Skip to main content

Observations: One Hundred Years In Chris...

Written by Rick Shrader

Observations: One Hundred Years In Christian History

by Rick Shrader

%%tb-image-alt-text%%

Over the last 23 years that I have been writing this paper, and the last 50 years that I have been connected with Christian ministry, many things have come and gone and many things have changed.  If I think of the men I’ve known, heard, sat under, or known about, you might say that I’ve had access to over a hundred years of first-hand knowledge of Christian history.  I was born in 1950 but most of the men who taught me in my college days or early ministry days were born around 1900-1920.  Two men who influenced my life greatly, Noel Smith and R.V. Clearwaters, were both born in 1900.  My pastor, John Rawlings lived 99 years from 1914 to 2013.  When you spend your life around men whose lives spanned over a century of time, you can learn a lot if you’ll listen.

If the apostle Paul had to confess, “I count not myself to have apprehended” (Phil. 3:13) then who are we to think we know much at all?  However, everyone observes the things that happen within that 100+ years of their lifetime.  In the Christian ministry, not to mention all the various fields of learning, there is more than a person can observe and comprehend.  Yet in that ministry, especially over the last 100 years, things have changed faster than any other 100 years.

This last month I read some  books that speak directly to the last 100 years of Christian ministry.  Four of those are reviewed in this issue.  I’ve read books, articles, and papers like these all of my life, sometimes as assignments and often out of my own interest.  I appreciate the men and women who write our “contemporary history” because they are trying hard to warn and encourage us in the days in which we minister.  Sometimes the information is not very complimentary to ministry but more often it is enlightening and encouraging.  However, we live in perilous times and these could very well be the last generations before the Lord returns.  If so, warnings and exhortations are needed.  The lessons we should be learning ought to be passed on to our people so that they will be able to stand in the evil day.

Positive observations

I always am encouraged by our Baptist and fundamental history.  I have read of the history of the Southern Baptist Convention, of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, of the Baptist Bible Fellowship, and others, and have been encouraged by them all.  I have also read The Fundamentals and the history of how those writings came to be.  This month I enjoyed reading the history of Winona Lake and the great Bible Conferences with Moody, Sunday, and Chapman; the singing of Homer Rodeheaver, and the planting of the Grace Brethren churches there with Alva McClain.  I was encouraged by the writings of J.M. Frost and E.Y. Mullins in the early days of the Southern Baptists before liberalism took its heavy toll.  The twentieth century was blessed because of these great movements that spread Christianity across our country.

The Fundamentals.  In 1909 two laymen set aside a large sum of money to be used to produce what came to be known as The Fundamentals.  The first editors were A.C. Dixon and R.A. Torrey.  These writing included men such as W.H. Griffith Thomas, Sir Robert Anderson, James M. Gray, A.T. Pierson, B.B. Warfield, C.I. Scofield, Thomas Spurgeon, C.T. Stud, E.Y. Mullins, and Bishop Ryle of England.  Regardless of what one thinks of fundamentalists today, we were given a great start to the twentieth century by the writing of these men.  In fact, the average Christian reader today might have trouble keeping up with the scholarship displayed there.  The fundamentalist movement has been a bedrock of orthodoxy, evangelism, and preaching for the last 100 years and has blessed the churches greatly.

Evangelism.  Fundamental Baptists, early evangelicals, and various orthodox movements have been criticized a lot these days for their aggressive evangelism.  It is not uncommon to read someone criticizing soul winning, invitations, door to door canvassing, and the like by finding some abusive example as if that were the norm.  The truth is, American Christianity would be in much deeper trouble today if it were not for the evangelism done by fundamentalists and others throughout the last century.  Billy Sunday is a poster boy of such criticism and I’m sure that he deserves some of it.  But until I also have been responsible for half a million professions of faith, I doubt I will be too critical.

Church planting.   The large cities of our country today are in great need of another generation of church planters.  It takes only three generations in the churches to find them either dying, growing unorthodox, or cold and lifeless.  We can all recount good churches of our childhood that don’t even exist today.  Whether it was the pioneering Methodists and Baptists or the Southern Baptists whose goal was to plant a church in every county seat, steeples were erected across the country and the gospel was preached in cities and small towns.  Church planting is, however, an ongoing movement.  It must continue in every generation.

Missions.  I don’t know if the whole church age has ever seen as much money and personnel given to the cause of foreign missions as America saw in the twentieth century.  It is amazing to think that such a century of war and depression could also produce industrialization and agriculture enough to raise millions upon millions of dollars to send the gospel of Jesus Christ around the world.  Many missionaries I knew were American veterans who returned to the land of their service to preach to the people they once fought.  The Philippines, China, Japan, Korea, North Africa, Germany, and now Russia are great examples.  Where would these people be today without America’s missionary effort?

Colleges and seminaries.  To support and maintain the evangelism, church planting, and missions of the last hundred years, the Bible college and seminary movement sprang up all over the country.  Sure, good schools often take a turn for the worse or even disappear, but still much good has been done by thousands of graduates from a variety of schools.  Perhaps D.L. Moody made it popular and acceptable with Moody Bible Institute, but then there were others:  Dallas, Talbot, Fuller, Southern, Wheaton, Grace, Grand Rapids, Cedarville, which stayed by the stuff for many years.  Then those of our own fundamental Baptist persuasion such as  BBC, Faith, Central, and their offshoots have faithfully trained ministry-minded young people for generations.  These schools have been responsible for thousands of souls being saved and churches being planted.  The benefit to America in the last century is immeasurable.

Negative observations

One cannot help but see the negative trends in our recent history.  Some are obvious to all, such as the afore-mentioned liberalism in the SBC, or the worldliness in colleges such as Wheaton and others.  Some negatives are not seen as negatives at all to many people in ministry.  So these are my observations from being in and around a lot of conservative movements, schools, and churches over the last fifty to sixty years.

Misplaced loyalties.  I am one who treasures loyalties.  We are all loyal to our families in good times and bad.  We are loyal to our churches because they are God’s people and the church is His institution.  We are loyal to God’s Word because it is the absolute Truth in a world of untruth.  In order to propagate these divine institutions we need human institutions for various reasons.  Schools, boards, conventions and associations, camps, retreats, etc., are tools we use to build the ministry.  Over the last century these have come and gone in their usefulness.  Some are short-lived and some remain throughout the century.  Some are slowly compromising or becoming worldly.  I guess it is that human nature of loyalty that makes separation hard to do.  Yet there have been many circumstances over the last 100 years where people have become more loyal to an organization than to the Word of God.  Sometimes it is a matter of personal conviction of one and not another, and sometimes it is a matter of position that one is not willing to forgo.  But separation is a Biblical doctrine and sometimes God’s people need to walk away from an organization that has left its Biblical foundation.

Need for success.  We are glad for great men and women.  I have mentioned a few positively in this article.  We are also glad for churches and schools and agencies that have been successful in our lifetime.  Success, however, should not be measured by the praise of men but by faithfulness to God.  I don’t think great men ever wanted to be great.  In fact, I’m sure of it.  Great men (and women) wanted to be men of God and God used them in great ways so we call them great.  I doubt that William Carey went to India to be great, or that Fanny Crosby wrote songs so that 100 years later we could praise her for them.  But I fear that we want to be great.  We “build” churches and schools.  We teach young people how to be great.  We reward one another when we become great.  We even create greatness by award and eulogy.  This is difficult to say.  It is not wrong to recognize and thank people for their service.  But I think you know what I mean about a phenomenon that we’ve observed in our lifetime.  I watched someone on television being praised for a record number of “likes” she got on Facebook.  I hope that can never be applied to Christianity.

Pragmatism.  Pragmatism and methodology can be good or bad.  America has become what it has become because it could always figure out a way to get things done, whether agriculture, industry, military, education, etc.  These things have been debated throughout the twentieth century among various ministries.  Yet sometimes these discussions are reduced to unhelpful absurdities.  Do padded seats help our services?  Is air conditioning better?  Is amplification helpful to the sermon.  Well, of course.  But be absurd to the other extreme.  Would giving away one hundred dollar bills increase professions of faith?  Would indecency help promote youth activities?  Would free beer increase attendance at the rescue mission?  These are methodologies too.  Yet the crossing of the line in the gray areas has grown with almost no objections.  I cannot believe that candy on church buses is the same thing as a Christian rock concert when it comes to acceptable methodology.

Worldliness.  Or should I say the lack of godliness?  Here too Christians differ to various degrees, but the last century has no doubt seen the church become much more comfortable in the world.  This is true in the believer’s personal life and in the church as well.  One could trace the changes made in church covenants in the last 100 years, or the standards for students at Christian colleges, or the rules for kids at youth camps, and it might be surprising how far we’ve come.  But we say, time and culture change and what was once unacceptable is no longer so today.  And I’m sure that is true.  But is that the way we evaluate worldliness?  Are we only supposed to be a few steps behind the world but going in the same direction?  In a world of entertainment, selfishness, immorality, and profanity, it is not acceptable to be on the same path but only lagging a few steps behind.

Coldness.  Having closed the twentieth century and begun the twenty first, are we more enthusiastic for the things of God and His ministry than our forefathers?  The great irony here might be that they preached the coming of Christ and the need for aggressive evangelism because the time was short.  Yet we are now closer to His coming than they were but we don’t seem to have the same concern.  We have fewer church services, not more.  We have all but eliminated the gospel invitation.  We don’t seem to be the kind of soul winners or evangelistic people as those a generation ago.  Perhaps our evangelistic concern is being manifested in different ways, but I’m not convinced they are as good as before.

I remember the term “pre-evangelism” being used a while ago.  It was a term that meant that rather than actually giving out the gospel per se, we should work more on tilling the ground, and planting and watering rather than actually reaping the newly converted soul.  Of course this must be done also.  But it seems as though 99% of all evangelism has become pre-evangelism, and if everything is pre-evangelism, nothing is evangelism.  I remember when, in the name of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, we evangelized all Catholics simply by calling them born again Christians (I called it re-definition evangelism).  I’m sure our missionaries in Catholic countries wished we had done that before they spent all they had.  I’m simply saying that we have become busier but not more evangelistic.  We have many programs, activities, concerts, etc., but these have taken the place of evangelism, they are not simply new ways of doing the same thing.

Three suggestions

Let me conclude with three suggestions, or prayers, for fundamental Baptists who live in the twenty first century.

Love the brethren.  This Biblical admonition should be taken two ways.  First we need to love our Christian neighbor, that is, the person who is there.  It is never right to be unchristian toward anyone, but especially another Christian.  God’s children are our brothers and sisters.  Secondly, we should love the idea of brethren.  We should actually desire to be the epitome of what a Christian ought to be, and then be that Christian.  This is the best kind of life we can live on God’s earth.  If we truly love the “brotherhood,”  then we love what we believe and will become a reflection of the same.

Love the church.  The local church of the New Testament is what we see going on in the New Testament.  This group of believers that gather each Lord’s day is the best group of people we could ever be around.  What we do when we gather is what we need to be doing and what the world needs to see.  I often say to my people, we don’t gather together to worship, we’re worshipers who gather together.  I don’t say that to belittle worship but to emphasize how precious this gathering together is.  There should be no greater priority for the believer.

Love the ordinances.  God gave us two object lessons to observe faithfully.  When we see these we are seeing the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.  We are seeing the very work He came to do which reminds us of Him and our faith in Him.  They can’t be done with extra human instrument.  They are simple but profound, they are plain but beautiful, mysterious but revealing.  We can preach no greater sermon than these.

And So . . .

I’ve made these personal evaluations both positive and negative.  We have much to be thankful for over the last 100 years in our Baptist history and also in evangelical history.  Christianity has been good for America.  We also have things we need to be careful about.  Some of these things we will differ over and practice according to our own conscience, but we must not go the way of the world.  God has given us a plain Word to follow and we will be judged by that Word.

Finally, we need to love the very faith we profess.  If we do we will desire to know what God has said and we will find our joy and fulfillment in doing that.  We will add to our faith virtue and to our virtue knowledge.  These things will end with brotherly kindness and love, “For if these things be in you and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:5-11).

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Yoga: Forming a Right Response

Written by Rick Shrader

Yoga: Forming a Right Response

by Rick Shrader

%%tb-image-alt-text%%

              In 1857 The Atlantic Monthly published “Brahma” by Ralph Waldo Emerson which included, “The strong gods pine for my abode, And pine in vain the sacred Seven; But thou, meek lover of the good! Find me, and turn thy back on heaven.”1

              In 1893, at the World’s Columbian Exhibition in Chicago, Swami Vivekananda opened the Parliament of Religions saying that Hinduism “taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. . . The whole world of religions is only traveling . . . through various conditions and circumstances, to the same goal.”2

In 1929, Margaret Woodrow Wilson, daughter of the President, turned from her Presbyterian heritage to Yoga and “craved only ‘the Realization of God consciousness’ and did ‘not really care about anything else.’”3

In 1948 the Hollywood ad about Yoga read, “Look Pretty, feel good.  Marilyn Monroe, who plays the ingénue lead in Columbia’s Ladies of the Chorus, exercises her way to beauty and health.”4 

In 1967 George Harrison of the Beatles proclaimed, “Like, in the beginning was the word and I knew mantras were the words. . . We don’t need drugs anymore.  We think we’re finding other ways of getting there.”5

In August, 1969, Swami Satchidananda gave the “invocation” at Woodstock by saying, “America is helping everybody in the material field but the time has come for America to help the whole world with the spirituality also.”6

In 2009, at the annual Easter Egg Roll on the White House lawn, First Lady Michelle Obama proclaimed, “Our goal today is just to have fun.  We want to focus on activity, healthy eating.  We’ve got Yoga, we’ve got dancing, we’ve got storytelling, we’ve got Easter-egg decorating.7

After taking the reader through 150 years in 300 pages, Yale literature author Stefanie Syman, with no religious or Christian perspective to this point, concludes her book, The Subtle Body, by writing,

They’ve spent the last century and a half convincing us that this ancient, Indic, and half-tamed spiritual discipline doesn’t contravene our most sacred beliefs.  They may actually be wrong on this point.  It’s hard to reconcile the subtle body and the possibility of experiencing divinity for yourself by methodically following a program of exercise, breathing, and meditation with Judeo-Christian notions of God and the afterlife, but we seem willing to ignore the discontinuities.8

Today, this ancient religion is more influential in America and American Christianity than ever.  One article, about the yoga dieting craze, says, “Right now there are all these yogi Instagram celebrities with millions of followers . . . And they’re not drinking beer, they’re drinking juice.  Mindfulness, in a way, is the new church.”9  One blogger wrote,

Can yoga be completely stripped of Hinduism and even ‘Christianized’? Many Christians believe it can.  In fact, some churches and Christian colleges, like Wheaton College and Gordon College, even offer yoga classes.  Christian yoga proponents admit that yoga originated as a form of Hindu worship.  But, as an article posted to the Wheaton College website says, ‘yoga today is often just an ancient system of postures and breathing’ that’s ‘largely void of religious overtones’. . . It’s one of those things like Christmas and Easter, which was once pagan, but now has been co-opted for Christian worship.10

One author notes that a Google search for yoga on the internet jumped from 66,800,000 hits in 2007 to 220,000,000 in 2011 alone!10

Many still try to convince themselves that incorporating yoga into exercise and diet is in no way connected to the ancient religion itself.  Yungen quotes a Jesuit priest, William Johnson, who argues this point,

The twentieth century, which has seen so many revolutions, is now witnessing the rise of a new mysticism within Christianity . . . . For the new mysticism has learned much from the great religions of Asia.  It has felt the impact of yoga and Zen and the monasticism of Tibet.  It pays attention to posture and breathing; it knows about the music of the mantra and the silence of Samadhi.12

However, Douglas Groothuis, well-respected apologetics professor at Denver Seminary has written,

Overstressed Americans are increasingly turning to various forms of Eastern meditation, particularly yoga, in search of relaxation and spirituality.  Underlying these meditative practices, however, is a worldview in conflict with biblical spirituality—though many Christians are (unwisely) practicing yoga. . . . Yoga, deeply rooted in Hinduism, essentially means to be ‘yoked’ with the divine.  Yogic postures, breathing, and chanting, were originally designed not to bring better physical health and well-being (Western marketing to the contrary), but a sense of oneness with Brahman—the Hindu word for the absolute being that pervades all things.  This is pantheism (all is divine), not Christianity.13

Albert Mohler, Jr., President of Southern Baptist Seminary took much grief (even from Christians) for this statement, “When Christians practice yoga, they must either deny the reality of what yoga represents or fail to see the contradictions between their Christian commitments and their embrace of yoga.  The contradictions are not few, nor are they peripheral.”14

With the flood of yoga and other eastern religious practices coming into America in the last century, came also the commercialization.  America was where the money was, and to make it big in America meant fame and fortune.  Syman tells of television programs from the early 50s and 60s in Los Angeles. On one program called Yoga for Health on KTTV, the star of the show, a man deeply committed to yoga and Zen, knew, “Americans didn’t really relate to yoga.  They related to ‘exercise, sports, health.’  He felt he had to keep its esoteric elements—pesky and possibly untoward details about the subtle body and Kundaline—to a minimum if he was to reach Americans ‘en masse.’”15

Author Ray Yungen tells of attending a New Age convention where the speaker said, “If you barge in with occult lingo it turns them off right away.  You have to tell them how you can make their employees happier and get more productivity out of them—then they will listen.  You are really teaching metaphysics, but you present it as human development.”16  No doubt, yoga and other metaphysical religions have won millions of unknowing converts who are convinced that they are merely exercising and dieting their way to spirituality.

German theologian Kurt E. Koch (1913-1987), Th.D from Tübingen University and author of many books on cults has written,

The word yoga itself has a meaning corresponding to the unio mystica of German mysticism, that is, the mystical union with the universal spirit.  The difference between yoga and German mysticism is that yoga is atheistic in nature whereas the German mystics were engaged in a search for God.  Their similarity lies in the fact that they share the idea of self-realization.  Man must aim at attaining to his eternal self through the practice of many exercises in purification.  This eternal self or real self is supposed to be part of the universal or ultimate reality.  As we have said, yoga calls this process self-realization.  We can see already that it will always be impossible to harmonize yoga and Christianity.17

Koch also, after defining yoga as mystical, magical, and occultish, shows how participants grow in this religion through four stages to finally mastering the cosmic forces.  The first of these four stages “embraces remedial gymnastics, breathing, exercises, relaxation exercises, exercises in concentration, contemplation and meditation.”18

Much more could and should be said about the history and the beliefs of yoga.  That would take a book not an article, and those books are out there for people to read who will.  But this much is true: yoga is an ancient religion that is God denying and Christ denying.  That is firmly fixed in the thoughts and convictions of millions of people alive on this planet right now.  Any attempt to personally divorce it from that pantheism does not work for them, it only says “God speed, more power to you” in their ears.

What should a Christian do?

Let me give some Scriptures that I think apply to the use of something like yoga, and then I will give a few practical reasons I think yoga should be avoided by believers.  Finally, I will give a bottom line as to what a believer can do.

First, do not say “God speed” to yoga (or “like”) because when you do you are “partaker” in all of its pantheistic deeds (2 John 11). This is not the same thing as Christians keeping Christmas or birthday cakes. No one in the world today is keeping the ancient rituals that these words come from.  Besides, Christmas also has a unique Christian message which yoga does not.  When Halloween again began to be practiced for real in America, many of us discontinued its use for testimony’s sake.  I think I can continue to say “Thursday” without someone mistaking what I said for a worship of Thor.  I can eat a birthday cake without someone thinking I am baking cakes to Tammuz.  But you cannot practice yoga today without encouraging millions of people in this world in their false religion.

Second, realize that Hinduism’s yoga is pantheistic and unchristian. To them, God is everything, you are part of everything, therefore you are part of God. Even Jesus Christ was no more part of God than you are.  Meditation and exercise are the primary forms of coming to the realization that you are God.  They release the seven “chakras” within your spiritual body that allow the “kundalini,” or serpent energy,  to flow from the lower parts to the highest parts and elevate you into God consciousness or the higher wisdom.  This is also done with the help of “centering” prayers and visualization.19

This all sounds much like the first century problem in the church over Gnosticism.  Its fundamental denial of the divinity of Christ, and one’s esoteric rise to full-knowledge is uncannily similar to yoga’s doctrine and practice.  John specifically warned that such doctrine is the spirit of antichrist (1 John 2:18-22, 2 John 7).  His warning was to “try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1).  He did not say to “try out” the spirits and then decide whether they are beneficial.  “He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).

Third, the period of the Old Testament judges repeatedly shows that God commanded Israel to have no part in the gods of the new land they were entering. The saddest verses are those which show that a king did most things right but “nevertheless” the high places and the groves were not taken away. In 2 Kings 16 Ahaz, king of Judah, went to Damascus where he saw an altar of the religion of the Syrians.  He then commanded that a replica of the altar be brought to Jerusalem and erected in the temple of Jehovah, setting aside the proper instruments of God’s temple.  It was not until his son Hezekiah came to the throne that these abominations were destroyed and the true worship again established.  God is not pleased when we give honor to false gods by connecting them to the worship of the true God.

Fourth, Paul specifically commanded the Corinthians, a church badly affected by the false religions around them, not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14-18). He then asked five questions that showed why they must not do this. “For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?” Paul’s inspired command to be separate from these entanglements (vs. 17) should be the desire of every believer today.  When we do God says, He will be “a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters.”

In addition, here are a few practical applications.

Fifth, there has been an inordinate emphasis in our day upon the physical body, and yoga plays perfectly into this scenario. True, our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and I believe we ought to take care of it, even diet and exercise when possible and necessary, but the exercise of it only profits minutely compared to godliness (1 Tim. 4:8). As a pastor over the years, I have seen many men and women drawn away into a world of lust because they play with fire in this emphasis on their (and other’s) body.  Many times this is at the gym or pool or track.  Yoga’s history in America is riddled with sexual scandal because of the nature of the exercises that men and women do together.  One of the reasons older saints are more mature is because “though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day” (2 Cor. 4:16).  “Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh” (Rom. 8:12).

Sixth,your children will take your emphasis in life much further than you. Dabbling around the edges of yoga and other ancient mysteries will open a door for them that the world is already displaying. From Harry Potter’s superconsciousness to Darth Vader’s dark side, the dangers are enough as they are, without us adding to them.

Seventh, surely believers see and understand the spiritual decline of our country and even of the church of Jesus Christ. We are to be salt and light, ambassadors of our Lord, people with a higher thought process than the vain things of this world. Why is it that believers need these worldly methods to live spiritual lives?  Why isn’t the Word of God, time in prayer, simple worship with God’s people, verbal witness to our friends, satisfying and fulfilling?  Paul’s words in that ancient pagan world are appropriate, “Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh” (Col. 2:23).

And So . . .

Joshua’s words to Israel in the new land of spiritual challenges is good for us as well,

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom you will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Josh. 24:15).

Every family or church has the right to practice by its own conscience.  A church may set its own guidelines as to how it wants to handle these issues, even though that may differ from other churches.  You should seek a local church which sets these boundaries in a way in which your family wants to practice.  Where you worship, raise your kids, and fellowship with believers is important to you because that will affect you and your children (and grandchildren) for generations to come.  Choose wisely.

Notes:

  1. Stefanie Syman, The Subtle Body (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011) 12.
  2. Ibid., 44.
  3. Ibid., 145.
  4. Ibid., 195.
  5. Ibid., 200.
  6. Ibid., 233
  7. Ibid., 3.
  8. 291.
  9. “Sober is the New Drunk: Why Millennials are Ditching Bar Crawls for Juice Crawls,” The Guardian.com. April 21, 2016.
  10. Julie Roys, “Three Reasons Christians Should Think Twice About Yoga,” http://julieroys.com/three-reasons-christians-should-think-twice-about-yoga/.
  11. Ray Yungen, For Many Shall Come in My Name (Eureka, MT: Lighthouse Trails Pub., 2015) 102.
  12. Yungen, 120.
  13. Douglas Groothuis, “Dangerous Meditations,” ChristianityToday.com, November 1, 2004.
  14. Albert Mohler, Jr., “The Subtle Body—Should Christians Practice Yoga?” albertmohler.com, 9/20/2010.
  15. Syman, 246-247.
  16. Yungen, 59.
  17. Kurt E. Koch, Occult Practices and Beliefs (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971) 123-124.
  18. Ibid., 125.
  19. These and many other descriptions can be found easily in any book on cults, Hinduism, and yoga. See Yungen, chapter 9, “New Age Religion;” Syman, chapter 11, “How to be a Guru Without Really Trying;” Koch, section 47, “Yoga.”

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Corrupting Good Manners

Written by Rick Shrader

Corrupting Good Manners

by Rick Shrader

%%tb-image-alt-text%%

             Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

                          1 Corinthians 15:33

I have written at least three previous times about manners1 as many have done who grew up in the turbulent ‘60s when the civilities of society were turned on their head.  It was John Silber, past President of Boston University, who in a 1995 graduation speech, directed our thoughts back to John Fletcher Moulton (1844-1921) or Lord Moulton, English Judge and Councillor, and to his essay on Law and Manners.  Moulton described three domains of human action: total law and total free choice on the extremes, and manners in the middle keeping either extreme from becoming dominant.  When manners disappears or becomes weak, totalitarianism or antinomianism will take over a society.  It has been the observation of many in my life time that America, like our big brother Great Britain, has abandoned manners and unfettered freedom (disguised as individualism, human rights, etc.) is reigning.  As it does, big government is attempting to establish order in the vacuum of self government.

D.A. Carson wrote, “Many observers have rightly concluded that unless a democratic state is made up of citizens who are largely in agreement over what is ‘the good,’ that state will tend to fly apart, forcing the government itself to become more and more powerful and intrusive in order to hold things together.”2  But what is “the good”?  That is really our problem, isn’t it?  We are at a time when individual citizens do not know what is good and how to achieve it without outward constraint from government or inward restraint from ourselves.  That is, we have no manners.

In an ironic way we idolize figures who have shown us manners.  Of the days of William Wilberforce and John Newton of England, both of whom are admired for putting a stop to the slave trade, Os Guinness included this note, “There is little doubt that Wilberforce changed the moral outlook of Great Britain, and this at a time when the British Empire was growing and Britain was the world’s leading society.  The reformation of manners grew into Victorian virtues and Wilberforce touched the world when he made goodness fashionable.”3  It is ironic because while we idolize these men, we shudder at the Victorian virtues that came with them.

It wouldn’t hurt America to have a Victoria or even a Miss Manners again!  It is still curious to watch Red Skelton read the Pledge of Allegiance on Facebook, or Paul Harvey tell the rest of the story.  But in real life we have few who have taken their place.  Emily Dickinson said, “The abdication of belief makes the behavior small.”4

When I was a pastor in Colorado, I liked to take the Junior kids to camp in the mountains.  I spent the week telling them to wash their hands and faces, take a shower each night, make their beds each morning, and eat something besides gummy bears.  After a number of years perfecting this cultural adventure, I settled on a descriptive theme verse, “And about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness” (Acts 13:18).  But one can excuse junior behavior because it is necessarily immature, even laughable.  But things we laugh at about our children we should not laugh at as adults.

My childhood pastor, Harold Rawlings, used to say “The wilderness encroaches.”  Unless we keep cutting back the weeds and the forest it will quickly take over our space.  This has to be done with each generation or we won’t be reading about the pagans, we will be the pagans!  We used to see pagans only in National Geographic magazines, and now we can have them in our living rooms through sports, music, and even politics.

Paul’s use of “Manners”

Think again of that verse in 1 Corinthians 15, “Be not deceived, evil communications corrupt good manners.  Awake to righteousness and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame (vss. 33,34).”  Paul was arguing for the fact and necessity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Without this fact as our foundation, our house is built on shifting sand.  Don’t be deceived, one who does not know Jesus Christ has no sure way of keeping the wilderness of bad manners from creeping into his/her life.

The word “manners” is not a common word in the Bible.  The Greek word (ēthē) is used only here in the whole New Testament.  For that reason it is translated “good morals” (ASV, NASV, ESV), “good habits” (NKJV), “good character” (NIV), but preferably “good manners” because it means a manner of behavior, a settled habit, much as we use the word manners to describe self control or good conduct.  In other places we have the word “manner” (e.g. in verse 32, “the manner of men”) but that usually means the customary actions of people.

It is interesting also to realize that this is one of only a few places where Paul quotes extra-biblical sources (see also Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12).  This is almost an exact quote from Menander in his Thais.  Grosheide says,

It may be that this is not a direct quotation from Menander but that this line had become generally known.  If so, its value as a potent argument would be greatly increased for Paul would be telling these Greek Christians, who had gone back to their former pagan customs, that their own proverb warned them against their evil conduct.5

The point is that these Corinthian Christians were carnal because they had allowed false teaching which denied the resurrection of Christ, and this false teaching was corrupting their very manners.

The Corinthians’ bad manners

MacArthur points out that the Corinthians would have been aware that many of the Greek poets and historians had advocated bad behavior based on bad theology about life after death.  He writes,

The Greek historian Thucydides reported that when a deadly plague came to Athens, ‘People committed every shameful crime and eagerly snatched at every lustful pleasure.’  They believed life was short and there was no resurrection, so they would have to pay no price for their vice.  The Roman poet Horace wrote, ‘Tell them to bring wine and perfume and the too short-lived blossoms of the lovely rose while circumstance and age and the black threads of the three sisters fate still allow us to do so.’  Another poet, Catullus, penned the lines: “Let’s live my Lesbia and let’s love, and let’s value the tales of austere old men at a single half penny.  Suns can set and then return again, but for us when once our brief light sets there is but one perpetual night through which we must sleep.’6

Paul knew that bad manners results from bad theology.  As only Paul could do, he scolds the Corinthians for their historians’ advice by quoting their historian’s advice.  No theology is as bad as denying the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Lenski writes,

Paul intends to say in the present connection that association with deceivers who are full of skeptical ideas is bound to react hurtfully on the good ways of life (ethe) of Christians.  Instead of letting the divine truth mold their manner of living they let the false and insidious ideas of their associates mislead them.  Even one bad apple spreads rot among many others.  He who rejects the resurrection cannot live and act like one who truly believes this divine reality.7

Paul said the same thing twice, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6, Gal. 5:9).  The Corinthian problem permeates modern Christianity too.  We borrow manners or habits or lifestyles from the world without a care that they were born into the world by bad theology.  We sing the world’s music, we exercise to Yoga, we watch movies from New Age astrologers, we mark our bodies like pagan sun worshipers, we even riot in the streets like Nazi Brownshirts.  Evil communications have corrupted our manners.

Applications to make

1) Even lost people should have basic manners.  Human beings are made in the image and likeness of God their Creator.  We are not animals even though we may receive life and breath from the same source (Acts 17:25).  When any society forgets this, their civility will quickly be lost.  Kenneth Myers said,  “If the Noble Savage is the highest form of man, you can hardly protest if his table manners are deplorable.”8  A whole society can be brought to a higher level by the influence of a few believers or by laws that reflect their belief.  Of course, the Devil hates this, and the lost soul soon loathes the misunderstood restrictions.  As Chesterton said, “It is assumed that equality means all men being equally uncivil, whereas it obviously ought to mean all men being equally civil.”9  Look now at Western Europe and Great Britain that were influenced for centuries by the Reformation.  Now they loathe the expected public demeanor.  America is also losing its patience with a Christian history that has given us good manners as well as morals.  They will soon cast it off because the lost soul will not abide a lifestyle formed by a theology it no longer believes.  Don’t be deceived, Paul said.

2) Manners is not the same thing as salvation.  We often make the mistake of meeting someone who believes in God, maybe goes to church, and does a lot of good things, so we call him a Christian.  Again, human beings are capable of many good and wonderful things.  But good and wonderful works do not magically become grace.  “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).  Vance Havner said, “Greatness does not excuse unseemly behavior, it only makes such misconduct more serious.”10  The lack of civility ought to teach to repent rather than trust our own goodness.

3) A believer has a new source of information.  Once we are saved, regenerated by the Spirit of God, we are introduced to a whole new avenue of information:  revelation from God! Now we will accept the Bible as the Word of God and we have a built-in interpreter, the Holy Spirit.  Paul was glad for the salvation of the Thessalonians because, “when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God” (1 Thes. 2:13).  John told his readers, “But the anointing [Holy Spirit] which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you” (1 John 2:27).  John was also aware of false teachers who brought in error and bad manners with it.  “They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.  We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us.  Hereby know ye the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” (1 John 4:5-6).  These were “evil communications” that were corrupting good manners.

4) The believer’s new life raises his manners above his fellow earth dwellers.  We are not so much reclaiming a fallen culture as we are living out a new culture created in us as new creatures in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).  Paul showed that the works of the flesh are “contrary” to the fruit of the Spirit and that you “cannot” do the thing which is contrary to you (Gal. 5:17).  “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him; rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught” (Col. 2:6-7).  Again, Havner said, “Age and experience in the things of God do not accentuate our crudities, they remove them.”11

5) A believer’s manners are for the purpose of drawing the unsaved to Christ.  One way in which we see manners corrupted in our day is because we think we must become more like the world to win the world.  Jesus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16).  The Spirit desires the lost person to see his sin and then desire righteousness and then choose righteousness over sin.  “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16:8).  When Paul witnessed to Felix and his wife, “he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled” (Acts 24:25).  Years ago Eric Sauer wrote, “Enriched in Christ, the practical realization of these riches is now our duty.  This is at once our task and privilege.  The redeemed must live as redeemed.  Bearers of salvation must walk as saved.  They who possess heaven must be heavenly-minded.”  C.S. Lewis said, “Those who want Heaven most have served Earth best.  Those who love Man less than God do most for Man.”12

6) The believer’s manners should not, therefore, be corrupted by the world.  Paul has warned us, “Be not deceived’ (1 Cor. 15:33).  We should not let our manners be corrupted first and foremost because God has warned us not to let this happen.  That must be our highest priority.  We cannot apply a popular pragmatism and argue that we will accomplish more for God if we become like the world to win the world.  We can call it reclaiming culture, or following a cultural mandate, or even loving them so much we’re willing to change.  That would be a mistrust in what God has said.  Rather, we must strive to be what God has called us to be and trust that this will be the best for all these purposes.  Surely having God on our side is the best we could do.

C.H. Spurgeon wrote, “If Christ has died for me, ungodly as I am, without strength as I am, then I cannot live in sin any longer, but must arouse myself to love and serve Him who hath redeemed me.  I cannot trifle with the evil which slew my best Friend.  I must be holy for His sake.  How can I live in sin when He has died to save me from it?13

And So . . .

If the ship of state goes down, the church of Jesus Christ will not.  The future of Christ’s church depends not on any human organization but on the promises of God.  Yet the church has often, and will yet, go through troubled waters.  If those waters are created in this beloved country it will be because it loses its manners.  When the middle ground of manners disappears either totalitarianism or antinomianism will take over.  Right now we are watching the fight between these two, even in the extremes of political candidates.

How great it would be if Americans could again practice self-government or manners.  If we could police our own language, have respect for other peoples’ property or businesses, obey the laws of the land even when they are inconvenient, refuse to flaunt our crudities and nakedness in public, and even allow our neighbor to practice his faith in private and in public, we would keep the unwanted extremes from happening.  But the believer will do these things regardless of what the world does, and he will find his rest and inward peace in knowing God is pleased.

Notes:

  1. See my Aletheia website for articles from 10/95, 3/99, 6/02. www.aletheiabaptistministries.org
  2. D.A. Carson, Christ & Culture Revisited (Chicago: Eerdmans, 2008) 137.
  3. Os Guinness, Character Counts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999) 87.
  4. Quoted by Bruce Lockerbie, Dismissing God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 35.
  5. F.W. Grosheide, Commentary on First Corinthians, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, F.F. Bruce, Gen. Ed. (Eerdmans, 1979)378.
  6. John MacArthur, First Corinthians (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984) 429.
  7. R.C.H. Lenski, Interpretation of I and II Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub., 1963) 699.
  8. Kenneth Myers, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes (Wheaton: Crossway, 1989) 142.
  9. G.K. Chesterton, St. Francis of Assisi (New York: Doubleday, 1990) 99.
  10. Vance Havner, Rest Awhile (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1941) 84.
  11. Ibid., 83.
  12. C.S. Lewis, Present Concerns (New York: HBJ, 1986) 80.
  13. C.H. Spurgeon, Autobiography, Vol. I (Pasadena: Pilgrim Publications, 1992) 99.

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

The Christian in an Election Year

Written by Rick Shrader

The Christian in an Election Year

by Rick Shrader

%%tb-image-alt-text%%

Election year comes every four years, like it or not.  I don’t necessarily, even though I watch more cable news and read online news than in any other year.  When we could be anticipating March Madness and the NCAA tournament, we are more embroiled in Super Tuesday and March Sadness.  It saddens me because the political process of running for President inevitably draws good people into muddy and murky waters and seems to hang out the dirtiest of our national clothes.

Make no mistake, however, about the seriousness of this year’s election.  In fact, it seems that elections have grown more serious season by season throughout my lifetime.   We will be electing more than just a figure head sitting in the Oval Office tending to the affairs of Commander in Chief.  Our selection will determine Supreme Court Justices who now dictate (unfortunately) important moral issues for generations to come; we will set the direction for national security not only across the seas but in our homeland; we will turn the direction arrow for jobs in or out of our country; and we will decide whether we are an independent people or dependent on the rest of the world for our politics, our beliefs, our energy, our security, and even our faith.

In the midst of all these very important election year issues, I must remember first and foremost that I am a Christian whose “citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20) and that I am just a “stranger and pilgrim” (1 Pet. 2:11) on this earth and am waiting for a Savior Who will one glorious day bring in His rightful kingdom to this earth and override the authority of any human nation, including this one.  We know, until that day and while we are living here, we have a foot in both worlds and the one we have in this world is a stewardship from God.  How we live it and how we make decisions is important to Him.

I suppose I am considered part of the “evangelical” vote.  I would say so because I am born again according to the evangel, or the gospel, contained in the Scripture (1 Pet. 1:23-25).  However, it seems to me, “evangelical” has become a term that is now a mile wide and an inch deep.  We used to talk about the lack of true regeneration in the old mainline denominations (which is why the term evangelical was born). But “evangelical” has now become the new mainline denomination and I wonder if it is really evangelical in little more than name only.  It is so co-mixed with beliefs that even the Pope can throw evangelicals into a tizzy by questioning a candidate’s faith.  The explanations that followed were a hobo stew of theological beliefs and applications about whether we can even know if a person is truly born again.  But this is the “evangelical” vote.

I watch with sadness as some candidates, whom I accept as true believers in Jesus Christ, get caught up in the overwhelming current of political power and begin to act more like the world than like Christ.  Some claim to be Christian but not only don’t act or speak like it, but can’t even give a rational explanation of what that means.  Yet, on the other side of the political planet, the only other choices seem to be national suicide by sanctioned dishonesty or socialism, both of which are not the America we have known.

With a foot in both worlds then, before I delve into some warnings for the believer in this political year, let me also say that I believe a Christian can be a Christian in this world; I believe a Christian should vote; I believe a Christian can and often should run for and hold public office; I believe a Christian can not only vote for a Christian but often votes for a non-Christian who will be a blessing to Christians; I even believe that a Christian may vote for the least worst of two candidates precisely because this is not the kingdom of God and this world is not our home.

I am not intending to write a political article.  But I am intending to reflect on the pressures that are brought to bear on the believer during these political seasons.  When I say that a Christian “cannot” do this or that, I realize that we have disagreements among ourselves.  Yet I am also saying that the Scripture gives us clear direction in many areas of our lives that not even friendship, party affiliation, nor honest patriotism can override.

A Christian cannot dishonor civil authorities.

We know this is true from the plain statements of Scripture.  “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor” (Rom. 13:7).  “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king” (1 Pet. 2:17).  Jude was very harsh toward those who “despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities” and even used Michael as an example when he showed Satan respect for his position, he “durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee” (Jude 9).

Politics seems to have a magnetic negative effect even on Christian politicians.  It is like a giant black hole which draws him in until he is mixed with all the other negative, harsh, temperamental, and dishonoring speeches of political candidates.  This is similar to the Christian athlete who scores the points and goes into outlandish celebrations; or the singer who puts on the sour look and shouts out his angry lyrics.  This is hardly the “meekness and gentleness of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:1) with which Paul beseeched the church.

Why do these situations give the Christian permission to act unchristian?  Is the outcome more important than fellowship with Christ?  I know it is easy for me to say, but not even being President is more important than that.  It is just not a Christian virtue to berate a civil authority because it is necessary to do so in order to get elected.

A Christian cannot condone known immorality.

We know this also.  Isaiah said, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isa. 5:20).  The apostle John in speaking against false teaching, used a universal principle that appears throughout the Scripture, “For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 11.  See also 1 Cor. 10:21; Eph 5:6-11; Rev. 18:4).

I use the word “condone” because that is becoming a seminal issue for Christians in America.  A store owner may be able to sell a cake to a homosexual couple without condoning their immoral life-style, but he cannot cater their wedding without putting his stamp of approval on their sin.  A photographer may be able to take pictures of an aborted baby, but he cannot film the process for the benefit of the abortion clinic.  A Christian minister could never perform a wedding, which is to him a sacred ceremony in the eyes of a holy God, for a homosexual couple because he would be condoning their life-style.

A candidate for office or a voter in the voting booth cannot say by his platform or condone by his vote something that is immoral.  This is not to say that one could not cast a vote for a non-Christian who has the propensity for immoral actions sometime in his term of office.  All men, even Christian, have this fallen nature.  But if a man (or woman, of course) says he will kill babies or legalize same-sex marriages or actively seek to make Christian expression illegal, then a vote for him/her would be condoning that action.  Not all issues I would disagree with are necessarily immoral.  I may object to sending jobs to China, or closing a detention facility, or paying Saudi Arabia any more for oil, but these are not biblical immoralities.

A Christian cannot undermine Biblical authority.

A Christian does what he does because his conscience is convinced of Biblical truth.  For us, the Bible is God’s only written revelation and no king, potentate, president, or supreme court justice will be given a higher place of authority.  Jesus said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21).  Persecution comes upon Christians only in those societies where they are commanded to give to Caesar what belongs to God alone.  This they have not done, even at the cost of their own lives.

We thank God for America because all people have been given the right to practice their faith, whatever that may be, without undue interference from the government.  Christians have no problem with the limits placed upon that, i.e., that we cannot commit atrocities in the name of a religion which are forbidden by law.  Of course we would not want to murder, lie, or steal, in the name of our faith.  And, lesser laws that merely inconvenience us are things we agree to (building codes, zoning laws, safety regulations, etc.) because of the greater liberties we enjoy.

If I understand the first Baptist pioneer, Roger Williams, correctly, he strongly disagreed with his Pilgrim and Puritan friends about how this divided authority can work within a country of mixed faiths.  Whereas they tried to govern every aspect of societal life by the Bible, he allowed for non-believers to govern the religious part of their lives the way they wanted, as long as they obeyed the civil part.  Civil law may be able to oversee the second half of the Decalogue (love thy neighbor as thyself) but only a man’s conscience can oversee the first half (love the Lord thy God with all thy heart).  Thus was Providence founded in the wilderness called Rhode Island.

Christians generally loved the Roman Catholic supreme court justice Antonin Scalia because he seemed to understand this separation of authorities better than many evangelicals.  We loved that he described himself as a “textualist,” a term we often use to describe our own method of Biblical interpretation.  We loved that he sought in the constitution the “original intent” of the authors by keeping their writing in their historic context, a hermeneutic for the Bible that evangelicals hold dear also.

Christians will never be able to violate their Scripture for political convenience.  We feel the freedom of conscience eroding and the freedom to refuse unbiblical activity shrinking.  And I might add that we feel a strange and illogical undercurrent toward Sharia law (out of abject fear I suppose) which would establish a man-made terrorist theocracy, the very thing conservative Christians are falsely accused of wanting themselves.  It is also a strange day in our history when a political party advocates a candidate who openly promises a socialist form of government.

A Christian cannot justify unbelief.

Although the Christian can live in a mixed society and live in the presence of sin as long as he isn’t forced to condone it, and although he can allow his neighbor to live by any other faith, he cannot be asked to profess that there is any other true faith than the Christian faith.  I can live next to a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, an atheist, or a pagan (and I probably do) and be a friendly neighbor and give him his space.  But I can’t say to him that his faith is the true faith, or even that his faith is equal to mine.  Besides being wrong, it would be a lie and an outright hypocrisy.  Neither do I expect him to say the same to me!

We live in the arena of ideas and beliefs.  “Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world” (1 Jn. 4:4).  Christians believe that the Holy Spirit and the Word of God are more powerful in witness to the truth than any force in heaven or earth.  “Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” (1 John 4:6).  But politics places the Christian in a unique tension.  An elected official must represent all citizens, not just those of his own faith.  But to be true to his faith, he cannot be forced to say that all faiths are equally true.  Yes, he must defend the rights of all faiths equally, but he must do that without compromising the one true faith which he believes.

The one obvious caveat to this part of the discussion is that America’s documents give credence to the Christian faith and base their purpose on it rather than on all faiths.  Therefore the Christian politician does have a right to refer to his Creator and the unalienable rights He gives to people, rights which human governments cannot take away.  Anyone who has walked the halls of congress, or the supreme court building, or the historic monuments in Washington D.C., knows how much our history is inscribed with the Christian Scriptures.  That is not being bigoted, it is being honest with history.

A Christian cannot replace kingdom with country.

Our Jehovah Witness friends cannot put their hand on their heart and pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.  But I can.  They believe that if they do so they are placing human authority above God’s authority in their lives.  But I don’t.  And we have always allowed them to refrain out of respect for their conscience, just as we allow conscientious objectors to abstain from violent military service.  Justice Scalia said that he thought that protestors had the right to dishonor the flag, but he hated them doing it.

I can pledge allegiance to my country’s flag because I understand what I’m doing.  I am not saying, “I pledge allegiance to the flag above the cross.”  I’m not saying, “and to the Republic for which it stands above the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ.”  No.  I am merely recognizing an earthly arrangement, an arrangement to which God Himself tells me to be obedient and respectful.  I stood at a marriage altar forty two years ago and vowed to love my bride above all others.  I was not being untrue to my Savior Who once said, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26).  When God said, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated” (Rom. 9:13), He was merely saying that He placed Jacob before Esau.  Similarly, I have to place God before my wife, and likewise I have to place God before my country.  By acknowledging my earthly responsibility to wife or country, I am not dishonoring God, I am honoring Him by keeping all earthly and heavenly relationships in proper order.

A politician or a common citizen must acknowledge this dichotomy while also keeping his relationship to both intact.  I think that sometimes Christians begin to speak of country and constitution as equal or even above God and Scripture.  But I think this is an uncareful, or at best, inaccurate way of expressing kingdom and country.  Someone said, “If the Ship of State goes down, our little compartment goes with it.”  Now I don’t believe that at all.  The church will be the church in America and in Russia, in freedom and in persecution.  The gates of hell itself cannot prevail against God’s church.  Still, I do not want the Ship of State to go down because it is a good Ship, it has been a friend of my faith, and I know how to give to Caesar his things, and how to give to my God His things.

And So . . .

I believe that Christians can make the best political candidates, or the worst.  They can be the best when they are true to their faith and display Christian character at all times.  When they do not, they give the enemies of our God cause to blaspheme.  Being a political figure may be the hardest job in the world for a Christian to do and I don’t envy them in that.  We should be as Paul, “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Tim. 2:1-2).

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Cross, Creation and also Prophecy

Written by Rick Shrader

Cross, Creation and also Prophecy

by Rick Shrader

%%tb-image-alt-text%%

There are three great mountain peaks of importance in Biblical history.  First and foremost is Calvary.  The cross is the center of all God’s workings with this world.  If the believer could say with Paul, “I determined not to know any thing among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2), he would know the most important fact of all history.  A second fact of history is creation.  It is amazing how many times God confirms His Word or His attributes with references to creation.  He did this with Job (chapters 38 & 39); the Psalms are filled with them (e.g. 19 & 104); as are the prophets (see Isa. 40); and the New Testament continues the pattern (Acts 14:17; 17:24-34; Rom. 1:20; Col. 1:16; Rev. 4:11 and many more).  A third fact of history is prophecy.  And this fact is the one most neglected at this present time.

Although I love to learn about creation especially with reference to evolution, and I know how important understanding creation is to a firm belief in God’s Word, I also believe that a firm grasp of prophetic events is essential today especially if, as I surely believe, we are living in the last days.  Noel Smith, one of my professors in Bible College, always challenged the freshmen students to get an early and firm grasp on Genesis chapter one because this would serve them well throughout their coming ministry.  This advice has been substantiated throughout our lives.  But I would also say that if a young man would fully study the Bema Seat of Christ and live in the light of what will happen there, it will serve him even better in his ministry.

Within my lifetime the interest in prophecy has decreased substantially among the churches.  The Bible conferences of the early twentieth century were primarily prophetic conferences.  Bible Colleges, Study Bibles, prophetic books with color charts all encouraged a young generation to look for future things and evangelize in light of them.  But we seem to have lost interest, or at least the interest has been overshadowed by other things.  Yet this is what the Bible predicts will happen in the end times (2 Peter 3:3-4; 1 Thes. 5:3; Matt. 24:12; 1 Tim. 4:1 and 2 Tim. 3:1-5).  Even creation, as important as it is, is the past, whereas prophecy is yet to happen.  Creation is history to us, but prophetic things may well be contemporary to us and our children.  There is no more profound statement in Scripture than Matt. 24:21, “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, nor,  ever shall be.  And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved.”  Do we really believe the Lord’s statement is true?  If so, how could anything be more urgent than understanding and preparing for that?  The world will not be destroyed again with water, but it will be destroyed by fire (2 Pet. 3:6-7) and our generation may be the very one to suffer in that time.

The following are seven reasons why we need to revive prophetic preaching in our day.

Time:  the greatest obstacle

One thing is certainly true about the second coming of Christ, it is nearer than it has ever been before.  Peter explained (2 Pet. 3) that the scoffers in the last days will argue that it has been a long time since creation and all things continue as they always have been, and therefore we need not worry about the future.  Peter answers that time is nothing with God (“one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day”) and, in fact, the day of the Lord is coming as a thief in the night.

It is true that some of the prophetic preaching of a generation ago was too sensational and even included some date setting, predictions and so forth.  But I can’t help but think how God’s people were encouraged by looking at the current world situation and realizing that the stage could be set for prophetic things to begin.  Well if the stage was set then, how much more today?  I don’t think the good preachers of yesterday could have imagined how the world could have gotten worse, or how the world could be more ready for the coming of Christ, but it is.  Yet, tragically, there is less preaching on the coming of Christ, not more.

Imminency:  the greatest urgency

To pretribultionists the return of Jesus Christ in the air (the rapture) can happen at any moment.  “Other things may happen before the imminent event, but nothing else must take place before it happens.  If something else must take place before an event can happen, that event is not imminent. . . By an imminent event we mean one which is certain to occur at some time, uncertain at what time.”1  John said, “the time is at hand” (Rev. 1:3).  Peter said, “But the end of all things is at hand” (1 Pet. 4:7).  James was most descriptive when he said, “Behold, the judge standeth before the door” (Jas. 5:9).  Our Judge is at the door, we should “all rise” at attention.

Since Jesus may come at any moment, the truth of tribulation passages becomes very urgent.  No one can read Revelation chapters 4-19 and desire to be in that wrathful time nor want anyone else to be.  When Jude tells us to look “for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life” (Jude 21), he also tells us “of some have compassion, making a difference: and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire” (22-23).  This imminency demands attention to evangelism.

Rapture:  the greatest cataclysm

The study of Biblical history, including creation, is a study of the great cataclysms that have shaken and changed the world:  creation out of nothing; the fall into sin; the universal flood; the tower of Babel; the resurrection of Jesus Christ; and the last remaking of the universe when the elements will melt with a fervent heat and there will be a new heaven and a new earth (2 Pet. 3:12-13).  But consider the rapture among these great events.  For those alive when it happens, it will be the most cataclysmic event since the universal flood of Noah’s day!

Every time I read 1 Thessalonians and come to 4:13-18, I slow down and think to myself what effect this will have upon the whole world.  The dead in Christ stand up, then all the living saints join them in the clouds to meet the Lord there!  We are talking millions of resurrected and millions of living saints ripped from this earth, from loved ones and from neighbors, and being totally gone.  Do we really believe such a thing will happen and in fact might happen at any moment?

To the believer this is a mixed emotion.  It is “the blessed hope” (Tit. 2:13) of the church for which we are to “look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:21).  Yet, we know it will be a cut off time for many, “for when they say peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them” (1 Thes. 5:3), “that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thes. 2:12).  This is the next great cataclysm in world history.

Tribulation:  the greatest judgment

To the question of why God doesn’t seem to do anything about the violence and suffering, the hatred and war, the murder and immorality, the answer is that He is longsuffering.  Peter tells us that this longsuffering is for the sake of those who are headed for perishing (2 Pet. 3:9).  The coming tribulation period is a time of awful judgment for the world’s sins committed throughout this age of grace.  It is also a time of “Jacob’s trouble” (Jer. 30:7) when God will bring the last judgment upon His own people for their rejection of their Messiah Jesus Christ, and for their reception of the false Messiah, antichrist.

When the seals are opened, a fourth of the living are killed with sword, hunger, and death (Rev. 6:8).  When the trumpets sound, a third of life in the sea, and “many men” die (Rev. 8:9-11).  When the vials are poured out it is for the “wrath of God” (Rev. 16:1) and by this “was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone (Rev. 9:18).  Paul says that it “is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you . . . In flaming fire taking vengeance upon them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thes. 1:6-8).  It will end at Armageddon when Jesus will “tread the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God” (Rev. 19:15).

We must warn people of this coming tribulation as we warn people of hell itself.  We are the watchmen on the wall who see the evil coming.  Jesus said, “the tribes of the earth will mourn” (Matt. 24:30) and John said, “all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him” (Rev. 1:7).

Armor:  the greatest witness

When Peter writes of the destruction of the present earth, he says that we must therefore be a holy people “in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God” (2 Pet. 3:11-12).  Now is not the time for worldliness in our personal lives or our methodology.  This is a time for holy armor.   Paul will repeat this need many times, “wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day” (Eph. 6:13); “The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light” (Rom. 13:12); “Behold now is the accepted time; behold now is the day of salvation . . . By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left” (2 Cor. 6:2, 7); “But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for a helmet, the hope of salvation” (1 Thes. 5:8).

It is because we do not wrestle against flesh and blood but against  principalities and powers who are Satan’s emissaries in high places (Eph. 6:12) that we must have this armor on.  Paul reminded Timothy that, “in the latter days some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 3:1).  Satan is organized and has a doctrine that he uses against believers, especially those who have on the armor.  When Paul was in Ephesus the demon said to the Jewish exorcist, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?” (Acts 19:15).  We should ask ourselves, do the demons know me?  Am I enough of a risk to their plans that I make any difference?

Evangelism:  the greatest motivation

I mean by this that prophecy furnishes us with the greatest motivation to evangelize, and I have already made this point in various ways.  Consider hell itself.  None of us can really fathom the eternal nature of a lake of fire which is real, hot, and long (see Rev. 14:10-11).  I must say that if I understand anything about it at all, I would not wish that eternity on anyone, not even my worst enemy or the most evil person in the world: not on Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein.  Paul said, “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3).  These were the people who tried to kill him, who hated him for his change of religion, who taught him that it was a service to God to kill Christians.  It perhaps was, that when Paul was taken up to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12), he also caught a glimpse of the reality of an eternal hell, and it formulated his whole evangelistic point of view.

But even more than that, human beings are image-bearers of the eternal God.  “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16).  If God loves the vilest of sinners and was willing to die for his soul, who am I not to care about his salvation?  Prophecy clearly informs us of the sinner’s terrible destiny.  I realize also that Satan hates the sinner and wishes his damnation.  It is through Satan’s lies that the sinner will not believe or be delivered from the wrath to come.  “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not” (2 Cor. 4:4); “And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will” (2 Tim. 2:26); and perhaps worst of all, “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thes. 2:11-12).  Could it be true, that refusing the gospel now will greatly hinder a person’s reception of the gospel in that time of tribulation?

Hope:  the greatest cleansing

The rapture is “the blessed hope” (Tit. 2:13).  Christ in us is “the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27).  “We are saved by hope” (Rom. 8:24).  The apostle John said of prophecy and hope, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.  And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1 John 3:2-3).  Prophetic studies and the expectancy of the return of Christ are the greatest motivators to our progressive sanctification.

David wrote, “As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, in thy likeness” (Psa. 17:15).  Paul said, “we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body” (Phil. 3:21).  “As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly” (1 Cor. 15:49).

Some might say that living godly because we might be caught in  sin when Jesus appears is an improper motivation.  But is it?  Isn’t that part of the reason for the Bema Seat?  “Wherefore we labor, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.  For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:9-10).  We know that we will not be judged for the guilt of our sin.  That judgment took place on the cross, and praise God for that!  But the reward or loss of reward is based on how we run the race.  Sanctification is progressive for the believer, and we should want to be progressing not digressing when He appears.

And So . . . .

I had more thoughts than these.  The apostles constantly preached the kingdom of God as our future reward and as the culmination of God’s progressive program.  The New Jerusalem as the Father’s House prepared for us outshines anything we have known on this earth.  And perhaps greatest of all, we shall see Him face to face, Who loved us and gave Himself for us.  Amazing love! How can it be that thou my God shouldst die for me?

A few days ago I heard a recorded message of old J. Vernon McGee preaching on the second coming of Christ.  McGee died in 1988 but he, though dead, yet speaks.  I couldn’t help but think how his older manner and his southern drawl probably turns off most listeners today.  I could only wish that my own voice would have a portion of the influence that his rusty old voice still has.  Especially twenty eight years after I’m gone!  They also said of the apostle Paul, “his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible” (2 Cor. 10:10).  We are not here to tickle the ears of our generation but to be, like Noah, preachers of righteousness in the face of coming disaster.  May God help us to be such in these latter days.

Notes:

Renald Showers, Maranatha Our Lord Come! (Bellmawr, NJ:  Friends of Israel, 2013) 127.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

The State of the Church in 2016

Written by Rick Shrader

The State of the Church in 2016

by Rick Shrader

%%tb-image-alt-text%%

Every year I give a State of the Church address to the church I pastor.  This is usually directed toward our small local church and what challenges we may face in the coming year.  Of course, we are not alone in the coming year.  All local churches will face  whatever comes, and God alone knows just what that may be.  2016 is an election year in the United States which could be the best of times or the worst of times.  Our world is increasingly chaotic and lacks the necessary leadership to do anything about it.  Christianity is under attack by Satan and his false apostles both globally and locally because of its very name and message and also because of its spiritual influence in the world in which Satan rules.  What this means is that God’s people, wherever they live and worship, must be more diligent than ever to keep their hearts and minds in the right place.

This year I used as my text 1 Thessalonians 1:1 where Paul greets the believers saying, “unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ.”  Two important things are said here.  First, the church is of Thessalonica.  It is a local church that exists in a certain locale at that time.  The same is said in 2 Thessalonians 1:1, Colossians 1:2, and in similar ways in other books.  Second, the church is in God because they are believers in Jesus Christ and are spiritually connected with Him through regeneration.  In the rest of the epistle Paul also connects this church with other churches in their own country of Macedonia and even with other churches in the world such as in Judea.  In a turbulent world full of hatred for Christians, this is a comforting thought.  This can be developed in the following four ways.

The church in the mind of God

The church of Thessalonica was “in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ.”  Paul never has difficulty enumerating the responsibilities of the persons of the Godhead.  God is one in essence manifested in three persons.  If we are in Christ, and the believer is said to be over sixty times in the New Testament, placed there by Spirit baptism at the moment of our salvation, then we are in God the Father also.  The local church of the New Testament is a baptized gathering of God’s people, taken from among the universal church of God, the church that exists only in this dispensation of grace.

The church, then, is a mystery.  “Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints” (Col. 1:26).  “That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel” (Eph. 3:6).  The church is God’s program for this age, unseen in ages before, but now manifested through the workings of the gospel.  God does not leave His church without purpose and protection.

Though the church is manifested at this time in history, it was seen in the mind of God before the foundation of the world.  “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love” (Eph. 1:4).  Regardless of where one is on the Calvinistic scale, it is a comfort to know that God, from all eternity, has seen His church in this current situation, with all of its troubles and opposition, and has designed the circumstances with us in mind.  “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Eph. 1:5-6).

The church, then, also has a future.  “Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen” (Eph. 3:20-21).  We may leave this world in one of a number of ways.  We could die suddenly by accident or illness; we could live to old age or we could be raptured out if the Lord would come.  Our Lord has gone ahead to prepare a place in the Father’s house which will be our eternal abode.  That existence will more than compensate for whatever discomfort we may experience between now and then.  If God is for us, who can be against us?

The church in the world

A second consideration for the church in the new year is that our local church is one of many that exist in this world, around the globe.  Paul also wrote to the Thessalonians, “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews” (1 Thes. 2:14).  The local churches across the sea in Judea were also earthly representatives of those who are “in Christ Jesus” and were their brothers and sisters in tribulation.  I am using the word “world” now in a global sense and not in the other biblical usage where it is said that Satan is “the god of this world” or the kosmos.   The little Greek word gē is usually translated
earth” and in English becomes the geo, as in geology, or the study of the earth.  God declares, “Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool” (Isa. 66:1; Acts 7:49).  John saw four angels “standing on the four corners of the earth” (Rev. 7:1).  But in speaking of churches Paul wrote, “Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named” (Eph. 3:15).

This connection of churches was very precious to Paul, especially during those times of trial when brethren in other parts of the world were being persecuted for their faith.  We live in such times.  I am not necessarily speaking of “Christianity” in a broad, generic or “Christendom” sense though even that is being condemned in the world as well.  The world knows no better than to lump all “Christian” things together.  I remember being in Israel where our Jewish guide only spoke of three world religions:  Jews, Muslims, and Christians.  But I am speaking of our true brothers and sisters who gather in churches like ours and worship the Lord “in reverence and godly fear.”  Most still do so legally, and face only ridicule or hatred.  “Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin” (Heb. 12:4), the writer of Hebrews declared.  Yet many must gather and worship in fear of physical harm.  Some are underground, and others meet, waiting for the knock on the door by the civil authorities.  In Judea, after Christ’s resurrection, Jesus appeared to them “when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews” (John 20:19).

This reminder of the church in the world should exhort us to communicate with our churches and missionaries in other parts of the world.  It ought to encourage us to pray more, to support more, to communicate with them and even visit their lands.  This sense of universal brotherhood and fellow servanthood will encourage all the churches both home and abroad.

The church in our own country

During his missionary journeys, Paul spent much time in the Thessalonians’ own country.  “So that ye were examples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia.  For from you sounded out the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad” (1 Thes. 1:7-8).  This was common with biblical writers.  Peter begins his epistle, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Pet. 1:1).  Thessalonica, Philippi, and Berea were cities in Macedonia, the northern province of Greece, whereas Corinth and Athens were cities in the southern province, Achaia.  When Paul took up the offering (in 2 Corinthians 8-9) he was concerned about how the churches of Macedonian and Achaia would encourage or discourage one another in that joint ministry to the saints in Judea.

Our local church is in the United States of America.  We have our unique challenges here just as other churches have in their own countries.  Our church falls under the laws and jurisdiction of America and we are thereby instructed in the Scripture to be obedient and give unto this country all that we can that does not belong to God alone.  While we understand that the New Testament church is not just an American church, we certainly realize that we are especially blessed to be a church in America.  So far in our history it has been a wonderful privilege to be a Christian and attend a Christian church in this country.  The laws and benefits have been designed for our advantage and we are thankful.  Most Christians throughout the church age have not had such a blessing.

Our generation, however, is looking down the slippery slope of losing these privileges.  We are rightly concerned about what kind of country our kids and grandkids will live in.  We look with historical solemnity at the countries of France, Germany, and England.  We realize that our earthly, national circumstances are not guaranteed to us until Jesus comes.  The American experiment of a proper separation of church and state has been a blessing, not only to our churches, but to churches all over the world because of God’s blessing upon America.  We have sent more money, supplies, missionaries, and gospel preaching all over the globe than any other country in history.  And now, in this technological age, we could be the source again, of rich blessings to God’s churches.  But will we?

No one needs statistics or polls to tell them that our freedoms are in danger.  Antichristian legalities are mounting against Christian churches and Christian businesses daily.  Non-Christian beliefs are overtaking Christian beliefs in schools, governments, entertainment, sports, and are being given more protection than Christianity.  The threat of physical safety within the church building or meeting place is a phenomenon unheard of in past generations in this country.  The heresies of secularism, mysticism, occultism, not to mention the major cults that are now accepted as “Christian,” are now acceptable options for the compartmentalized minds of American youth.  And if these things aren’t enough, the worldliness, indecency, and vulgarity of the American culture are sure signs of its imminent destruction.

What to do?  Paul complimented the Thessalonians that “ye were examples to all that believe . . . For from you sounded out the word of the Lord . . . Your faith to God-ward is spread abroad . . . Ye turned to God from idols . . . To wait for his Son from heaven” (1 Thes. 1:7-10).  New Testament business is the best plan for the church in any country.  Our churches must again be more retreat and training centers for our faith and less entertainment platforms that only tickle the ears.  The church needs to be the church again, salt and light in a tasteless and dark country.

The church in our city

The church at Thessalonica was not only “in God” but it was “of the Thessalonians.”  Paul wrote also “To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse” (Col. 1:2), and “To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi” (Phil. 1:1), and similarly to all the churches that have city names.  The local church of the New Testament is local because it is made up of believers in a certain place.  Paul was only in Thessalonica for three weeks (Acts 17:1-9) on his second missionary journey before being forced to leave, but that was enough to leave a great church behind.

Usually when Paul preached in a certain city, some believed and some did not.  In Thessalonica for example, “Some of them believed and consorted with Paul and Silas . . . But the Jews which believed not . . .”  (Acts 17:4-5).  This same thing resulted even on Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17:32-34).  Such is the case in the towns where we all minister.  In fact, far fewer believe than do not.  Even years ago when I was an associate pastor at a church in the Chicago suburbs, my job was to knock doors every day.  Roughly speaking, the results were that I had to knock on ten doors to get one positive response, and I had to get ten positive responses to actually have one of them visit our church, and I had to have ten visit our church to get one to stay around.

But the results are not as much of our concern as the work.  Paul complimented the church at Thessalonica because “our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance”  (1Thes. 1:5).  And of them he wrote, “For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing” (1 Thes. 1:8).  Also, “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe” (1 Thes. 2:13).  The word “effectually,” energēs, is the same word translated “powerful” in Hebrews 4:12, “For the word of God is quick (living) and powerful.”  That is, it will do its work if we will just let it.

I think Paul wanted to win the Thessalonians to the Lord as much as anyone.  But I don’t think he was at all interested in having false converts.  I don’t recall him bragging about how many converts, baptisms, or the size of attendance he had in particular churches.  In fact, in Corinth he downplayed the number of baptisms (1 Cor. 1:13-17).  But Paul seems very concerned at Thessalonica about how the Word of God is presented, because it is the Word itself that is powerful and will draw men to Christ.  A famous evangelist was riding on a train one time when a drunken man came up to him and announced that he was one of the evangelist’s converts.  “You look like one of my converts” was the reply.  I could give a list of similar results.

At the end of this first epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul writes, “I charge you by the Lord, that this epistle be read unto all the only brethren” (1 Thes. 5:27).  The church had to be gathered in order for the letter to be read, and maybe that’s why Paul calls them “holy,” because they would be the ones who attend the services and hear it.  I am only pointing out the importance of being engaged in one’s local church, and putting one’s family in a position to be used of God in a most blessed way.

The church in your house

The Thessalonians were to “study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; that ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing” (1 Thes. 4:11-12).  Since the people are the church, not the brick and mortar, and since we only meet together periodically, as members we all bring the church home with us the rest of the time.  We live the church in front of our children; we covenant with it in our conversation and actions; we build it up in our thoughts and prayers for one another; and we testify of it to our neighbors and friends.  If we are hypocrits at home, the church is an anemic church.

And so . . .

Paul told the Corinthians to “Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32).  Let that be our resolution in 2016.  He also said to them “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular” (1 Cor. 12:27).  We are spiritually connected to every believer in every part of the world, and yet we are vitally connected to those with whom we assemble.  The lost world needs us more than ever before.  Let’s let the church be the church and let God do His work through us.

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Why Do We Have Baptists in the First Pla...

Written by Matt Shrader

Why Do We Have Baptists in the First Place?

by Matt Shrader

%%tb-image-alt-text%%

In a day and age when Southern Baptists are the largest Protestant denomination in America and Baptist churches are seemingly everywhere, it is easy to ask what Baptists are all about and even why are they so prevalent. There is no short answer but I think that a brief general account of their beginnings can help begin to answer these questions. Since their beginnings, Baptists have recognized a few ideas as important for the life of a local church and hopefully you can see them through this short paper.

A Note about Origin Theories:

There are three general theories for the beginnings of Baptists. The first is that they have their origins in the New Testament and there is a thread of Baptist churches (though not called that by name) all throughout the church’s history. The second is that Baptists have their origins in the Anabaptist Reformation of the sixteenth century. The third is that Baptists have their origins in the later English Reformation of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century. Very few hold to the first view anymore and those who hold the second are dwindling as well.1 The reasons have to do with the ability to show genetic connection (i.e., direct influence and historical connection) either explicitly or implicitly.2 Travelling backward through time Baptists trace a clear line to the London Confession of Faith in 1644, wherein a few defining ideas are crystallized. But, how much farther back can we go? We need to find those who made this confession and those who first held the central ideas contained in this confession.

Reformation in England:

The Reformation in England began under the reign of Henry VIII though it did not take permanent hold until Elizabeth I came to the throne in 1558.3 In general terms, the Church of England was “Protestant in theology but largely medieval in its pattern of worship and liturgy and in which the monarch held the reins of power.”4 It did not take long before several were unsatisfied at the extent of reformation. The Puritans sought to continue the English Reformation within the Church of England. The Separatists felt that they needed to leave the Church of England in order to attain the reformation they wanted. Out of these Separatists and Puritans came Baptists and their ideas.5

Robert Browne was one Separatist whose famous works, A Treatise of Reformation Without Tarrying for Anie and A Booke Which Sheweth the Life and Manners of All True Christians, provided a seminal presentation of the idea that the government could not compel religion, plant churches, or govern the activities of churches. The Separatists differed from the Puritans over the nature of the church. B. R. White explains it like this: “The Church was claimed to be a fellowship of believers which must be separated from the ungodly and the uncommitted. … The Congregation had power to appoint and, if need be, to dismiss its ministers. Final authority lay with the whole body of the congregation.”6 And so Puritans and Separatists, though both disagreeing with the Church of England on the extent of the Reformation, also disagreed with each other.

The Puritans experienced difficulties when Richard Bancroft became Archbishop of the Church of England in 1604 and began his heavy anti-Puritan polemic. In regard to the Separatists, persecution arose because of the growth of churches outside the government’s jurisdiction. “Their very act of separation from the established Church was regarded at the time as a manifestation of civil disobedience.”7 Browne actually recanted his views on government involvement in religion. His ideas continued, though, with great political consequence. Some recanted, many were imprisoned, some died in prison, a few were executed, and others fled to Holland for religious refuge. Among those that fled to Holland, the most important for Baptist history are the figures of John Smyth and Thomas Helwys.

General Baptists:

After a few Separatist groups began to gather in Holland, differences arose. John Smyth was one pastor who took his congregation out of England to avoid persecution. When they arrived in Amsterdam, they were not the first separatist congregation. And, they had important differences with the current separatist church led by Francis Johnson. They disagreed over the duties of a pastor, the number of required pastors, and the general way the church was to be run. The result was that the churches separated from each other, including a group within Smyth’s church that disagreed with their pastor, with a group relocating to Leiden and then eventually sailing to the New World and Plymouth, Massachusetts.

Smyth continued his controversial career by becoming the first separatist to reject infant baptism. Since he doubted much that came from the Church of England, he concluded that his infant baptism within that church was suspect. Upon investigation of the Bible he rejected infant baptism and affirmed credo-baptism (baptism only after confession of faith). He then compounded the controversy when he baptized himself and his church. As can be understood, many challenged these ideas and accused Smyth of being influenced by Anabaptists. This accusation was serious because Anabaptists were generally seen through the lens of the notorious Münster rebellion in 1534-1535. Smyth decided to approach an Anabaptist group in Amsterdam known as the Waterlander Mennonites to discuss their views of baptism and church government. As he was searching this out, Smyth was convinced of the view of salvation taught by Jacobus Arminius and being debated throughout Holland. This general view of election (as opposed to particular) became a denoting factor among later Baptists. After speaking with the Waterlanders, Smyth decided his own baptism had been hasty and so he assimilated into their congregation.

Not all of Smyth’s church agreed with this plan. Thomas Helwys (pronounced “Ellis”) was a deacon in Smyth’s church who had agreed with Smyth up to the point of denouncing his baptism at the hands of Smyth. When Smyth decided to join the Waterlanders, Helwys’s group returned to England and implanted their Baptist ideas into English soil. Importantly, Helwys was a strong advocate for religious liberty. His book, A Short Treatise on the Mistery of Iniquity (1612), was the first book arguing for religious toleration written in England. This idea attacked not only the Church of England, but also the Puritans and Separatists. Smyth published his book advocating religious liberty at about the time he returned to England. He was promptly arrested and died in prison a few years later. The views of his congregation, which included credo-baptism, religious liberty, church leadership through a multiplicity of pastors, and a general view of the atonement, were successful and multiplied their numbers in the coming decades.8

Particular Baptists:

Particular Baptists hold to a more Calvinistic view of salvation than the General Baptists. They also had their origins more among the Puritans and had a much larger following. Most historians point to the London church pastored successively by Henry Jacob, John Lathrop, and Henry Jessey as an important root of the Particular Baptist movement. Under Jacob and Lathrop, the church was a Puritan church that believed true churches did exist in the Church of England, but they needed reforming. This church produced at least two Separatist offshoots and saw both Jacob and Lathrop emigrate to the New World. When Jessey became the pastor in 1637 it continued on the same line until the issue of infant baptism came up.

In 1638, a famous document, “The Kiffen Manuscript”, noted that several people rejected infant baptism and were instead baptized as believers. They joined a church lead by John Spilsbury, which is probably the first Particular Baptist Church in England. The Jessey church was doing well in this time and split for the sake of its size in 1640. Again, baptism became an issue. This time the discussion was around the mode of baptism. Richard Blunt, a member of the church was convinced that baptism should be done only by the mode of immersion, based on Colossians 2:12 and Romans 6:4. Under the blessing of his church, he was sent to Holland to speak to Mennonites (the Collegiants) about this interpretation of scripture. When he returned, he began the practice of immersion. This spread to other churches within London, including the Spilsbury church.

Within London there were at least seven Particular Baptist churches by 1644. They did not all agree on immersion, but they did agree on credo-baptism. This created a great controversy within London as they were accused of being Anabaptists, among other things. Their response to this situation was historic. Michael Haykin describes it like this: “In order to dispel this confusion, refute other charges that had been leveled against them, and demonstrate their fundamental solidarity with Calvinists throughout Western Europe, these Particular Baptists issued the First London Confession of Faith in 1644.”9

The difference of this confession of Faith, which was reissued in a second 1646 edition, with anything prior is important. It differs from the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, the Separatist Confession of 1596, and the contemporaneous Westminster Confession of Faith (1646). The main areas of difference cannot be overstated as they provided a self-understanding for these Baptists that distinguished them from other groups.10 The first area of difference was that the church was comprised of only converted believers (not infants) and they must be baptized as a confession of faith. Second, the authority of the pastor was placed under the rule of the church as a whole. Third, each church was autonomous from the State and from each other. While these ideas are important, it should be remembered that these Baptists did not see themselves as acting out of line with the history of the Church. Their confession contained the important new differences but also the important agreements they had with the Christian tradition.

Conclusion:

While I traced a different history between the General and the Particular Baptists, it should be remembered that their ideas were not completely distinct, even in the ideas of salvation, where specifically they agreed with one another on conversion, baptism, and local church autonomy.

The previous Aletheia article contained a historical exposition of the Anabaptist Balthasar Hubmaier and his understanding of believers’ baptism. While he and many other Anabaptist leaders held to this important idea, they did not hold to other ideas central to Baptists. Indeed, the one or two places where we can trace Baptists being influenced by Anabaptists (Mennonites in Holland for example), they refused to join the Anabaptists because of their differences. Further, the London Confession of 1644 had as one purpose to distinguish themselves from Anabaptists largely because of the political stigma surrounding the name. Genetically and self-confessedly, Baptists come out of the later English Reformation. The ferment created by the ongoing debates concerning the nature of the church resulted in the unification of a new group of people around a particular set of ideas, while also not rejecting theological ideas central to orthodox Protestantism and the Christian tradition.

One unique part in the origins of the Baptists is the political circumstance of England at the time. The political circumstances that allowed or persecuted different viewpoints from the Roman Catholic Church to the Church of England to Puritans to Separatists to Baptists all were dependant on the legality of their beliefs at certain times. And, for the decades following the London Confession of 1644 and 1646, England found itself to be politically tolerant of dissenting views as a result of the English Civil war and then the subsequent rule of Oliver Cromwell (1642-1651, 1651-1658). These decades of tolerance, and the spread of Baptist ideas through soldiers in Cromwell’s army, led to Baptist growth in England, Ireland, and Wales. After Cromwell’s death in 1658, religious toleration ended and persecution resumed. That is the time when early Baptists such as John Bunyan preached, but that is a story for another day.

As the offspring of the English Puritans and Separatists, Baptists since their beginnings have also recognized the importance of a church continually learning and reforming. They looked to fashion their church practices based on their understanding of Scripture but also within a confessional structure faithful to the beliefs of historic Christianity. Conversion prior to baptism and church membership, the autonomy of each church, and the plea for religious liberty stood at the center of this fresh understanding. Several centuries later these ideas are at still at the center of Baptist belief and practice.

Final thoughts about studying history

I have written the last four articles about church history and then about a couple moments in church history. In the first two I spent my time giving the why and the how. In the last two I spent my time showing examples of putting these historical practices to work. The two examples are worth contrasting. The article on Hubmaier pays attention to the historical situation of Hubmaier but gives the majority of the space to actually diving into the writing of Hubmaier. In contrast, the article on Baptist beginnings pays attention to the actual ideas but spends more time on the historical situation. In both articles, the ideas and the historical situations are important. And, for the Baptist beginnings article I did spend time reading some of the primary works, like was done with Hubmaier. While it is important to do solid historical work as I outlined in the second article, the ultimate goal is to understand not only what is being said but more importantly what the people are doing with what they say. When we get at those questions, then history begins to teach and challenge us.

And, we must remember why history is important. We are fallen human beings who are limited in our understanding. God accommodated to our weaknesses by giving us Scripture. The Holy Spirit inspired the words of Scripture and the Spirit indwells and illumines believers from all ages. When Spirit-indwelled believers in their own historical situations offer their Spirit-illuminated understandings of Scripture, we would do well to try our best to understand and learn from them.

Notes:

  1. William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); and Malcolm B. Yarnell III, The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2013).
  2. One great source for this discussion is: Stephen Wright, The Early English Baptists, 1603-1649 (Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 2006), 1-11.
  3. For a general overview of the English Reformation, a good start is: Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Later Reformation in England, 1547-1603, second edition (Houndsmill, UK: Palgrace, 2001).
  4. Anthony L. Chute, Nathan A. Finn, and Michael A. G. Haykin, The Baptist Story: From English Sect to Global Movement (Nashville, B & H Academic, 2015), 14.
  5. David W. Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries: A History of a Global People (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2010), 7-41; and Thomas S. Kidd and Barry Hankins, Baptists in America: A History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 1-7.
  6. B. R. White, The English Separatist Tradition: From the Marian Martyrs to the Pilgrim Fathers (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), 166.
  7. White, The English Separatist Tradition, 87.
  8. Though, Bebbington relates that the later General Baptists may or may not have been direct descendants of Helwys’s congregation: Bebbington, Baptists Through the Centuries, 39-40.
  9. Chute, Finn, and Haykin, The Baptist Story, 25-26.
  10. Still the best source for Baptist confessions is William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Philadelphia, The Judson Press), various years.

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
2 Comments
Read More

Balthasar Hubmaier’s View of Baptism

Written by Rick Shrader

Balthasar Hubmaier’s View of Baptism

by Rick Shrader

%%tb-image-alt-text%%

Baptists often debate about their beginnings. Some believe that there is a trail of Baptist ideas all the way back through history to the New Testament. Others believe that the radical Reformation group known as the Anabaptists is the starting point for specifically Baptist beliefs. The majority view is that Baptists have their origins in the later English Reformation and the debates among the Puritans and Separatists.

I agree with the majority view, yet I still find that the Anabaptists are worth learning from. Many of their viewpoints and theologians I find personally disagreeable (such as Hans Hut, certain apocalyptic theologies, or pacifist viewpoints), but not all. Balthasar Hubmaier (1480/5-1528) is one person that I find interesting, particularly in his ideas on baptism. His most famous work, On the Christian Baptism of Believers (1525), has been described by James Stayer as “the most effective defense of believers’ baptism in the Reformation era”.1 My hope is that a historical survey of Hubmaier and his theological writings on baptism will lead you to appreciate this Reformation thinker and his arguments for believers’ baptism, especially as it mirrors so closely what modern-day Baptists believe.

Early Life and Ministry

Hubmaier came from a peasant farmer’s home, but enjoyed a very good education at the Universities of Freiburg and Ingolstadt under the famous Roman Catholic theologian Johann Eck.2 He earned a doctorate in theology and eventually became preacher at the cathedral in Regensburg (1516), which was home to a major pilgrimage site. Reformation theologians as well as the bankruptcy of his own ministry eventually overcame Hubmaier and he converted. After his conversion, he gave up his position in Regensburg and moved to the town of Waldshut, on the Rhine, in March 1523 where he worked to implement reformation.

Waldshut was in Southern Swabia (Germany), near the Swiss border, and not far from Zurich where Huldrych Zwingli was conducting his Reformation. Considering their proximity, it is not surprising that Hubmaier’s early work at Reformation was quite similar to Zwingli’s. But, not all Reformations were equal nor stayed equal. Zwingli’s Reformation was moving at a different pace than Luther’s and they disagreed over important points of theology. Others within Zwingli’s city, such as Conrad Grebel, wanted the Reformation to move at a faster pace than even Zwingli would allow. It helps to know that Hubmaier initially kept pace with Zwingli, but they eventually divided over baptism.

Based on several personal conversations, Hubmaier at first thought that he had allies in Zwingli, Johannes Oecolampadius, Sebastian Hofmeister and others who would agree that infant baptism was incorrect. On Easter Sunday, 1525, Hubmaier was baptized and then baptized several hundred others in Waldshut. Unfortunately, Hubmaier’s continuing Reformation at Waldshut was not well received by the men he thought would agree to take these next steps. Also, the complicated political situation in Waldshut was crumbling because the Peasant’s War was ending. On December 5 of 1525 Hubmaier ran for his life to Zurich because he was wanted for his part in helping the peasants. Before he did, however, he managed to write his famous work, On the Christian Baptism of Believers.

On the Christian Baptism of Believers

This work was written because he had been accused of trying to start a new sect, he was accused of rejecting legitimate government, and he was accused of saying that nobody sinned after baptism. He rejected all three charges. In fact, he believed the Bible taught believers’ baptism and so he was not sectarian but biblical, he opined for a righteous sword-bearing government, and he freely admitted the reality of sin after baptism.

His argument in favor of believers’ baptism and against infant baptism began by recognizing that there are multiple kinds of baptism in the Bible.3 First, there is “baptism in water” because of repentance as John the Baptist practiced. Second, there is “baptism in water, for or unto change of life” which should lead to a new life in Christ. Third, there is “baptism in the Spirit and fire” which is Spirit baptism that makes one alive and whole again. Fourth, there is “to be reborn out of water and Spirit” which is to help the converted not have fear and dread. Fifth, there is “baptism in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (99).4

The main reason Hubmaier went through these New Testament uses of baptism was to show “that the word or teaching should precede the outward baptism, along with the determination to change one’s life by the help of God” (101). To prove further his point about the order of these events, Hubmaier surveyed the biblical passages referring to John the Baptist. He concluded that the normal order was for John to preach, people to be baptized for repentance, and then to be pointed further to Christ. The apostles followed a similar idea of preaching first, faith next, and then baptism. The difference with the apostles was that they could point directly to Christ, thus their baptism was not to recognize repentance and then point to Christ but to begin by preaching faith in Christ. Hubmaier then surveyed texts in the New Testament that talk of this baptism in Christ. Again, the normal order was word, then hearing, faith, baptism, and a life of good works. In each case, preaching and change of mind came before baptism.

Of course, the consequence of this order was that infant baptism was wrong because it placed baptism before faith. Hubmaier rejected the idea that infant baptism was an anticipatory “sign” (118-9) of faith, a future Christian life, or somehow in agreement with scripture. He also rejected the notion that it could be acceptable because it is not explicitly forbidden in Scripture. Because he saw believers’ baptism required in the New Testament, it followed that there is no place for baptizing anyone other than believers. He also responded to the question of the long history of infant baptism. He argued “even if it had always been like that, it would still not be right, because a wrong is always wrong” (137). In either case, he believed early church history was largely in agreement with the believers’ baptism position.

Hubmaier saw the order of justification like this: first, Christ begins to teach and the sinner sees his own sinfulness; second, Christ leads to confession of guilt and then gives grace; third, there is a public confession of faith culminating in baptism; fourth, the believer lives a life according to the rule of Christ; fifth, there is a regular remembrance of thankfulness in the Lord’s Supper. What is important to see is that Hubmaier argued according to the biblical order. After making this simple but profound point, Hubmaier anticipated several theological consequences. One was the theological permissiveness of infant baptism, as we have already seen. Another that came out here and in several later works is the relation between the Testaments and particularly the relation of circumcision to baptism. He saw baptism as a New Testament ordinance, like the Lord’s Supper, that was a part of Christ’s work and unconnected to the work of the Old Testament.

Later Ministry and Thought

Hubmaier’s biography continues that when he was found in Zurich he was imprisoned (as a political prisoner). Zwingli granted Hubmaier the opportunity to debate him and his men over infant baptism on December 19. At one point Hubmaier was embarrassed in this debate because he claimed Zwingli had rejected infant baptism. Zwingli had indeed said that infant baptism was not the dominant form in certain times of church history, but he did not conclude that believers’ baptism was to be restored. Hubmaier had to admit he misunderstood Zwingli. Another major disagreement was over covenants. Zwingli saw one eternal covenant in both testaments and so baptism corresponded to circumcision. Hubmaier and Zwingli evidently could not agree on the admissibility of the Old Testament to provide a sign for the New Testament. Hubmaier was forced to recant and he referenced love as the reason. In other words, despite the conviction otherwise and under the guidance of others who felt similarly, he thought he should recant out of the interest to the church’s unity. Famously, on December 29 when he was to give his public recantation in the church, Hubmaier stepped up to recant but then said that he could not go against conscience. Displeased, Zwingli promptly stepped into the other pulpit and ended the show. Hubmaier was put in prison, tortured, and only released after several months and another recantation.

After his release in April 1526, Hubmaier moved to Augsburg in Bavaria and then all the way to Nikolsburg in Moravia. From June 1526 until June or July 1527, he had a second opportunity to implement Reformation. At this time he published further works that he had begun working on when in Waldshut. One was a compilation of views by figures in church history that helped his position, Old and New Teachers on Believers Baptism.5 Another was a liturgical guide for his church, A Form for Water Baptism, as well as dialogues with Zwingli and Oecolampadius.

His views had not changed from his earlier days, he was simply trying to defend and clarify the issues as well as provide the practical service of a liturgy for his church. For example, in his Dialogue with Zwingli’s Baptism Book, Hubmaier rejected a connection of baptism to circumcision: “We know that Christ has newly institute baptism and the Lord’s Supper and abolished ceremonies, figures, and shadows of the Old Testament with his coming, as the epistles to the Colossians and the Hebrews clearly prove, Col. 2:16ff.; Heb. 8:13” (188).

He also reiterated the idea that infants cannot have faith nor have the faith of anyone else credited to them: “Baptism is a public testimony of faith which the baptized one himself makes before the church, not godmothers or godfathers. In that each believing person has three witnesses in heaven: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in whose name and power he inwardly surrenders to God and outwardly has obligated himself to lead a new life according to the Rule of Christ” (226).

One important final example is in his work On Infant Baptism Against Oecolampad where he solidified his assertion for the priority of the New Testament: “Water baptism is a ceremony of the New Testament. Therefore I demand from you a clear word out of the New Testament with which you bring to us this infant baptism” (288). We should notice that Hubmaier did not share the same presuppositions about scripture with Zwingli and Oecolampadius.6 Therefore, not only was Hubmaier’s view of baptism different but this difference began to show in other areas.

Hubmaier’s career as a Reformer was short-lived. From his conversion in 1523, his acceptance of believers’ baptism on Easter 1525, his imprisonment and wandering from December 1525 to June 1526, and then through his final ministry in Nikolsburg ending in mid-1527, Hubmaier was incredibly productive, but nevertheless left an incomplete work. His ministry came to an end with his arrest by the Austrian government in June or July of 1527. Hubmaier was martyred on March 10, 1528 in Vienna.

Some Observations

Several points can be marked from this brief survey. First, faith is personal. This is not a position unique to Hubmaier, but was one of the central ideas of the Reformation. However, Hubmaier and those who held to believers’ baptism saw this personal faith as contrary to infant baptism.

Second, the order of biblical events is important. Hubmaier saw baptism as a command of the New Testament and he saw it consistently presented within a certain order. Whether it was the baptism of John the Baptist or of Jesus and his disciples, Hubmaier made the highly influential point that the Bible consistently gave the order of preaching, faith next, and then baptism.

Third, baptism leads to a life of Christian witness within the local church. Baptism is a public profession not only of one’s faith in Christ, for Hubmaier, but also for one’s continuing life of commitment to Christ and his church. In fact, making the public profession of faith in baptism placed one under the authority and discipline of the church.7

Fourth, the biblical arguments are most important. Hubmaier was not opposed to historical arguments (he appealed to history and tradition), but these all stand in submission to the Bible. Again, this was a common Reformation idea, but it is still an important lesson to learn.

Fifth, the New Testament has priority for the church. While baptism was perhaps the issue that proved historically the most controversial, the debate was waged over several fronts. Baptism is a theologically connected idea that touches multiple loci of theology. Besides those just listed, we could also point to the idea of covenant and the debate over continuity or discontinuity of the Testaments.

Most of these observations bear affinity with modern day Baptists.8 There are, however, differences in areas not mentioned here such as church government and church-state relationships. The continuity of Baptist and earlier Anabaptist ideas has some overlap, though it does not transfer to any kind of genetic connection. What we can conclude is that Hubmaier’s famous work on believers’ baptism did have a long history of influence and should give us food for thought.

Some Concluding Thoughts

Modern day Baptists would do well to remember this source of theology. We should also note the strong contention that this point raised between Hubmaier and Zwingli. Indeed, baptism was and is no small matter. Perhaps some of these ideas and theological connections are new to you or perhaps you were reminded of an important point. Personally, when I read Hubmaier’s work, the idea of a faithful life (or even death) connected to genuine faith and believers’ baptism strikes me, particularly because Hubmaier suffered for holding such a view. We would do well to continually consider not only our views on baptism but also the interconnectedness of our theology. We can be thankful for those who began to think through many of the theological ideas that we still consider important today.

Notes:

  1. James Stayer, “Hubmaier, Balthasar” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. by Hans J. Hillerbrand, volume 2 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 261.
  2. For biographical details, see: Stayer, “Hubmaier, Balthasar”; David C. Steinmetz, Reformers in the Wings: From Geiler von Kayserberg to Theodore Beza, second edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 138-45; Torsten Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier: Anabaptist Theologian and Martyr, translated by Irwin J. Barnes and William R. Estep, edited by William R. Estep (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1978).
  3. Hubmaier also spoke about a three-fold baptism (Spirit, water, and blood) corresponding to 1 John 5:7. See, Pipkin and Yoder: 301, 349-350.
  4. All Hubmaier’s quotes will be in parentheses and are from: Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, translated and edited by H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder, Classics of the Radical Reformation (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1989).
  5. It should be noted that not all of Hubmaier’s quotations and sources were correct.
  6. Graeme R. Chatfield, Balthasar Hubmaier and the Clarity of Scripture: A Critical Reformation Issue (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013), 114-31.
  7. Brian C. Brewer, A Pledge of Love: The Anabaptist Sacramental Theology of Balthasar Hubmaier (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2012), 84-141, esp. 138-41.
  8. For a helpful overview of Baptist thought, see: Kevin Bauder, Baptist Distinctives: And New Testament Church Order (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 2012).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
2 Comments
Read More

Church History: Where Do I Begin?

Written by Matt Shrader

Church History: Where Do I Begin?

by Matt Shrader

In the previous issue of Aletheia I gave my explanation for why church history is necessary. I also mentioned that once we can agree that church history needs to be considered then we need to start asking how we are going to do this. I have been asked this simple question several times: where do I begin with church history? I may have convinced someone that it is either important or interesting, but that still leaves this issue of how and where to begin.

My high school soccer coach used to preach to my team that determination is breaking up a seemingly impossible task into small achievable goals. There is a lot of truth in that statement. We might be tempted to place church history in the category of the seemingly impossible. And, in a way, it is impossible. At my modest local library, there are no fewer than sixteen shelves of books containing the works of Martin Luther or works about him. When it comes to Augustine, it is even larger. In fact, there are three huge folio volumes that talk about the books that have talked about Augustine!

I do not think that we need be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of what there is. Our goal is not the impossible task of being comprehensive, only that of being responsible, a goal that is attainable. To that end, I would encourage you to consider the idea of determination mentioned a few lines above. I would also like to offer some ideas on the ways we can begin to read church history. To help visualize this I would put them in two categories: (1) the tools or skills that Christians need to do church history (what do I need to do this?) and (2) how we use those church history tools to affect us (what do I let it do to me?). Let me reiterate that this is not as hard as it seems and it is not for the specialist only. I am going to give some suggestions, but you may find that many of them are already in your possession.

 

Tools/Skills for Doing Church History.

A Worldview. One of the first “tools” needed as you begin looking at church history is an understanding of the Gospel core of Christianity and also a Christian worldview. Our assumptions of what is proper Christianity are important, especially for how we are able to evaluate the history of Christianity. This is not to say that someone cannot understand church history unless they have a correct understanding of the Gospel. But if the goal of church history is not just to understand the details but also to evaluate the relative worth of different time periods and apply our understanding to our current situation, then it is essential to know when someone has strayed from the Gospel or from the basic Christian worldview. As Baptist theologian Alvah Hovey once put it (way back in 1854): without this basic understanding of Christianity how can we “discover and honor the true ship of the Church amid fleets of piratical craft sailing under her colors?”1 Of course, we also remember that we read church history to try and understand theology and even to be challenged or enriched in our theology. Yet, we must be careful not to allow any and every moment or viewpoint found within church history to be correct.

A complementary idea is to know what to do with disagreements. Not all of these are created equal. In my Aletheia article from last month (September 2015) I spelled out some of the ideas to keep in mind about how to handle disagreements. I will just restate that it is important to remember when these differences are essential to Christian identification (e.g., Trinity), when they are matters of theological consistency (e.g., inerrancy), when they are essential to local church fellowship (e.g., ordinances), or when they are matters of personal preference (e.g., author of Hebrews). If and when you begin studying a figure or time period from church history you will find things both to admire and to reject. In any such case we must remember the relative importance of the issue at hand and where it fits into the larger scheme of Christian thinking and witness.

Skills for Reading History. When we study church history we need to have a set of skills for how to read history in general. Many of these things should be rather self-evident, but they deserve repeating. John Fea, in his introductory work on studying history, gives “five C’s of historical thinking” that I find helpful.2 First, we are concerned with change over time. Because things do not stay the same, we ask how things have changed because this gives understanding to why people think and act the way they do. Second, context is important for the study of the past. This means not only that we cannot take words out of context but we must also take cultures and entire belief systems into account. Third, we want to know about causality. In other words, we want to know not just a list of facts but why things happened the way they did and what shaped events. This should introduce some caution because we cannot possibly know this in every situation or even fully and completely in any situation. There can be any number of potential causes to an event. Yet, as students of history we work hard to understand these causes because it opens up better understanding. Fourth, we care about contingency or the possibility that human beings have the ability to do something not based on their surroundings, but more out of their own free will. Fifth, the past is complex. Not only are people from the past different from us, but they may also in fact be quite a bit more complex. Any student of the past would be willing to tell you about their favorite time period or personality and how complex that time or person is. Simplistic presentations of history run the risk of missing details that are essential to the story.

All these points are helpful in understanding what it means to study history. There are skills that we inculcate and there are bad skills that we work to excise. The fact of the matter is that as we study history we can make a lot of mistakes and bad assumptions. Anachronism is to attribute a practice, event, or thing to the wrong time period. The Whig fallacy of historical interpretation is to assume that all things happen simply because they are pushing toward what we see in a later time. Books upon books have been written that explain potential fallacies.3 Skill and awareness is needed on these issues. It is also true that as we study history we continually reshape our own understanding of that history. I hope that you do not hear this and conclude that history is unknowable or a wax nose that we may make say whatever we want. While we admit that we can never produce a completely neutral and unbiased presentation of history, we can still produce a historically objective presentation of history provided we aim to follow the practices of good history.4 A good way to learn these practices (besides working through some of the books I have just footnoted) is to read good historical work. With some practice it is not as hard as you think.

Asking the Right Questions. One of the most important things we need when we to do is to ask the right questions. Do I understand the context well? Or causality? Is my understanding too simplistic? Am I avoiding fallacious historical reasoning? As we study church history, we should also ask a handful of questions that are more theological in nature. When a theologian – such as Martin Luther – does something – like post a 95-thesis statement – he is doing something. He is not just throwing out beliefs into the ether. He is actually doing something with his understanding of the Bible and theology and is trying to accomplish something – like showing the theological and moral bankruptcy of indulgences. This idea that theology is action cannot be undervalued. When Augustine wrote his Confessions, he was not simply saying something he thought was correct or worth hearing. He was trying to influence people, particularly so that they would see his spiritual autobiography and then consider their own. What was the Council of Nicaea doing with their statements? What was John Bunyan trying to accomplish when he published The Pilgrim’s Progress? This makes context essential and it opens up to us the immense value of church history and the power of theology both in the past and in our own day.

Related to this idea and to the previous point about disagreements, we need to understand not only what a person is trying to do with his theology but also what his sources of theology are and what his biblical warrant is. If we are studying history for the purpose of self-evaluation and betterment, then we must ask whether the things we are studying should change us. In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther wrote about The Bondage of the Will and Erasmus wrote about The Freedom of the Will. If we are interested in this exchange in church history we might ask a series of questions such as: What is the context of this historical debate? What are the actual arguments of each (what are they saying)? What are they actually doing to the church in their day and age with these books? What do they use as authority? Which one makes the best case biblically? Once we answer those questions then we can begin to ask what we should let history do to us.

As I finish this section on the tools of the historian, let me just say that this is not a how-to list that guarantees pure results nor is it a comprehensive methodology. Other ideas like our character qualities are important (e.g., are you generous or pugilistic?). There are tools we use and gain proficiency with and there are abilities and qualities of the person to consider. Studying history is both a skill and an art. But, it is something we can all do.

What do I let Church History do to me?

We must remember that we are not doing this simply as an academic exercise. It is academic in the sense that it takes study and the use of proper skills and understanding. But, we are doing this with an eye toward growing into the fullness of the stature of Christ. So, as we apply church history to ourselves, a few points about what I should do with my tools of church history are important here. In a sense, we are learning how to use tools and honing our skills so that we can construct/disciple ourselves and those around us. Such a task needs some thought.

Remember, We Need History. We need to remember why we need church history. It helps us to evaluate our thoughts and actions as Christians. It teaches us what is important and what is not important. It shows us what Christians think about a host of theological and ethical issues. It shows us what Christian witness looks like in the mundane and in the extraordinary. It tells us what Christian worship, benevolence, education, and friendship have looked like. The list could go on, but the point is that church history gives us identity and examples and we do well to consider how it models Christianity.

Be Open, at Points. This is not to say that we follow everything we see in church history. But, we ought to listen to what church history tells us is important. To push against the weight of church history is an uphill battle. Consider this statement by F. F. Bruce:

Where the Holy Spirit guides the people of Christ into further truth, that guidance (though meeting with some initial resistance) tends in the long run to commend itself to their general acceptance. It will not conflict with truth already learned and established, even if it shows that some things previously reckoned to be truth were only imperfectly so, or not so at all. It will be acknowledged to be in harmony with the mind of Christ, as His mind is primarily revealed in Scripture and progressively appreciated in the church.5

The assumption is that Christians throughout the history of the church have the same Holy Spirit working inside them. This same Holy Spirit wrote Scripture. Therefore, we compare our thoughts with the history of the church to see if it matches up while we also compare our thoughts and the church’s against the Scriptures. As I explained in the last Aletheia article, church history does not hold the same authority as Scripture. But, the same Holy Spirit has indwelt Christians throughout the church’s history and we ought to care for what they have urged us is important.

So, have the attitude of an apprentice, but not without a critical eye. I have already mentioned the need for a pre-understanding of what Christianity is and what the Christian worldview is. Here I am adding the idea that we are fallible and limited human beings who need to be pointed in the right direction. Now, while we are fallible, the Bible is clear and compelling in many areas. Not all areas of our convictions are as open to being challenged as others might be. I believe that Jesus is both fully God and fully human. To be honest, no amount of argumentation will get me to change my mind on that (but I think I stand in good historical company there). There are some areas where I am very open to being challenged in my ideas while other areas not as much. It would take a lot of convincing to convert me to not being a Baptist, or not accepting inerrancy, or any number of doctrines I currently hold. So, while I hold myself to be an apprentice to church history – and fallible at that – I also believe that Scripture is abundantly clear on many issues that I will have a harder time relinquishing than others.

Be Critical, Generous, and Respectful. That being said, we should be critical and generous. Christians throughout the history of the church are fallible and full of faults and even inconsistencies, just as we are. But, they also have the Spirit of God and we should listen well. Don’t condemn others from the past without good reason. If we do, we run the risk of what C. S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery”. This is

the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must find why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also ‘a period,’ and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them.6

On the other end of the spectrum might be what we could call “historical naiveté”, or, the uncritical acceptance of a past act simply because it is past. Some things have passed away from the church’s history because they needed to while others have passed and need to be resurrected. Wisdom and biblical thinking need to be utilized in these appropriations.

Where do we begin to get into church history? I hope you see that reading church history is not impossible, though it cannot be done flippantly. My encouragement would be to take up and read! The tools and suggestions presented here do not take a college or seminary degree to attain (though that is certainly nice), but they may take a lifetime to master. As you practice, sharpen yourself and your skills. Read great historians and see how they do it. Continue to grow in your knowledge of church history and your understanding of theology and the church. More to the point, let church history teach you Christianity.

Notes:

  1. Alvah Hovey, “A Good Church History”, Studies in Ethics and Religion (Boston: Silver, Burdett, and Company, 1892), 541.
  2. John Fea, Why Study History? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), 6-15.
  3. Carl Trueman, Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of History (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010); David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper, 1970).
  4. Richard Evans, In Defense of History (New York: W. W. Norton, 1999).
  5. F. F. Bruce, Tradition Old and New (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1970), 18.
  6. C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2012), 207-8.

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

The Necessity of Church History

Written by Matt Shrader

The Necessity of Church History

by Matt Shrader

Baptists have their roots in the English Reformation. Since their beginning, several beliefs have been at the center of their theology, including believer’s baptism, individual soul competency, congregational government, as well as fundamentally orthodox beliefs like the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Whether they are affirming the major beliefs of orthodoxy or their denominational distinctives, Baptists have normally placed the authority of Scripture as paramount. Considering that this essay is tasked with showing the necessity of church history, a Baptist might ask why I would want to make history necessary but also highlight the authority of Scripture and the competency of the individual to make spiritual decisions. After all, if we can read the Bible for ourselves and make decisions for ourselves, why do we need to know the past?

I have several responses to this line of thinking. Basically it misunderstands what Baptists mean by soul competency and it dangerously ignores church history. It’s the second point I want to focus on here. Robert Rea is correct when he says, “when we ignore centuries of God-loving Christians and the rich well of resources that they have passed on to us, sometimes ignoring even Scripture itself in the process, our perceived needs are often little more than the mirrors of our fallen culture.”1 To ignore the past is to be held captive to the tyranny of the present age and it runs the risk of belittling even Scripture itself. I propose we think about four central reasons why we need church history, some important clarifications, and then start to think about what to do next. And so first, why do we need church history?

Because “tradition-less” does not exist

No matter what church we attend or what denomination we adhere to (or even if we do not claim any denomination), every church works within some kind of tradition. This may appear in the form of what a regular church service looks like (liturgy) or it may come in the doctrinal beliefs of the church (believer’s baptism) or it may surface in understandings of worship, fellowship, or spirituality. All these normal practices of a church inculcate values and theology into their church, i.e., tradition.2 We have to recognize that at some point we are living out values and theology from our past, even if we are not quite sure where they came from or that we are even doing it. Simply put, “tradition-less” does not exist.

If we ignore the fact that we are part of a tradition or that we cannot get away from tradition, then we run the risk of being parrots of whatever our contemporary values are. Kevin Bauder offers this description of the danger: “Typically, they accommodate the forms of their Christianity to whatever else they are doing in their lives. And their tradition is transparent to them: they are blissfully unaware that they have exchanged the gold of the Christian past for a stubble of their own reaping.”3 To escape the tyranny of our own day we must first recognize that we are already embracing a tradition. To mine from the wealthy stores of church history we must recognize that they are there.

Because of what doctrine is in relation to Scripture

I recognize, of course, that there is a capital “T” Tradition that is often present in this discussion. This is the “Tradition” that reminds one of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox views of church history. These views, though different from one another, elevate the authority of church history equal to or above Scripture. Protestants rightly oppose such a notion. I do believe, however, that as a Baptist I must insist on affirming the great Tradition in a certain sense. To see why, we must see the relation of Scripture to doctrine.

Scripture is inspired and inerrant and fully capable to provide all that is needed for life, doctrine, and practice in the church. As such, it is of a higher authority than anything else that we possess as humans. I am assuming that such ideas are readily acceptable by those who are reading this. The more difficult idea is that doctrine is Christian thinking and action about the teaching of the Bible applied to human experiences and situations. We believe the Bible teaches the idea of the Trinity, but that did not become a major issue for the church until a couple centuries after the Bible was written. Likewise, we believe that the Bible teaches the impossibility of anyone attaining salvation without the work of God’s grace, though this was a hot topic within the church in the fifth (and has been in nearly every) century. To affirm the Trinity and to deny Pelagian views of humanity has been almost universally recognized as important to Christian identity. Yet, these are doctrines, scriptural doctrines even, but they are not Scripture. They are essential and they are biblical, but they are not the Bible itself.

This is an important point to make because it is how Protestants guard the place of Scripture and hold in check the encroaching authority of human-formulated doctrine. This is precisely where we must use (and have been using) church history. Since the Trinitarian debates and the Pelagian debates of the early church, the overwhelming consensus of church history has urged us to agree. Notice, it has urged us, but I would argue that they are urging us to search the Scriptures to see if these things are so. As we search the Bible we find that the Trinity is there as well as the insistence on God’s grace in salvation, and both are vital. Yet, Trinitarianism has been occasionally denied and Pelagianism occasionally affirmed in church history. How do we determine which doctrines are to be held and which are not; and, are there times when we let tradition tell us what to believe?

The Reformation gave us some help on this point. They tell us that there is a difference between the norma normans (the norm that norms all other norms, which is Scripture) and the norma normata (the norms that are norms because they conform to the ultimate norm of Scripture).4 Doctrines are still norms because they conform to the highest norm of Scripture. Yet, doctrines can be challenged precisely based on their fidelity to Scripture. This kind of challenge is what the Reformers issued to the Roman Catholic Church over their view of justification, sanctification, and even tradition itself. And so, when we recognize we have traditions of doctrine and of value, we then need to traverse historical paths of doctrinal origins and development and judge them by the ultimate judge of Scripture. Baptists normally accept a Chalcedonian understanding of Christological texts, Reformation understanding of soteriological texts, and a Baptist understanding of ecclesiological texts. As Paul Hartog has said: “For as students of the entirety of church history, we know that we are both children of the fathers and heirs of the Reformation.…Nevertheless, we listen with ears open to the fathers even as our hearts are resolutely bound to Scripture. In other words, we really do learn and yet retain our distinctive theologies.”5 The history of the church and the tradition that it gives us are important because we learn many of the doctrines of our faith as the church has developed them through time. They can be essential to accept or reject dependent on their fidelity to Scripture, but they must be confronted.

Because we all need Christian apprenticeship

Church history is essential so that we can learn when tradition urges us to reconsider our doctrines according to Scripture or when it urges us to consider doctrines and practices that we have forgotten. No doubt, some doctrines are more easily recognized as essential to Christianity than others. Church history, when taught well, acts as a mentor in Christian identity.

We have to be taught an identity and come to terms with it before it becomes our own. This is simply true to human experience. Church Historian Robert Louis Wilken asserts as much: “Without tradition, learning is arduous at best, impossible at worst. In most things in life—learning to speak, making cabinets, playing the violin—the only way to learn is by imitation, by letting someone else guide our movements until we learn to do the thing on our own.”6 The way to learn what Christianity is all about is to be confronted by great Christians and let their thoughts and examples influence us. We need to be taught what is properly Christian both in word and in deed. Further, the words we use are important and we get that language from Scripture and the history of the church. “Trinity”, “Pelagian”, “Protestant”, “Baptist”, “evangelical”, “worship”, “holiness” and other such Christian ideas are given us in our tradition. It is our responsibility to assimilate them before we can rightly claim them (or critique them) as our own.

Because, on account of our fallibility, we need accountability

One last reason why we need church history should be relatively easy to assert: we are fallible human beings who need accountability. We are sinners by nature (church history teaches us that Pelagius got that wrong) and we need to be taught what is good and true. Further, we have to come to terms with the differences among us. While we believe the Bible is inerrant we also affirm that we are not. This explains how we have such divergent views of doctrine by many who claim the name of Christian. We have to come to terms with those differences. We also need to try and avoid repeating errors. And we have to try and recognize the work of the Holy Spirit in the entire universal church. Again, it is Scripture that is paramount in making these theological decisions, but church history helps inform us. As sinful, fallible people we need accountability as we determine what we believe Scripture teaches, and church history provides it.

Some important clarifications

Having said what I have in the space that I have, I want to try and be sure I am clear on a few central points. If I affirm the ultimate authority of Scripture, then I must let Scripture define what is essential to Christianity. Yet, this biblical priority must be well nourished with Christian tradition. There is a certain back-and-forth between letting our understanding of Scripture have the final say and letting church history tell us when, where, and what we must consider important. Both are authoritative, but not in the same way or to the same degree.

We also need to think about whose history we find important. Is it just Western, European, or English-speaking theology that is important? And just dead people? There are definitely certain points of church history that are important such as Nicaea, Chalcedon, and the Reformation. We tend to point to important points like these because they dealt with significant issues that have provided necessary distinctions between groups and because their conclusions have been consistently accepted by Christians through history as faithful to Scripture. And so, I would assert that all of church history is important, though not equally, and it is all under the judgment of Scripture and the rest of church history. Having a central idea of what Christianity is proves important in pointing out poor moments of church history from good moments.

So then what do we do with those differences that we are bound to find in the history of the church? A few thoughts will have to suffice for now. I can be a Baptist who affirms denominational distinctives and also a Christian who is part of the universal church. It is of primary importance that I understand what differentiates the Christian from the non-Christian and what differentiates various Christians from one another both on the theological and the practical level. I affirm the priority of Scripture in making these distinctions but I also insist that I cannot be informed in these decisions without church history. Scripture and the history of the church teach me that I must embrace the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the necessity for grace in salvation, among others. I also learn from church history the importance of identifying with a certain history within the history of the church, namely Protestant and Baptist. Importantly, as I delineate further historical descriptions I also recognize when these differences are essential to Christian identification (Trinity), when they are matters of theological consistency (inerrancy), when they are essential to local church fellowship (ordinances), or when they are matters of personal preference (author of Hebrews). In other words, there is more to Christianity than just “mere Christianity.” Differences, which are both real and important, are caused by the fact that we are still sinful humans trying to understand God’s ways. The variety of differences does not mean I must reject the competency of the individual to make decisions and it does not mean I must look to a recognized magisterium as equal to or above Scripture. Authority to adjudicate differences is still found in Scripture.

And now what?

I hope that by now I have at least opened to you the possibility that you need church history. Without it your tradition is bound to be shallow and near-sighted. Church history can offer deep resources for understanding the wonderful truths of what it is to be Christian. But how is this done exactly? Let me first warn that we must avoid certain dangers such as interpreting church history through contemporary assumptions, not seeing errors in the church’s history, and ignoring historical contexts to cherry-pick historical practices. But let me also state that church history really can help in significant ways. Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, and C. S. Lewis have helped me to understand human psychology and the battle with sin better. Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, and Kevin Vanhoozer have helped me begin to see how Christians can understand theology at all. John Bunyan, C. S. Lewis, and Bernard of Clairvaux have taught me much about sanctified Christian imagination. John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, Alvah Hovey, E. Y. Mullins, A. J. Gordon, Mark Dever, and Kevin Bauder have helped me see the value of Baptist views of congregations, soul competency and even church discipline. And I could hardly do without what I have learned from Augustine, Bernard, Martin Luther, and my parents (!) about the Gospel and conversion. Some of how I have learned from church history has been hinted at throughout this essay, such as having a central idea of Christianity and taking note of ideas that church history has repeatedly affirmed to be important, among others. But these ideas are more involved and deserve a longer explanation. To be sure, a fuller presentation will have to wait for another essay.

There is much benefit from church history because Christianity is much bigger than any one of us. “We find ourselves situated in a Tradition that is bigger than us personally or even our contemporary generation collectively. There is wisdom in the ages. ‘Truly, we stand on the shoulders of giants and we honor them by knowing more about them, learning what they have taught, and seeking to apply insights from them, in the light of Scripture, for us today.’”7 I believe that if we give a proper place to church history then we will greatly benefit. Indeed, to overcome ourselves, we must utilize its benefits.

Notes:

  1. Robert Rea, Why Church History Matters: An Invitation to Love and Learn from Our Past (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2014), 15.
  2. Paul A. Hartog, “Evangelicals and the Tensions of Ressourcement” in The Contemporary Church and the Early Church (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010), 207.
  3. Kevin Bauder, “Understanding Conservative Christianity: A Digression” http://seminary.wcts1030.com/publications/Nick/Nick210.html
  4. Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 17, 80.
  5. Paul Hartog, “Evangelicals and the Tensions of Ressourcement”, 226-227.
  6. Robert Louis Wilken, “The Christian Intellectual Tradition” First Things June 1991.
  7. Paul Hartog, “Evangelicals and the Tensions of Ressourcement”, 228.

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
2 Comments
Read More