is often very difficult for a modern reader to empathize with the issues and understand why they attracted such attention. It is interesting to contrast the patristic period with the Reformation era, which addressed many issues that are a continuing concern for the modern church. Many teachers of theology find that their students are able to relate to the concerns of this later period much more easily, as they continue to be relevant and important issues today.
Many of the patristic debates hinge upon philosophical issues and only make sense if the reader has some familiarity with the philosophical debates of the period – especially the various schools of Platonism spread throughout the Mediterranean world of the early Christian period. Whereas at least some students of Christian theology have some familiarity with the ideas found in Plato’s dialogues, these ideas were subject to considerable development and criticism in the Mediterranean world during the patristic period. Middle Platonism and Neo-Platonism differ significantly from one another, and from Plato’s original ideas. The strangeness of many of the philosophical ideas of the period acts as another barrier to its study, making it difficult for students beginning the study of theology to fully appreciate what is going on in some of the patristic debates.
The early Christian period is characterized by immense doctrinal diversity. It was an age of flux, during which landmarks and standards – including documents such as the Nicene Creed and dogmas such as the two natures of Christ – emerged gradually, as early Christian writers explored various conceptualizations of the core themes of faith. Students familiar with the relative stability of other periods in Christian doctrine (such as the Reformation, in which the person of Christ was not a major issue) often find this feature of the patristic period disconcerting.
The period saw a major division arise, for both political and linguistic reasons, between the eastern Greek-speaking and the western Latin-speaking church. Many scholars discern a marked difference in theological temperament between theologians of the east and west: the former are often philosophically inclined and given to theological speculation, whereas the latter are often hostile to the intrusion of philosophy into theology and regard theology as the exploration of the doctrines set out in Scripture. The famous rhetorical question of the western theologian Tertullian (c.160–c.225), “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? or the Academy with the church?” illustrates this point. Many students of patristic theology find this bifurcation difficult and tend to focus on either the thought of the eastern Greek-speaking or the western Latin-speaking church.
