Well, last week I had a similar handout introducing you to three columns.
The first column was the early church, that period that discussed the doctrine of the Trinity in particular,
and their kind of summary phrase,
under the relations written down in the phrase,
Christ with us.
In the Reformation period, they assumed all the insights that had emerged in the early church,
but their questions were much more focused on what is grace and therefore what is the church for.
So if the earliest period of the church summarised its struggles, its thinking with the phrase,
Christ with us, then the Reformation period can summarise its debates,
Christ for us, or Christ instead of us, Christ for our life.
But after a couple hundred years of Protestantism,
people realised that believing in justification by grace to the faith
probably wasn't enough to establish a lively faith, a closed walk of the Lord.
So these Christians of the 18th century, we might call them Gentiles,
and so I said, yes, of course Christ with us, of course Christ for us,
but we must not forget Christ in us.
And they talked up the role of the Spirit,
especially in adorning the world that was newly recreated under enlightened conditions.
I think that the summary is really useful as a code map
on which we can further details in the new ones.
Today we're doing much the same thing.
We're not thinking about three turning points as much as we can,
three cultural moments that have shaped that final column from last week.
So these three cultural moments that have shaped the movement,
you might summarise as the Enlightenment,
something that you've never done instead,
it's the same thing.
The cultural movement called Romanticism,
and the cultural movement called Modernism,
perhaps post-Modernism.
Please note, just in those circles,
I'm going to pay.
Student in modernity and modernism are different.
We all like being very modern,
and we keep trying to find new ways of using the word modern to describe that.
But these three moments
are more like soundtracks from the culture
rather than decisions that Christians have made
to reform or renew their church.
Just imagine this.
You see on a video
a man and woman, arm in arm,
walking down a street at night in Paris,
and the background music are violins.
You know that they've just had a good meal together,
they love each other,
they're comfortable with each other,
and they're going home together.
But if that same visual scene were played,
not with violins in the background,
but screechy, screechy cellos,
you'd know that walking down this dark street at night,
they're about to get mugged.
The music is warning you
that something is going to happen any minute now
that you have to be aware of, right?
The very same visual
can mean something different
according to the soundtrack,
the music that's played in the background.
Evangelicals, these people from the 18th century,
who wanted to work out
how to have a close walk with the Lord
under modern conditions,
have had to stare down a few cultural shifts.
Background music that actually shaped them
more than probably they wanted to be shaped,
or shaped us
more than actually we probably wanted to be shaped.
These background soundtracks are
Enlightenment, Romances, and Modernism.
Now, of these three,
the first two have been well documented.
The third is not so well documented,
and it's something that I've been working on
for the last couple of years.
So what did the Enlightenment do
to Christians
who were wanting a close walk with the Lord,
an experience of the Lord in their heart?
Well, the Enlightenment
talked up human rationality,
human sense perception,
human experience, if you will,
perhaps summarised
with a focus on the mind.
Its characteristic was to help
human beings throw off
external authority,
and especially throw off the church,
which represented forces
that were keeping people back.
So that humans could trust themselves,
trust their own experience,
and trust their own reasoning power, perhaps.
It wasn't necessarily anti-Christian,
but it could be very anti-Christian.
Human beings were trying to develop
their own autonomy.
There's some good things about that.
I'm not just going to obey
because someone's always not going to.
I have to keep this through.
I have to use my own common sense,
my own consensus,
my own rationality,
to work out whether that person's trustworthy,
whether I should go with them or not.
It's not all bad,
but it certainly did impact
evangelical Christians.
Because if they were already saying,
we need to talk about Christ in us,
then the culture was reinforcing
the individual.
Now, those first evangelical Christians
who said,
we need to talk about Christ in us,
of course,
were conservative Protestants.
They were anchored to the Reformation.
They were anchored to Greece
in the early 20s.
Remember that.
But the culture started pushing them further
from those big historical roots.
If you will,
often the image is provided of the machine
to summarise what the Enlightenment was about.
It's self-contained,
well, probably needs a power source,
but self-contained,
regular,
predictable,
mechanical,
of course,
that's what defines a machine.
Powered under its own steam,
if you will,
the result of human engineering.
Now,
the representatives of this movement,
some of them are familiar to us,
Jonathan Edwards,
or John Wesley,
in England,
or in Britain,
Sarah Osmond,
in Newport, Rhode Island.
These are great evangelical representatives.
These were people who talked about
not only Christ in us,
but were trying to engage
with the Enlightenment around them
and make this new mode
of being a conservative process
more acceptable,
more engaging,
with the world
that they were facing.
John Wesley Neville
always carried with him
a briefcase
with different kinds of tea,
tea leaves,
because he saw himself
as a physician
and he would prescribe
teas to people
to cure them
as he travelled to the church.
He kind of had this
Enlightenment,
rationalistic,
scientific thinking
that tea's got the answer
to all your problems.
John Edwards as well
was very deliberate
in trying to work out
what the world
was talking about,
light,
the Enlightenment,
but he knew that
the Lord provided light
in his word.
God provides
supernatural light
as it were.
And he would deliberately
riff off that,
deliberately
take the debates
that the world
was engaging in
and use them
for his own preaching
for revival purposes.
In fact,
the revivals themselves
are,
if you will,
using the technical language,
an artifact
of modernity.
Luther never preached
on the streets,
in the fields.
That was something
that was simply modern.
The revivals themselves
were in part
the creation
of a new kind of culture.
So the issues
that Christians
are available
or the world
are available
in this period
was how,
what autonomy
looks like,
what does it mean
for individuals
to be autonomous?
This is a world
in which revolution
threatened Europe
and North America.
This is a period
when industry
using big machines
developed,
which is also
quite threatening.
Although at this stage,
industry is largely
not in cities,
but in rural locations.
Because you need
rivers to power
factories and stuff.
some of the names
that,
not Christian names
by the way,
but some of the names
that you might
associate with this period
is Emmanuel Cart
the general philosopher,
Voltaire,
the French philosopher,
or Thomas Paine
in the early months.
Some of the outcomes
of this new
cultural movement
were, of course,
revivals themselves,
but also
the Methodist church.
was born
in this period
and the Methodist church
in various forms
is still with us.
But also
in this period
the modern missions movement
was born.
The Enlightenment
enabled
mass movement
of people.
It meant that
ships could cross
the North of Maine,
not just the North of Maine,
travelling there really,
quickly
upon the power
of modern machines.
so that if you
wanted to go to
Burma,
if you wanted to
travel to Australia,
you could in
really
So that's the first
cultural soundtrack
that's playing
at the same time
that Christians
are thinking about
what it means
to revive the church,
what it means
for us to have
a close walk
with the Lord,
what it means
for us
to celebrate
the work of the Spirit
in our life
or in the world
around us.
Let me pause
and hear if you have
any questions
or concerns.
questions.
Well,
yeah,
where was the
Roman Catholic Church
at this time,
kind of in that
late 1600s
to early 1700s?
Was there a lot
of upheaval
or were they just
struggling to kind of
hang on to power
with a little bit
of everything?
Yes,
a little bit
of everything
because when you
say the Roman Catholic
Church,
you mean the Roman
Catholic Church
in South America
or in Italy
or in,
you know,
they'd already
reached out
and gone to
their different
destinations.
The Roman Catholics
were ahead of
Protestants
in terms of
global mission.
Protestants
were right behind
on this floor.
Sure.
The Roman Catholics
weren't classically
liking the revolutions
that were taking
place,
so they'd become
quite reactionary
and tried to
address that
question.
I think this column,
the first one,
is probably the most
familiar,
actually.
The second column,
much less so.
romanticism doesn't
mean how to fall
in love or read
a good novel.
Romanticism is a
cultural moment,
a cultural thing,
which is in reaction
to the Enlightenment.
if the Enlightenment
stressed rationality
and your sense
perception,
romanticism has
stressed emotion
or intuition,
deep connections,
perhaps crudely put,
when it's trying to
highlight the heart.
this was a moment
that saw the
shortcomings
of enlightenment
and tried to
compensate,
perhaps overreact.
the deepest
yearning
amongst
those
promoting
romanticism
was a yearning
for integration.
And seeing that
the Enlightenment
had pulled
people apart,
your mind
was kind of
a different part
of you from your
body or your
soul in
Enlightenment.
Men were
regarded as being
more rational,
therefore men and
women were being
called apart in
the Enlightenment
as well.
Romanticism has
this yearning to
put things,
as it were,
back together
or to integrate,
to see the
connections
between all
that we experience.
And if you will,
the image that
best captures
the romantic
moment is the
tree,
not the machine.
The tree,
the tree is
organic,
the tree
looks different,
the very same
species planted
there and
planted here,
grows its
limbs in
different places,
it responds to
its environment
and bends in
this direction
and bends in
that direction.
The tree is
earthed,
the tree is
one with its
environment,
the tree
captures something
of what the
romantics
were trying
to highlight.
Now,
the romantics
was not a
Christian movement,
right?
This was something
that's happening
around the church
in the culture
generally,
but it did
impact Christians.
And some of the
people you
might know
who most were
impacted by
this movement
were Charles
Spurgeon or
Dwight Mooney
or Phoebe Palmer,
a New York
doctor's wife
who left
Bible studies
for them
in her
parlour.
Now,
you wouldn't
say that Spurgeon
or Mooney
or Palmer
were driving
pro-applicism
far from it,
but they just
kind of got a
sense that their
culture was changing
and so their
ministry style
needs to change
or their
prioritising of
energy,
money,
had to change.
Charles Spurgeon,
for example,
Bolly,
that churches
should be
comfortable.
Right?
Previously,
you might have
sat on a
wooden bench.
There might
or might not
have been
something to
lend your back
on.
In fact,
it was only
in the modern
world that
chairs were
invented at
all the church.
Traditionally,
you stood in
church,
right?
That was only
really,
really wealthy
churches could
afford chairs.
So having
chairs,
not only having
chairs,
but Spurgeon
having added
chairs?
Some chairs
still don't
like that.
He was a
mega church
pastor.
He had
10,000 people
in his church
on Sundays.
He designed
a building
that visually
was beautiful.
And something
important that
happened in
Anglican churches
or in other
kinds as well
was that
previously,
there had
been two
side aisles
when you
went to a
church.
One side
aisle took
your eye
to the
pulpit,
and the
other side
aisle took
your eye
to the
lectern
where the
Bible is
read.
But in
the Romantic
period,
architecture
changed,
and it
was decided
to get rid
of side
aisles and
to have a
centre aisle
that was
focused on
the communion
table.
Can you see
that's a
very subtle
architectural
change?
No longer
would the
focus in
church be
what you
hear,
the Bible
read or
the Bible
preached,
but now
the focus
on the
church in
the centre
aisle would
be the
table where
the elements
were,
the bread
and wine
were.
Of course,
brides ever
since have
been thankful
because a
centre aisle
is just
perfect for
a long
time of
a living
service.
But that
wasn't
originally,
my church
at home
is two
side
aisles
and people
would want
to book
it because
it's a
very 260
years old
people want
to book
it to have
their
meetings
and so
on from
the
community.
They come
and go,
oh my goodness,
oh he can't
have it,
he can't.
You've got to
have a centre
of the way.
This is the
period when
Christians had
this crazy
thought,
why don't
we cut
some flowers
and bring
them into
the sanctuary?
No one
ever before
had imagined
that you'd
have flowers
in church?
What a dumb
idea.
Flowers
outside,
right?
They're
growing
gardens.
Christians
don't think,
you know what,
why don't we
bring nature
into church?
We saw
of course
have windows
that were
stained glass
so we couldn't
actually see
the trees
that were
around the
door.
That aside,
we had
decided to
bring
cut flowers
into church.
Crazy.
the issues
for Christians
or the
gender
culture
of
Christians
as well
as
how
therefore
do we
create
unity?
Because the
romantic movement
is trying
to integrate.
And this
was a period
in which the
Evangelical
Alliance
was founded.
It was also
a period
when cultures
became increasingly
nationalistic
because
romanticism
spoke about
the importance
of the local
not the importance
of the universal.
And the local
was I'm a German
or I'm a German
or I'm a Pole.
Let's think
about how
our own
local culture
how we work
together
all together.
And it was
a period
in which people
were reacting
to science.
science
was both
answering
the impressions
but was also
creating
enormous
problems too.
Some of the
leaders of this
movement
you might have
heard their names
are
Jean-Charles Rousseau
the French
essayist
William Wordsworth
the English
poet
or
Richard Wagner
the German
composer.
Perhaps
you could put
Beethoven
on that list
as well.
Beethoven's
music
is
stormy
Beethoven's
music
involves
big orchestras
big sounds
this was a
perfect
way of capturing
what romanticism
is about.
And one of the
outcomes
I've given you
a couple of
tiny outcomes
that I was in
church
centre aisle
they want
a comfortable
seating
for example
these are all
kind of trivial
actually.
One of the
the more
significant
outcomes
was
the pursuit
of holiness
and the
establishment
or the
intervention
of holiness
churches.
You wanted
to be one
with your
world
that was
fair enough
right?
You wanted
to be integrated
and for your
experience
not to be
chopped up.
However
how are
Christians
going to
stand apart
from the
world
at the
same time
that they
were trying
to find
integration
within the
world?
And they
used the
categories of
holiness
and holiness
churches
to do that.
It's a
uniquely
mid-19th
century thing.
We did
have them
in Australia
but they
hardly exist
anymore
in Australia
but they
do I
think to
a more
significant
degree
in the
US.
This was
a time
when
Christians
started
valuing
nature
more
and often
therefore
decided
to organise
conferences
Bible
conferences
either
near the
beach
or in
the
mountains.
You might
know
I don't
know
locally
the
equivalent
camp
sites
that
you might
head to.
I think
there's a
place in
New Jersey
called
Ocean Grove
where the
Methodists
who headed
down to
their
summer
conferences
and so
we've
got them
all over
Australia
loads.
In fact
there's a
town in
Victoria
where I'm
from
called
Ocean Grove
some
American
missionaries
from Ocean
Grove
in New
Jersey
decided
that we
had to
have
an
equivalent
Ocean
Grove
in
Melbourne
and so
they
came and
bought
the land
and they
said
it was
a big
conference
centre
and so
on.
It lasted
not real
long
but it's
still
interesting
that the
churches
in town
own most
of the
public
spaces.
Of course
Moody
began his
conference
ministry
in Northfield,
Massachusetts.
where you
could be
close to
the
Lord,
it was
argued
if you
were in
nature
than if
you were
in the
city.
Which
theologically
is of
course
completely
done.
I kind
of get
the
impulse
that somehow
withdrawing
from your
work of
that world
and walking
praying as
you walk
through the
trees or
as you
sit on
the beach
perhaps
can be a
different way
of configuring
what it means
that you have
a personal
place to walk
with the
Lord.
Let me
pause then
and hear
if you have
any
questions.
Yes,
I have a
comment about
your nature.
It's true that
theologically it
doesn't make
any difference
but I think
that the idea
for me anyway
is when you're
in nature
you're looking
around and
seeing all
the stuff
that God
created.
Whereas
we're sitting
right here
we're looking
and we're
seeing buildings
that man
has built.
Yes,
yes,
yes.
So let's
see this.
Yeah,
sure.
Yeah,
yeah.
Yeah,
of course
that's right.
Yes,
sir.
I wonder
if there's
a similar
sense
of motivation
as monasticism
in earlier
periods
of the
church
withdrawing
from
temptation
of sinful
others
and isolating
oneself
to one
who
is
biblical
God.
Yeah,
I think
that's
what we
try.
Yeah.
I think
that's
exactly
right.
There'd
been a
longest
period
in
churches
where
there
hadn't
been the
case.
Something
new was
provoked
in the
19th
century
that gave
them this
trigger
to withdraw
because it
hadn't been
the case.
Well,
100 years
before that
everyone was
living in the
country.
So you
can only
have a
withdrawal to
the country
when there's
need to
withdraw
from.
What are
all these
churches?
Oh,
okay,
I thought
everyone
gave us
the wrong
one.
But that
is
a good
question.
Yes,
so that's
a good
question.
They often
have the
language of
higher,
higher life
in their
label.
Now,
I think
the
Camberlite
churches
or the
Disciples
of Christ
are both
Holman's
church
movements
in the
US.
Nazarenes.
The
Nazarenes,
thank you.
Yes,
they don't
exist in
Australia.
Correct,
yep.
The
Salvation
Army is
a
Mormon's
church.
And the
Holy Church
in the US
grew strongly
after the
Civil War
where the
Civil War
divided.
Holiness
churches
tried to
talk up
our
unity and
holiness
with
whatever
your
politics,
whatever
your
life.
Thank you.
I can't
assume too
much.
It wasn't
a very
good
ordinance.
Yes,
sir?
So,
as the
Romantic
period was
beginning to
wane,
it seems
the
rationalists
that last
laughed when
Darwin published
his book in
1859.
Then,
because that
is purely a
book of the
mind,
book of
I might
qualify that.
Yeah.
I'm most
willing to
hear that
qualification.
But it
seems to me
that that
then provides
the underpinning
for how
shall we
regard
the now
burgeoning
industrial
revolution
from the
mid-19th
century
on.
how
shall
we
regard
that
with
regard
to
culture
and
humanity
and
the
environment
and so
forth.
Well,
it's man
in Darwinism,
it's man
against the
environment.
It's man
against all
that would
come against
the mind.
Yes and
no.
So,
Darwin,
I don't
have to
drink this,
evolution.
Stresses
natural,
slow,
organic
processes.
So,
in lots
of ways,
Darwin
was the
result or
sat comfortably
within the
romantic
movement because
he's doing
the opposite
of seeing
nature as
a machine.
He's
speaking about
the slow,
minuscule
change of
over
kind of
resumption
over the
years.
So,
his
worldview
sat
comfortably
within the
romantic
movement.
Now,
of course,
he was
writing a
book,
so it
appeals to
the
mind,
of course,
right?
He's not
anti-rational,
but his
observations
on how
it works,
whether you
agree with
it or not,
were
observations
which
described
slow
change
rather
than
revolutionary
change.
Revolutionary
could change
was something
that the
environment
had kind
of sponsored,
but romantic
had sponsored
a kind
of slow,
a slow
or gradual
change.
And I
think romantic
is still
with us
the same
thing.
Well,
so the
symbol for
normalism
is the
tree.
I would
imagine
that's
right,
yeah,
or the
finch or
something.
So I
don't mean
that they're
organic
trees,
I mean
the
evolutionary
tree.
Oh,
although
it works
by the
legs.
That's
it.
I'm
fascinated
by some
of these
changes,
especially
regarding
nature,
being nature
in a
church,
things like
that.
How,
in general,
I don't
know if
you can
speak to
this,
it's too
vague of a
question,
but how
conscious were
theologians
of this
shift?
I mean,
were they
aware they
were doing
something?
And did
they appeal
to scripture
for these
changes,
if they
were aware
of it,
or did
it just
happen?
It's the
air you
breathe.
You sometimes
don't even
realise
that you're
breathing in
obnoxious
fumes,
right?
And
things,
there were
some who
were much
more deliberate,
of course,
and when
the German
theologian
Schleimacher
decided to
put the
doctrine of
the trinity
in the
appendix to
his book
on theology,
he was
doing that
deliberately,
and he
thought the
doctrine of
the trinity
did not
represent
his
right
at the
moment.
But most
of them
were just
thinking,
we can't
have
something
that we
did or
felt,
or
too much
deliberate
reflection,
which is
a danger,
right?
Yes.
What are
we doing?
Yeah,
correct.
And we
said this
briefly last
week as
well.
My
students
said to
me,
what's
our
big
sin,
or what
don't
we
see,
of course
it's
really hard
to say,
to see
what we
don't
see.
But our
individualism
has to
be
placed on
the top
of this.
That was
kind of
my thinking
on Tom's
comment,
that it
seems as
if the
church is,
the evangelical
church is
always straining
to catch up
with culture
to understand
what's
happening now
and what
do we need
to change
to appeal
to these
people.
And
sometimes
it's
a,
I think
we've
just
got to
get used
to being
weird.
And
feel
comfortable
with being
weird.
Our
culture,
I think
in our
culture
they're
good.
I'm
the last
person to
kind of
wipe it
off.
But
having
said,
yeah,
we're
just
never
going to
be
like
our
culture.
Let's
just go
comfortable
with
doing
weird
things
in
church
and
having
weird
views.
except
to
understand
that
the
message
is
what's
important
not
the
means
as
much.
And
to be
able to
help
in all
these
responses
and
movements.
Yeah,
yeah.
And keep
coming back
to our
understanding
of Christ,
Christ by
his spirit
making us
alive,
dying for
us and
so on.
So we
need to
be
clear-minded
in having
a base,
a home,
a focus.
Well,
let me
introduce
perhaps
the most
difficult
column,
the third
column,
because
less has
been
written
about.
So I'll
give you
for you
in the
footer
there
an article
I've
written
on
modernism
and how
it's
influenced
which
you can
find at
least one
thing on
the internet
about this.
This is a
movement that
arose, a
cultural
movement,
again, it
wasn't sponsored
by Christians,
it arose at
the end of
the 19th
century.
And this
was a
cultural
movement that
said to
put things
back together
again, to
heal, to
get what
the
romantics
that we
talked about,
finding
integration,
the strategy
must be
increasing
self-expression.
To express
yourself is
to heal
yourself.
and it
would often
be linked
crudely
put to
the
will,
you
decide
to
express
yourself,
you impose,
not only impose,
but possibly impose
your view on
others.
It came out
of an
increasing
sense that
life was
fragmented
almost beyond
repair.
This was
when the
United States
police,
the
guilted
age,
the
lot of
barons,
industrial
work prices
that were
unsafe,
the rise of
unions,
and so on,
very
combustible
politics.
Things were
fragmented.
How do you
deal with
that?
Cities are
now almost
where most
people are.
But in
this period,
city life
was not
something I'm
knew to
do.
But city
life was
very fragmented
life as we
know.
The image
that I think
best catches
this moment
is not the
machine,
something regular
and predictable,
not the
tree,
something organic
and planted,
but the
volcano,
something
dangerous
in its
expression.
And there
was lots
written about
volcanoes in
this period.
Even yesterday
I was reading
a book where
there's this
long quotation
going to me
end of the
19th century
about how
the earth
is unstable
and any
minute now
all these
subterranean
forces are
going to
come to
the surface
and yes,
another
volcano
boat.
I'm feeling
like I
wonder something.
My life is
weird and I'm
kind of chasing
volcano boats.
this period
is probably
less familiar
to the
most and
its leading
heritage might
be less
familiar as
well.
So locally,
Borden and
Gale,
William Borden
was an
example of
this movement
or in
Los Angeles
or beyond
87th person,
a great
Pentecostal
woman,
C.G.
Stud and
a faith
mission.
C.G.
Stud was
English,
Catholic,
and he
served in
India,
and he
served in
China,
and he
served in
South India,
and he
served in
West Africa
as well.
So this
was
extraordinary.
I'm going
to beat
the world,
I'm going
to go
to the
hardest
places,
and when
one place
gets easy,
I'm going
to go
to the
next
place
that's
hard.
C.G.
Stud didn't
have a good
relationship
with his
wife,
in fact he
treated her
informably,
so his
great kind
of faith
mission
probably was
tarnished
by that.
She came
and visited,
she was living
in England,
raising money
for his
mission.
She came
and visited
him in West
Africa at
one time,
and he
basically
eaten the
water and
just kept
doing what
he was
doing,
so she
went home
and went
and saw
each other
again.
This is
a rise
of,
if I
have enough
will,
I can
conquer.
If I
have enough
willpower,
I can
make this
fragmented
world bend
to my
aspirations.
This
was an
issue
where
the
questions
of
power
were
front
and
centre,
both
literally,
this was
a period
in which
seized the
world by
electricity
for the
first time.
This
was also
a world
when
power
waned
after the
First World
War,
the Russian
Empire,
the Ottoman
Empire,
the British
Empire,
the Austro-Hungarian
Empire,
the German
Empire,
all
collapsed,
lost much
of their
power.
Cities
and wars
made this
a period
where people
thought the
end is
surely about
to come.
world.
The
philosophers of
the age
who drove
this period
were Friedrich
Nietzsche,
the German
philosopher,
Sigmund
Freud,
the Austrian
side
analyst,
Virginia
Wolfe,
the novelist,
and James
Joyce,
the Irish
novelist.
These are
people,
especially
Nietzsche,
who were
saying the
will to
power is
what helps
human beings
understand
themselves,
understand
their
environment,
helps them
to achieve
their goals
of fulfillment
in the world.
Some of
the more
evangelical
outcomes
of this
period were
muscular
Christianity,
of which
Borden and
C.T.
Stubb
were our
representatives.
Muscular
Christianity
is a
movement
that says
one,
we need
to use
our will
to assert
our
power
over the
world.
The
muscle
of
Christianity
was also
a Christian
movement
that said
men are
no longer
really men
because
they're
working in
factories
and not
fields.
So it
was assumed
that working
class men
in factories
had lost
what made
them men
using their
muscles.
Because we
see the
working class
men in
factories
as being
kind of
rough and
ready times.
Not the
kind of
people who
walked their
manhood.
But that
was the
assumption.
So Christians
had a
panicking.
So Christians
invented
basketball.
And Christians
invented
volleyball.
Christians
invented
boys
or
boy scouts.
Or Christians
invented
how to
invent the
Olympic
Games.
All these
things at
the end
of the
19th
century were
responses to
this fear
that men
were losing
what it
took to
their man.
It's a
movement called
muscular
Christianity.
Women can
also be
muscular
Christians.
So for
example,
this is the
period where
we start
talking about
prayer warriors.
We'd never
used those
two words in
the same
sentence before.
And women
could be
prayer warriors.
We're
described as
prayer warriors.
Men were
described as
prayer warriors.
in the
Salvation Army
for example,
in this
period,
women take
on quite a
significant
role as
army officers,
all part of
the same
movement.
But more
significantly,
perhaps,
this was a
period in which
fundamentalism was
born in its
modern eyes and
cost of them
as well around
the world.
These were
movements
reacting to the
culture,
culture.
But also
kind of
saying we've
just got to
be, we've
got to, through
our own sense
of power, assert
our agency over
the world around
us.
So fundamentalists,
for example,
would more and
more espouse their
opinions and
presume that the
louder they spoke
or the more
insistent they were
with their opinions,
the more likely
they were to
change the
culture.
And Pentecostal,
of course, is
in many ways a
therapeutic movement
where your job is
to express yourself,
either through
using your gifts
or speaking in
tongues.
Both of these are
ways that you
would express
yourself and
thereby feel
yourself.
I think all of
these three movements
are still with us
today.
It depends which
church you look at.
different churches
have different
phases where they
stress one or the
other.
So in the dates,
in the circles,
I haven't given
an end date.
These three movements
are circling, we're
still breathing their
air, they're still
impacting and
shaping us quite
profoundly.
Though in different
countries, at
different moments,
one or the other
might take the
other hand.
Evangelicalism has
been quite a
porous movement.
We want to reach
the culture for
Christ.
We want to engage
with the world
around us.
Of course we do.
But the danger, of
course, in engaging
with the world around
us is about
realising it.
We're becoming like
the world around us.
It might be the
risk you have to
take.
This might be
exactly the right
thing to do.
We want to reach
the culture, we
want to get close
to the culture, we
want to engage
with the culture.
We must.
But there is a
danger that we
then start thinking
like the culture,
we start engaging
with the culture in
ways that might be
less happy.
And so we need
sessions like this
morning to remind
us of the ways
we've been influenced
sometimes for our
world, sometimes
for our world.
So let me get
some more
questions.
John?
Yeah.
No, Rhys, this is
so, so, I
think.
One of the
impressions that
one can easily
get is that our
culture deeply
inflates our
engagement with
the gospel, truth,
reality, all of
these things.
And we so
absorb these
things of culture
that, I mean,
a reaction could
easily be one of
the wrong.
I don't know.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
There is a gospel
truth, there is the
way it is, there is
true reality, there
is the God's eye
view of things.
And my goodness,
this is a disaster
that we are so
enculturated.
What do we do
to resist that
sort of permeation
of culture?
My goodness,
is it inevitable
that we, if in
the world, we
are of it?
And thinking
that that sort
of culture
pervading us
is exclusively
a harming thing.
We need to be
more God-like
outside of culture.
and there's
certainly a lot
of this that
it is much
of culture
is a sinful
inflection
in some way
that falls short
of God's glory.
But is there
not another way
in which there
is an inevitability
of culture
in the fact
that we are
creatures?
It means we're
in time and space
and we are in
space.
That means we
are perspectival.
We are positioned
during times.
So in a sense,
this is simply
what sort of
creatureliness
in part.
Not exclusively,
but that's in part.
And this longing
for integration,
is there
is that
integration
going to be
something that
will indeed be
an integration
of all these
different cultural
elements purifying
but then expressed
in the new
heavens and the new
earth
where the wealth
of nations
come in
and it is purified
but there will
be this final
integration
but not in terms
of a dissolution
or creatureness
or an elimination
of culture
but an expression
of culture
in distinct ways
that actually
are horrifying
in the street
or a community.
Could you help us
to pull some
of these things
together because
it could easily
be just,
oh my goodness.
We so reflect
our culture
and that must
be just an anthem.
Yes, a question.
Are you in sense
at all?
Yes, let's do it.
Okay.
So, you're right,
John.
We can't but help
reflect culture
around it.
We're all speaking
English this morning
in this room
which shapes
the way we think.
We're living
in a certain
time and place.
We have certain
assumptions about
time or
individual value
and none of those
are bad things.
We can't not
move into culture.
We've just got to
allow ourselves
to be aware
and let people
help us
think through
what the culture
is and does.
So, that's a
kind of a humble
posture, isn't it?
To get input
so we can think
more clearly.
To resist where
we will.
What our questions
often do we'll see
in the bottom line
is create new
denominations.
I'm not sure
that that's the
answer to every
cultural moment
that we need to
hold on to what's
precious from
generations past
and then allow
our churches,
well, the
Protestant
work have always
reformed and not
to let ourselves
think that we must
be continually of
this shape or
this size but
that in time
we'll adapt,
we'll cut off
some limbs,
we'll grow new
ones, fresh
shoots and so
on.
I like what
Jaroslav Pelican
said, the
professor of
church history
at Yale,
he said that
the church is
unified, it's
just not
beautiful.
Yes.
Okay.
We have a
deep, we have
deep unity
in the
spirit.
Yeah.
We're out
here and we're
all going
on the way
but the
spirit will
work out.
Yes.
And this
final column
of all of
them,
the unity
appearing to
the spirit
to bring
unity where
there was
fragmentation
was a pretty
big thing.
It strikes me
what we're
doing here
kind of helps
alleviate some
of the dangers
of being so
situated in a
culture that
we're not aware
of the culture
shaping us.
It's just
striking, if I
were to say, I
only want to
fellowship with
Christians from
New England.
I don't want to
fellowship with
South American
Christians or
Christians from
Australia.
That'd be
like...
That'd be
abominable, but
do we want to
fellowship with
Christians who
lived in the
1500s and
lived in the
1800s.
And some of
that is
they're challenging
me and how I'm
thinking about
certain things.
And I love how
you show how
some of these
movements have
a good...
There's a good
impulse in a lot
of these things.
And it's not just
a danger, but
there are also
ways that God is
perhaps refining
his people to
be more
integrated, to
experience the
shape, to
match our
theology.
It's not
fundamentally evil
to have
cushions and
seats in
church.
It's not
fundamentally evil
to have
kind of flowers
in church,
right?
When it first
happened, it
was completely
weird.
You can imagine
people going to
the pastor
saying, we
must have
did this.
That's right.
I've got to
go get my
microphone.