Whozep68's Xanga

I'm focusing on Facebook now

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:35:10 GMT

Sorry Xanga, Facebook is easier for me. I just joined so find me and be my friend. (I still refuse to join MySpace).

Go Tigers.

Maybe I'll actually update for a change

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:39:18 GMT

Okay,

there is a lot of stuff going on right now. too much to explain. I will say this though. I'm really excited that baseball season is back in full swing. Go Tigers!

Also, 35 days until Graduation!

A history of the Church of Jerusalem 30 C.E. - 70 C.E.

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:55:41 GMT

Churches today really enjoy reading the biblical story of the first church from the book of Acts. The persecution and their faith through it often inspires their twenty-first century offspring on to try bigger and better things in the name of Jesus Christ. Christians read about how all of these churches have started in the book of Acts but what happen after that? How did they grow and how did they live? After all, what does it matter if there is a church today? They must have survived because Acts never mentions anything to the contrary, right? Besides, some of the churches, like those in Ephesus, Thyratira, Laodicea, are mentioned in the book of Acts and other Pauline books are also mentioned by John in the final book of the bible, Revelation, so it is obvious that they survived until the second century. What about the very first church in Jerusalem? When the temple fell, what happened to the believers there? This paper will examine the thoughts and practices of the very first church between 30 C.E., roughly when Pentecost takes place, and 70 C.E., when Titus destroy the temple. Hopefully, by using the Bible, historical accounts and modern day archaeological findings, an accurate history of the Church can be determined.

30 C.E. to 44 C.E.

The first half of the book of Acts is primarily about the Jerusalem church. Pentecost ushered in a new feeling into this community of followers that saw their teacher and friend ascend into heaven. The Spirit of God has given them abilities that they did not know was possible. They were meeting together in each others' homes and bending over backwards for one another. The gospel started to be proclaimed in Jerusalem in the Temple counts which brought down the ire of the Jewish officials. Peter and John are imprisoned. They are released and keep on preaching in the temple courts. There soon after,a problem arise with the caring for the widows of the Hellenists. Stephen and others are elected to care to their needs while the elders and teachers continue with their work of explaining the gospel to every man, woman, and child they can find. Meanwhile, a pharisee committed to the eradication of the Jesus movement named Saul of Tarsus converts and Peter gets a dream allowing him to eat all the meats under the sun.

This is a fairly straight summary of what is happening in the fifteen years of the church in Jerusalem. The church was struggling to find how to exert its new identity to the world. They were preaching in a Jewish context under the auspices of the Holy Spirit and under scrutiny of the same Jewish leaders that killed their teacher. The Jewish disciples of Jesus had to figure out what Judaism with a risen Messiah and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The first place they started at was preaching at the temple like any other Jewish teacher of that day, and much like their own leader, Jesus, had done before he died.^¹

This is why in spite of persecution by the Jewish elite, the church is able to grow. They have a solid focal point for theology (Jesus) and a solid paradigm for worship (the Jewish temple). From this starting point, they added their own twist based upon the message of Christ. The meeting together and sharing meals thing they did would not be seen as “seriously flouting convention or disregarding the law” in the eyes of many of the pharisees. ^² They were simply adding to the Jewish way. The followers of Jesus were seen as another Jewish sect added to the pantheon of other Jewish groups that went to the temple to worship and interact. Jerome Crowe suggests that this group was a kind of Pharisaic havurah since this group believes in the resurrection of the dead and other beliefs the Pharisee held to during this time.^³ Peter and his band of followers were simply preaching their views on the Jewish religion to a Jewish audience at the Temple in light of the risen Messiah.

Problems began to arise as the church's message began to resonate with a non-Jewish audience both in and around Jerusalem. The “Hebrews” had to respond to the neglecting of the “Hellenist” widows. Apparently, some non-Jewish Christians were missing out on some of the resources for some reasons, which is interesting since the “Hellenists” would have more access to any available aid from Rome since it was a good chance they were in better standing with the Empire than any Jew would be, Christian or not.^⁴ Obviously, this Jesus movement was no longer one homogeneous movement consisting of only Jewish cast offs. The Jewish church was trying deal with the influx of new people and did not know what to do.

Meanwhile, persecution was beginning. Stephen gets killed and the Christians starts to spread to out from the city into other regions. As Luke notes in Acts 8:1, that a great persecution arose in Jerusalem causing many to leave. Philip went down to Samaria to preach the Gospel to people like Simon the magician. Then on the road to Gaza, Philip helped baptize the Ethiopian Eunuch and then turned north to preach the Gospel along the shore until Caesarea. Plus, on the road to Damascus, Christ revealed himself to Paul and was baptized by a Christian already in Damascus. The Gospel is radiating outward from Jerusalem and making head way.

Most Christians will say that this is when the Jerusalem church stopped being the leader of the movement. Once missionaries began going into the world as a result of the persecution the spotlight focused squarely on where the Gospel is going and not worrying about who is in charge at that point. After all, the Gospel should be the focus is what many will argue. The problem is that this is theologically inconsistent. Many commentators point out that Isaiah 2:2-3 is guiding their theology. It says:

It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, And many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.”^⁵

While there is probably not any clear references to these verses in the New Testament, it is not an outrageous claim since this Old Testament book is quoted extensively in the first church. Isaiah is the book that the Ethiopian eunuch on the road to Gaza was reading when Phillip found him. Stephen's last words are from the last chapter of Isaiah. Couple this with the fact that Jesus quoted Isaiah more than any other Old Testament book, with perhaps the exception of the Psalms, it is not surprising that Isaiah is forming the first Church's theology. Since Jerusalem or Zion is a major theme in Isaiah, this not a surprise that it is continuing to be that way. Even in the writing of Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century, he refers to Jerusalem as the place where all Gentiles will converge upon and displace the House of Jacob.^⁶

Some will argue that Luke's account in Acts cannot be trusted. He is describing these accounts at the time after the fall of the Temple and he could be making a point of some type. People like F.C. Baur suggest that Luke elevated the Jerusalem church in order to downplay the tension between Paul and Jerusalem.^⁷Richard Bauckham says that this cannot be the case for two major reasons.^⁸ First, he argues that Strabo and Luke both geographically place Jerusalem in the center of the Diaspora, meaning that synagogues reach as far to the east as it does to the west. Luke's list in Acts 2:9-11 has Judea in the middle of that list. The second major reason is all of the references to Jerusalem throughout the New Testament point to an emphasis on Jerusalem. As Bauckman says, “ Luke's 'Jerusalem bias' is not peculiarly Luke's, but derived from the early Jerusalem church itself.”^⁹

With this theological basis, the expansion happens in a relatively short time after the death and resurrection of Christ. While dating is difficult most claim that this is all taking place in the first five years after the death of Christ. A good estimate of the date of Paul's conversion is either 33 or 34 C.E.^¹⁰ There is a lot of changing and reorganizing happening in the Jesus Movement during the first five years. They were reaching new people in new areas. There was an infrastructure set-up throughout the Roman Empire that fostered the growth of the Jesus Movement but Jerusalem was still in the center of everything. Paul migrated to Jerusalem after his conversion. Philip returned to Jerusalem after his exploits. Peter returned to Jerusalem after experiencing the dream with the flying animals and his experience with Cornelius. Biblically speaking, everything was revolving around Jerusalem.

As Acts moves forward, Jerusalem remains the focal point in the early days of Paul's evangelistic mind. He goes to Jerusalem after spending three years on his own in roughly 36 or 37 C.E. In Galatians, he mentions that “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.”^¹¹ The phrase “the apostles before me” is an interesting insertion. This statement implies that the apostles are leading the church of Jerusalem. Since they control the Jerusalem church, they then are in charge of the entire church throughout the world for the theological reasons mentioned early. The account in Acts backs up this assessment of the apostles leading the church. In Acts 6, the apostles are devoting themselves to “the ministry of the word.”^¹²

Everything up to this point laid the foundation for the changes that were about to happen during 44 C.E. While the Jerusalem church meant in homes to “honor their neighbors” and were doing things different from their Jewish cousins, the temple played a significant part in the new Jesus movement. Most of the believers saw Jerusalem as the center of worship as the prophecies in Isaiah claimed. Plus, the actions of the Apostles themselves point to the Twelve as the rulers of this new movement. Of course, all of the information we have for this time is from the Biblical accounts and extra-biblical source.

The archaeological record does not provide much help in verifying much of what has been concluded above. Some say that the synagogue on Sion just outside of Jerusalem points to the presence Jewish Christians during this time. The supposed “upper room” where Pentecost took the disciples by storm could have been used as another place for the reading of the Bible.^¹³ An unknown Christian “saint” explains that Emperor Hadrian left the city destroyed apart from “a small church of the Christians, which was built on the place where the disciples went after the Lord had ascended into heaven. It was built in that part of the city that remained on Mt. Sion . . . .”^¹⁴ The Crusaders built up this site but it is unlikely that it was the actual upper room. When pilgrims from Bordeaux visited in 333 C.E., they did not write that this was a functioning church during this time.^¹⁵ Bellarmino Bagatti argues that it is was because was operating as a synagogue and they did not decide to include it.^¹⁶ Plus, graffiti on the wall in this room is very similar to other Christian sayings from the Early Church.^¹⁷ Despite Bagatti argument, there is nothing solid that says that this is the upper room or that Christians met there from the outset.

44 C.E. to 62 C.E.

The church experienced a lot of change upon the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 C.E. Political turmoil began to be the norm as seen in the death of James, brother of John, at the hand of Herod Agrippa I in Acts 12:2 and Peter is put in jail. Herod's alliance with the Sadducean high priesthood encouraged him to put the clamps down on the followers of Jesus and some of their disregard for Jewish law by proclaiming the risen Messiah.^¹⁸ It was at this point in the book of Acts that the focus then shifts to Paul's travels. Spreading the Gospel from Judea was the important message for Luke to communicate so passing on information on the Jerusalem church is no longer a priority in Acts. Information on this period comes solely from two places: (1) inferences from the writings of Luke and Paul and (2) Extra-biblical writers from the Early Church like Eusebius of Caeserea. In order to construct an accurate picture of the church, the information from both places needs to be distilled compared to one another.

Based on the information in the Book of Acts, there is a change of leadership in the Jerusalem church when Herod Agrippa I dies. The apostles and other major leaders are starting to branch out from Jerusalem. Of course, this is a guess since the apostles are not mentioned by name after the first two chapters of Acts. For some reason, Luke switches in Acts 11 to using the phrase “elders” instead of the “twelve” when talking about the leadership in Jerusalem. There are some that say that these are saying the same thing but it is unlikely. Luke characteristically reserved the title of “The Twelve” for those that were Jesus' companions and witnesses to his resurrection.^¹⁹ Also, a simple look at the letter the Council of Jerusalem sends to Antioch shows that this is not the same since it starts with “it seemed good to the apostles and the elders.”^²⁰ Most likely, the word apostles is being using in place of the Twelve since they are all now spread out through the Empire. Plus, apostles can be used of anyone who witnessed the Christ's life, as evidence by Paul's reference of James as an apostle.^²¹ Peter's exit from the book of Acts denotes this fact. Luke records, “'Tell these things to James and to the brothers.' Then he departed and went to another place.” The story no longer focuses on Peter. Yet, in the Acts 15, Peter is present at the council, which means his role must have changed and is probably an apostle while elders in Jerusalem are no in charge.

This is where James, the brother of Jesus, enters the story. Notice that in Peter's exit speech he asks that James be told about everything that was happening to him before he left.. But where did James could from? After all, he was against Jesus during his time of ministry in the Galilee. There might be some additional hatred in the heart of James since Jesus, the first-born of the family, left his family, and thus the responsibilities of the first-born to James, the second-born.^²² So why the charge in heart? Acts 1:14 says that Jesus' brothers were in Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost. Ben Witherington III wonders, “why would the writer of Acts (Luke) mention 'the brothers of Jesus' unless they were destined to play a leadership role?”^²³ 1 Corinthians 15:7 says that Jesus appeared to James after his resurrection. Based on this, there is evidence that James was a part of the Jesus movement in Jerusalem at the time of Agrippa's persecution.

James would be the perfect candidate to assume leadership. Since James was once hostile to Jesus and his band of disciples, he would not be associated with “The Twelve.”^²⁴ Also, James had a reputation for being pious and was probably well-respected among Jewish circles.^²⁵ James' request of Paul in Acts 21 to take a Nazirite vow shows how much James values the Jewish aspects of the new “Christian” movement. Hegesippus, as recorded by Eusebius of Caesarea, describes James him in the following way:

Control of the Church passed to the apostles, together with the Lord's brother James, whom every everyone from the Lord's time till our own has called the Righteous, for there were many Jameses, but this one was holy from his birth; he drank no wine or intoxication liqour and ate no animal food; no razor came near his head; he did not smear himself with oil, and took no baths. He alone was permitted to enter the Holy Place, for his garments were not of wool but of linen. He used to enter the Sancturary alone, and was often found on his knees beseeching forgiveness for the people, so that his knees grew hard like a camel's from his continually bending them in worship of and beseeching forgiveness for the people. Because of his unsurpassable righteousness he was called the Righteous and Oblias – in our own language 'Bulwark of the People, and Righteousness' – fulfilling the declarations of the prophets regarding him.^²⁶

The Early Church Fathers make James out to be a holy and pious Jewish leader. Ivor Davidson infers that James could have managed to be on “reasonable terms” with the Pharisees, thus being a good public relations in helping the image of Jesus' followers.^²⁷ With a new vacuum of leadership in Jerusalem, James could rise to power and direct the church because of all these factors .

As the New Testament unfolds, the Jerusalem church with James at the helm plays a significant part in the activities of the rest of the New Testament. As missionaries went out, they were still keeping tabs on the needs and the desires of the Jerusalem Church. Acts 11:30 and Acts 12:25 talks about the aid that Paul and Barnabas brings to Jerusalem, presumably during the famine in 46 C.E.^²⁸ Again, in letters written in the 50''s, some ten years later, Paul writes about bringing aid to Jerusalem. In the epistle to the Romans, Paul writes

“At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem bringing aid to the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. For they were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings. ^²⁹

There is an obvious respect present in Paul's words towards the Jerusalem church. Paul is honoring the first church since the Gentiles would not have the Gospel without their work in Jerusalem. Also, in the first letter to the Corinthians, he talks about presumably this same gift that he gets to take to the saints in Jerusalem.

Not only were people physically paying tribute to the “mother” church but the other churches were looking to Jerusalem for theological leadership. In fact, James was one of the biggest catalysts in helping to resolve the Gentile question. As seen already, gentiles were starting to become a stronger force in the whole church., let alone the Jerusalem church.^³⁰ Peter's dream allowing the eating all foods provides more tension in the Gentile-Jewish Christian relationship. Obviously, if James was able to become the leader of the Jerusalem while being so “Jewish”, it shows that the Church there favors a more Jewish flavor. It was probably some of James' followers that stirred up some controversy in Antioch. Paul records in Galatians that “before certain men came from James, [Peter] was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.”^³¹ His speech to the council of 49 C.E. helped seal the compromise between the factions. He proclaims,

Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.' Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.^³²

It is interesting that James is the one that proposes the building of a bridge between the two factions. The Pharisaical Jews wanted everyone to be circumcised, Peter and Paul did not want anyone to live under that burden, while James tried to unite the two.^³³ The language appeals to both sides and they then go on to adopt basically what James argued the church should do.

Part of that speech has some additional interest. James quotes a verse from the prophet Amos that implies that God is building a new tabernacle/temple for God to dwell in among his people. This is should be read in relation to what Paul writes about James and other leaders in Galatians, probably written a year or so after the council. Paul calls them pillars Bauckham points out that this terminology needs to be looked at in the context of the new “eschatological” and eternal Temple built on the leadership of these “pillars” in much of the same way that the Qumran community saw themselves as temporary replacement for the temple.^³⁴ It would be a stretch to say that James started the use of this imagery in the Early Church but it shows that Temple theology emanates from the Jerusalem church where the Temple is still in use.

More evidence of James' influence on the theology of the church is the epistle of James. In the mid to late 50's C.E., this letter was complied by James “to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion.”^³⁵ Some commentators argue that this was meant to be an encyclical to any Jewish Christian Community addressing issues that believers would typically encounter from the head of the “mother church.”^³⁶ James is using his influence to help all believers with a Jewish flavor worship his half-brother, the Jewish Messiah.

The language in James' letter might also reflect the changing dynamics of the Jesus movement. The words James uses in addressing the letter were focused on Jewish believer. When looking at Paul's later epistles, there are no longer any references to the church in Jerusalem or Judea. In 1 Thessalonians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians, Paul makes some type of reference to to either Jerusalem or Judea. In the Prison epistles and other later letters, Paul does not mention anything about their brethren. As the 50's come to an end, there looks like a clear division in operation between the two groups.

While the Gentile Christians were fighting Judaizers and focusing on the west, the Jewish Christians were fighting Jewish officials in Palestine and focusing on the east. From the mid-40 onward, Josephus records that the Jews in Palestine were becoming more and more unhappy with affairs in their country because of abuses in power, high taxation, and mounting corruption and incompetence of Roman Governors.^³⁷ Everyone was jockeying for power in politics and in the temple. This was the story of the early 60's and James would become a casualty. Josephus describes the political situation as such,

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man. . . was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. . . .^³⁸

Eusebius goes on to describe James' trial. The sanhedrim asked him to recant but James used the platform to proclaim Christ so they threw him down from the top of the Temple. After surviving the fall, the Jewish leaders began to pelt James with stones as he was praying for his persecutors.^³⁹

Eusebius adds one more thing that tantalizes archaeologists. The fourth century historian claims that James was buried on the very spot in the Kidron Valley “where his monument still remains.”^⁴⁰ There is a tomb next to the tomb of Zechariah that has an inscription that has nothing to do with James' death but the “sons of Hezir” but the letter date to the first half of the first century C.E though the tomb itself dates to the second century B.C.E.^⁴¹ While there is nothing concrete that James' body is there, tradition holds that his remains are there. Recently there has been a lot of debate surrounding the ossuary of James found east of Jerusalem. Supposedly, the ossuary was found in the same region as this inscription. Witherington III makes the claim that the inscription could have meant “on a stone box” and thus tradition can corroborate this finding.^⁴² That is probably forcing an interpretation of the archaeological record. Whether or not the ossuary is authentic, Witherington III's explanation helps to show that this can be reconciled with tradition and that James was probably buried in this area in some form or another.

62 C.E. to 70 C.E.

Once James died, the Jerusalem church was left to figure out the next step for operation and for Leadership. Eusebius actually records that a cousin of Jesus became the next “bishop” of Jerusalem, Symeon, son of Clopas; he was then martyred between 100 C.E. – 110 C.E at 120 years old.^⁴³ He claims that he has lost the dates but there were fifteen bishops of the circumcision starting with James until the end of second Jewish revolt in 135 C.E.^⁴⁴ Based on the biblical account, there is no reference to James being a “bishop” but probably ruled with some elders. Plus, Eusebius also records that these thirteen bishop must have been exceedingly short-lived since each would have to rule some two years each.^⁴⁵ It is likely that Eusebius adds the last twelve names from the group of elders that ruled with James from the beginning.^⁴⁶ Regardless, since Symeon was killed for being a “decedent of David and a Christian,” meaning that his Jewish tendencies and that of the church survived this time into the second century at the very lest.^⁴⁷

Practically, this mix of the “old” way with the “new” way no longer became welcomed in Jerusalem. The holy city was becoming hostile to anyone of a Jewish flavor not matching that of its leaders. Zealots started to exert their influence on the socio-political environment of the day. Things began to be more and more unstable for any organization to operate, let alone Christian. Jerusalem was now home for zealous Jews bent on purifying the city at the cost everyone and everything else. Conditions were spiraling out of control until the Romans under General Titus overpowered the disorganized Zealots and destroyed the Temple in 70 C.E. So what are the Christians to do?

During this time, as the city was becoming unsafe, people were making their way out of Jerusalem. The Christians were no exception. Traditions say that the Jewish Christians fled Jerusalem and proceeded to go about twenty-eight kilometers south of the Sea of Galiee in the Easter Jordan valley. In the region known as the Decapolis, this city called Pella is across from Scythopolis. The town itself has been mentioned as early as an early conquest of Tuthmosis III in the fourteenth century B.C.E. According to sources like Josephus, Eusebius, Pliny, and Ptolemy, the location of Pella can be linked to the model town of Tabaqat Fahl.

This is by far the most popular tradition as to what happened to the Jewish Christians after the death of James. Through there is nothing expressly in the Bible that supports it, the theory has plenty of extra-biblical writings to back the claim up. Eusebius writes, “The members of the Jerusalem church, by means of an oracle given by revelation to acceptable persons there, were ordered to leave the City before the war began and settle in a town in Peraea called Pella. To Pella those who believed in Christ migrated from Jerusalem.”^⁴⁸ Epiphanius, a contemporary or Eusebius, is the only other person that mentions this idea when he is addressing the beginning of the Ebonite Hersey.^⁴⁹ Robert Hudson Smith assumes that both men are drawing from the same source that dates back to second century.^⁵⁰ Both Early Church historians claim that Symeon then led some of the Christians back to Jerusalem after the revolt.^⁵¹

Based on the extra-biblical information, there are some real doubts about this tradition. First of all, Josephus writes that when the revolt started in 66 C.E. bands of Jews went through the countryside “pillaging” various towns, including Pella.^⁵² If the Christians did move there before the Jewish Revolt of 66 C.E. in order to avoid problems, why would they stay at a place that got ransacked? They left because of the death their major leader, James, at the hands of Jewish Zealots. When some show up at Pella in 66 C.E., there is no doubt that the collective community would have a “gag reflex” and want to leave before history repeats itself. Also, the source originates in the second century during the formative period for the “Ebonite” hersey in the Palestine state. Epiphanius says in the fourth century that the heresy got its beginnings around the area of Pella at the end of the first century C.E. It would not be a stretch to consider that a leader of a later group linked his movement to the earlier Jerusalem brethren. Joan Talyor argues that the certain members of the Jewish Christian community probably resisted the changes in the church as a whole during this time and wished to stay in Pella from which they could influence people east of the Jordan, hence why the large numbers of Ebonite Christians in this region later on.^⁵³

While it is possible that a small number of believers from Jerusalem made it to Pella, it is very unlikely that the city itself could have supported a large group of people. Acts talks about five thousand people receiving the Gospel at the outset of the church. If it were assumed that number of Jerusalem Christians were at least close to that number, the archaeological record of the city makes the trek questionable on the basis that the town probably could not support that amount of people. Pella was destroyed by the Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jannaeus in 83/82 B.C.E. and rebuilding did not begin until the later years of first century B.C.E. with economic vigor following to the latter part of the first century C.E.^⁵⁴ The only ruins that date to the Roman period found at Pella are an Odeum, some baths, a temple to Zeus/Baal, and a nymphaeum. The baths are dated to the early first century C.E. which is not surprising since Pliny says that Pella has an abundance of water.^⁵⁵ The rest of the structured are dated to after 82 C.E., which is the time the first coins from the town were made.^⁵⁶ A good portion of the ruins were destroyed by Byzantine construction which accounts for the “wide-defined stratum of that period is noticeably absent” from the excavations of this civil complex in the town.^⁵⁷ There is not anything of substance until the second century or the very late first century. Either way, the later dating would call in question why this place was picked as the new home of Jerusalem Christianity.

Even if the city was not thriving, there is nothing that points to Jewish Christians in Pella before the second century in any large number. The pottery that was found dates to first century is very limited. The sherds are typical as what was found at the Citadel and the Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem but also Tulul Abu el Alayiq and any first century assemblage for that matter.^⁵⁸ Some of the kitchen ware had some limestone inclusions but nothing made completely up of limestone. This calls into question how Jewish the people were here at Pella since most other Jewish places had a proliferation of limestone kitchen items.^⁵⁹ One out of the ordinary item that was found often were “Galilean” bowls similar to those found in Capernaum dated to the middle of the first century, perhaps coming from the same shop maker.^⁶⁰ Most other artifacts are missing from the site. The only element that points to worship of any type was a small 54 cm limestone altar was found in the debris from the Civic Complex at Pella but it had an oinichoe, a bundle of grain, and a patera engraved on it for use in pagan ceremonies.^⁶¹

In one of the early reports from the site, Smith points out that there might be some corroborating evidence found at Pella found in some of tombs on this site. In the West Church area, a sarcophagus was found made of fine-grain limestone that exist some close parallels with Early Roman period and mostly to the last third of the first century and the first third of the second century C.E.^⁶² Smith claims that they are very similar the Jewish ossuaries found in the Palestine. that that “this evidence alone” would link the sarcophagi with Jewish Christianity from the Christian flight from Jerusalem, even though carbon-14 testing on the bones do not yield that date.^⁶³ Nothing more is mentioned though in the mid-term report concerning this as a Early Roman artifact or finding. The final report available only discusses the Civil Complex (Area IX) and this was found in the West Church (Area II) so it would not discuss it.

Based on the available evidence, it is hard to imagine that the official Christian Church of Jerusalem picked up and fled to Pella. It is reasonable to assume that some faithful followers did migrate up the Jordan but it would be difficult for a city to support the shear numbers of the Jerusalem Church. Wedderburn points out that “were the claim to be the traditions of Jerusalem church accepted by other churches, one would then have expected the church of Pella to exercise something of the same influence and authority that the Jerusalem church had once enjoyed, but of that there is no trace.”^⁶⁴ This is probably the much compelling evidence that Jerusalem Church probably was pulled apart at the seems during the war in Jerusalem. Later migrants into Jerusalem to holy sites most likely reestablished the church. Eusebius and other fourth century Christians were bent on establishing apostolic succession and thus used this story to connect the later Jerusalem church with the church of James' day.

Conclusion

With all due respect to the current Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Jerusalem church spoken about in the Bible most likely disappeared with the fall of the Temple in 70 C.E. As the larger Christian culture began more and more gentile, it became increasingly more difficult for the church to maintain its Jewish identity. The Christians in Jerusalem at that time migrated to other locations and most likely were absorbed into the newer Gentile Christian communities.^⁶⁵ What does the story of this church teach the church today? This story of the church should serve lesson to all churches today in a church planting culture that if the mother church is not careful, she will be absorbed into the newer churches. In other words, if other churches are entrancing change, it is not surprising to see the original church to fade into the background during tension. Also, a church may start off strong and spawn great change but may not finish strong and simply disappear.

1Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 148).

2Ivor J. Davison, The Birth of the Church: From Jesus to Constantine, A.D. 30-312, (Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 2004), 54.

3Jerome Crowe, From Jerusalem to Antioch: The Gospel Across Cultures, (Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1997), 29.

4Alexander J.M. Wedderburn, A History of the First Christians, (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 45.

5Isaiah 2:2-3; All scripture will be from the ESV unless otherwise noted.

6Skarsaune, 274.

7Richard Bauckham, “James and the Jerusalem Church,” in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham, vol. 4, The Book of Acts in Its Frist Century Setting, ed Bruce Winter, (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1995), 417.

8See Bauckham, 415-427.

9Bauckham, 427.

10The dates used in this paper are all from a chart found in David Wenham and Steve Walton, Exploring the New Testament, Volume One: A Guide to the Gospels & Acts, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 286.

11Galatians 1:17-18.

12Acts 6:4.

13Bellarmino Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision: History and Archaeology of the Judaeo-Christian, (Jerusalem: Francisean Printing Press, 1971), 116-7.

14Bagatti, 117.

15Bagatti, 118.

16Bagatti, 118.

17Bagatti, 121.

18Davidson, 64-5.

19Crowe, 68.

20Acts 15:22.

21See Galatians 1:19.

22Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III, The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & his Family, (San Fransisco: HarperCollins, 2003), 103.

23Shanks and Witherinton III, 116

24Bauckham, 441.

25Wedderburn, 154.

26Eusebius, The History of the Early Church, trans. G.A. Williamson (London: Penguin Books, 1989),59. When Eusebius talking about this period, he is probably quoting Hegesippus (c. 110 – c. 180), a famous chronicler in the Early Church.

27Davidson, 65-6.

28Wenham and Walton, 286.

29Romans 15:25-27 (Emphasis added).

30See Acts 6.

31Galatians 2:12-13.

32Acts 15:13-21.

33Shanks and Witherington III, 130.

34Bauckham, 442.

35James 1:1.

36I. Howard Marshall, Stephen Travis, and Ian Paul, Exploring the New Testament, Volume Two: A Guide to the Letters & Revelation, (Downers Grove: IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 253.

37Davidson, 132.

38Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.1.

39Eusebius, 60.

40Jack Finegan, The Archeology of the New Testament: The Life of Jesus and the Beginning of the Early Church, (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992), 308.

41Finegan, 306.

42See Shanks and Witherington, 188-9.

43Eusebius, 95.

44Eusebius, 107.

45Skarsaune, 196.

46Skarsaune, 196.

47Skarsaune, 195.

48Eusebius, 68.

49Robert Houston Smith,The 1967 Season of The college of Wooster Expedition to Pella, vol. 1, Pella of the Decapolis, (Wooster, OH: The College of Wooster , 1973), 44.

50Smith, Pella of the Decapolis, vol. 1, 43.

51Finegan, xxxiii.

52Josephus, The Jewish War, 2.18.1-2.

53Joan E. Taylor, Christians and The Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 44.

54Robert Hudson Smith and Leslie Preston Day, Final Report on The College of Wooster Excavations in Area IX, The Civic Complex, 1979 – 1985, vol. 2, Pella of the Decapolis, (Wooster, OH: The College of Wooster , 1989), .3-4.

55Smith, Pella of the Decapolis, vol. 1, 43.

56Smith and Day, 4-6.

57Smith and Day, 97-8.

58Smith and Day, 98.

59Smith and Day, 100.

60Smith and Day, 99-100.

61Anthony McNicoll, Robert H. Smith, and Basil Hennessy, Pella in Jordan 1: An Interim report on the joint University of Sydney and The College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1979-1981, vol. 1, (Canberra: Australian Gallery, 1982), 83-4.

62Smith, Pella of the Decapolis, vol. 1, 145-6.

63Smith, Pella of the Decapolis, vol. 1, 147.

64Wedderburn, 163.

65Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Publishing, 1993),576.

11 more papers, 90 more pages of writing

Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:32:18 GMT

76 days to Graduation and I'm job hunting. Where will I end up? I don't know. What will I be doing? Probably Youth Ministry somewhere. Why? Because I want to see boys become men and girls become women.

By the way, here is a research paper I did last November on Roman Catholicism in the United States. Enjoy!

What makes the United States unique? If the average citizen was asked this question, he or she would most likely answer it with one simple word: democracy. This concept of people governing the direction of their lives has permeated into every nook and cranny of this country. Every American citizen knows full and well that he or she has a voice that is equal with all others that call the United States home. Characteristics of the democratic spirit can be seen everywhere, including politics, business, culture, and education. Nothing has been left untouched by this powerful ideal.

One place that it may have not appeared to have affected is the Catholic Church. In their hierarchical system, power is given from God to the Pope to dispense to bishops and priests chosen by the Church. Priests are typically in control of the advancement and organization of the Church. The laity does not have a say in either the spiritual or temporal affairs of the church. Clergy and laity are seen in two different manors and are in two separate classes or people.

However, during the nineteenth century, this distinction between the people and the priests blurred significantly. The Catholic Church grew in the United States in a large part due to its people. The only way the Catholic Church administered services to its people was because of the laity. This paper is an analysis of the democratic nature of the Catholic Church during its formative years in the nineteenth century United States. The primary focus of this paper is on what caused this combination to happen and what the democratic spirit looked like in action in the Church.

How Democratic Thought Appeared in the Church

Due to the nature of the American structure, the English Catholic minority had to accept “all of the essentials of English culture while remaining loyal to their Catholic faith.”^¹ From the outset of the colonization of the United States, Catholicism was always a weak minority group with questionable practices in the eyes of the majority. Since most of the settlers in the New World had a Protestant English background, there was always the fear of “popery” seeping into the political structure of the new country from the Catholic minority. For instance, it was illegal for “popish” priests in Virginia to “arrive to remaine [sic] about five days after warning given for his departure by the Governour [sic] or commander of the place. . . .”^² Laws like this one showed the importance of catholic settlements of keeping a low profile. They needed to keep anti-Catholic sentiments from becoming harmful actions. This was why the few clergy in the country at that time never would have considered having a bishop as an obtainable reality.^³ By 1789, there were only 30,000 Catholics in the entire country and some historians did not even recognize the existence of the Catholic Church in the United States before the 1830’s.^⁴

Though small in numbers, they gained mightily from the American Revolution. This war obtained freedom for all Americans, in spite of their religious background. For Catholics, the proverbial “second-class citizen” label Protestant England gave them disappeared when they became apart of this new nation. When that label vanished, so did the inferiority complex it gave the American Catholics. Catholics felt free to participate in the new democratic process. As Jay Dolan writes, “Such political involvement was a new experience for Catholics but they took to it like ducks to water.”^⁵

This new political freedom was coupled with the affairs abroad. The revolutions, the Enlightenment and the internal affairs of the Papacy isolated the American Catholic Church from its leadership and occupied the most attention of Rome. The Age of Enlightenment ushered in an era where reason was the focal point of everything and freed people from “the bondage of authority.”^⁶ France, the major Catholic nation at that time, was experiencing revolution where the church was directly involved in helping it start. Anti-clericalism became popular during the time of Enlightenment. The Pope stopped having any authority over the Gallican church and had primacy only in honor and name.^⁷ Millions of Catholics were raised in an environment that questioned authority and were educated under an egalitarian spirit.

This had a two-fold influence on the church in the States. The primary way was the effect these events had on the clergy of the United States. French Jesuits fled their home country to come to America to escape persecution by others in the Church. These refugees would be the primary pool of candidates for priests in the new country. The few Americans that were capable to be trained to become priests were educated in “Enlightened” Europe and then brought these ideas back to the States. These people, with a more liberal bent, would become the leaders of the church in this country. They would incorporate the ideas of the present day with those the Catholic Church has traditionally clung to.^⁸

The most notable example how this new American leadership was formed is found in John Carroll, the first Bishop of the United States. To fully grasp the extent the republican revolution affected how Catholics saw the Church, the analysis must begin with Carroll.^⁹ After studying in Europe, the former Jesuit told a friend he had “contracted the language of a republican,”^¹⁰ someone that believed in the voting of the citizens. According to Patrick Carey,

Like many other Christian Leaders in American society, he rejected what he considered the dangerous tendencies of an excessive rationalism, but he also tried to accommodate Catholicism to those values in the Enlightenment and in republicanism that he found genuinely consistent with the Catholic tradition.^¹¹

As a result of these thoughts, he drew a constitution for a form of government for the clergy and pulled his strings in order to become the leader of the American, thus avoiding “any dependence on foreign jurisdiction.”^¹² This freedom allowed people to worship in English and control their own appointments. Carroll also established Georgetown College in order to train clergy. He was starting all of these new things while concurrently advancing the tradition dogma. Carroll showed great pride in administering the sacraments despite a lack of priests in a letter to Cardinal Antonelli.^¹³ The eventual Bishop was doing his part promoting new ideas while remembering the things that made him Roman Catholic.

In addition to the effects on the clergy, the laity in the United States would change as a result of the affairs in Europe. The flow of Germans, Irish, and French immigrating to America began to trickle in during the 1790’s. When they arrived, they expected to find a church similar to what they were accustomed to. Since the Catholic Church was a new organization in the States, there were bound to be some places immigrants would go where the church was not. If they did find a place to worship, it may not be in a language they knew from their homeland. “Everything was beginning from scratch,” as one priest said.^¹⁴

The stream of immigrants would not have been a problem if there were enough priests. John Carroll’s assessment of the situation was the following:

There are nineteen priests in Maryland and five in Pennsylvania. Of these two are more than seventy years old, and three others very near that age: and they are consequently almost entirely unfit to undergo the hardships, without which the Vineyard of the Lord cannot be cultivated. Of the remaining priests, some are in very bad health, and there is one recently approved by me for a few months only, that in the extreme want of priests I may give him a trial. . . all the other clergymen lead a life full of labour, as each one attends congregations far apart, and has to be riding constantly and with great fatigue, especially to sick calls.^¹⁵

Carroll’s description demonstrates the American Church’s inability to handle everything they were about to experience. There was a task to be done and there were not enough priests to do it. This need coupled with the absence of European clericalism meant the immigrants were in position to do something about not having a church. Dolan notes that the absence of the traditional monarchical rule made it easier for the “spirit of democracy” to attach itself to Catholicism.^¹⁶

One of the primary reasons why the ideas of a new nation made its way into the old faith was the absences of leaders to adequately maintain the old ways. A democratic spirit was sweeping through the walls of the church which provided ways to meet the needs of the people. The Pope and the rest of the European Church were too busy to have a direct influence on the development of the American Church. In the end, the Americans were able to structure things as they saw fit. Carey observes that “necessity, remembered Catholic Tradition, [and] the spirit of republicanism” were combined in the formation of new congregations that would influence Catholic presence in cities for years to come.^¹⁷

How Democratic Thought Operated in the Church

Catholics laity in the United States was solely responsible for the propagation of the faith in this new country. If they did not take actions to lead the Church into the 1800’s, it is quite possible the Church would have been doomed to fail in the United States. The two vehicles Catholics used in reaching new areas were only effective because Catholic Citizens took charge. These two ways were “Brick and Mortar” Catholicism and the trustee parish system. “Brick and Mortar” Catholicism was the way they built church buildings throughout the U.S.A. These people of different economic and ethnic backgrounds sacrificed in order to build houses of worship that often surpassed the Protestant churches in both number and quality.^¹⁸ If these believers wanted a place to worship, they simply pooled their money together, bought what they needed and built a church worthy to call their own.

Catholicism came to Ohio in this manner. Jacob Dittoe, a Catholic Farmer living in Somerset, OH, wished his family and some of his neighbors could be raised in a Catholic environment. Dittoe decided to write to Bishop John Carroll in Baltimore and asked him if he could send a Priest to help in this task. In 1802, he first wrote Carroll only to receive no answer after the letter was lost in transit. He wrote again in 1805 and once again Carroll did not respond. It was not until 1808 when Carroll actually responded to Dittoe. In his third letter, he explained to the Bishop that if a priest was not sent to attend to this land that they put a down payment on then “this noble tract of land to be lost with the money paid thereon.”^¹⁹ Carroll in response sent a letter marked “important” to priest Edward Fenwick with orders sending him to visit the Sommerset farm. After welcoming Fenwick like an “angel from heaven,”^²⁰ Dittoe started a letter writing campaign to the new bishop in Bardstown, KY, Joseph Flaget, requesting a visit from him. Dittoe did not rest until he knew his pleas were heard. It is obvious the real drive for the establishment of the Catholic Church in Ohio, and the entire frontier for that matter, came from the laity who had already settled in the area, not by the clergy.^²¹

This fire was not just found in people on the frontier founding new churches. Catholics in urban environments also fought for new building seemingly every other year. As the immigrant population in the cities inceased, they needed to build churches that could hold them. The building of St. John the Baptist parish in Cincinnati’s Over the Rhine section of town was built solely by the desire of the German immigrants in the city. Though Catholic historian John Lamott claims the parish was organized in 1844 by the original German parish’s priest, St. Mary’s Father Joseph Ferneding,^²² Dolan better describes it without the bias towards the clergy. He says the laity drew up a constitution, purchased the land, named it, held public meetings to discuss details of the building, and planned the cornerstone ceremony with accompanying festivities.^²³ While most lay people did not have this much control, they did usually have control of the money. During 1866 in Hingham, Massachusetts, some Irish Catholic laymen sponsored weekly lectures with the proceeds going to buying land and then fairs, parties, and socials provided the rest of the money for St. Paul’s Church; some men actually dug the foundation for the church.^²⁴

Not only were these lay people making a statement about where they were going to worship, but they were also dictating to a Protestant dominant country how they should be viewed with these elaborate buidlings. Archbishop Gaetano Bedini during a tour of churches in the United States in 1855 commented on the building of the new churches when he wrote,

. . . I noticed that the Bishops are deeply disturbed over the building of new cathedrals, which they have either begun or are in the process of building. These are vital thought for them. The huge development of the cities does not allow the Catholics to have modest churches. The majesty, the convenience of external worship, is now a dire necessity lest the Catholics suffer in comparison with the Protestants. . . Furthermore, these cathedrals may stop the preconceived ideas of the rich and influential, who think that poverty is the exclusive prerogative of Catholics.^²⁵

While some of the bishops did not like the money to be used on such ornate buildings, Catholics felt it was necessary to build intricate churches to rid themselves of the poor stereotype. It was their decision to go bid with their buildings, not the priests as is often thought in modern America. Cathedral-building was one of the major legacies left by the Antebellum Catholics.^²⁶

One legacy that did not get a chance to survive was the lay trustee system set-up in many churches of that era. In this system, church members would elect a group of trustees to govern the everyday affairs of the church, usually anything not pertaining to worship and doctrine. Since priests were so scarce, trustees attempted to “rear a National American church, with liberties consonant to the spirit of Government, under which they live; yet, in due obedience in essentials to the Pontifical Hierarchy.”^²⁷ They were the administrators while the priests were the teachers.

This system was especially popular among the German congregations. In the Midwest, while less than 50% of the Irish parishes operated in this manor, more than 72% of the German parishes did.^²⁸ Since the Irish were able to worship in English and the Germans preferred their native tongue, they were more willing to set up their own government along side the area bishop. In addition, Germans had a strong tradition of lay involvement and had more experience with an autonomous form of local government at home in Deutschland so adapting these ideas to the American system did not take much effort.^²⁹

Cincinnati is a good example of this cooperation. Bishop Purcell allowed the Germans to handle their own affairs in the church after appointing a German-speaking priest for them in the 1840’s.^³⁰ He gave his official stamp of approval in 1850 and commented how satisfied he was with them in 1864.^³¹However, the environment in Cincinnati was the exception, not the rule. The trustee system usually leads to a power struggle between the local Bishop and the trustees of a certain parish. The two issues they often fought about were the lay selection of pastors and the exclusive management of temporal items.^³² One of the reasons why the Archdiocese of Cincinnati avoided many problems was because there was a clear distinction on who at least owned the land and who ran temporal affairs,^³³ despite the occasional dispute.^³⁴

One of the fiercest battles took place in Philadelphia. The priest of St. Mary’s parish, William Hogan, insulted the bishop, Henry Conwell, in a sermon. He was subsequently removed from his position by the Conwell. The trustees, who liked Hogan, elected Hogan their pastor, barred the Bishop from entering the cathedral, and wrote an open letter to all Catholics encouraging them to start a new church.^³⁵ The trustees of Philadelphia knew they could not trust the bishop in giving them a priest that would adequately understand the American plight. They were calling for a “second Carroll,” or another native born bishop since the French bishops and the newly arriving Irish bishops could not adapt in this new age.^³⁶ Hogan was excommunicated, and after the trustees elected him again, a brawl took place in front of the church.^³⁷ In the 1850’s, the trustees went to the state legislature asking them to pass laws “against such tyrannical and unchristian acts” of the clergy in the city of Brotherly love.^³⁸

Fights like this were common all over the country. Being catholic was no longer the only criteria for parishes looking for a priest. In spite of the number of French refugees present, the people wanted priests that would represent their congregation the best. If they were Irish, that meant an Irish priest should be ministering to them. If they were Polish, then at the very least a German priest needed to serve them. French Bishop John Dubois of New York City in 1827 after the Irish were angered by his appointment wondered, ”In this city there are American, Irish, English, French, Spanish and German Catholics: Is each nation to have a bishop of its own?”^³⁹ The popular slogan among the Germans was “language saves faith.”^⁴⁰ For many immigrants, the priests and the bishops had to be of the same blood.

Eventually, the trustee system disappeared for many reasons that could not be adequately covered in the scope of this paper. Ultimately, the trustees did have an organized voice on a national level and suffered the fate of all unorganized minority groups--extinction.^⁴¹ Rome eventually started to take a more active role in directing the affairs of the Church in the latter part of the century. Vatican I finally declared Papal Infallibly and Pius IX helped restore the Papal prestige. The philosophy of “Americanism”^⁴² was called heresy in 1899 by the Vatican thus stifling any lay activity by advocating a return to the old ways.^⁴³ Also, the opposition to Catholics by Protestants grew in intensity during this time causing the focus inward to shift to those outside of the Church. The priests and bishops would be better spokesmen for the faith then laity that had family and jobs to protect. Though some layman like Orestes Brownson did take that risk to speak out, the united front of the clergy was better adapted to handle the public criticism.

Conclusion

Despite its apparent disappearance, the effects the democratic spirit had on the Catholic Church left an indelible mark on the church. Not only did it shape how the church operated in this country during the nineteenth century, but it helped a historically monarchical and elitist institution survive in a democratic protestant country. While some argue this combination is like “oil and water,” history shows that it is possible for both to exist in the same organization with success. Remembering this segment of its past is the only way the Catholic Church can grow in the post-modern twenty-first century.

1Thomas T. McAvoy, “The formation of the Catholic Minority in the United States 1820-1860,” in The Inculturation of American Catholicism 1820-1900: Selected Historical Essays, edited by William L. Portier (New York: Garland Publishing, 1988), 3.

2Quoted in James Hennesey, American Catholics: A History of the Roman Catholic Community in the United States, (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1981), 47.

3Jay P. Dolan, “The Desire for Democracy in the American Catholic Church,” in A Democratic Catholic Church: The Reconstruction of Roman Catholicism, eds. Eugene C. Bianchi and Rosemary Radford Ruether (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 114.

4McAvoy, 3.

5Dolan, The American Catholic Experience: A History from Colonial Times to the Present, (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1985), 102.

6Gerald R. Cragg, The Church and the Age of Reason 1648-1789, (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1976), 241.

7Alex R. Vidler, The Church in an Age of Revolution: 1789 to the Present Day, (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972), 16.

8Dolan, “Desire for Democracy,” 116.

9Dolan, American Experience, 103.

10James T. Fisher, Communion of Immigrants: A History of Catholics in America, (New York: Oxford, 2002), 25.

11Patrick W. Carey, The Roman Catholics, vol. 6, Denomination in America, ed. Henry Warner Bowden, (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1993), 19.

12Dolan, American Experience, 105.

13See Edwin S. Gaustad and Mark A. Noll, eds., A Documentary History of Religion in America: To 1877, third ed. (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2003) 278-9.

14Quoted from Dolan, American Experience, 158.

15Carroll quoted from Gaustad and Noll, 279.

16Dolan, “Desire for Democracy,”114.

17Carey, 27.

18Jeffrey M. Burns, Ellen Skerrett, and Joseph M. White, eds. Keeping Faith: European and Asian Catholic Immigrants, (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2000), 87.

19Quote from John H. Lamott, History of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati 1821-1921, (New York: Frederick Pustet Company, 1921), 24.

20Lamott, 25.

21M. Edmund Hussey, A History of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, (Strasbourg, France: Éditions du Signe, 2000), 4-5.

22Lamott, 136.

23Dolan, American Experience, 163-4.

24Joseph J. Casino, “From Sanctuary to Involvement: A History of the Catholic Parish in the Northeast,” in The American Catholic Parish: A History from 1850 to the Present, vol. 1, Northeast, Southeast, South Central, edited by Jay P. Dolan (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), 18.

25 “Archbishop Gaetono Bedini on the Legacy of Brick-and-Mortar Catholicism,” in Keeping Faith, 99.

26Clyde F. Crews, American and Catholic: A Popular History of Catholicism in the United States, (Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 2004), 83.

27Quote of a Charleston, SC trustee from Fischer, 28.

28Shephen J. Shaw, “The Cities and the Plains, a Home for God’s People: A History of the Catholic Parish in the Midwest,” in The American Catholic Parish, vol. 2, Pacific States, Intermountain West, Midwest, 304.

29Dolan, “Desire for Democracy, 122.

30Hussey, 19.

31Hussey, 24.

32Carey, “Republicanism within American Catholicism, 1785-1860” in Inculturation, 124.

33Dolan, “Desire for Democracy,” 121.

34See pamphlet concerning the ownership of Catholic Cemeteries in Cincinnati in Keeping Faith, 43-4.

35Hennesey, 97.

36Carey, A National Church: Catholic Search for Identity, 1820-1829, (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1977), 6.

37Hennesey, 97.

38Carey, “Republicanism,” 142.

39Keeping Faith, 5

40Dolan, The Immigrant Church: New York’s Irish and German Catholics, 1815-1865, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 70.

41Carey, A National Church, 22.

42According to Dolan, this was a combination of three idea: “the adaption of religious ideas to modern culture, the idea that God is immanent in human cultural development and revealed through it, and the belief that human society is moving toward the realization of the kingdom of God.” See Dolan, American Experience, 310.

43Shaw, 304.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:32:11 GMT

Hi- Married life is good. I'm alive. Check out this letter PETA wrote to the NBA after they changed their ball back to leather.

An Open Letter to NBA Players

On behalf of the more than 1 million members and supporters of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) worldwide, I am writing with a solution to the recent drama of a few high-profile NBA players who were whining about fingertip scratches and scrapes caused by the new composite basketball adopted by the league. As excruciating as these “injuries” must be for a world-class athlete, thousands of cows stand to suffer far worse if the NBA goes back to a leather basketball—so we’d like to suggest a compromise.

PETA would like to offer a lifetime supply of cruelty-free hand cream to any NBA siss … excuse me, superstar who’d be willing to give the composite ball another shot. Recreational players and NCAA athletes have been using composite balls for years without experiencing scratches or scrapes—but we understand that the delicate hands of pampered NBA superstars are far more sensitive than those of your average Joe who actually has to work for a living. The hand cream comes in a variety of scents, including “Filthy Rich Organic” (perfect for any overpaid millionaire) and “Peaceful Patchouli”—Nash, we have a whole case of that set aside for you. Maybe by taking care of your own skin a bit better, you can allow cows who would otherwise meet their end in the slaughterhouse to keep theirs.

Shaq, as one of the players who has been most critical of the composite ball, perhaps you’ll volunteer to be our test case—since you’ve only played four games all season, surely you have time to work a moisturizing routine into your schedule. Or LeBron, maybe you’re interested. The NCAA has used the composite ball for years—so it’s not only an education that you missed out on. Maybe you just need some more time to adjust.

In the interest of sparing thousands of cows a hideous, unnecessary death, please consider this suggestion. In the meantime, we wish the NBA luck in its search for leftover leather basketballs—judging by the reaction of some players, it seems like balls are in pretty short supply around the NBA these days.

Sincerely,
Dan Shannon
Manager of Campaigns
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Thu, 12 Oct 2006 02:42:58 GMT

Go Tigers!

Too bad I can't enjoy the championship run as much since I will be married come Saturday to a wonderful redhead named Lori.

See you guys on the flipside.

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:55:48 GMT

I love Big Brother All-Stars right now. And this man below is amazing! I think I have serious man-love for this guy and the way he "plays the game."

Go Will!

Our new place

Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:39:11 GMT

Hey everyone. . . its been a busy summer. But hey its our new place

http://residencessv.com/index.htm

P&G is good and Lifespring is good for me and Lori is Good.

only 78 days until the wedding.

By the way, I really like Mark Discoll from Mars Hill in Seattle. He is fast becoming one of my favorite preachers.

World Cup Recap. . .

Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:46:50 GMT

I don't know if you noticed but Portugal and Mexico had a rematch today in soccer. Here is a recap from the first time they played. Beefsalsa is one of my favorite players of all time. (NOTE: Not real game, just click the link and see).

Grilled Cheese, Cereal, and PB & J

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:04:00 GMT

This is my diet over the last week since I'm without a kitchen. I'm grateful that clothes irons can be used to make grilled cheese sandwiches. Also, I'm enjoying my new job at P & G and at Lifespring. Oh well, I'm tired. Riding in Poundcake over the weekend.

On another note, I'm not a fan of American Soccer. Whenever I watch, they look flat. They never have any energy or even appears to even want to be there. What a disappointment on monday. Watching them is boring. I just got done watching Germany win and I must say they kept my interest. It's sad.