Customer Reviews

Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Ce

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is among the most dynamic approaches to solving the much discussed problem of "Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Authority in the First Three Centuries of the Church" that may be found. Hans Von Campenhausen's sociologial and historical perspective, blendid with his theoretical wit and scholarly lore, make this book an entertaining and ultimately edifying experience. Von Campenhausen dissolves some of the most complex questions history has left us behind and builds a comprehensive and unequivocal bulwark of learning for the clergyman and lay person alike. Some topics Von Campenhausen deals with are the power of the keys to bind and loose, the penitential and disciplinary techniques, and the controversial nature of apostolic succession in the Church of the first three centuries. All in all this book is an excellent source for grasping the perplexities of the Church's formation into the ecclesiastical organization we know today.

I found little to convince me of the book's importance.

Fundamentally, Campenhausen is a liberal German historian. (Edersheim warns of them routinely in his works.) He believes the Pastorals and the letters of John were written by anonymous writers from a later generation; that Luke had ulterior motives; that the "keys" statement is a later embellishment. In short, much-if not most-of the New Testament is not what it seems, but is rather a conglomeration of pericopes and ideas included by various groups in the succeeding generations. Only his brilliant insight is capable of discerning what is historically true and what is false. While it remains a coveted badge among scholars to be viewed as liberal, I learned long ago that modern scholarship has generally been led astray. Campenhausen's liberal perspective is pervasive and hopelessly inaccurate.

Generally, Campenhausen belongs to that unwholesome group of modern ecclesiastical writers and theologians (Berkhouwer comes to mind) who mistakenly believe that one's intellectual brilliance is exhibited by the use of twenty words where ten will do. Clarity is important in writing. It is not window-dressing. One of the reasons I came to detest theology in seminary was the gravitation of this species toward deliberate obscurity and superfluous wordiness. (And spare me the shopworn rebuttal that the thoughts of the theologian are necessarily obscure because of the nature of his study.) Neither does Campenhausen get to hide behind translation into English. In German or English, his style is excessively and unnecessarily tedious and verbose.

Campenhausen finds nothing sinister in efforts by Clement and Ignatius to develop structure and hierarchy. He sees the growth of the bishopric as understandable. Most significantly, however, is his lack of an accurate, historic understanding of the prophetic ministry-the nature and work of the apostle and prophet. Campenhausen would have done well to read Lindsay and Selwyn-who are strangely not referenced in his book. Pity. They might have clarified his thoughts.

Rather than waste time with this book, one would do well to read classical scholars like Lindsay, Edmundson, Hatch, and Selwyn-all of whom have an uncluttered understanding of ecclesiastical history and who can concisely and clearly present their arguments, without the need to impress the reader with their supposed intellectual brilliance and capacities.