|
Not unexpectedly for
a Christian iconoclast, Barfield exhibits great respect for the teachings
of Christ while often criticizing, sometimes harshly, the institution of
the church.
In general Barfield
portrays the church as a exoteric popularizer of Christ's more esoteric
wisdom. "very early in its career," Barfield writes in History in English
Words, . . .
the leaders
of the infant Church must have realized two things--firstly, that those
who, like the Gnostics, were
passionately interested in philosophical and mystical interpretations of
the life of Christ, not only differed very widely among themselves, but
also paid little attention to that personal life of Jesus, as recorded
in the Gospels, whose sweetness was beginning to bind men together with
marvelous new ties; secondly, that the simple and ignorant people to whom,
according to the Gospels, Jesus addressed Himself almost exclusively, would
be quite incapable of grasping these interpretations. If Christianity was
to spread, it must be simplified. (115-16)
Their simplification
was wonderfully successful. The teachings of Christ became the new common
sense.
Somewhere
about a hundred years after His death, the life of Christ was written by
the four Evangelists and others. Out of these ideas and emotions arose,
in the first place, the dogma and the ritual of the Catholic Church, and
in the second place a great part of the ordinary thoughts and feelings
and impulses of will which flourish in the bosoms of modern Europeans and
Americans. (HEW 115)
This historical process
largely succeeded in masking its making. The largely borrowed, cut and
paste, pastiche ideas of Christianity became gospel and, eventually dogma
due to the ingenious work of the "incredibly industrious" fathers of the
Church who
busied themselves
in editing and selecting from the literature and traditions of a hundred
semi-Christian sects. Doctrines which had taken a very strong hold on many
imaginations were accepted, given the orthodox stamp, and incorporated
in the canon; others were rejected, and being pursued at first with a mixture
of genuine logic, misrepresentation, and invective, and, as the Church
grew stronger, with active persecution,1
gradually vanished away or dwindled down to obscure apocryphal manuscripts,
some of which have only recently been partially translated within the last
few decades. Thus, for more than ten centuries, creeds and dogmas, to the
accompaniment of immense intellectual and physical struggles, were petrified
into ever clearer and harder forms. Christianity became identified with
Catholic doctrine, and soon after the Church's authority was backed by
that of the Roman Empire, any other form of it might be punished by death.
(HEW 116-17)
The church has thus
not remained a friend to the evolution
of consciousness, for reasons Barfield articulates in Saving the
Appearances: "I suspect that for the Church," he writes, acceptance
of the evolution of consciousness "will not be easy. It will not be easy
for the nursing mother to accept the possibility that her charge has grown
to need additional nourishment; or that revelation of the mystery of the
kingdom was not turned off at the tap when the New Testament canon was
closed, but is the work of an earth-time" (184-85).
See in particular
Saving
the Appearances,
passim. |
1As
Barfield observes, "The stigma which still attached to the ordinary Greek
word for 'choosing' (heresy) is a fair indication of the zeal with which
the early Popes and Bishops set about expunging from the consciousness
of Christendom all memory of its history and all understanding of its external
connections" (HEW 117). |
|