John H Armstrong

America the Beautiful or The Star Spangled Banner?

A friend just sent me a link to this story on the web from The Sporting News. (Be sure to read the many comments that follow or you will not understand my reason for posting this story.) The question of what the school plays before a sports event is one of simple choice to my mind. And a pacifist school should be expected to “feel” exactly the way Goshen College does on this issue. But read the replies to this story. Pretty sad stuff. The name calling and harsh rhetorical response is common to our time. Moderation in defense of faith is seen as compromise and hating America. And please do not tell me that many Christians would not respond precisely as these angry people do to this story. The one thing such Americans despise of a pacifist.

This kind of response to pacifism is not new. During World War II pacifists were hated and treated as lovers of Hitler and Nazism. They were a scourge and an offense to God and country. The “religion of the state” has always hated Christian pacifism. The facts of history are actually quite striking here. In the first centuries of Christianity it was far different. Almost every serious scholar agrees that early Christians were pacifists, or at least committed to non-violence in almost every case. The least we can do, even if we are not committed pacifists, is stand against this kind of response that equates God and country so closely.

The Supreme Authority of Scripture and Interpretation

Yesterday, I wrote about the authority of Scripture. I am often asked what has kept me from embracing the Catholic Church in its present state? I have many friends who’ve converted to Roman Catholicism. I have many supporters of this mission who are Catholic. This happens because these friends and donors know I am serving the whole church in a unique and ecumenical context. The fact is that I have great love for the Catholic Church. And I am clearly not an anti-Catholic. Further, I have no desire to become a polemicist who engages in anti-Catholic evangelicalism. I am a serious ecumenist and as such I love all Christians – Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. I long to see full communion between the great ancient churches of the Christian faith. Because of this love and longing I will continue to engage with these kinds of issues for the rest of my life. It is because I love Christ and all his people that I do so.

But I am sometimes asked, What keeps you from becoming a Catholic? There are several reasons I remain a Reformed Protestant but a major one is related to this issue of authority. Over time I believe the Catholic Church developed a two-source view of authority. I believe this view is wrong. I believe this view was correctly challenged by the magisterial Reformers of the sixteenth century because the errors it had produced were harmful to the health of the church. I also believe, as I began to show yesterday, that this two-source view is in conflict with the teaching of the early church fathers as well. This point will be strongly opposed by good Catholic friends. The danger in this debate is that we will simply trade quotes and throw verbal bombs. Good ecumenism will not do this. It will listen respectfully and keep the discussion moving forward. In the end a person has to be persuaded in their own conscience by the facts they read and seek to understand. I have wrestled with these facts deeply. I remain persuaded that the Catholic claim that final authority residing in two-sources is wrong.

For my Catholic friends I urge you to respect me even if you disagree with my reading of this important issue. I know most of you do. Catholic academics clearly engage in this dialog without the heated rhetorical devices of many untrained apologists. For my Protestant friends, I urge you to not give up this precious truth in the midst of the modern polemics used against it by popular Catholic authors and speakers who often rail against it by using stereotypes and misrepresentations. What is at stake here is very important, so important that at least for now it hinders the union of our respective Christian churches. (It should not hinder unity even while we cannot attain union with this disagreement on the table!)

Yesterday, I cited some sayings from early church theologians. Here are a few more that I find extremely helpful:

What the Scriptures have not declared, you will never find.
(St. Athanasius, De S. Trin. Dial.)

It is a mockery to ask questions, or to make discourses, on that which is not written. (St. Athanasius, Epist. Ad. Serap.)

In the Holy Scriptures alone is the instruction of religion announced—to which let no man add, from which let no man detract—which are sufficient in themselves for the enunciation of the truth. (St. Athanasius, adv. Gentes init.)

Do not believe me simply, unless you receive the proof of what I say from Holy Scripture. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. A.D. 348)

Keep that faith only which the Church is now giving to you and which is certificated out of the whole of Scripture. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech.)

Concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, even the most casual remark ought not to be delivered without the sacred Scriptures. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. IV.12)

It is evidently a falling away from the faith, and a proof of great presumption, to neglect any part of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not written. (St. Basil c. 329-379, bishop of Caesarea, de Vera Fide)

How can we use those things, which we find not in the Scriptures!
(St. Ambrose c. 339-397, Offic. Lib. 1, c. 23)

When we receive money, we do not trust to those who give it to us; we wish to count it ourselves: and when there is a question of Divine things, would it not be a folly rashly and blindly to receive the opinions of others, when we have a rule by which we can examine everything? I mean the Divine law. It is for this reason that I conjure you all, without resting in the slightest degree on the judgment of others, to consult the Scriptures. (St. John Chrysostom c. 347-407, Homil. xiii. in 2 Cor.)

When you shall see the wicked heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the church, then let those who are in Judea head for the mountains, that is, those who are Christians should head for the Scriptures. For the true Judea is
Christendom, and the mountains are the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles, as it is written: “Her foundations are in the holy mountains.” But why should all Christians at this time head for the Scriptures? Because in this period in which heresy has taken
possession of the churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge for Christians who want to know the truth of the faith except the divine Scriptures. Earlier we showed in many ways which is the church of Christ, and which heathenism. But now there is for those who want to know which is the true church of Christ no way to know it except only the through the Scriptures. Why? Because heresy has everything just like the church. How, then, will anyone who wants to know which is the true church of Christ know it in the midst of this great confusion resulting from this similarity, except only through the Scriptures? The Lord, therefore, knowing that there would be such a great confusion of things in the last days, commands that Christians who…want to gain steadfastness in the true faith should take refuge in nothing else but the Scriptures.

Otherwise, if they look to other things, they will be offended and will perish, because they will not know which is the true church, and as a result they will fall into the abomination of desolation which stands in the holy places of the church. (Traditionally ascribed to St. John Chrysostom, glossa ordinaria 49th Homily, on Mat. 24)

We deny not those things which are written, so we refuse those which are not written. That God was born of a Virgin, we believe, because we read; that Mary married after she gave birth to him, we believe not, because we read not. (St. Jerome c. 347-c. 420, adv. Helvidium juxta finem, Tom. IV. Part II)

In those things, which are plainly laid down in Scripture, all things are found, which embrace faith and morals. (St. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana A.D. 427, Lib. II, c. 9)

The canon of the Scriptures is perfect, and in itself suffices to the full, and more, for all demands. (St. Vincent of Lérins, Adversus profanes omnium novitates haereticorum commonitorium A.D.434)

Bring me not human reasonings and syllogisms, for I rely on the divine Scripture alone. (Theodoret of Cyrus c. 393-466, Dial. I. Atrept.)

I have provided only a small sample of hundreds of such early church texts. When I began to wrestle with this issue of biblical authority some years ago, and then re-engage it through my deep love for the whole Christian church over the last fifteen years or so, I came to a deeper appreciation for a sound and balanced understanding of the truth of sola scriptura. Often Protestants hold very bad views of sola scriptura. This does not disprove the true doctrine but it should make us careful about how we state it and teach it.

But this pursuit has also caused me to see many of the more common errors taught by Protestants who hold to this principle. Some Protestant evangelicals make amazing claims about the Bible, especially when it comes to interpreting Scripture. In their desire to avoid various forms of interpretation (allegory comes to mind) embraced by the whole church throughout her history they sometimes fall into grievous errors. One such egregious error was made by a now deceased professor of mine who also became a personal friend. He once lectured for our ministerial meeting here in the Chicago area. In his lecture on Scripture he said:

We don’t criticize the apostolic use of the Old Testament in the New because the apostles were inspired but we cannot follow it because  they were wrong.

I am not misquoting my departed friend. So amazing was this claim that I have discussed it now and again with friends. (This professor actually wrote a book on the Old Testament in the New!) When my dear friend, Fr,. Wilbur Ellsworth, once a Baptist and now an Orthodox priest, brought his up to me a few days ago I was mortified by its conclusion once again. I asked myself, “What made a brilliant man make such a statement?” What my friend was seeking to uphold was a particularly evangelical view of how to interpret the Bible literally. I believe in this case his view of Scripture had gone wrong.

I am again reminded that Catholic and Orthodox Christians read the Bible as the Word of God. This is why I am especially delighted when I see all of us reading and discussing Holy Scripture. For now we disagree about the nature of biblical authority but we can agree on far more than we realized not too long ago. This will remain true so long as we keep talking and listening. By talking and listening we can still learn and so long as we are learning there is room to grow in knowledge and the grace of God. A true ecumenist doesn’t have all the answers but knows the way forward. After all the central message of Holy Scripture is the same for us all – God is love and Christ died for our sins, was raised on the third day, and ascended to the Father from where he will come again at the end of this age. He thus came to redeem all who trust in Him!

The Supreme Authority of Scripture

A major tenet of Protestant theology is the authority and finality of the biblical revelation. This principle is often poorly stated but the essential point is that Scripture serves as the supreme court in all matters of faith and practice.

For some all one needs to do is quote a verse and the issue is settled. For others they are aware of the difficulty of some questions and realize Scripture does not directly address some doctrinal and ethical issues with complete clarity. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts this principle rather clearly:

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Here, and elsewhere, the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura reflects a nuanced tension between the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture necessary for final authority, and the occasional need for its meaning to be revealed by careful exposition (Hebrews 5:12).

The errors made by many Protestants regarding this truth are too numerous to engage in through one post. They are legion and they are often extreme.

Sola scriptura teaches that the only doctrines which should be admitted or confessed are found directly within Scripture or indirectly therein by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning discovered within scripture. But, and this is vitally important, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion! This is the error large numbers of modern evangelicals have made by appealing wrongly to sola scriptura. What the principle simply says is that all other authorities are subordinate to, and to be corrected by, the written word of God.

Another major error is to believe that sola scriptura ignores Christian history and tradition when interpreting the Bible. In principle the doctrine sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice but not the only authority. Martin Luther thus said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so.

One of the more important aspects of this doctrine is the idea of efficacy of Scripture. Scripture, united with the power of the Holy Spirit, not only demands, but creates the acceptance of its clear teaching. Thus a proper teaching of Scripture produces faith and obedience. The Holy Scripture is not a dead letter, an academic tool box. By the power of the Holy Spirit inherent in its witness it is powerful and living in the human soul. Put more clearly, Scripture compels more than intellectual assent to its doctrine. By the power of the Spirit it works to create the living agreement of faith. The Smalcald Articles affirm, "in those things which concern the spoken, outward Word, we must firmly hold that God grants His Spirit or grace to no one, except through or with the preceding outward Word.” This statement does not deny that divine revelation comes through other means (e.g., in nature, etc.) but simply affirms that the spoken teaching of the Christian faith must firmly hold to the canon of the written Scriptures and then proceed in the power of the Spirit.

I do not write these things to debate with Catholic apologists, though they any are welcome to disagree and post their response. What I write these things to establish a basic principle, one I believe taught by the Reformers and the early church Fathers as well. While Luther’s doctrine of faith, at least as he put it, is not clearly found in the writings of the earliest Christian theologians (Alister McGrath has established this beyond any reasonable doubt in his magnum opus, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification), the doctrine of the authority and finality of the Holy Scripture is abundantly evident in the writing of early church fathers. Consider these few quotations:

We have received the disposition of our salvation by no others, but those by whom the Gospel came to us; which they then preached, and afterwards by God's will delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and ground of our faith. (St. Irenaeus, Lib. III. c. 1)

Let the shop of Hermogenes prove that what it advances is written; or if it be not written, let it fear the malediction uttered against those who dare to add or to retrench. (Tertullian c. 160-240, adv. Hermog.)

There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Sacred Scriptures. For as he, who would profess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise attain it, unless he read the doctrines of the philosophers; so whosoever will
exercise piety towards God, can learn it no where but from the Holy Scriptures. (St. Hippolytus c. 170-c.235, adv. Noetum, c. IX)

In the two testaments every word that pertaineth unto God may be sought and discussed, and out of them all knowledge of things may be understood. And if anything remains which Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third scripture ought to be received to authorize any knowledge, but we must “commit to the fire” what remains, that is, reserve it unto God. (Origen c. 185-c.254, Hom. in Lev.)

When I arrived in the district of Arsinoe, when as you know this notion had long been widely held, so that schisms and secessions of entire churches had taken place, I called a meeting of the presbyters and teachers of the village congregations, with any laymen who wished to attend, and urged them to thrash out the question in public. So they brought me this book as positive and irrefutable proof, and I sat with them for three days on end from
dawn to dusk, criticizing its contents point by point. In the process I was immensely impressed by the essential soundness, complete sincerity, logical grasp, and mental clarity shown by these good people, as we methodically and good-temperedly dealt with questions, objections, and points of agreement. We refused to cling with pig-headed determination to opinions once held even if proved wrong. There was no shirking of difficulties, but to the limit of our powers we tried to grapple with the problems and master them; nor were we too proud, if worsted in argument, to abandon our position and admit defeat; conscientiously, honestly, and with simple-minded trust in God, we accepted the conclusions to be drawn from the proofs and teachings of Holy Writ. (Eusebius, in The History of the Church, quoting Dionysius c. 200-c. 265, bishop of Alexandria)

The holy and divinely inspired writings are sufficient of themselves alone to make known the truth. (St. Athanasius 296-373, Orat. Contr. Gent. Tom. I)

If you desire a new quotation, if you pretend to affirm anything besides what is written, why do you dispute with us, who are resolved to hear nothing, and to say nothing, besides what is written? (St. Athanasius, De Incarn. Chr.)

Celebrating Mother’s Day

I have always honored Mother’s Day in my family traditions. I thanked my mother for her life and love regularly and now I remember her with warm appreciation for her deep faith and abiding love. But I do not need a special day to do this if the truth is known. A good son should honor his mother at all times. 

When I was still the pastor of a local congregation, between 1972-92, I gave special attention to mothers on this day. Since then I have found that some evangelical churches do not want a guest to preach on anything but motherhood on this day if I was a guest in their pulpit. I have always found this request more than curious. (These same churches oppose any doctrine about Mary’s importance in salvation history, especially the core orthodox affirmation that she was theotokos, the “mother of God.”) Now, given the history and development of this special day someone ought to at least think about this a little more. Some have referred to this development as the triumph of “Hallmark Theology.” This type of response is actually shallow, even less than truthful. But when I made statements like this I knew how to take the fun out of special days with the best of them. If something wasn’t clearly named in the Bible then the church should have nothing to do with it. End of discussion. Even Christmas and Easter presented problems in terms of this kind of theology. After all, who knew when Jesus was actually born or on which first day of the week he was actually raised from the dead? (The answer, of course, is no one knows!)

Our modern celebration of Mother's Day comes on various days in a number of different places around the world. The date thus varies but the central point is the same -- honor mothers and motherhood. In the UK and Ireland, Mother’s Day still follows the old traditions of Mothering Sunday, which has its own history.

It has been suggested that the history of celebrating Mother’s Day, and mothering, can be traced back to ancient festivals. But most historians agree that the modern US celebration of Mother's Day is not directly related to these ancient practices and beliefs at all. I agree.

Ancient Greece, to give but one example, kept a festival to Cybele, a great mother of the Greek gods. Ancient Romans appropriated the cult of Cybele in order to absorb culturally the Greeks and the inhabitants of Asia Minor. As was typical of the Romans they quickly made up their own customs because of their disagreements with ancient Greek ideas.

The Catholic calendar eventually embraced some of these ideas and a religious tradition evolved into a secular tradition of giving gifts to mothers on this day.

One of the earliest attempts to celebrate Mother's Day in the United States is the "Mother's Day Proclamation" of Julia Ward Howe. Written in 1870, it was actually a pacifist reaction to the carnage of the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War. The Proclamation was tied to Julia Ward Howe's feminist beliefs that women had a responsibility to shape their societies at the political level. I doubt very few conservative ministers even know this bit of American history.

Early in the twentieth century it was President Woodrow Wilson who made Mother’s Day an official holiday in the US. Notice that the official spelling is Mother’s Day. It is intentionally singular so that each of us will remember to honor our own mother, not mothers in general. Eventually the US holiday was adopted by other countries and cultures but the date was changed to coincide with existing celebrations that honored motherhood; e.g. Mothering Sunday in the UK or the Orthodox celebration of Jesus in the temple in Greece. In some countries it was changed to fit with the dates that were significant to the majority religion, like the Virgin Mary day in Catholic countries, or the birthday of the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad in Islamic countries.

So is this “Hallmark Theology” as my Puritan friends told me thirty years ago? Not exactly. It is clearly rooted in both biblical and non-biblical ideas whether we keep a special day or not. A special day might actually help a culture to remember some important moments of gratitude and blessing. Keeping such special days is common in Christian history. Christian thought and practice did not destroy cultural ideas but adopted and shaped them for Christian ends. Thus Mother’s Day is a great time for the church to remember and give thanks for the important role that our mothers have in all our lives.

The Sacred Triduum

My wife asked me, late last week when she saw our church sign, “What is the Triduum?” I thought some of you might wonder the same unless you grew up in a tradition that celebrates all the major portions of Holy Week.

Triduum is Latin for “three-day period.” The Triduum is a solemn celebration of the mysteries of Jesus’ passion, death and resurrection. It begins with the Eucharist on Thursday evening and concludes with what is called “the Evening Prayer” on Saturday. On Friday our own church will strip the altar of all symbols, cups, trays, candles, etc.

Holy Thursday commemorates Jesus’ last meal with his disciples. Here the ritual of washing the feet is often included. This ritual had a profound impact on me when I first began to take part in it several years ago. This day is often called Maundy Thursday because Jesus gave his new commandment on this day. Maundy comes from the word mandatum, which means mandate or commandment. The celebration of the Lord’s Passion comes on Friday, traditionally during the afternoon of Good Friday. I attended a simple service, at midday, where the stations of the cross are each remembered in the liturgy. I often attend an evening service as well.

Today, Holy Saturday, commemorates Jesus’ burial and his “descent into hell.” Most ancient churches have no special liturgical service on Saturday during the day time hours but the Easter Vigil is celebrated tonight. In Orthodoxy the vigil leads right into Easter celebration just after midnight. In most Western churches Easter is held at sunrise, or during the morning hours, on Easter Day.

So if you hear the word Triduum, or see a sign today speaking of the Easter Triduum, now you know. May your hearts and lives be shaped by the sacred and holy mysteries of these hours.

A New Angle on the Catholic Church Sex-Abuse Issue

A recent AP report added a new insight into the Roman Catholic clergy abuse scenario that few have been willing to consider. Under John Paul II the church was recovering from a notable loss of priests, many of whom were leaving the priesthood to get married in the 1970s. John Paul made it harder for priests to leave the priesthood as one of several papal responses to the crisis. Since entering the priesthood involves a sacramental oath, and the reception of holy orders, leaving it for laicization requires what is often a lengthy church trial. This trial was often shortened, following Vatican II, making it easier for a priest to leave. But all this changed in the late 1970s when John Paul II changed course. These facts are not really debatable as much as I have been able to perceive from my study of the issue. (I am open to understanding this response better since I have no axe to grind here at all.)

What does this have to do with the clergy sex scandal? Well, in Illinois a priest named Alvin Campbell was convicted in a court of law. His bishop recommended that he be removed from the priesthood. The court records, now made public, show that then Vatican refused to defrock this priest based on the request of the priest himself. The case went to the Vatican where Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now the pope, ruled that “The petition in question cannot be admitted in as much as it lacks the request of Father Campbell himself.” This statement occurs in a July 3, 1989 letter to Bishop Daniel Ryan of the Diocese of Springfield.

It is no surprise then that AP refers to changes in the Vatican which “hamstrung U. S. bishops struggling with an abuse crisis that would eventually explode.”

I have several observations: (1) The response of the Vatican was not an obvious attempt to cover-up the sex scandals. (2) This response was wrong and reveals just how the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood can still leave it less than fully open to public scrutiny and (at times) proper corrective discipline of its own priests. Thankfully, this is being changed but “it is long after the cows were out of the barn” as a farmer friend once put it. (3) Nothing has convinced me that Cardinal Ratzinger covered up sexual predators but a lot of this does show that the institutional life of the church provided a series of problems that make it very hard for the Catholic Church to deal the modern world in the way that seems natural and completely straightforward. Critics will seize on everything they can and there is material here to be seized upon. Sadly, unless you have listened to the victims of these sexual crimes you have not anguished deeply enough with the “little ones” to be a credible source of correction. This is what troubles so many of us, both in and out of the Catholic Church.

Vatican II opened the door to new understanding of the priesthood, stating that the priesthood did include all the faithful. But Vatican II also said that there were still essential differences between the ordained priesthood and the common priesthood, which is Rome’s doctrine of the priesthood of all Christians. But Vatican II clearly did not go very far in specifying what constitutes this difference. Ecumenical conversation has forced further Catholic thought on the matter, which I particularly welcome as a non-Catholic. But I think there is still a long way for the Catholic Church to go in this conversation. I pray that this scandal will ultimately prove to be a means of purification and reformation. I think most of my Catholic brothers and sisters agree, though some will still defend the church in the face of obvious moral error.

What Is the Role of Tradition in Church Unity?

I grew up in a background that had little or no regard for Christian Tradition so it seems more than a little odd that the name of my mission, ACT 3, stands for Advancing the Christian Tradition in the Third Millennium. More than one person has asked, “Why on earth do you want to advance tradition?” Their assumption is that tradition is unhealthy, even opposed to the Bible. It was when I began to understand that “tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living” (Jaroslav Pelikan) that I saw how important tradition really was for a living, healthy Christian faith.

Jesus did not oppose tradition. He opposed “vain human tradition.” The two are not the same. I believe the confusion created by the typical American reaction against Christian Tradition is not only unhealthy but it promotes a kind of faith that will be inherently disconnected from the renewal that we desperately need in the church in 2010. This is why I devoted so much to this subject in my book: Your Church Is Too Small. If you haven’t read the book yet I hope you will go to the book site and click the purchase link.

More Wisdom From Mount Athos

Last Lord’s Day I introduced you to the Orthodox tradition of monasticism associated with Mount Athos in Greece (photo at left). I referenced the writings of Staretz Silouan (1866-1938), a monk whose writing has been particularly helpful to me. Today I return to Silouan and his amazing chapter on love (his words in italics):

At all times I beseech the Lord who is merciful to grant that I may love my enemies; and by the grace of God I have experienced that the love of God is, and what it is to love my neighbour; and day and night I pray the Lord for love, and the Lord gives me tears to weep for the whole world. But if I find faith with any man or look on him with an unkind eye my tears dry up and my soul sinks into despondency. Yet do I begin again to entreat forgiveness of the Lord, and the Lord in his mercy forgives me, a sinner.

No man of himself can know what is God’s love, unless he be taught of the Holy Spirit; but God’s love is known in our Church through the Holy Spirit, and so we speak of this love.

The Lord is not like us. He is passing meek, and merciful, and good; and when the soul knows Him she marvels greatly and exclaims: “O what a Lord is ours!'”

The Lord loves us, and gently and without reproach takes us to Himself, just as the father in the Gospel story did not reproach his prodigal son but called his servants to bring a new robe and put a precious ring on his finger and shoes on his feet, and told them to kill the fatted calf, and be merry; and in nothing did he condemn his son.

“Did not our heart burn within us?” said the Apostles after Christ drew near them. So does the soul recognize and love her Lord, and the delight of His love is a burning delight.

In heaven there is one and the same love in the hearts of all, but on earth some there are that greatly love the Lord, others love Him in small degree, while still others love Him not at all.

I have known a man for some years who professed the Christian faith and did many acts of charity. Everyone believed him to be a truly pious man. He professed faith as a child and then lived a life of outward conformity to Christ, at least in so far as most knew him. He was a devoted leader in the Christian church, widely respected. But his life was an internal shambles. For many years he was mastered by adultery. When God wakened him from his spiritual death he fell in love with Christ. I asked him, some months ago, “All those years that you professed your faith in Christ and did all those good things you did in service of Christ did you love the Lord Jesus Christ from your heart?” His answer was as I expected. He calmly said, “No.” I asked him what had changed and he said, very simply, “I met him in the recesses of my own heart and now I know I love him and I know beyond any doubt that he loves me.”

This is why I do not ask people if they have experienced a conversion or accepted Jesus into their heart. I ask, “Do you love the Lord or not?” The apostle John says, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. The love of the Father is not in those who love the world” (1 John 2:15). The world here refers to the fallen powers and reigning gods of this world. Do you live for yourself, your worldly pleasure, or for the Father? If you love God you will live for God. We know that we belong to God because we love. We love because he first loved us.

The Feast of Pentecost

Today is the beginning of a new cycle in the church year, the Feast of Pentecost. Easter has ended liturgically but Pentecost reminds us that the resurrected Christ is still with us by the gift of the Spirit who makes him known to all who believe.

The word pentecost (from the Greek pentekoste hemera, meaning “fiftieth day”) was originally a Hellenistic term for the Jewish Feast of Weeks. For the early Christians Pentecost, eventually celebrated seven weeks after Easter, or fifty days after the Easter Vigil, commemorates the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples when they were empowered to preach the gospel. It marks the beginning of the church, at least as we know it in this present age (Acts 2:1-13). Pentecost was actually the third major Jewish feast. It initially celebrated the harvest of grain and later the giving of the Law to Moses on Sinai.

On the first Pentecost Peter preached to people and pilgrims in Jerusalem. Around three thousand believed his message and were baptized on that day. This is a staggering beginning to a new age that dawned in that ancient city. We are thus quite right to refer to this time in history as “the age of the Spirit,” or the season of Pentecost. Theologian J. I. Packer writes:

The New Testament proclaims the gift of the personal Holy Spirit to indwell all believers (Acts 2:18; Rom. 8:9; Gal. 3:2) as the seal, guarantee, means and first fruits (Rom. 8:23; 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13-14) of their eternal life of fellowship with the Father and the Son (John 17:3; 1 John 1:3). The Spirit, now revealed as a distinct agent who speaks, shows, witnesses, helps, intercedes, and can be grieved and lied to (John 16:13-15; Rom. 8:16, 26; Eph. 4:30; Acts 5:3), mediates the presence of Christ (John 14:16-18; Eph. 3:16-17), unites us to him (Eph. 4:3-4), regenerates (John 3:5, 8; 2 Cor. 3:6; Tit. 3:5), illuminates (1 Cor. 2:13-16; Eph. 1:17), and transforms us (2 Cor. 3:18; Gal. 5:22-23), testifies to our adoption, thus altering our self-knowledge (Rom. 8:16), sustains our praying (Gal. 4:6; Eph. 6:18; Jude 20), and gives us all gifts for service (1 Cor. 12:4-11).

The full new covenant ministry of Jesus presupposed his return to glory to be with the Father and thus did not begin until Pentecost (Acts 2) which is the fulfillment of the pre-ascension promise of Spirit baptism (Acts 1:5: 11:16).

On this day we are all called to remember that this story shows that the gift of the Spirit animates Christ’s people, transforms them, emboldens them and brings divine ability to each of them to be fruitful in ministry.

In my own celebration of Pentecost this year I was reminded that the Spirit is the Spirit of peace. He has come to unite us in Christ as “joint-heirs” and to teach us how to live together in the bonds of peace. Our discipleship has too often lacked credibility precisely because we have not pursued the peace and unity of the catholic church. My particular prayer for today began in my worship last evening:

“Forgive me Lord for all the times that I have been aggressive in my attitude toward others and help me to develop the kind of self-control that will check all rising temptation to needlessly cause more pain in the church of Christ.”

A History of Christianity on DVD

I recently viewed an excellent six-part video series titled: “A History of Christianity” presented by Professor Dairmaid MacCulloch, a professor of church history at University of Oxford (since 1997) and Fellow (formerly Senior Tutor) of St Cross College, Oxford (since 1995). MacCulloch is the highly esteemed author of several important volumes that have won numerous literary awards.

His published works include the eminently useful work Reformation: Europe’s House Divided 1490-1700 (2003). This volume won the 2004 National Book Critics Circle Award and 2004 British Academy Book Prize, adding to his earlier success in carrying off the 1996 James Tait Black Memorial Prize for his marvelous and most important work Thomas Cranmer: A Life. (The link here will allow you to purchase the Cranmer volume at a great price too.) The Cranmer book is simply the best work we have on this important English Protestant Reformer. His most recent book is a massive one-volume work (again the link gives you the best price I found), A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years, published in September 2009.

As readers well know Christianity is the world’s biggest religion, yet few in the secular West seem to care a great deal with this fact, preferring to marginalize Christians and faith and build up Islam and other faiths as more important to our culture and future. Following an appeal by Archbishop Rowan Williams the BBC produced a major documentary series on Christianity that aired on British television in 2009. That British television series is now available as a six-episode boxed set distributed by Ambrose DVD.

MacCulloch’s presentation is engaging and fits the warm rhetorical style of an Oxford don with a wry sense of humor and a careful eye for the unusual. The son of an English vicar who grew up in “one of those great Georgian rectories where Agatha Christie murders took place” MacCulloch has clearly grasped the medium well as these videos will quickly reveal. I found them hard to stop watching once I began. (I think I saw them all in three days time.) But behind the cool exterior and warm style there is a scholar who is a real person, not simply a teacher of history. MacCulloch is opinionated if he is anything at all. In fact, part of what makes this series so effective is the viewer will again and again say, even aloud, “Why on earth did he say that?” And as one British journalist put it, “Judging by the first episode of A History of Christianity, there is some vigorous axe-grinding going on.” That is a modest understatement.

But what makes this series so valuable is its panoramic flyover of two thousand years. Scholars will debate conclusions but ordinary viewers will learn so much and learn it with a keen eye for detail. Disagree with McCullouch you should but ignore him you must not. This series would be well worth showing to serious adult discussion groups and in classes for college and seminary students. It is also worth owning and using in a personal way. I will watch it again, perhaps several times.

Why did it take nearly 35 years for the BBC to actually tackle the subject of Christianity so openly? There are a variety of reasons but the most obvious is the tone-deafness of the West to its own origins and the role that religion has played in that history and development. Dairmaid MacCulloch says: “It took a long time for the West to wake up to the fact that religion was back with a vengeance in almost literal terms, and that Europe’s move towards serene indifference to faith was the exception, not the rule.”

One of the great values of this series is that MacCulloch deals with early varieties of Christianity that moved east rather than west. He visits communities in Syria that still worship in Aramaic, the language of Christ, and the first episode ends up in China where he visits a pagoda that displays traces of a Christianity that died out. MacCulloch insists that this is because this Christianity lacked the support of Western imperial power. Like religion scholar Philip Jenkins, who also has a lot of good to teach us, MacCulloch has a decided bias against the West. When asked about this he said: “I wanted to show that there is a whole set of ancient Christianities which the West has forgotten because they were crushed by events,” he explains. The experts he employs in the series are often individuals with a decided bias against the West.

The problem here is actually quite simple: MacCulloch’s worldview is decidedly liberal both religiously and politically. He views Western Christianity as male-dominated, triumphalistic and too powerful. He has a special scorn for Roman Catholicism that cannot be missed by even the casual viewer with any background at all.

So how valuable is A History of Christianity given MacCulloch’s prejudices? His take is clearly slanted toward the liberal left. As a Christian who believes very, very differently I found myself arguing with MacCulloch while at the same time I learned a great deal that was informative and exciting to me. One British reviewer of the series added: “‘Dogmatism’ is one of his pet hates, but press him on his own contentious opinions and what does he say? ‘People don’t like hearing it told as it is.’”

In the final episode the viewer learns rather abruptly that MacCulloch really does have a decided opinion about his subject matter. He says, “I describe myself not so much as a Christian as a candid friend of Christianity.” Fair enough but what is the reason for this disclaimer or confession?

Though ordained as a deacon in the Church of England, MacCulloch declined ordination to the priesthood for political reasons related to his openness about his practice of a homosexual lifestyle. He joined the Gay Christian Movement in 1976, serving twice on its committee and briefly as honorary secretary. Regarding the clash between his sexuality and the Church and his own retreat from religious orthodoxy he said:

I was ordained Deacon. But, being a gay man, it was just impossible to proceed further, within the conditions of the Anglican set-up, because I was determined that I would make no bones about who I was; I was brought up to be truthful, and truth has always mattered to me. The Church couldn't cope and so we parted company.

So why should a mainstream Christian, who is put off by such an admission of lifestyle and opinion, watch this series? Because there is so much here to learn. MacCulloch treats the rise of charismatic Christianity, to use but one good example, with quite a bit of detached and fair-minded historical accuracy. He introduces Western viewers to the East and to parts of the church that we neither know nor understand. And he does it, generally speaking, in an intelligent and thought provoking way. With these reservations I recommend that you watch this series and use them to teach others the broad strokes of Christian history. But be sure to inform those who see them that this is one historian’s view and that there are many other ways to understand  the spin MacCulloch puts on people and events. But use them for what they do so well. Here you can see a bigger and broader Christianity than that which is understood by most Christians who have ever encountered the multi-faceted history of the whole Christian church. As a proponent of missional-ecumenism I can use these videos to teach, even (one could say especially) where I so disagree with the historian himself.

NOTE: Your purchase of any of the books, or the video series, through the links provided above will take you to Amazon.com where I found the best prices and where the link takes you to our ACT 3 online Amazon store account. A purchase through this means benefits ACT 3.