Anyway, as for the definition of sin, it really depends on whom you are asking. The Augustinian tradition had the more legal/moral trespass idea, the Origenistic tradition saw more of sickness and corruption, and the Athanasian tradition saw more of the loss of life (loss of the Logos). I think there is validity in all of these ideas. But it’s safe to say that the west followed, almost exclusively, in the Augustinian tradition.

-Alan

Alan : based on Calvin’s comment, how would you say ‘sin’ was defined during, say, 450- 1000AD?

Calvin : spell our for me how I’ve misunderstood the majority’s definition of ‘the Gospel’ during this time period. It seems to me that I’ve developed a case (albeit, a brief one) for a definite difference in understanding of ‘the Gospel’ than how we would define it today.

Today the majority of Christianity (the 35% that qualify themselves as ‘born again’) in American defines the Gospel as ‘belief in Jesus so that you can be right with God and go to heaven when you die’.

I just don’t see that message in the majority’s Gospel during this segment of Church history. I’m absolutely positive there were pockets of it, just as I’m sure there are pockets of Imperial Christianity in American today.

The Church has always been built upon Jesus dying upon the cross, the confusion comes in the ‘why?’.

So are we genuinely disagreeing or am I just misunderstanding you?

I also see where you’re coming from Earl, but I think that, to some extent, you’re only focusing on part of the picture. I realize that to some extent that is inevitable in such a study. Nevertheless, there were communities doing it differently even then.

As for the imperialism thing, I agree. I think it might be interesting to do some research and trace that though. A lot of that stems from one’s theology of the sacraments, what they accomplish, but more specifically their relation to the visible Church. The Donatist heresy is one such example.

you said: “I don’t know, however, if it is safe to say the “gospel” itself was different, but rather their mentality driving their efforts–which certainly showed corruption.

I can loosely agree that the Gospel hasn’t changed, but it really seems as though your argument is heading in the direction of asserting that you believe what the apostles believed and everyone that disagrees with you is deceived. Every Church throughout history, including the crusades and the inquisitions, believed their Gospel was that of the founding fathers. I’m ok with you believing whatever you want, but if we’re going to evaluate how we spread ‘the Gospel’ and whom we spread it to you need an open mind.

Really enjoying this conversation.

Calvin :
“You obviously acknowledge the corruption latent in such a system, but could you elaborate?”

I honestly think you guys have helped illustrate my point. I ‘m not really interested in ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ at this point. I simply wanted to show how the Church understood and spread ‘the Gospel’.

In this situation I think the Church understood the Gospel as ‘Jesus died so his Church, and their right was of thinking and living, could overtake the world.’ It seems that the Church understood evangelism as a spiritual equivalent of national conquest. The society around them was focused on territory and ‘imperialism’ (as you guys have identified it), therefore the Gospel was filtered through that culture and becomes ‘imperial’.

I don’t think I have authority to decide whether their understanding is right, because I’m enmeshed in a very different culture and can only speak from within that cultural framework. I think that ‘Gospel’ would be very wrong in America today.

Does that handle your question?
Earl

Also, as Alan correctly pointed out, such was of evangelism have a certain ring of Imperialism to them.

What are your thoughts on this, beyond your post? You obviously acknowledge the corruption latent in such a system, but could you elaborate?

You’re definitely right that the monastic communities are where the gospel was preached. Even when the hierarchy was corrupt, the monastic communities usually remained faithful. While I disagree with the way monastics could sometimes withdraw from the world, many were established to deal with heresy and ungodly living. For that I commend them.

But it is an interesting fact to note the attitude of imperialization that could come up. It was almost like “here’s some great stories about God and Christ, but if you don’t believe it, you might get overtaken.” I think that attitude comes from their concept of Christendom and the Holy Roman Empire. They saw themselves as fulfilling Christ’s kingdom on earth, so get it done by whatever means necessary. And the lack of separation between Church and State–a conviction of theirs that we don’t share.

In Medieval historiography one will easily note the mentality that if a nation or ruler is doing poorly, it’s because they don’t love Jesus, and the opposite was often true.

So yeah, there may have been “gospel preaching” going on, and some may have had good motives, but the mentality of Christendom definitely seeps into their thinking. I don’t know, however, if it is safe to say the “gospel” itself was different, but rather their mentality driving their efforts–which certainly showed corruption.

-Alan