Reviews

Worshiping with the Church Fathers

by Christopher A. Hall

August 3, 2010

Christopher A. Hall. Worshiping with the Church Fathers. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009. 280 pages.

Jerome, Augustine, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Athanasius, Origen, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ambrose—names that we have probably heard, but maybe are not entirely clear on who they were and why they are relevant. Such is the concern that rings through Christopher Hall’s three volume series of on the Church Fathers: 1.) Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 2.) Learning Theology with the Church Fathers, 3.) Worshiping with the Church Fathers (here reviewed). The fourth and final volume titled Living Ethically with the Church Fathers is yet to come.

Hall’s objective is simple, he invites readers “into an active, lively engagement with the church fathers and in this particular volume, with their understanding of worship” (13). In this regard, he focuses on three areas of patristic thought: the Sacraments, Prayer, and Discipline.

Recognizing that many Protestants are unfamiliar with sacramental theology, Hall provides a theological primer. Writing as an evangelical who appreciates liturgy, Hall is aware that not everyone shares in this appreciation. He therefore speaks with an appropriate blend of sensitivity and candor, encouraging readers to listen carefully and graciously before drawing definitive conclusions.  Along this line, he also shares from his own experience, helping readers to understand some of the particular challenges and opportunities of worshipping with the church fathers today.

In explaining the logic of sacramental worship, Hall presents the concept of “incarnation” as “the bedrock upon which all the sacraments are built,” a principle so fundamental that it is “grounded in the Word made flesh” (22). Chapter one applies this concept to one’s entrance into the worshiping community. A host of church fathers are cited to elucidate how the embodiment of Jesus finds expression in this initiatory rite which we call the sacrament of baptism. In this vein, particular issues are addressed, such as the role of the Holy Spirit, regeneration, and infant baptism.

The subject of chapter two is the Eucharist. Hall begins with a quote from Leonard Vander Zee, a Christian Reformed Church pastor who has written on the subject. Vander Zee’s thesis, in Hall’s words, is “that evangelical confusion over Holy Communion is related to a gnostic, dualistic tendency in evangelical thinking and practice, bewilderment related to an imbalanced, warped Christology” (51). From this statement Hall explains the dangerous and heretical threat of Gnosticism as it existed in the early church and which continues to exert influence today. Over and against this threat, Hall evinces a wide range of patristic voices.

Many evangelicals will concede that there is probably a little too much of Plato’s dualism mingled into the typical evangelical worldview, such that it may even impinge upon our appreciation of the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist (or “ordinances,” if you like). But Hall’s absolute, categorical charge raises some questions.

First, one wonders how evangelicals are guilty of this, but not Catholics and Orthodox. The ascetic life, for instance, with its aversion to certain earthly pleasures such as sex or its practice of self-inflicted corporeal punishment, appears to also have a few dualistic skeletons in the closet. Secondly, why is rejection of sacramental realism necessarily guilty of disparaging God’s creation? Isn’t it possible for a Christian to love God’s creation, but happen to disagree with sacramental theology?

The above question especially rises to the surface when you consider the less than compelling exegesis of certain church fathers on this topic. Here, for instance, is one example which Hall cites by Cyril of Jerusalem, “If Christ changed water into wine at Cana, why should we consider it ‘incredible that he should change wine into blood” (73). I and every evangelical I know will grant without hesitation that God is able to turn wine into blood; but is this what Scripture in fact teaches? It seems to me entirely possible for someone to say “no,” without being guilty of Gnosticism.

Despite these questions, Hall’s treatment of the topic is very helpful. In addition to explaining general patristic thoughts on the issue, he clarifies the meaning and significance of historical events such as Augustine’s confrontation with the Donatists. The chapter closes with a personal reflection to help readers appreciate the topic’s relevance.

Section two on prayer constitutes the heart of the book (chapters three through six) and by itself is well worth the book’s price. It covers a number of important themes and questions that appear in patristic discussions of the topic, all of which are remarkably applicable for today. They include: the nature of prayer, the problem of self deception, the foundation and elements of prayer, the problem of distractions in prayer, common roadblocks, the problem of unanswered prayers, the incorporation of Scripture and prayer.

The third and final section on spiritual discipline consists of chapters seven (The Transforming Call to the Desert) and eight (A Space to Draw Close to God). As in the previous section, Hall’s burden, in addition to making the father’s thoughts and practices more familiar, is to equip Christians in the present with truth from the past. Unlike some interpreters who either romanticize or dismiss monastic life, Hall provides an evaluation that is simultaneously honest and constructive.

Worshiping with the Church Fathers deserves a place on your bookshelf for no other reason than the way it reveals the grand and spacious horizons of Christ’s kingdom. But it offers more that. By mapping out the patristic terrain it provides a colorful landscape in which we are invited to celebrate the wonder of God.

Chris Castaldo serves as pastor of outreach and church planting at College Church in Wheaton, Illinois, and is the author of Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic. He is married to Angela, and they have three sons and one daughter. He blogs at chris-tocentric.com.
Tags: , ,
5 Comments
Printable Version
  1. Chris,

    Im curious how Hall explored the unavoidable confrontation with the doctrine of the “Real Presence” in Church Father theology. In what is a serious issue of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants–Catholics holding the Eucharisitic Presence at the center of their Faith–how does Hall advise an Evangelical approach the ovwhelming amount of support for the Catholic view of this sacrament?

    Also, when I saw the title of the book, my mind was immediately jogged to St. John Chrysostom. His description of the accepted, second-century lirutgy perfectly describes the modern Catholic liturgy. How does a Protestant respond to this?

    http://www.thinveil.net/2010/07/catholic-mass-in-155-ad.html

    Taking the Church Fathers as a whole–especially those mentioned in your first sentence–”worshiping with the Church Fathers” looks little like modern, Evangelical worship and much like the ancient Catholic liturgy.

    Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks!

    Your brother,
    Brandon

  2. Thanks Brandon. Good question. Throughout the book Christopher Hall presents the teaching of the Fathers through quotations and his own (very helpful) explanations. The one missing element is critique, which I would expect him to say is outside the scope of what he’s seeking to do in this work. Fair enough. However, the unfortunate result is that readers get the impression that the father’s approach, in their practice of worship and underlying theological assumptions, is being presented as positive and true, which may or may not be Hall’s position. He does make a disclaimer that “There are still some things that Catholics and, yes, the church fathers, affirm that I just can’t buy” (80).

    In regard to Eucharist (pgs 68-80) Hall presents the father’s general view, which is in keeping with real presence; however it’s closer to the mystical, spiritual view of Luther and Calvin than the scholastic framework of Thomas and post-Fourth Lateran Council Catholicism.

  3. Chris,

    Thanks for the response. So, if I understand you correctly, Hall basically says that the Church Fathers teach the Real Presence and a more Catholic liturgy. He agrees that the Fathers teach that.

    But, he believes they were wrong in teaching that.

    As you know, from your time on both banks of the Tiber, the central claims of both Christian traditions boil down to authority. As a Catholic, Hall’s claim of authority in this quote would be terribly unsatisfying:

    “There are still some things that Catholics and, yes, the church fathers, affirm that I just can’t buy”

    What can’t you buy–I’m assuming Eucharist, ecllesial structure, liturgy, sacraments, etc.–and why? And why should I believe you instead of the Fathers? What authority do you hold to say the early church was wrong, but you, thousands of years after Christ, are right?

    It’s not enough to look at the teachings of the ECF and say, “Ehhh, what they say disagrees with my own interpretation, therefore they are wrong.” I think Hall would offer a more reasonable argument, which is what I was

    And I disagree with the belief that the Father’s saw the Eucharist as more “mystically, or spiritually”. Igantius and John Chyrsostom–along with Jesus–explicit point to literal, physical, transubstantiation (though not using that term, they precisely describe what we today mean by it).

    Just some thoughts. Thanks for your reply though; it answered some of my wonderings. I’m still interested in checking this book out. I’m excited anytime I dsicover Protestants seriously engaging with the Church Fathers–beyond just Augustine!

    Your brother,
    Brandon

  4. My pleasure Brandon. Another author you’ll enjoy reading on this topic is Bryan Litfin. His book ‘Getting to Know the Church Fathers’ is terrific. -Chris

  5. “And why should I believe you instead of the Fathers? What authority do you hold to say the early church was wrong, but you, thousands of years after Christ, are right?”

    As one who also has been on both sides of the Tiber, 14 yrs nominal Catholic then 31 years as devout, bible believing, evangelical, now 6 yrs returned to the Catholic Church, this comment resonated with me.
    In my old evangelical church, communion was symbolic if you wanted it to be or a little “more real” if you wanted it to be. My pastor basically said “it is whatever you believe.”

    After reading what the Early Church believed, it became clear to me, that Jesus intended for only one truth. Not many truths , or the ” whatever works for you” approach. Let’s face it Mr. Castaldo- There can be only one interpretation of Communion: It is either symbolic or it’s the real thing, the flesh and blood of Christ. If the Fathers of the Church including Ignatius who was a disciple of John, believed in the Real Presence, and countless early Church fathers after him, doesn’t the weight of history and the proximity to the actual events of the last supper carry more weight than the voices heard after 1517?
    Even Luther initially argued vehemently against Zwingli’s symbolic interpretation.

    How can one dismiss the record of history for 1500 years that revealed the overarching belief in the real presence by simply saying “maybe the Church fathers were wrong about this?” These same Church fathers who believed that Christ was truly present soul, body and divinity in the Eucharist were the same group of fellows who also under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit gave us the “white paper on the Trinity” which has formed the basis for our Christology. (Nicea 325) These same “Real-Presence- believin” Christians then decided which books would make up the canon of holy scripture 57 years later (Council of Rome 382)
    If the early Church was wrong about the real presence, baptismal regeneration, communion of saints, purgatory, etc Why would you choose to accept the canon of scripture(the NT at least) that this church came up with? I would be highly suspect of the canon they (Catholic Church) came up with if they were so wrong about those other issues as well.

    The writings of the Church fathers give us a picture of a Church that doctrinally resembled the Catholicism of today and showed no resemblance to protestantism of today. This is the precise reason that so many intellectual protestants are converting to Catholicism these days (including several students at Wheaton.) http://youngevangelicalandcatholic.blogspot.com/

    I will finish with the words of the former President of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dr. Beckwith:

    “For me, when I was considering this question(Of the Real presence) several years ago, what ultimately made the difference were two insights: (1) the Catholic-Orthodox view is rationally acceptable, that is, it is a view that a reasonable person fully informed of Scripture and how its been historically interpreted can accept, (2) the Catholic-Orthodox view was so uncontroversial in the Early Church that the Council of Nicea (as well as people like Augustine and Chysosotom) not only does not address it as a point of controversy, it assumes it in its canon on the Viaticum ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15397c.htm ). This is not a knock-down drag-out argument, to be sure. But once you concede that it is a legitimate Christian position ubiquitous in the Early Church and through the Middle Ages, then the question you must ask yourself is this: Why would anyone not want it to be true? ”

    So I would like to ask you Mr. Castaldo

    “What is your reason to not want it to be true?”

    God bless
    russ rentler

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*