Archive for the Category » church history «

August 27th, 2008 | Author: akagaga

Books by John Milton (1608-74) were ordered burned in London because of his attacks on the English monarchy. His indictment revolved around his theology, his advocating presbyterian (elder ruled) rather than episcopal (bishop ruled) church government. With the restoration of the monarchy to England in 1660, Milton was punished with a fine and a short term in prison for supporting the Parliament. Afterward, he lived in retirement and wrote his greatest work, Paradise Lost (1667).

But Jesus called them to Himself, and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:25-28

[Note: This is the second in a series on tidbits of church history, taken from An Almanac of the Christian Church by William D. Blake. Click here to see the whole series.]

Category: church history | Leave a Comment

This Day in 1572 – The Church

August 24th, 2008 | Author: akagaga

I recently unearthed a copy of An Almanac of the Christian Church by William D. Blake. As our American history is relatively short, and we do tend to be self-focused, I thought sharing occasional tidbits of church history might give us a broader perspective. Here’s today’s morsel. (Click on the picture for wikipedia details.)

St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.
During the night in Paris and throughout France, over 10,000 Huguenots (French Protestants) were murdered by the troops of Catherine de Medici, the Queen mother, and for 30 years the real ruler of France. The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre precipitated the Fourth Huguenot War and quickened the spirit of French Protestant religious emigration soon after.

How precious is our freedom to worship God as we choose.

Category: church history | 4 Comments

Faith in Christ or Faith in Doctrine? Part I

July 15th, 2008 | Author: akagaga

Over the past few years, I’ve done a lot of reading about Christianity, from several different viewpoints. Last winter, I did some deliberate research on the history of Christian denominations. I’m not a historian or a scholar, but in my search for truth, some things have become obvious, even to me.

No person, church, or denomination has all the truth

Even though most every church proclaims they have “the truth” that other churches do not, I don’t believe any of them. Even those that claim they base everything on the Bible, and can show you the scripture to back it up, in practice they actually base their doctrines on someone else’s beliefs.

You’ve probably heard a version of this story before, but here’s what I remember. Some people are blindfolded and trying to identify what’s before them, using only their hands. One person declares it’s a tree, with very rough bark. Another says, no, it’s a huge wall that stretches forever. A third says it’s some kind of large snake. In reality, they are each touching a different part of an elephant.

The conclusion I draw is that all their conclusions were wrong. It was not a tree or a wall or a snake. They did better, however, when they described what they learned about the elephant, without trying to draw a conclusion. The elephant is rough skinned and huge and snake-like.

I think we should approach our knowledge of God with this lesson in mind. We can probably describe some of His attributes with a degree of accuracy, through the Bible and the revelation of the Holy Spirit, but we can’t say definitively: This is God, and all of God, and only God. Individually and collectively, we only know of God what He has chosen to reveal to us.

I think this applies to denominations, as well. When God reveals “His trunk” to one person and “His leg” to someone else, why must they argue and create a new exclusive doctrine involving their revealed truth? Typically, they declare that all Christians who don’t know about “His leg” are apostate, and create a new “true” denomination.

I did some additional reading about the classic Arminianism vs. Calvinism debate, and this is what I concluded. The Arminians took half the Bible and created a doctrine. The Calvinists took the other half of the Bible and created a conflicting doctrine. Both are based on scripture, but both are based on only some scripture, not the whole.

Paul tells us that now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known. (I Cor 13:12.) If we humbly accepted this, and gratefully thanked God for the knowledge He gives us, instead of playing one-upmanship games, I think we would all look more like Christ.

I just finished reading a1970 edition of The Spirit Bade Me Go by David J. DuPlessis, and this passage jumped out at me (p. 41-42):

The first forty years of my life I spent in Africa. I saw that most of the missionaries tried to make “foreigners” instead of Christians out of Africans. They took great pains to make them Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Methodists … My whole being rebelled against this kind of mission … Our Pentecostal missions flourished because we did not have books of creeds or catechisms to teach the Africans. We gave them the Bible and told them to believe what is there, and the missionary lived the life that only the Holy Spirit can cause men to live … The Holy Spirit create[d] these churches.

This concept rings with truth, and the only thing that has changed in the fifty years since DuPlessis wrote it, is that now even the Pentecostals have creeds and doctrines. Many Christians, I think, are still fleshly, and try to “create” new Christians in their own image, instead of the image of Christ.

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to babes in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. (1 Cor 3:1-7)

This can be quite easily updated to current terminology: “I am Catholic” or “I am Pentecostal” or “I am Calvinist.” Is this jealousy and pride of any value to Christ? I think not.

[This topic will be continued, as my fibromyalgia allows. In the meantime, your comments are most welcome.]

Category: Christianity, church history | 5 Comments

Calvinism vs. Arminianism

May 30th, 2008 | Author: akagaga

Here are links to the latest edition of the debate that continues to rage on, lo these many centuries:

Dictionary for Calvinists
(written by an Arminian)

Dictionary of Arminian Terms
(written by a Calvinist)

If you happened to read my sermon on The Church, you know that I have a problem with both traditions, so this sarcastic “humor” is not a surprise.

To my mind, the Arminians took one half of the Bible and built a doctrine on it. The Calvinists took the other half to build a contrary doctrine. Both have dug their heels in and declared that real Christianity is routed in their tradition. But you know what Jesus said about tradition, don’tcha?

“Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” He was also saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.” Mark 7:8-9

So my suggestion is that we throw out all the tradition and the creeds and doctrinal statements. I know this is a radical idea, but if we actually let “The Holy Scriptures be our only rule of faith and practice”, as almost every church proclaims they do, I have the faith that the Holy Spirit is quite capable of guiding us – even untrained and uneducated people like me … and Peter and John. (Acts 4:13)

In fact, I think we’d all be better off if we just completely did away with denominations. As He did in the letters to the churches in Revelation, I believe Jesus speaks directly to a given church in a given location – no national or regional headquarters needed to filter the information.

If the local church doesn’t rely on Jesus Christ to guide them, does it even qualify as Christianity?

For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God.
Acts 20:27

There. Now I’ve got everybody mad at me.

Category: Christianity, church history | Leave a Comment

The Church

February 19th, 2008 | Author: akagaga

[note: This is a message I shared with my church on Feb. 17th. Click on the charts to enlarge them.]

I want to share two scripture promises this morning. The first is James 1:5-6:

But if any of you lacks wisdom,
let him ask of God,
who gives to all men generously
and without reproach,
and it will be given to him.
But let him ask in faith without any doubting,
for the one who doubts
is like the surf of the sea
driven and tossed by the wind.

The second promise is in Proverbs chapter 2 verses 1-6:

My son, if you will receive my sayings,
And treasure my commandments within you,
Make your ear attentive to wisdom,
Incline your heart to understanding;
For if you cry for discernment,
Lift your voice for understanding;
If you seek her as silver,
And search for her as for hidden treasures;
Then you will discern the fear of the LORD,
And discover the knowledge of God.
For the LORD gives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge
and understanding.

Since I’ve been saved, there has been an overwhelming hunger in my heart to know God and to know God’s ways. Some people have even said I’m fanatical and obsessive about it — which is true — but the way I figure? I did it my way for 39 years and screwed everything up. God’s way has got to be better.

The scriptures I read this morning are true. When we seek God for wisdom and understanding and knowledge and discernment, he is generous to provide it. In fact, my message this morning is the result of seeking God on one particular subject for several years, and I’m pretty excited that I get to share it with you.

Here was my question to God: What is the church? How should it function? Who runs it? How does it worship? In short, what is God’s way for the church? I started looking around, and it didn’t take me long to realize that almost all churches proclaim that they do things God’s way. Only trouble is, they all do things differently. Obviously, they can’t all be right, so that began my quest.

Over the past few years, I have read literally dozens of books about what church is. I have prayed. I have scoured the scriptures. I have driven my husband nuts. The past couple of months, I have searched through church history, which is when everything came together for me, so I’m going to share a few highlights of what I found. There will not be a test.

This first chart I redrew from Wikipedia, because it helped me make sense of things. It shows the major branches of the church over time.

The Nicene Creed:
· 325 The 1st Council of Nicea was held to unify the church; they wrote the Nicene Creed, a statement of beliefs
· In 381, at the 1st Council of Constantinople they changed the Nicene Creed
· In 431 at the Council of Ephesus they forbid changes to the Nicene Creed
· Sixteen years later at the Council of Toledo, they added a controversial clause to the Nicene Creed.
· Today? There are at least seven different versions of the Nicene Creed in use.

Chalcedonian Creed
· At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, they adopted the Chalcedonian Creed, which is different than the Nicene Creed.

The Great Schism
· In 1054, there was a major split in the church, between the Eastern, or Greek, branch, and the Western, or Latin, branch. These later became the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. The primary causes were over the Roman Pope’s sphere of authority, and … that controversial clause they added to the Nicene Creed back in 447.

The Reformation
· In 1517, Martin Luther nailed “The 95 Theses” to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenburg, Germany. He objected to many Catholic church practices, including the sale of indulgences, the authority of the pope, and the nature of penances. [As an interesting little tidbit: Back in 400, when Jerome first translated the Bible from Greek to Latin, he is said to have mistranslated the Greek word for repent into the Latin word for penance. So I suspect that this is how Catholic’s come to “pay penance” instead of repenting.]
· In 1521 they convened the Diet of Worms, primarily to condemn Martin Luther
· In 1525, the Anabaptists were born, objecting to infant baptism
· In 1530, Martin Luther founded the Lutheran church.
· In Switzerland in 1563, John Calvin wrote “The Institutes of the Christian Religion”, also objecting to many Catholic practices
· In 1610, the followers of Jacobus Arminius wrote the “The Five Articles of Remonstrance”, stating their own doctrines in contrast to the Calvinists.
· In 1618-19, the Synod of Dort convened, and refuted “The Five Articles of Remonstance” in the “Canons of Dort.”

That covers the major splits and that’s where I’m gonna stop, or we’d be here until Jayme goes to Africa. You can see on this chart that the arguments over doctrine have only multiplied since the Reformation, creating multiple new denominations. In a 1999 survey, The Reformed Church alone had 746 denominations worldwide. Not churches – denominations. I don’t think this is the unified church that Jesus spoke of.
As I was digging through all this history, and much more, a couple things jumped out at me:

· It seemed that every time someone documented their doctrine, a split occurred.
· And every time a particular church tried to exert their authority over another church, a split occurred.

Do we need doctrine? Absolutely. Doctrine simply means instruction or teaching, and the Bible is full of encouragement to do just that.

Does the church need authority? Again, the Bible lays this out quite clearly.

So why is the church so divided? What’s gone wrong? Let’s look at doctrine first.

No single person or single group of persons in any one time and location is going to have all the truth. Paul said that “now we see in a mirror dimly … now we know in part.[1]” In my personal experience, God teaches me what I need to know next. I don’t get all knowledge, I get the knowledge I need at the time, if I’m paying attention. I suspect that He supplies knowledge to the church in the same way — just what is needed at any given place or time.

Over the course of history, though, Christians have tended to build their doctrine on the knowledge of previous generations. Arminius refuted Calvin, who built on Augustine, etc., back through the centuries.

Could it be that the piece of knowledge that Augustine was given for his place and time, is not the same piece of knowledge that we need in the here and now? Could Jesus have different priorities for us based on our different circumstances? Instead of looking to the past for our doctrine, should we be looking directly to Jesus and the Bible?

1 Corinthians 3:4-7 says this:

For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.

Wouldn’t this apply to Augustine and Calvin and Arminius, too?

In Mark 7:6-9, Jesus said this to the scribes and Pharisees:

“Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” He was also saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.”

Could it be that the church has repeated the error of the scribes and Pharisees?

The other thing that seemed to cause big rifts in the church is the issue of authority: who’s in charge, who decides doctrine, who decides how things are done. The Bible speaks clearly about elders and deacons, about apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Jesus spends quite a bit of time teaching that church leaders should be servant leaders, just as He was, instead of Lording it over each other. These are the standard things we look at in relationship to authority, but the Lord also led me to another passage.

In Revelation, Chapter 1, verses 10-11, John says this:

“I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,
and I heard behind me a loud voice
like the sound of a trumpet,
saying, “Write in a book what you see,
and send it to the seven churches:
to the Catholics and to the Lutherans
and to the Anabaptists
and to the Calvinists and to the Armenians
and to the Baptists and to the Pentecostals.”

Okay, I changed it a little bit, and it sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? What Jesus really did was dictate individual letters to individual churches in individual locations: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. These churches were all within about 150 miles of each other, but each church got their own message, based on their own circumstances — and each message was different.

This is when the lightbulb went off. Our God is a personal God, not a one-size-fits-all God. When Jesus wants to direct the church in Glen, is He going to send a letter to the RCA office in Grand Rapids or New York City? Is He going to tell the synod in Albany? I don’t think so! I think He’s going to speak directly to us — to me and to you, His church body in Glen, NY. So who has authority over each church in each location? Jesus, who has been given all authority in heaven and on earth.[2]

So with these two premises — that we get our doctrine directly from God and the Bible, not other men; and that Jesus is the sole authority over each church — I have created my own chart, with some help from my hubbie.

At the center in blue is our Triune God. Just below Him in red is the Bible. Around the outside in purple are several churches in different locations. See? Red plus blue equals the purple of the royal priesthood, of which we are all a part. Each church is connected directly to God and the Bible. There is no mediator between Jesus and his church — the veil of separation was torn in two when He hung on the cross and died for us.

There is also a dotted line connecting the different churches to one another, in fellowship and support, but no church is in authority over any other. Glen reads their letter from Jesus, Rural Grove reads theirs, and there’s nothing to argue over.

And that’s how I believe church is supposed to be. Each group of believers gets together with their strengths and their weaknesses and their Bibles and their Lord, and He conforms them into His own image.

You are all free to disagree with me, of course, but I believe with all my heart that if Jesus is given His rightful place as head of each church body in each location, He will be faithful to write us the letters we need, just when we need them. God will keep His promises from James and Proverbs. When we cry out for wisdom and understanding and discernment, when we seek her as silver, and search for her as for hidden treasures, we will truly discern the fear of the LORD, And discover the knowledge of God.

[1] 1 Corinthians 13:12
[2] Matthew 28:18