Radical Christianity

Something happened to the church around 311 A.D. After nearly 3 centuries of being persecuted, tolerated, or ignored - but not legally recognized in most places - the church in the Roman Empire experienced a profound cultural shift. Emperor Constantine reportedly saw a cross in the sky with the Latin words meaning "In this sign, conquer". He adopted the cross as his standard and in 313 A.D., through the Edict of Milan, gave Christians full legal status. Suddenly Christianity was not a religion of outsiders.

Like any cultural change, this one did not happen in a vacuum. Almost immediately, the church in Persia, previously at peace with the government there, began to be persecuted. It appears that the Persian leaders associated Christianity with being in opposition to Rome. Rome's enemies, therefore, were Persia's friends. But when Christianity in Rome became acceptable, Persia's Christians were no longer considered Rome's enemies. The worst persecutions of Christians to that date took place - including 153,000 Christians murdered in one incident.

Whether Constantine's edict was a good thing or not remains a debated question even within the modern church. But the fact is, when Christianity was accepted legally and even adopted by leaders, it became easier for people to be Christians. And with that came a high degree of nominalism and compromise - not unlike what we in American Christianity experience today.

These ripple effects soon had a significant impact on believers who were grieved at the lack of depth in Christianity once it became a mass movement. These "radical" Christians began to respond in extreme ways, living in the desert and adopting ascetic practices. The monastic movement soon developed as a direct response to nominalism.

Interestingly, monasticism developed in the other areas of the church as well, but with different dynamics. Ultimately the Coptic, Celtic, and Byzantine (Nestorian/Persian) churches all had monastic movements. We have seen how the Celtic monks preserved ancient texts after the fall of Rome. Another key contribution of the monastic movement was the continuation of the Christian mission. Simply put, without the monastic movement, not much would have taken place in missions from about 400 AD until the Reformation. While there were solitary individuals from time to time, by and large the monks of the various religious traditions carried the Gospel in an effort to fulfill the Great Commission.

This fact of Christian history can provide key lessons for us in retrospect. As 21st century Christians seeking to grasp "the big picture" and be on mission with God, what can we learn from a millenium where mission was dominated by monasticism?

• Don't underestimate the value of lay people. While church leaders did eventually come from the monastic orders, the initial movement was begun not by clergy, but by laity who were frustrated by spiritual leaders focused more on political power than on the Gospel. If you are Protestant, you can see in this example part of the origin of the idea of the "priesthood of the believer" - the idea (rooted in Scripture) that we are all a kingdom of priests.
• Don't minimize the impact of fringe movements. Ralph Winter observes that most if not all the key missions and renewal movements since the New Testament have started with "fringe" movements. The believers who wanted to pursue a radical lifestyle as a protest to the nominalism of their day soon grew into a movement significant enough to impact the world for Christ. We've seen this in our own day - half a century ago no one had heard of Youth with a Mission, but this "fringe" group now has nearly 16,000 people serving in 149 countries!
• Don't assume God waits until we're "ready". The various monastic groups spread the Gospel with varying levels of Scriptural understanding or even Scriptural texts. Their attempts to hide from the world usually backfired, and people found them to demand teaching. Their resources were slim and their methods radical: Celtic monks, for example, would set sail from Ireland without any direction in mind, trusting that wherever they landed was their mission field. In later years, when monks were pressed into leadership roles in the church it was often against their wishes and even despite their blatant protests. Yet the fruit of their labors remains - a Chinese inscription dated in the 600s AD shows us Nestorian monks made it to the other side of the world. All of which leads to another point...
• Don't reject the importance of the church structure. The core of the church played an important role in providing doctrinal guidance and spiritual leadership to a zealous monastic movement. While there was much that occurred that should not be emulated, there was also a thread of continuity that was vitally important. For the most part, the monastic movement knew that they were bringing new believers into the larger body of Christ and that the creeds and doctrinal statements were important to successful adoption of the new religion.
• Prioritize Scripture. Where they were most successful, the monastic movements spread with Scripture in the native language of the people. Those regions that had a stronger emphasis on Scripture taught to them were more likely to be orthodox than regions that only had Scripture minimally or as a veneer to paganism. Scripture also provides a safeguard - as discussed before there is a fine line between contextualization and compromise.
• Christ has built His church on a rock, and nothing can prevail against it. But we can boast only in Him. The study of church history has convinced me that only God could have caused the church to prevail through the centuries. Persecution couldn't kill her; compromised leadership couldn't kill her; theological hair-splitting couldn't kill her; and even a ragtag bunch of radical believers could be used in her advance. Whatever challenges the church faces around the world today - from humanism to nominalism to persecution to inept leadership to zealous but untrained laity - she remains the bride of Christ, the one He will present to God "without spot or blemish". Most remarkably, Paul says in Ephesians 3:10 that through the church - through this weak, fallible bunch of people - God displays His mainfold wisdom in the spirit realm. Surely that manifold wisdom is reflected in Christ Himself, as God chooses the foolish of the world but ultimately reveals His wisdom in Christ:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many
were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 1:18-31)

Doctrinal Differences

This week I've studied about the advancement of the church into Asia and Africa, and the doctrinal questions that arose in the first centuries of the church. Looking beyond the borders of Christianity to the unreached world of India, Southeast Asia, Oceania, and the Americas, it becomes apparent that as Christianity expands, doctrinal questions will continue to arise. In actuality, that is exactly what happened.

Because Christianity allows cultural adaptation in its forms, the potential for doctrinal adaptation exists as well. In fact, doctrinal controversies were more common than not as the Gospel spread.

One of the most important controversies was that of the doctrine of Christology - who was Jesus? Was He God in the flesh? Was He a man? Was He both? Some significant divisions arose over seemingly subtle differences in these definitions. The orthodox description of Jesus as fully God, fully man, developed over a couple of centuries of discussion, debate, and controversy. This was ultimately reflected in the Nicene Creed.

On the fringes of orthodoxy, the Nestorians - which would come to dominate the eastern church - emphasized the humanity of Christ, while the Monophysites - which strongly influenced North Africa - emphasized Christ's deity. Both groups were ultimately castigated as heretical by the Roman church, but both developed a strong missiological impact. It is noteworthy that while there were extremes in each group, the mainstream of both groups did not deny either Christ's deity or humanity - only the emphasis was different. However, there were groups that were fully outside the realm of orthodoxy which completely denied either Christ's deity or His humanity; these groups were more at home in the gnostic realm than the Christian world.

What made the difference? In general, as the Gospel spread, those regions that had all of Scripture in their language were closer to true orthodoxy. Areas that had some Scripture in their language tended to be orthodox in those areas they had Scripture, and fell into the fringes or beyond where they did not have Scriptural references. And regions where the church failed to produce Scripture in their own language were most likely to be completely outside the realm of orthodoxy.

This is significant for missiology today. As the Gospel spreads, it is crucial to provide written Scripture in the heart language of the people. Where written Scripture exists, literacy improves and other literature follows.

Another significant point: New churches need doctrinal guidance and direction. It is critical to train indigenous leadership and allow them to see for themselves the truths of Scripture, but this should not be done in a vacuum. Eph. 4:11-14 teaches that teachers are one of God's gifts to the church until there is unity of faith, so that we won't be swayed by every doctrine that comes along. That means that teaching should be a significant part of missions - even though the goal is not to stick around forever, but to equip the church to be able to carry on the faith "once for all given to the saints."

There may still be differences in doctrinal emphasis - each church arises in a unique environment, facing challenges that will naturally be expressed in the emphasis made in their doctrinal statements. Yet the common thread of orthodoxy, especially about the Christian distinctives, can unite believers despite other cultural differences.

Under the Surface of History

Christopher Dawson, in Religion and the Rise of Western Culture, highlights for us how the Apostle Paul's experience in Europe and Asia effected such a subterranean change that the world hardly saw it coming:

When St. Paul...came to Philippi in Macedonia, he did more to change the course of history than the great battle that had decided the fate of the Roman Empire on the same spot nearly a century earlier, for he brought to Europe the seed of a new life which was ultimately destined to create a new world. All this took place underneath the surface of history, so that it was unrecognized by the leaders of contemporary culture....a new principle had been introduced into the static civilization of the Roman world that contained infinite possibilities of change. (p. 27; emphasis mine)

The story of church history is almost inextricably bound to the story of world history. The difference is that what we consider "world history" - the rise and fall of empires, conquests and wars, peace treaties and negotiations - took place on the surface level. Yet just as Dawson notes that the seed of the Gospel planted by Paul in Europe would change the world, so too throughout history "the rest of the story" is what God was doing - "underneath the surface of history".

Consider some examples:

• In 410 A.D., Rome fell, due to internal and external factors that have been debated for centuries. The barbarians at the gates were desperate and could no longer be held back. A "successful" change from nomadic life to settled agriculture resulted in a population explosion. Their land was insufficient to feed their large contingents, and so out of desperation, they eyed the weakening borders of Rome. For the West, the "dark ages" soon ensued...yet for the barbarians, this was an age of enlightenment. They were suddenly exposed to those aspects of civilization Rome did best - political systems, literature, religion. From their exposure to Christianity more than a few barbarians were converted - in fact, "the Christianization of the Goths" provides a study unto itself! Under the surface of history, the invaders were exposed to the Gospel and transformed.

• When Rome fell, Ireland was just beginning to experience literacy and "civilization". Yet a growing Celtic church there developed a monastic movement that would become highly significant in the course of history. These monks, according to Thomas Cahill, "saved civilization" by copying everything of western literature they could lay their hands on. These Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian writings were then transmitted throughout the tribes of Europe and, when the Dark Ages were over, contributed significantly to the world as we know it today. Under the surface of history, God was preserving early Christian writings and Scripture, alongside literary works that shed much light on the context in which Christianity was formed.

• As the western part of the Roman Empire was ransacked and the eastern part continued to exist and gain more prominence for a time, the church in Asia was establishing itself as outside the Roman church hierarchy. For a significant period of time, it was the eastern church that sent out missionaries to the rest of the known world. Portions of the eastern church, including the Armenian church and the Nestorian church, continue down to this day. Under the surface of history, God was continuing His kingdom advance despite the turmoil of the western church.

One benefit of studying history from a Godward perspective is that it gives us a better grasp of our own times. The spiritual warfare and extensive prayers of the church behind the Iron Curtain is as much a part of the story of the stunningly fast fall of Communism, as are the political figures of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbechav. Similarly, we are wise to look below the surface in our own country's political scene. Under the surface of history - God is up to something!