In light of my new love of studying the early church fathers, someone suggested that I read the title The Spirit of Early Christian Thought by Robert Louis Wilken. The author masterfully includes direct quotations from a broad scope of patristic fathers, covers the major themes woven in their literature, and archives the lives of the most prominent early Christians. Though written from the standpoint of a Roman Catholic, the author gives much needful light on an often forgotten era.

As an entity, the early church fathers were a deeply pious, highly intellectual, and wholly devoted group of men. Many of them knew the apostles of Christ or were in a near proximity to Christ's followers. They treasured Scripture passionately and loved Christ wholeheartedly. Many faced persecution. Others enjoyed religious freedom. Yet, as Wilken drives home his theme, they were all men who knew above all else that, "the soul that loves God is at rest in God yet at the same time in restless movement toward God. " They were men who were "seeking the face of God always."

It is often cited that the writings of early church fathers contain many doctrinal errors. In light of this, the majority of contemporary Christians have devalued the patristics and have discarded their literature. It is Wilken's desire to demonstrate, that as we read discerningly, they provide great value to us because they are the ones who formed the foundations of the theology that we know articulate. As Gregory the Theologian states, "Theology reaches maturity by additions." It is the early church fathers who pinpointed the relationship between the Father and the Son. It is our spiritual forefathers who delineated the differences between Scripture and non-canonical writings. Though they do not have the pleasure of hindsight, they ought to be given the benefit of placing the founding stones on which we rest.

In a most interesting chapter, Wilken graphs the growth of iconoclasm, the use of images of the Divine, throughout the centuries of the church. It began primarily with a solid biblical and reasonable premise: though at one time it was incorrect for man to make an image of the invisible God, God has now made himself visible in the image of a man, thereby giving allowance for Christians to display a physical image of Christ as a testimony to His incarnation. To make a picture of Jesus Christ was not intrinsically sinful. To reject this, one must also reject the making of the Passion of the Christ or the Jesus film. The unbiblical nature of iconoclasm is found in the arguments as they continued to escalate over the centuries. John of Damascus states that because God had, "worked out my salvation through matter", "I treat all matter with reverence and respect, because it is filled with divine grace and power." Before long, these images and other icons, such as pieces of wood symbolizing the cross of Christ or water from the Holy Land, became "receptacles of divine power." Finally, the argument stated that if the icon contained a woven connection to the image it bore and provided a means of sanctification to the believer. "Like a shadow inseparably related to the body that casts it, the image is indivisible from the original." Unfortunately, what began as an artful remembrance of the incarnate Christ ended as an unbiblical and spiritually unhealthy practice that remains to this day.

The early church fathers remain helpful for the contemporary Christian. Though one may find errors within their logic and unbiblical viewpoints throughout their writings, the vast majority of them are men of God filled with a passion for Him. They are not simply philosophical thinkers with astute formulations of God, but men who seek His face more intimately than the day they first encountered Him. The church must know its roots, and its roots are deep indeed.