Friends, good morning. It's wonderful to have the invitation to speak at Adolf Sunday School again.
The last time I spoke here in the mornings at Adolf Sunday School, I think it was 2018,
when one of the last times I was on the baton.
My name's Rhys and I teach at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia.
It's an Anglican Theological College. We call it, you'd call it a seminary.
And I teach chiefly church history, but have some other responsibilities on the side.
And because Australians are so lousy in thinking about history, I do this talk so often,
which is trying to give people a bit of a handle on 2,000 years.
It's ambitious and it will be slightly naive, but nonetheless really important.
Let me just get some handle on what the Lord has done over this extended period of time.
So let me pray for us.
We praise you, God, Father, Son and Spirit, for this wonderful hour together,
that we might learn and think and grow and understand a little better how we might serve you in the world.
So please, in all our words, in our thinking, in our speaking and listening,
may we honour you for Christ's sake. Amen.
Amen.
Well, there's a hangout in front of you with three columns, effectively.
Each of those columns represents a significant moment in church history.
Now, I could have added other columns.
You might note there's no medieval column, for example.
That is a function more or less of the fact that I teach three history units at Ridley,
Early Church, Reformation Church, and Modern Evangelicalism.
So I don't teach a unit of medieval history.
So the limitations of this handout or of this session
are a function of the limitations of my own teaching and competencies.
What I want to do is to introduce you to each of those three periods
and show how each of those three periods is like and dislike the periods preceding.
And that way we can kind of get a picture of how church history has developed
in the course of the last 2,000 years.
So, for example, we want to look at the early church,
roughly speaking, the first 500 years.
In that period, the chief debate was about who is God, who is Christ.
So, if you will, the doctrine that was chiefly debated
was the doctrines of God and Christ.
Of course, they talked about any number of other things.
That goes without saying.
But nonetheless, when they talked about those other things,
they realised that to have an answer to those other questions,
they first of all had an answer to the question,
who is God, who is Christ.
And then you could work out the others.
They kept being forced back to that really fundamental concern.
They were talking about who is God,
the doctrine of the Trinity,
who is Christ,
how can this man, Jesus Christ,
be the second person of the Trinity?
So, the great distinctive that they highlighted
was how Christ can be with us.
Emmanuel, God with us.
How can the second person of the Trinity
be amongst us, walk with us,
die for us?
So, when they talked about any number of things,
they kept coming back to this core belief,
Christ with us.
This core distinctive.
How Christ,
the second person of the Trinity,
the Son of God,
could walk this earth
with us.
And when they settled these debates,
they summarised their conversations
through a number of different creeds.
And you might know some,
the Apostles' Creed,
the Nicene Creed,
or perhaps the Affirmation Creed.
In those creeds,
you'll notice that there's no mention
of the word grace.
There's no mention of the word atonement.
There's lots of words that we would use
that don't appear.
They're mainly about Christ
and Christ who is with us.
Not that they didn't believe in the atonement,
and not that they didn't believe
in the Holy Spirit,
but nonetheless,
their debates were circling
around this kind of core idea.
They wrote creeds
to summarise those debates
and to defend those insights.
If you agree with the Apostles' Creed,
or the Nicene Creed,
or the Affirmation Creed,
for that matter,
you can describe yourself
as Orthodox or Catholic.
That doesn't mean Greek
or Russian Orthodox.
That doesn't mean Roman Catholic.
These are words that just describe
your commitment to the creeds.
So I can describe myself
as an Orthodox Christian.
I'm in no sense Greek.
I can describe myself
as a Catholic Christian,
but I'm in no sense Roman Catholic.
But I describe myself
in these terms
because I will heartily affirm
the Apostles' Creed
or the Nicene Creed in church,
or elsewhere,
that matter.
This is also an unusual period
because in this moment,
in these first 500 years,
Christians went from being
a persecuted minority
to having legal status
in the Roman Empire.
So this was the beginning
of what we might name Christendom,
where church and state
are working together
for the common good.
Previously,
the state,
the Roman Emperor,
believed that the church
didn't represent the common good,
and therefore they must be persecuted
and minimised.
But there came a point
in the beginning
of the 4th century
when the Emperor said,
no, you know what?
I think they are no longer
a threat to the state.
We will work with them.
At least initially,
the church was given
some legal status
like their own buildings
and you didn't have to
be fed to the lions
and you misbehaved anymore.
So this was,
crudely put,
the way the first 500 years
of church history
operated.
The early church,
or some people might
describe it as
the patristic period.
I'm going to pause now,
take that sip of water,
and ask if you have any
thoughts, comments,
follow-up questions.
There are no dumb questions,
right?
There are just dumb answers.
So you should feel free
to ask whatever
you want to ask.
If there's things here,
and of course,
it's racing through this,
so if people who know
something about the early
church might find
3,000 holes in what
I've just said.
Brother?
I thought the distinction
between Orthodox and
Catholic came in the
11th century.
Yeah, so that is true
when you use those words
to describe denominations,
but those words are
commonly referred to,
commonly used to describe
a commitment to the
creeds.
So you're correct.
The word Catholic
was used very early on.
The word Orthodox
was used very early on.
But they weren't words
being used to describe
the difference between
the Roman church
and the Greek church.
What was the difference
in this time period?
There was hardly a difference
in this time period.
Yeah, yeah.
So Catholic means
according to the whole,
and the Catholic position
was that if you belong
to the majority church,
if you can say the creeds,
if you can't say the creeds,
you're a schismatic.
You don't belong to the
majority church or the
whole church.
I think that's a question
Yeah, so if at this time
the focus was on this
defence of Christ with us,
does that mean there was
very little discussion
of the doctrines of grace
and spirit,
or they were just secondary?
Yes.
They were accepted facts,
or how did they
understand those things?
Yes, of course.
Because we know today
you can't live with just one.
You need all three
to degree your faith.
So they were talking about
grace and the spirit
all the time.
Okay.
But to answer their questions
about grace and the spirit,
they had to push deeper
and kept coming back
to the question,
you can only define grace
if you first understood
who Christ is with us,
how the second person
of the Trinity
can walk this earth.
but that's kind of
the concrete foundation.
So it's not that they
didn't have the questions,
they didn't ignore
the questions,
but they kept saying,
well, if we want to
answer that question,
perhaps there's a prior question
and we still need to
work out who Jesus is
before we can work out
who Jesus was
who sent the spirit
according to Acts 2.
There's a back question.
Yes.
We may be stepping
way out of bounds,
but a little bit
about the text
and the development
of the text
and how it was passed down
in those first 500 years.
Yes, thank you.
You mean text of the Bible?
Correct.
Documentation,
a little bit,
maybe a little bit
about the languages
that were used
because we were in Europe,
et cetera.
Yeah, sure, sure.
Is it even possible
to squeeze it in
in 30 seconds?
So give me 35.
So in the first
100 years or so,
the texts,
Colossians,
Matthew, whatever,
were circulating
more or less independently
and then churches
started accumulating
or copying the texts
that were circulating
independently.
So one church
just had Colossians
and one church
had Romans.
They swapped them.
Now each church
has Colossians
and Romans, right?
So it took about
100 years
and then
the list
of books
that belonged
in the New Testament
became pretty settled.
by about the year 180.
But there was still
some further debate
whether
two Peter and Jude
belonged.
But it was a slow process
over the first
couple hundred years.
So for years
I've described myself
as Orthodox,
Catholic,
Protestant,
sometimes plain vanilla
Protestant,
and evangelical,
depending on who
I'm talking
Yeah, sure, sure.
And nevertheless,
I have some quibbles
with the creeds,
even the Apostles' Creed.
For our church history class
we've been reading
Pusto Gonzalez's book
The Story of Christianity,
right?
So in the chapter
I'm reading
he reproduces
some version
of awe,
the old Roman creed,
right?
And I found myself
writing yes,
yes,
next to
his English
statement
of the creed.
But I can't write
that quite
with the Apostles' Creed
or the Nicene Creed
or the Athenation.
Yes, I see.
So the creeds...
So my question is,
am I still justifying
calling myself a Catholic?
And I'm not.
Yeah, sure.
The creeds
aren't the scriptures.
So you're allowed
to disagree
with the creeds.
There are some
quibbles around
the edges
about what
in the creeds
we might easily
or with more
difficulty
ascend to.
But that aside,
I still think
the chief way
we use the word
Catholic and Orthodox
is to describe
our commitment
to creed or Christianity,
the big tradition
that begins
with that discussion
of the doctrine
of the Trinity.
Yeah, so people
might quibble
or try and work
out what it means
that Christ ascended
to hell
or Christ ascended
to the dead.
That might be
a classic debate
amongst Christians
what they're doing.
Well, this is great.
These are the questions
about the early church.
Just let's get
to the Reformation.
We'll see
how many questions
we have here.
So the early church,
the first 500 years,
discussed the doctrines
of God and Christ.
They summarised
their debates
with the language
of Christ
with us.
They wrote them down
or they captured them
in the Apostles
of Nicene
or Athanasian Creed.
and if you can
agree with them
in substantial amounts,
you can call yourself
an Orthodox Christian
or a Catholic Christian.
It was the beginning
of Christendom.
But a thousand years later,
Christians
in the West
started finding difficulties
with the way
the medieval church
was doing its ministry
and explaining its theology.
So the medieval church
had become a place
where grace
was seen
as a substance,
something that you could trade,
something you could buy
or sell,
something that you could
participate in
if a priest
of the church
performed the sacraments.
grace somehow
seemed a commodity
that you could
provide exchange for.
The story of how
the Western church
got to that place,
of course,
is a long
and complicated one.
If you have
a certain view
of grace
that it's a commodity,
you'll think
the church
is a place
of exchange.
What you
think of grace
shapes
what you think
the church
is for.
If you think
grace
is
a personal
encounter
with the Lord
Jesus Christ,
or if you think
grace
is the personal
presence of the Lord,
you'll think
the church
is a place
where you're
encouraged
to personally
meet the Lord.
But if you think
grace
is a substance,
not personal,
impersonal,
something you can
exchange,
then you'll think
the church
is a place
of exchange.
What you do
with grace
impacts
what you think
the church
is for.
So the
reformers
of the
16th century,
they had no
problem with
the left-hand
column.
The reformers
believed in
the doctrine
of the Trinity
and Christ,
the second
verse of the
Trinity,
walking this
earth in a
body.
They believed
that Christ
is with us.
They upheld
the Apostles'
Creed,
the Nicene
Creed,
the Affirmation
Creed.
They had
no problem
using the
word
orthodox
or Catholic
to describe
themselves.
But now
they're trying
to tweak,
they're trying
to adjust,
they're trying
to rethink
one particular
thing,
though it will
have big
implications.
They're trying
to think
more carefully
about what
grace is
and therefore
what the
church is
for.
And you'd
know that
one of the
great doctrines
that the
reformers
decided to
hold on to
in a certain
way of being
taught was
the doctrine
of justification.
We often say
justification by
faith.
Actually the
phrase is
justification
by grace
through faith.
justification is
a way of
describing grace,
that you
can't merit
it, that you
can't achieve
it, that you
can't do
anything that
would earn it.
The reformers
held on to
the slogan
Christ for
us in our
place,
taking our
penalty.
justification.
It wasn't
that they were
giving up on
Christ with
us, that
was a given,
like that
wasn't even
debated.
No, it's a
much narrower
set of
concerns now
concerning grace
in the church
and they
summarise that
under the
slogan Christ
for us or
in explaining
teaching,
writing about
the doctrine
of justification,
justification
by grace
through faith.
So if you
will, the
early church
provided a
broad pedestal
and now the
reformers are
standing on
that pedestal,
they're a bit
higher up and
they're building
another layer,
another floor,
another story.
It's not quite as
wide as the
first layer,
but it builds
taller.
And they
decided to
summarise this
teaching about
Christ for us
in
confessions of
faith.
These are not
creeds.
They believe
the creeds,
they agree with
the creeds,
they have held
the creeds.
Now this is
an addition to
the creeds.
These are
confessions of
faith which are
trying to more
particularly describe
what grace is
and what the
church is for.
So they wrote
the Augsburg
confession, if you
are more Lutheran,
the Heidelberg
confession, if you
are more
reformed, the
Schleitheim
confession, if
you're more
Baptistic, the
39 articles, if
you're an
Anglican
Protestant.
These were
statements
effectively, not
in time, but
effectively about
the nature of
grace and the
nature of the
church.
So if you can
agree with the
Augsburg
confession or the
Heidelberg
confession, you
can describe
yourself as a
Lutheran
Protestant or
Reformed
Protestant or
Anabaptist
Protestant or
Anglican
Protestant according
to the
confession that
you ascribe to.
So I'm an
Anglican
Protestant.
I'm also
Orthodox and
Catholic, right?
Because I can
still say the
creeds.
Being Anglican
doesn't mean that
you reject the
creeds, right?
It might in some
circles, but not
in mine.
And in this
era, there was
still the
assumption that
church and
state would
work together
for the
common good.
There was a
tiny bit of
separation.
Calvin tried
to move his
church a little
away from the
city authorities
in Geneva, but
effectively they
were not
overturning
radically, that
is the
magistrate
reformers, the
assumption that
church and
state would
work together.
So can you
see that
in this
middle column
Protestant
believers have
tried to
supplement or
clarify some
issues that
have remained
uncertain or
unclear from
the early
church?
Or if they
hadn't remained
unclear, they
had nonetheless
in the middle
age been obscured
by Roman
Catholic teaching.
So if you
pause and hear
your thoughts or
your comments.
Yes.
stop.
Yeah, I think it's
really important
the point where
they were, they
destroyed the
left-hand side of
the column.
Correct.
And one of the
arguments that I
think Roman
Catholics use
against Lutherans
is there was
never a Lutheran
before Martin
Luther.
Yes.
There was never
a Calvinist
before John
Calvin.
Yes.
But they're
trying to show
that they were
in lockstep with
the early church.
So they weren't
schismatics.
Instead, they
were going back
to the patristic
church fathers and
the understanding
of grace and
Christ that they
taught.
Correct.
But I think a
lot of Protestants
think that there
was novelties and
innovations and
very Calvinist,
very clear that
he's going back
to Augustine and
the church fathers.
So I appreciate
that.
Well, the
Reformation
effectively was
the rediscovery
of Augustine,
Augustine's
doctrine of grace,
which effectively
means the
rediscovery of
Paul.
So you're
absolutely correct.
Luther did not
see himself as
a revolutionary.
He just wanted
to recapture
something of
the scriptural
authority of the
early church and
to then hone what
he believed was
an era of the
late medieval
church.
It's also true
that there were
lots of reformers
through the
middle ages and
lots of people
were complaining
about the Roman
church and the
papacy, right?
So Luther's not the
first.
The clever thing
though about
Roman Catholic
church in the
middle ages is
that when there
were people who
were agitated for
reform, the
papacy let those
folk become an
order.
The Franciscans,
the Dominicans,
and of course a
whole lot of
others, the
Benedictines.
So they allowed
the disagreement to
stand but also
contained the
disagreement in
order.
So it's a very,
I don't mean this
cynically, it's a
very clever model,
right?
You're kind of
allowing there to
be this range of
opinion but
nonetheless this range
of opinion is
being cleverly
circumscribed.
Suppressed.
Yes, well no,
they weren't being
suppressed because
they're allowed to
exist, right?
They're allowed to
exist.
And in fact,
St. Francis was
given amazing
permission to
preach whereas it
was illegal if
you were a lay
person to
preach.
St. Francis was
a lay person and
the Pope said,
yeah, look, you're
not going to say
anything stupid so
I'm going to let you
preach.
So they were
allowed to do it,
right?
But it was kind of
channeled perhaps is
better than suppressed.
Yeah, yeah.
I've just written,
no, I just haven't
written.
I've just translated
a biography of
St. Francis from
German to English
and so I'm
willing to get
people's wrong
views of St. Francis
right.
Why wasn't
Lutheranism able to
be channeled in
that way?
Oh yeah, sure.
It sort of made
its own little thing
within the broader
tent.
Yes, because
Luther was German.
Yes.
So Luther did
not live in central
Italy.
He lived in Germany,
had protection from
his prince.
His prince was able
to deflect to some
degree criticism.
Although Luther was
still not allowed to
travel outside Saxony
so he was limited
into where he could
go actually and he
resented that
massively because it
was the young guys
who were getting all
the glory and not
him and he hated
that.
But so he was
kind of constricted
but he wasn't
he wasn't
burned.
You mentioned
at one point
you said this
talking about
in the West
this was happening.
What's in the East?
Are they developing
in the same fashion
looking at the
Eastern Church?
Is the East
looking
and investigating
the same issues
and coming
in the same trajectory
or was it a
different experience?
Yes, thank you.
No, it was quite
a different experience
because the
Eastern Greek
speaking church
and the Western
Latin speaking
church had been
growing apart
for hundreds
and hundreds
of years
and that
movement apart
was formalised
in 1054
in the Great
Schism.
So they're
pretty different
worlds at this
stage.
But are there
theological
issues still
centred on
grace?
Are there
completely
different
things they're
pondering in
that church
versus the West?
Yes, thank you.
Today you mean
or in this period?
In this period.
Yeah, sure.
I'm probably not
qualified to speak
about the
16th century
Greek church
but they did
have a different
view of the
spirit so that
probably did open
them to having
slightly different
nuanced views of
grace.
So we know
why Lutheranism
wasn't contained
on the other
side of the
spectrum.
Why wasn't
the Cathari and
the Adelgensi
contained?
You mean they
were contained,
right?
Why were they
absorbed?
Yes.
Yes, I see.
Sure.
Thank you.
So there were
some groups in
the south of
France who
were regarded
as heretical
and they
were chiefly
regarded as
schismatic,
ultimately heretical
because they
were refusing
the Pope's
authority.
Francis never
did that.
Francis looked
for the Pope's
authority.
He submitted
to the Pope's
authority.
He wanted to
further the Pope's
authority.
So Francis
was a man of
the church.
he was pushing
that the church
should rethink
its wealth,
but he
nonetheless was
not a
revolutionary
like the
Cathari and
the Adelgensians
were.
In fact,
the Pope,
Francis lived
at the same
time as the
other groups,
and the Pope
liked Francis
because he
was saying,
look, here's
a guy who
can want to
reform the
church and
he's loyal
to me.
So Francis
was the
example opposite
at the very
same moment
the Cathari
and the
Albigensians
in the
south of
France.
Rob?
Just with
that statement
you just
made,
you implied
that there
might be
a little
politics
involved.
Who would
have thought?
Who would
have thought?
And then
to go back
to the theme
you just
mentioned
earlier about
returning back
to the
original theme
of Paul
and Augustine
and all of
these things,
we kind of
used the
Holy Spirit
to bring us
to that
place and
to bring us
to the
present.
Is that a
fair assumption
that it's
we're getting
back to the
core?
We need to
get back to
the core
issues.
And that's
where it
separates the
reformed from
the true
Catholic Italian
church.
So it's
kind of an
odd question
but I
don't know
if I'm
getting my
idea across
of how
the Spirit
is now
leading more
in these
reformers'
thoughts.
Yes,
so I
assume that
the Spirit's
always at
work amongst
Christians.
That is,
that there's
no moment
when the
Spirit gives
up on us.
So it
is true
though that
Calvin wrote
a lot about
the Spirit
and that's
Calvin's
way of
writing a lot
about grace.
My assumption
is that grace
is the personal
presence of the
Lord.
A gift to
you.
God gives,
not just gives
this other
thing to you,
he gives
himself to
you,
he gives
himself to
us.
That's grace,
God's personal
presence to
us.
And how
does God
give to us
his personal
presence?
Well, it's
from the Lord
Jesus, the Lord
Jesus by his
Spirit.
So,
implicit in
the Reformation's
conversations about
grace is a
belief, a
commitment to
the doctrine of
the Spirit.
Calvin writes
about a lot,
Luther,
Lesto,
but still,
in a sense,
the understand,
description,
conversation of
the Spirit
probably awaits
the Great
Awakening a
couple of
hundred years
after this
moment.
Thank you.
Well, let's
look at the
third column
then.
I would have
thought,
2,000 years
in the first
25 minutes.
The Reformers
talked up the
doctrines of
grace and
therefore the
doctrine of the
church.
What's the
church for?
If this is what
grace is, what's
the church had to
look like to do
to prosper that
view of grace?
stone.
They summarised
their beliefs,
they had lots
of them of
course, but we
might sloganise
them in Christ
for us, and
they wrote down
their views
slightly different
from different
denominations in
confessions of
the faith.
Confessions
aren't meant to
be held
universally by
all Christians.
Confessions
are written for
particular
denominations.
And if you
believe or
agree with one
of those
confessions of
faith, you
can describe
yourself as a
Reformed
Christian or
an Anabaptist
Christian or
an Anglican
Christian or
something.
The assumption
still was a
church estate
working together
for the common
good.
But given
that, 200
years later,
Protestant
churches were
dead.
Protestant
churches lacked
life.
You can be
entirely
Protestant and
entirely dead.
This was
blowing people's
minds.
They believed
that Christ is
for us.
They believed
that the
church's job
was to present
the gift of
Christ, Christ's
personal presence
to the world.
But still, this
did not lead,
in many quarters,
to a vibrant,
personal,
piety.
You can talk
about a
close walk
with the
Lord, but
that doesn't
mean you
have a
close walk
with the
Lord,
right?
So, in
this period,
the 18th
century,
beginning,
perhaps all
before as
well,
Christians
started talking
more about
the doctrine
of the
Spirit and
being driven
by the
Spirit into
mission.
They agreed
with the
stuff the
early church
had spoken
about in
terms of
the doctrine
of the
Trinity and
the nature
of Christ.
Of course,
they agreed
with that.
And they
agreed with
the Protestant
Reformers about
the nature of
grace and the
nature of the
church.
But they
needed, as
it were,
another layer
or level on
top of those
two earlier
levels to
specify, to
clarify a
smaller number
of doctrinal
confusions.
So, these
Christians of
the 18th
century, we
might call
them the
revivalists or
something,
started preaching
heavy-handedly
the doctrine
of regeneration
or Christ
in us.
they believed,
of course,
with the early
church that
Christ is with
us.
And of course,
they believed
with the
Reformation
leaders that
Christ in
his death and
resurrection is
for us.
They just
believed that
we needed to,
we'd lost,
we need to
remind ourselves,
we need to
focus again on
what it means
that Christ
can be in
us.
A healthy
directive.
It's unhealthy
if you've
forgotten that
Christ is with
us and that
Christ is for
us.
That can be a
very unhealthy
kind of
Christianity.
But Christ
in us, when
it assumes
Christ with
us and
Christ for
us, can
be a very
healthy kind
of Christianity.
It becomes
a renewal
movement within
the Protestant
churches.
The folk who
might have been
leading the
evangelical revival,
people whose
names you might
have heard of,
John Wesley,
George
Whitfield,
John Edwards,
Christians,
and so on.
When they
wanted to
capture, to
summarize, to
defend this
new belief, they
did not write
more creeds.
We had enough
of them.
They did their
job.
They helped us
understand that
Christ is with
us.
Nor did they
write confessions
of faith,
describing grace
in the church.
They had no
real issue with
the way the
Protestant churches
had defined
grace or the
church.
Now, they
decided if you
want to highlight
the close
presence of the
Lord, if you
want to highlight
Christ being in
us, then you
need to actually
sing songs and
write letters.
Those were the
chief strategies
that the
revivalists used
to defend this
close walk with
the Lord.
If you want to
defend the
close walk with
the Lord,
why don't you
use emotions and
sing songs and
talk about your
close walk with
the Lord?
It's much more
difficult to
defend and promote
a close walk with
the Lord if you
decide you've got
to write a 75
chapter confession
of faith.
And of course,
we still know
and sing some
Wesley hymns or
hymns by Isaac
Watts.
They're glorious,
and I hope that
the church in the
West continues to
sing them.
But the
evangelical
revivals also
were great letter
writers.
And this is a
period which
common people
could write
letters.
Formerly, there
had always been
letters, right,
written by generals
or diplomats or
monarchs.
But now,
common people,
if you will,
could write
letters from my
heart to your
heart and
encourage you
in your own
personal walk
with the Lord,
individually,
specifically.
John Newton,
the converted
slave trader,
was a magnificent
correspondent.
If you ever get a
chance to read
Newton's letters,
you'll be amply
rewarded.
They're just
beautiful pieces
describing soul
concerns.
In these days,
well, this is
how the postal
service worked
in the American
colonies.
You could write
a letter and
you'd take it to
the postman who
delivered it.
And the person
receiving the
letter had to
pay for the
stamp.
So they
realised that
wasn't going to
work, so they
flipped it, right?
The person
sending the
letter had to
buy the stamp.
Now, of
course, the
Boston Post
Road, not
very far from
here, was a
great,
viaduct for
letter writing
in the
American
colonies.
Now, if you
agree with a
Charles Wesley
hymn, or if
you read
John Newton's
letters and
you think,
yeah, that's
my understanding
of a walk
with the
Lord, you
can describe
yourself as
an evangelical
Christian.
So, personally,
I'm an Orthodox
Christian, as I
can say the
creeds.
I'm an
Anglican, or
I'm a
Reformed
Protestant
Christian, and
I'm an
evangelical
Christian, because
I believe that
you need to
work hard to
promote and
encourage and
defend a
personal walk
with the
Lord.
I understand
that this
word is
highly contested,
and in
American
politics more
than perhaps
where I'm
from.
But as
an historical
term, I
think it's
worth defending.
We give it
up, that's
okay, you
don't have to
use the
word.
But what
other word
are you
going to
use to
describe the
distinctions of
the 18th
century
revivals and
their defense
of a personal
experience of
the Lord's
work, right?
You've got to
find, that's a
long mouthful.
I think I'm
going to stick
with the word
evangelical.
But this is
also a weird
period because
at this point,
the church and
state are now
moving apart.
Christendom is
no longer
assumed.
The American
Revolution, the
French Revolution
see to it that
church and state
no longer work
together for
the common
good.
And that does
free Christians
to some degree
to think again
about the
spirit and
mission and
what it means
to represent
the Lord,
what it means
to encourage
a personal
walk with
Christ under
those new
kind of strange
conditions after
perhaps 1,200
years of
church and
state working
together for
the common
good.
I think we
need to
recapture all
three moments.
I'm not
advocating that
you choose
one of these.
I'm personally
advocating that
we commit
ourselves to
each of
these.
That's
sometimes a
little bit
difficult.
That is,
there's sometimes
some pinch
points because
you take that
reformed view
and it might
seem to
undermine that
evangelical
position or
you take that
evangelical
position and
it might seem
to undermine
that
creedal
commitment.
So it's
not always
an easy
ask for me
to say
why don't
we aspire
to capture
all three
moments.
But I think
it is the
healthiest,
most faithful
Christian
combination.
Christian
was in
Manhattan
just before
the Second
World War
at Union
Seminary.
This was his
observation of
American
Christianity.
It's
Protestantism
without the
Reformation.
What he meant
by that was
that people
were keen
to stress
your individual
right to read
the scriptures
according to
your own
light,
according to
your own
conscience.
But he
thought that
American
Christianity
had lost
something of
the middle
column.
You're in a
better position
to judge that
than I am.
But I think
it's one of those
interesting
observations.
The church I
preached there
took a wedding
out recently
in Melbourne.
It's more
kind of a
Pentecostal
church.
And above
the table
at the front
of the church
the slogan
was Christ
in us.
And I'm
pretty passionately
committed to
Christ in us
preaching and
experiencing it.
My fear in
that church
was that it
was detached
from Christ
with us
or Christ
for us
as more
extreme
Pentecostal
churches
might in
their tradition
experience.
So some
questions?
So I
realize I'm
about to
step out
of your
area of
expertise.
But since
you already
mentioned
Pentecostal,
in 1901
the Azusa
Street revival
was a
different
sort of
revival
don't you
think?
From the
one we
see in
the third
column.
And so
did a
new
formative
period
begin
more or
less
with
1901.
So I'd
argue that
Pentecostalism
is a
subset
of the
third
column.
Oh.
So it
has some
distinctives
movements.
But it's
still
basically a
movement
that's
trying to
defend and
promote a
close walk
with the
Lord.
An
experience
of the
Lord in
your
heart.
A
commitment
to
believing
that God's
power is
available to
you today.
So I
think, I'm
not a
Pentecostal
Christian, so
I have some
theological
disagreements,
but I
still think,
as it
were, they're
our cousins.
I often say
kissing cousins,
but I don't
think that's a
phrase people
use anymore.
Perhaps it's
not appropriate
in church circles.
I have lots
of Pentecostal
students at
Ridley, about
a third of my
students are
Pentecostal, so
I see them
falling within
this category.
In the
post-modern
West, the
church here
in America
where we
are prone
to consumerism
and there's
so many
different
options of
churches that
we can
attend, and
we reject
certain
teachings based
on our own
individual
preferences,
and the
temptation
that comes
with inward
focus rather
than hourly
looking to
Christ, him
being with
us, being
for us,
being in
us.
Is there
like, maybe
Bonhoeffer
hit a nail
on the
head, but
we've lost
the middle
column, but
are there
practices that
church can
learn from
church history
to guard
against some
of the
excesses of
being so
inwardly
focused rather
than being
grounded and
anchored in
the scriptures
creatures and
creeds.
It's more
of like
prognostication
and diagnosis
of our
current
moment.
Yeah, sure.
So your
question was,
what can
we say about
curing all
the ills of
the church?
So next
week I'm
back.
What I'm
doing is
looking at the
third column
and the way
the third
column has
gone through
three different
moments since
the 18th
century.
That might
give us a
few more
clues.
I think
you're right.
When people,
we can look
back and say
how dumb
they were,
why didn't
they see
that in the
scriptures,
whatever.
My students
often say to
me, in a
hundred years
time, what
will people
look back at
us and say?
And I think
they'll say,
how could they
be so individualistic?
What was
going on?
What were they
smoking?
This was their
kind of
ridiculousness.
thinking pattern,
right?
And we are.
Yeah, yeah.
How do we,
well, we start
correcting that
by good teaching
what the church
is for, because
the church is
one of the best
places for
unlearning
individualism and
learning how
to be flourishing
human beings in
community.
So perhaps
the now ecclesiology
gets towards
that.
Yes, brother?
Yes.
I have a question
about sort of
Bonhoeffer's
assessment of
church in the
Americas.
Because I believe
he also wrote in
about some of the
churches that he
visited during his
time here in New York.
And there was one
African-American
church that he
visited.
He wrote about
how lovely it was,
how the soulfulness,
and the singing of
the hands,
people being moved.
And so I think
that was something
that really inspired
him when he had
returned to Germany.
Yeah.
So he visited the
Abyssinian Baptist
Church in Harlem,
which is very
attended, not very
far away from
Union Seminary.
and he'd never
known the kind
of joy in the
face of oppression
that he saw
there.
But notice what
he's describing
really is their
close walk with the
Lord.
the way that
African-Americans
who were facing
kind of enormous
social impediments
nonetheless together
could see a future
for themselves in
the United States.
So his positive
comment is still
kind of about their
evangelical credentials,
right?
And you're right,
when he went back
to Germany, he got
his seminarians to
listen to African-American
spirituals.
he played on the
record player because
he was strung to
how to help them
walk closely with
the Lord and their
music, he believed,
would help his...
Well, his basic
argument was African-Americans
in the United States
were learning to
resist what they saw
as a racist country,
and he wanted his
seminarians to resist
the racism of the
Hitler dictatorship.
So he thought that
the lesson from
Abyssinian Baptist
Church might apply
his own context.
We've got one or two
minutes, so perhaps
that's one question
with a not so long
answer.
Well, in the
Reformed period and
the evangelical period,
I think I know what
you're going to say
here, but are there
common texts that are
preached or commentaries
written on?
Is there a kind of a
book or two of
scripture that is
really representative
of the Reformed era,
really representative
of the evangelical
era, do you think?
classically, you can find
lots of the
distinctives of
Protestant Christianity
in the Book of Romans,
of course.
Luther rediscovered
grace by reading
through, preaching
through Romans.
For the evangelical
revivalists, Romans
played a part, but it
was more one John.
one John had amazing
power in the Great
Awakening, in the
Earth amongst the
revivalists.
It talks about the
spirit, it talks about
the subjective
evidences for a close
walk with the Lord.
It talks about loving
your neighbour.
It talks about, yeah,
anyway, lots of
different things.
That's a journal article
I'd like to write one
day, but it's still
unfolding in my mind.
Thank you.
I think we'll call it
quits so they can
reset for Sunday school.