We all know Christians are in the world, but not of the world. Jesus said it, and when we walk closely with Him, we sense it. We know in our spirits that the priorities of the world are not our priorities, that the perspectives of the world are not our perspectives, and the goals of the world are not our goals. Especially in the modern-day evangelical church, we can become pretty adept at focusing on the "not of the world" part of Jesus' teaching.
What we often struggle with is the "in the world" part. When we awaken to the fact that we aren't to be like "the world", often we just want to hold out until Jesus comes and takes us away. The concept of separatism has been around as long as Christianity, and over the centuries various groups have emphasized separatism as what should be the norm for believers. From the Anabaptists during the Reformation to many fundamentalists today, the message has been "Be separate."
But God leaves us in this world after we are saved for a reason. He could immediately take us to heaven and make us perfectly holy. Yet He doesn't - He leaves us here, in this messy, fallen world, and asks us to walk with Him along with other believers on this journey. He tells us to love Him, love one another, and love others in highly practical ways. And over the centuries, biblical Christians have interpreted that to mean that we have a role to play in the societies in which we live -- a role of salt and light, a role of messenger, and sometimes a role of change agent.
Being "not of this world" is the fuel that keeps us going when our efforts to love are rejected, when we are battle-weary, or when everyone else abandons a situation. Prioritizing love means we stay in the race to the end. It's why Christians were the ones rescuing babies abandoned in the desert during the Roman Empire, nursing the sick as the Empire was hit by plagues, ministering during the Dark Ages' bubonic plague, defending the rights of the Indians against opportunists, forming abolitionist societies despite the economic benefits of slavery, fighting to see Jim Crow laws and South African apartheid overturned, challenging Roe v. Wade. It's why Christians aren't abandoning Burma and are taking the lead in relief efforts in China after the earthquake. It's why we fight in prayer, winning battles on our knees, but also stand at the ballot box to exercise the free will God gave us to make a difference. We love, so we act, and we keep acting because we are not of this world. Yet we are in it, and so we care.
We don't parallel the Israelites in the dessert, wandering and waiting on the Promised Land. Instead, we are like the Jews in Babylon, who were given these instructions from God in Jer. 29:4-7:
4 “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. 6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. 7 But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare."
Granted, we are not left here for judgment like the Israelites were sent to Babylon for. But neither are we left here to twiddle our thumbs while waiting on Jesus to return. And Biblically, while we are certainly to prioritize evangelism, we are also to express our love in very practical ways. And our love is directed not at the government or institutions, but at people.
We get disheartened when we look at what little we feel we can do, and the magnitude of the problems. But the bottom line is, the church has a role to play in society, not just us as individuals. The Gospel and our lives should preach the same message. Looking beyond our individualistic worldview, we can see that it's not just me making a difference in one life, it's us making a difference in our lives and the lives of those around us. When evangelicals step back from society, theologies that minimize God and His Word prevail. What a loss when we have the chance to lead but instead step back and retreat rather than engage.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Defining "Me"
It's hard to conceive from our Western perspective, but plenty of cultures in the world have difficulty with the concept of the individual. Westerners tend to define themselves as they wish, selectively choosing the labels with which they most closely identify. In group-oriented societies, personhood is defined by relationship to the group.
For example, the Polynesian conception of personhood emphasizes relationships between individuals. It has been described as "I am, because we are." And where those primary relationships are non-existent, the personhood is often seen as non-existent as well.
This isn't really uncommon in group-oriented societies. When we understand that much of the Bible was written to an audience that largely functioned from a group-oriented perspective, we can understand even more fully the commands not to neglect widows and orphans, to love the foreigner. All these are segments of population that in a group-oriented society can easily become non-persons.
Before we criticize too strongly, though, we must realize that a western, individualistic perspective is not free from treating individuals as non-persons. We've seen it happen in the not-too-distant past: in the United States, slaves were treated legally as property, not persons. The "3/5 compromise" wrote into our constitution that slaves counted for 3/5 of a person when computing population data -- and that stood for almost 100 years, until the 14th Amendment in 1865.
As usual, Scripture provides an alternative perspective to either extreme. The Biblical view can be summed up as "I am who God says I am." Each person has equal value, having been created in the image of God regardless how skewed that image looks as a result of the Fall. And each person has equal opportunity to be restored to relationship with God through faith in Christ, and reflect His image as we are conformed to the image of Christ through process of sanctification.
It was the close, external perspective of non-slave owners, frequently Christians involved in Abolition, that eventually turned the tide in the US away from seeing slaves as non-persons. They were close enough to see the problems, but had the external perspective of not having a vested financial interest in slavery.
Similarly, Scripture will always bring a close, external perspective to our lives. As we study Scripture we will see areas that need to be "tweaked"; we will see things that don't line up with who God says we are as Christians and with the image of Christ that He is forming in us. When we yield to God's refining hand, we will find that we grow closer to Him and to others. We will begin to know who we truly are - in Him. We'll find that our identity is thoroughly tied up in relationship.
I am who He says I am. Hallelujah!
For example, the Polynesian conception of personhood emphasizes relationships between individuals. It has been described as "I am, because we are." And where those primary relationships are non-existent, the personhood is often seen as non-existent as well.
This isn't really uncommon in group-oriented societies. When we understand that much of the Bible was written to an audience that largely functioned from a group-oriented perspective, we can understand even more fully the commands not to neglect widows and orphans, to love the foreigner. All these are segments of population that in a group-oriented society can easily become non-persons.
Before we criticize too strongly, though, we must realize that a western, individualistic perspective is not free from treating individuals as non-persons. We've seen it happen in the not-too-distant past: in the United States, slaves were treated legally as property, not persons. The "3/5 compromise" wrote into our constitution that slaves counted for 3/5 of a person when computing population data -- and that stood for almost 100 years, until the 14th Amendment in 1865.
As usual, Scripture provides an alternative perspective to either extreme. The Biblical view can be summed up as "I am who God says I am." Each person has equal value, having been created in the image of God regardless how skewed that image looks as a result of the Fall. And each person has equal opportunity to be restored to relationship with God through faith in Christ, and reflect His image as we are conformed to the image of Christ through process of sanctification.
It was the close, external perspective of non-slave owners, frequently Christians involved in Abolition, that eventually turned the tide in the US away from seeing slaves as non-persons. They were close enough to see the problems, but had the external perspective of not having a vested financial interest in slavery.
Similarly, Scripture will always bring a close, external perspective to our lives. As we study Scripture we will see areas that need to be "tweaked"; we will see things that don't line up with who God says we are as Christians and with the image of Christ that He is forming in us. When we yield to God's refining hand, we will find that we grow closer to Him and to others. We will begin to know who we truly are - in Him. We'll find that our identity is thoroughly tied up in relationship.
I am who He says I am. Hallelujah!
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Practical Christianity on the Field
"There can be no true prayer and public worship without the outward exercise of justice." (Ruth Tucker)
He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8, ESV)
When we commit to be on mission with God - whether in our hometowns, across the country, or around the world - we can be sure that He will open our eyes to things we wouldn't see otherwise. As we walk with Him we will find that we are in places where we see wrongs being committed, where we recognize systemic problems, where we see root causes rather than mere symptoms.
And we will wonder what, if anything, we are to do about it. We'll have to balance the long-term spiritual view with the immediate need of the moment. We'll have to walk the fine line between evangelism and social justice, between theology and practice. If there's one thing that can be certain when we commit to a life of kingdom significance, it's that God will call us on it "where the rubber meets the road."
This isn't a new idea. Paul addresses both theological and practical issues in his epistles. Peter lays down a hard theology of doing good in the midst of suffering. And James - he is probably the most radical of all, giving us a picture of "hands-on" Christianity in action.
I've met some interesting individuals on my journey through World Christian Foundations, but one that has impacted me more significantly than many is Bartholomew de las Casas. de Las Casas was a Dominican priest in Mexico during the 16th century. In an age when the enslavement of the natives was not only status quo but thought justifiable, he dared to rock the boat. He was counter-cultural, seeking to make a difference in his corner of the world. And he did. He fought hard for reforms which, while not ending slavery, made life much easier for the Native Americans. His advocacy laid the foundation for new laws that ultimately changed the system. And he found a balance between humanitarianism and evangelism, boldly proclaiming the cause of Christ even while making a difference in the here and now.
A dear friend works for an agency that seeks "to offer temporal help and eternal hope." de Las Casas did just that, seeking justice out of authentic love for the people he wanted to see embrace the Gospel. We'll have the opportunity to do the same thing.
There will always be reasons not to act. The Gospel should provide us with a powerful reason to act! Down through the ages, there have always been those who heeded the call to social justice as part of a Christian lifestyle, even as part of evangelism, as part of a missionary task. The early church rescued babies from the wilderness where they were left to die. The church stayed behind to help the sick as the Roman Empire was ravaged by disease. The Calvinists tried to adopt a model of earthly justice in Switzerland. The pietists emphasized the need to take faith to the world with both words and deeds. 19th century American missionaries went on the Trail of Tears with the Indians. More recently pastors risked their pulpits to march for equal rights for blacks in the US. Even while typing this lesson, I received an email about a horrific infanticide occuring on the Amazon. Missionaries are taking the initiative to make a difference. Websites have been created to assist (http://www.hakani.org/en/ http://www.lirs.org/DonateServe/advocate.htm). But the bottom line for me is that while I was writing a lesson on justice as part of practical Christianity, God called me on it!
While missionaries, like other believers, have not perfectly represented the Gospel they carried, in general they have actually been stabilizing, mitigating factors against the negative cultural practices of their days. In doing so, they haven't practiced anything the rest of us shouldn't also be doing. Whether in our culture or across the world, if believers with a Biblical worldview can't stand up for the weak and downtrodden, for the injustices of society, then who will? If Jesus was moved by compassion to feed the 5000, then surely we know He cares about temporal needs.
And so should we, in very practical ways.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Change Agents
A study of history from a Godward perspective yields insights - and encouragement - about the process of change. Only a few weeks ago, my studies covered the "barbarian" tribes of England and Northern Europe; now I'm seeing how out of those same areas came the philosophical and theological insights that captured the minds of the Reformers. Somehow, a major leap forward was made in that few hundred years.
Significant changes were made within the context of the Reformation as well. With my Protestant background, I was unfamiliar with the "Counter-Reformation" and even less familiar with the "Catholic Reformation". Basically, the Catholic Reformation was an internal movement that actually started prior to the Protestant Reformation. It was a time of missionary focus and re-evaluation of theologies. The Counter-Reformation was a response to some of the issues raised by the Protestant Reformation and in some ways made the Catholic Church more closed, more "Catholic" and less inclusive. The Catholic Reformation remained an impact, however, through monastic movements that carried the Gospel message while Protestantism was still developing.
These two different movements, combined with the English Reformation and the Protestant Reformation with its Calvinist, Lutheran, and Radical wings, illustrate that the 16th century brought a burst of vitality to Christianity. This revival or renewal movement certainly didn't look the same within all of the groups. And that's one of the principles that we see in studying historical renewal movements: They take different streams and bring about both theological improvements and theological divergencies. Like Jonathan Edwards in Religious Affections, we must be aware that the presence of vitality will result sometimes in excesses, sometimes in imbalance, sometimes in over-reactions that reject the movement. As with the 16th Century Reformations, those groups that maintain a closer affiliation to Scripture will emerge with sounder (not perfect!) theologies and ultimately a longer-lasting vitality.
Each of the Reformations had one or more "change agents" who were catalysts, but the movements touched a deeper level than those individuals' ideas. Change also came gradually; even where radical change occurred within the Protestant Reformation, the fleshing out of that change was a gradual process -- one reason that Protestant Missions didn't really take off for 200 years after the Reformation. This can be encouraging as we work with people groups, ministries, or churches that are striving for change. We may see miniscule advances daily, but a look back at the history (last year, 5 years ago, etc.) will probably yield a better perspective of how that change is progressing. Changing policies is relatively easy; changing hearts and minds takes a while.
We also can see through this that today's decisions will have a long-term effect. The religious and political manueverings in Western Europe after the Reformation had results that reverberated through history. (For example, France's King Henry's political "conversion" to Catholicism and recognition of the Protestant Huguenots saved France as a country at the time - and laid the groundwork for it strengthening to the point that the French Revolution eventually resulted.) What decision today will have such a future impact? And like the pagan Europeans, what changes are in the works for your people group or that you serve?
The Gospel is truly like the yeast that works its way in over time. And there is an enemy who also tries to infiltrate and destroy the process. Societies change over time. Our role as change agents is to pray for God to keep our society nudging in the right direction!
Significant changes were made within the context of the Reformation as well. With my Protestant background, I was unfamiliar with the "Counter-Reformation" and even less familiar with the "Catholic Reformation". Basically, the Catholic Reformation was an internal movement that actually started prior to the Protestant Reformation. It was a time of missionary focus and re-evaluation of theologies. The Counter-Reformation was a response to some of the issues raised by the Protestant Reformation and in some ways made the Catholic Church more closed, more "Catholic" and less inclusive. The Catholic Reformation remained an impact, however, through monastic movements that carried the Gospel message while Protestantism was still developing.
These two different movements, combined with the English Reformation and the Protestant Reformation with its Calvinist, Lutheran, and Radical wings, illustrate that the 16th century brought a burst of vitality to Christianity. This revival or renewal movement certainly didn't look the same within all of the groups. And that's one of the principles that we see in studying historical renewal movements: They take different streams and bring about both theological improvements and theological divergencies. Like Jonathan Edwards in Religious Affections, we must be aware that the presence of vitality will result sometimes in excesses, sometimes in imbalance, sometimes in over-reactions that reject the movement. As with the 16th Century Reformations, those groups that maintain a closer affiliation to Scripture will emerge with sounder (not perfect!) theologies and ultimately a longer-lasting vitality.
Each of the Reformations had one or more "change agents" who were catalysts, but the movements touched a deeper level than those individuals' ideas. Change also came gradually; even where radical change occurred within the Protestant Reformation, the fleshing out of that change was a gradual process -- one reason that Protestant Missions didn't really take off for 200 years after the Reformation. This can be encouraging as we work with people groups, ministries, or churches that are striving for change. We may see miniscule advances daily, but a look back at the history (last year, 5 years ago, etc.) will probably yield a better perspective of how that change is progressing. Changing policies is relatively easy; changing hearts and minds takes a while.
We also can see through this that today's decisions will have a long-term effect. The religious and political manueverings in Western Europe after the Reformation had results that reverberated through history. (For example, France's King Henry's political "conversion" to Catholicism and recognition of the Protestant Huguenots saved France as a country at the time - and laid the groundwork for it strengthening to the point that the French Revolution eventually resulted.) What decision today will have such a future impact? And like the pagan Europeans, what changes are in the works for your people group or that you serve?
The Gospel is truly like the yeast that works its way in over time. And there is an enemy who also tries to infiltrate and destroy the process. Societies change over time. Our role as change agents is to pray for God to keep our society nudging in the right direction!
Monday, April 28, 2008
The Power of Nationalism
Before this study program I never realized how powerful nationalism can be. Like many "red, white, and blue" Americans, I equated patriotism with nationalism. Studying history from a missiological perspective has given me insights to see that the two are not synonymous - and to understand how patriotism can be manipulated by people with their own agendas.
Nationalism played a larger role in the Reformation that I'd ever grasped. A map of the post-Peace of Westphalia Europe -- when the religious boundaries were established and hopes for reconciliation with Rome abolished -- shows that the areas most influenced by Protestantism were also those least "Latin" in culture. Germany was drawn to Lutheranism by political reasons as much as religious; Switzerland's rejection of Catholicism for Calvinism had political overtones as well. And in England, a fully nationalistic religion developed as the country struggled to be free from the power and financial structure of Rome.
For reasons of his own, Henry VIII stood to benefit from a strengthened reform movement. There were a few thousand Protestants in England in the early 16th century. The movement had grown since John Wycliffe but was largely confined to the coastal ports. However, an active Lutheran underground and the strong coastal Protestant representation afforded a starting point which was soon amplified by Parliamentary decisions restricting papal authority, removing funding from Rome, and ultimately granting ecclesiological authority to the king. Henry VIII's desire for divorce came after many years of conflict between Church and Crown. It served as the tipping point, but not the catalyst. That catalyst was the desire for national sovereignty.
Henry VIII's changes in the church were more than surface. While he replicated the liturgical and parish structures, he also dissolved the monasteries, changed the process of confession, and established the Book of Common Prayer. His changes laid the groundwork for the poor being cared for by the parish (instead of the monastery) and for the eventual melding of church and state -- something the popes had desired but failed to achieve. This supremacy of state over church eventually led to further reformers, and a little thing called the American Revolution.
Over on the other side of the globe, reform was going on as well. The Sikh religion underwent somewhat of a "reformation" in the 16th century, becoming less a religion of the guru and more a religion of the book; the book replaced the guru and personal holiness was sought as an ideal more than ritual. Sikhs have a strong integration between religion and society and their own sense of nationalism, as they desire to be separately identified from the Hindus and Muslims which dominate India. Japan had a growing Christian movement, but ultimately rejected Christianity when it became linked with rebellion against the government.
These examples demonstrate the importance of missionaries being cautious in their political involvements. Especially when we are a guest in a country, we must maintain our focus on loving people. We also must realize how closely people often link their beliefs to their identity. To be Sikhs, for example, is to follow Sikhism. At times in Japanese history, to be Japanese was to be Shinto.
That's why contextualization is so important. We have to realize that the Gospel is a message that comes without cultural baggage. It can be applied within any culture. And within every culture there will be elements to accept, elements to adapt, and elements to reject. The process of determining which are which is a task that can best be processed with national believers, once they have been given Scripture and taught how to assess their culture within biblical parameters.
Nationalism played a larger role in the Reformation that I'd ever grasped. A map of the post-Peace of Westphalia Europe -- when the religious boundaries were established and hopes for reconciliation with Rome abolished -- shows that the areas most influenced by Protestantism were also those least "Latin" in culture. Germany was drawn to Lutheranism by political reasons as much as religious; Switzerland's rejection of Catholicism for Calvinism had political overtones as well. And in England, a fully nationalistic religion developed as the country struggled to be free from the power and financial structure of Rome.
For reasons of his own, Henry VIII stood to benefit from a strengthened reform movement. There were a few thousand Protestants in England in the early 16th century. The movement had grown since John Wycliffe but was largely confined to the coastal ports. However, an active Lutheran underground and the strong coastal Protestant representation afforded a starting point which was soon amplified by Parliamentary decisions restricting papal authority, removing funding from Rome, and ultimately granting ecclesiological authority to the king. Henry VIII's desire for divorce came after many years of conflict between Church and Crown. It served as the tipping point, but not the catalyst. That catalyst was the desire for national sovereignty.
Henry VIII's changes in the church were more than surface. While he replicated the liturgical and parish structures, he also dissolved the monasteries, changed the process of confession, and established the Book of Common Prayer. His changes laid the groundwork for the poor being cared for by the parish (instead of the monastery) and for the eventual melding of church and state -- something the popes had desired but failed to achieve. This supremacy of state over church eventually led to further reformers, and a little thing called the American Revolution.
Over on the other side of the globe, reform was going on as well. The Sikh religion underwent somewhat of a "reformation" in the 16th century, becoming less a religion of the guru and more a religion of the book; the book replaced the guru and personal holiness was sought as an ideal more than ritual. Sikhs have a strong integration between religion and society and their own sense of nationalism, as they desire to be separately identified from the Hindus and Muslims which dominate India. Japan had a growing Christian movement, but ultimately rejected Christianity when it became linked with rebellion against the government.
These examples demonstrate the importance of missionaries being cautious in their political involvements. Especially when we are a guest in a country, we must maintain our focus on loving people. We also must realize how closely people often link their beliefs to their identity. To be Sikhs, for example, is to follow Sikhism. At times in Japanese history, to be Japanese was to be Shinto.
That's why contextualization is so important. We have to realize that the Gospel is a message that comes without cultural baggage. It can be applied within any culture. And within every culture there will be elements to accept, elements to adapt, and elements to reject. The process of determining which are which is a task that can best be processed with national believers, once they have been given Scripture and taught how to assess their culture within biblical parameters.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
The Music of the Gospel
Like many dyed-in-the-wool Protestants, I spent most of my Christian life thinking that Christianity practically died out after the Edict of Constantine and revived miraculously when Martin Luther rediscovered the Gospel in Romans. This study program has really opened my eyes to all the activity going on in those so-called "Dark Ages" - including sound Christian movements and missions!
As we begin our lessons together from Module 3B, we are jumping right into one of the most formative periods for much of what we consider normal "church": the Reformation. Many of our "forms", including hymnals and a pulpit in the center to represent the centrality of the word, spring from the reformation period. But these things are not the heart of the Reformation.
Paul Pierson observes well that the Reformation is best characterized as a rediscovery of an essential aspect of the gospel that had been neglected: justification by faith. Certainly people believed in justification by faith between the New Testament and the Reformation -- numerous theologians and historical references reveal people of vibrant faith. But as a central doctrinal tenet of the church, justification by faith had been supplanted by a works-based theology.
Martin Luther and John Calvin, pillars of the Reformation, didn't set out to start new religious movements. Instead, they wanted to restore this truth to the Catholic Church. They wanted reform, not revolution. They got a little of both.
Let me make this clear: Martin Luther and John Calvin weren't perfect. They didn't have perfect theology and as I studied more this week of their beliefs, I saw how much I disagree with some of their writings. And yet they zeroed in on the heart of the Gospel - salvation by grace through faith, not works - and were used mightily by God. Like all my heroes, these men had feet of clay.
The Reformation restored Scripture to its rightful prominent place in Christian doctrine, and yet it remained a tool to lead us to God, not something we worship. The Reformation also restored lay leadership in churches. In fact, we can trace the emphasis on spiritual gifts to Calvin's church structure (which was based on Scripture). This structure established secret lay missionaries within the Catholic church structure in areas that remained Catholic, and within the Calvinist churches set up a system of joint church government that brought laity and clergy together, helping the church survive under persecution.
The Anabaptists were another important element of the Reformation for what we know as church today. They were part of the "radical reformation" (basically anything but Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Anglicanism was considered radical). What was so radical? Merely their idea that the church should be comprised only of believers! Both Calvin and Luther had maintained the Catholic diocesan-style structure of all people in a geographic area belonging to the church. Luther's churches were state churches, and Calvin's were the morality enforcers of the state, but both included all people in the church whether believers or not. Our concept of independent churches that are filled with believers stems from the Anabaptist wing of the Reformation. Unfortunately, the Anabaptists saw themselves in complete conflict with their culture and so became separatist rather than engaging the culture with the Gospel. As a result, the church died off except for pockets here and there - most notably in the Mennonites within the US.
The Reformation is really a concise look at missiology. All of the issues we face in spreading the Gospel -- cultural, political, economic, social, theological, contextual -- were faced by the Reformers. Like us, sometimes they got it right and sometimes they didn't.
This is our heritage as 21st century believers. This imperfect, rag-tag group of men and women were used by God to start a renewal movement that changed the world. But as the beneficiaries of their efforts, we have a responsibility to keep the message intact. As Pierson observes:
Let's keep that music alive for the generation in which God has planted us.
As we begin our lessons together from Module 3B, we are jumping right into one of the most formative periods for much of what we consider normal "church": the Reformation. Many of our "forms", including hymnals and a pulpit in the center to represent the centrality of the word, spring from the reformation period. But these things are not the heart of the Reformation.
Paul Pierson observes well that the Reformation is best characterized as a rediscovery of an essential aspect of the gospel that had been neglected: justification by faith. Certainly people believed in justification by faith between the New Testament and the Reformation -- numerous theologians and historical references reveal people of vibrant faith. But as a central doctrinal tenet of the church, justification by faith had been supplanted by a works-based theology.
Martin Luther and John Calvin, pillars of the Reformation, didn't set out to start new religious movements. Instead, they wanted to restore this truth to the Catholic Church. They wanted reform, not revolution. They got a little of both.
Let me make this clear: Martin Luther and John Calvin weren't perfect. They didn't have perfect theology and as I studied more this week of their beliefs, I saw how much I disagree with some of their writings. And yet they zeroed in on the heart of the Gospel - salvation by grace through faith, not works - and were used mightily by God. Like all my heroes, these men had feet of clay.
The Reformation restored Scripture to its rightful prominent place in Christian doctrine, and yet it remained a tool to lead us to God, not something we worship. The Reformation also restored lay leadership in churches. In fact, we can trace the emphasis on spiritual gifts to Calvin's church structure (which was based on Scripture). This structure established secret lay missionaries within the Catholic church structure in areas that remained Catholic, and within the Calvinist churches set up a system of joint church government that brought laity and clergy together, helping the church survive under persecution.
The Anabaptists were another important element of the Reformation for what we know as church today. They were part of the "radical reformation" (basically anything but Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Anglicanism was considered radical). What was so radical? Merely their idea that the church should be comprised only of believers! Both Calvin and Luther had maintained the Catholic diocesan-style structure of all people in a geographic area belonging to the church. Luther's churches were state churches, and Calvin's were the morality enforcers of the state, but both included all people in the church whether believers or not. Our concept of independent churches that are filled with believers stems from the Anabaptist wing of the Reformation. Unfortunately, the Anabaptists saw themselves in complete conflict with their culture and so became separatist rather than engaging the culture with the Gospel. As a result, the church died off except for pockets here and there - most notably in the Mennonites within the US.
The Reformation is really a concise look at missiology. All of the issues we face in spreading the Gospel -- cultural, political, economic, social, theological, contextual -- were faced by the Reformers. Like us, sometimes they got it right and sometimes they didn't.
This is our heritage as 21st century believers. This imperfect, rag-tag group of men and women were used by God to start a renewal movement that changed the world. But as the beneficiaries of their efforts, we have a responsibility to keep the message intact. As Pierson observes:
Any time there is a renewal movement...there seems to be the inevitable tendency for that movement to run down, lose its vitality, maintain the forms, and lose the inner meaning....Every generation needs to re-hear the music of the gospel, when it becomes personal.
Let's keep that music alive for the generation in which God has planted us.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Module 3A Summary: Why James?
Well I've completed Module 3A and upon reflection have grasped some "Big Picture" lessons to takeaway from this study of the early church, the Roman world, and the spread of Christianity and development of other world religions. Just some key bullet point ideas:
- We can't underestimate the importance of Scripture in the native language of the people. Mohammed's passion for a holy book in Arabic fueled the development of the Qu'ran and the rise of Islam. Our world might be vastly different today if Bedouin Arabs had been provided all of Scripture in Arabic, rather than a limited portion horded by a non-orthodox Christian group. Furthermore, as the church spread, consistently the groups that had little or no Scripture in their language eventually became less orthodox or even heretical. Scripture not only serves a missiological purpose in spreading the Gospel, but is a protection for the purity of doctrine.
- Doctrinal development is important - but not supreme. I absolutely love historical theology. I think it's important to understand how the fundamental doctrines that divide orthodox Christianity from heresy came to be accepted by the church. My faith has been strengthened by understanding that no one group "selected" Scriptures; instead, the acceptance by a broad variety of churches caused the "cream" of revealed truth to rise to the top while other disputed works fell to the wayside. All of this is important and useful. But it's not supreme. Many good Christians through the centuries have accepted the canon without question; they embrace the deity of Christ merely because He said "I AM." Their faith is unshaken by rational doubts. And most importantly, they live out their faith.
- The priority of love. Here is the heart of the module for me. You may wonder why I chose to emphasize lessons in James from my inductive study when there were so many other rich truths from the history and writings of the day. The answer is simple: I was gripped by James' message of practical Christianity, what I call practical acts of servant-love. I saw in James a pastor who had one chance to communicate something vital to a scattered, persecuted flock who lacked any Scripture beyond the Old Testament. What he chose to tell them was: Live it out. He emphasized the practical side of Christianity even though they were persecuted. Because I had so much to learn about emphasizing practical acts of servant love, I dove into James like a starving woman. And there I found food for my soul. He didn't mince words, and he didn't make excuses. In James I saw what obedience to the Great Commandments looks like: Loving God and Loving Others is the heart of authentic faith. We can get a lot of things wrong, but we'd better get this one right. To glorify God, prioritize love in practical ways.
- "The church has survived, despite churches." This quote from World on the Web blogger Tony Woodliffe (www.worldontheweb.com) covers church history in a nutshell. Things got pretty bad between the revered "Church Fathers" and the Reformation. But the church - that remnant of true believers - never disappeared. Often the fringe movements were more solid than the "orthodox" center. Frequently the laity were the source of kingdom advance and sound doctrine while the "establishment" in the church structure were corrupted by power. The Crusades remain a blight". Yet over the centuries, many small streams of renewal flowed together into a great river we call the Reformation. But "the church" never disappeared, even if it wasn't well-reflected in "churches".
- God is always at work. Henry Blackaby's #1 principle from Experiencing God is seen no matter where or when you look in the world. Looking at history from a Godward perspective - whether in Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa, India, wherever - you begin to see themes emerging. You see that our history books often leave out the most interesting parts of the story. For example, during the "Dark Ages", a barely-literate country became a conduit to save much of what we know today as "Western Civilization". Ireland, newly emerged from tribalism and newly confronted with the Gospel, established monasteries that copied ancient texts and later shared them with the world - resulting in Renaissance and Reformation. Truly, darkness is not dark to Him!
I will not be posting lessons here throughout March, as I am taking a brief respite from studies. However, I will resume with Module 3B in April, and will again post thoughts and insights here. Thank you for sharing this journey with me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)