What Church Was Like Before the Jesus People Took Over
by Candice Watters on 06/20/2007 at 8:49 AM
Did you ever think about what church was like before the hippies took over? I didn't either. Not till today when I read Sally Thomas' "Grooving on Jesus," a review of Preston Shires' book Hippies of the Religious Right.
For all the positive changes brought about by a counter-cultural embrace of the New Testament communal-style worship, there were casualties:
... the unconverted hippie was not so much an unbeliever as a pre-believer. He was already living the essence of Christianity, man: It's all about, like, compassion and justice and stuff. All he needs is Jesus. As Shires puts it, hippie converts sought a "primitive Christianity . . . as lived out in the pages of Scripture . . . bare-boned, authentic, sharing." The meaning of these words is, of course, highly subjective. While some counterculture converts interpreted "authentic" and "primitive" Christian community to mean house churches, a majority integrated themselves into established local churches. Either way, the impulse was toward imitation of what people imagined might have been first-century Christian practice.
Not surprisingly, this imagined practice was light on bishops and heavy on extemporaneous prayer, direct interventions of the Holy Spirit, and beanbag chairs. Given a certain orientation toward an emotive, experiential, eschatological, not to say hallucinogenic flavor of Christianity, heavy on baptisms in the Spirit, speaking in tongues, and anticipating the imminent Rapture, the majority of those who did integrate into churches gravitated toward churches with a greater degree of innate ecclesial fluidity: Pentecostal, charismatic, and evangelical. But wherever they went in those heady days, they remade the Church in their image.
I realized I'm as much a product of historical illiteracy as the next Xer, first when I "discovered" Sunday services weren't always as free-form as what I'm used to and second when Thomas raised the possibility that maybe what used to be wasn't all bad.
Though Shires claims impartiality, his bias comes through, says Thomas. "Shires represents the process by which hippie culture infiltrated the Church as an unqualified good, which seems rather a simplification of things."
"The Jesus Movement had begun in evangelizing the street, but it ended in evangelizing the Church. This was a process of conversion via sit-in, a neo-Puritan stripping of altars. The reformation was, in some places, a deliberate act of forced religious-cultural amnesia, on a level with the smashing of stone saints in English cathedrals under Cromwell." says Thomas.
What the hippies did for the church in the '60s wasn't all bad, as Thomas readily admits. "This positive legacy of the countercultural impulse is undeniable and, as a homeschooling mother myself, I have every reason to be grateful for the ways in which the activist spirit has played out." But she doesn't stop there. "At the same time, I can't help wondering how longtime parishioners in our former Episcopal church felt, several years back, when the first gay wedding ceremony was performed there."
I'm thankful for writers with a broader knowledge and memory of what the world was like before the cultural revolution of the 1960s. It's a narrow view, and a dangerous one, to be convinced that things always were the way they are. Or worse, that everything that went before, was inferior.
1. John said the following at 9:12 AM on Jun 20:
Many evangelical churches still retain much of their pre-1960s flavor (four-part hymns accompanied by organ, long expositional sermons, etc.). While the hippies may have brought some good things to church (a refreshing informality, for example), I fear that their influence is yet another instance of the baby boomers remaking everything in their image, as if they were the first generation brilliant enough to solve all the world's problems.
One line in the passage quoted above is telling: "[The hippie] was already living the essence of Christianity, man: It's all about, like, compassion and justice and stuff. All he needs is Jesus."
Without Jesus, you do not have the essence of Christianity -- Jesus IS the essence of Christianity! John 14:6. "Without me," Jesus says, "ye can do nothing." John 15:5. Without a proper understanding of the Gospel, all the hippies had to offer was a communitarian ethos that was more Woodstock than Westminster Confession, more Altamont than Antioch. It's as if all the old establishment dudes like Calvin, Spurgeon and Moody couldn't get it right until the Jesus Freaks showed up. (Heavy, man. Out of sight.)
The hippie generation meant well, but they ended up injecting their "if it feels good, do it" culture into American evangelicalism, the result being entertainment-oriented seeker-sensitive churches that downplay the traditional trappings of Christianity and offer, in many cases, precious little in the way of traditional orthodox Biblical teaching.
2. Joseph said the following at 9:13 AM on Jun 20:
I question the full impact upon the evangelistic attitude of the church being based upon the attitudes presented in the 60's. At my home church there are clear generational gaps in the attendence of certain services, whereas there is a youthful service and traditional each having an easy average age difference of 20 years.
As I grew up in the youth ministry I also regularly attended the tranditional services with my dad as an usher. Regularly interacting with people that were easily 40 years older than me and seeing their warm spirits just as much so as the younger generation I can hardly beleive that was a recent change in the way they approached their spiritual lives. I have seen the same joy and love from those of the 50's era as I have from the Xers and Milleniums. I lean more towards the power of Christ that spreads his love across all gaps than giving credit to a social movement in spreading love.
3. Jade said the following at 10:19 AM on Jun 20:
This post touches on a topic I would like to see explored in greater depth on Boundless in an actual article: the Pentecostal movement which has such an emphasis on speaking in tongues and other such "manifestations" of the Holy Spirit. I am really quite undecided about how I feel about these charismatic behaviors. While I am no skeptic of the overwhelming power of God, I do not agree with the assertion of so many speakers of tongues that the only way to tell if someone is *really* seeking after God is if they have these visible public experiences. Is it possible we will see sometime in the near future a more thorough analysis of the charismatic movement?
4. mark said the following at 10:59 AM on Jun 20:
hi,
Very interesting topic. I was a Jesus people person back in Kansas City in the 70's. I'd grown up in a Baptist church and the Charismatic and Jesus People made living for Jesus so much more meaningful. I can't think of a thing I'd trade it for.
My view is that ever generation has to interpret the Gospel to their generation. Johnathan Edwards interpreted the gospel to his world view just as much as the Boomers did. The future generations will not follow the boomers prespective but the one that is meaningful to them. If the read their Bible and listen to the Holy Spirit they will see an aspect of the Gospel that no generation has seen before them. I'll celebrate with them that discovery. For the legalists that might read that, that doens't distrack from who Jesus is in my mind.
Mark
5. Jen said the following at 11:46 AM on Jun 20:
In response to Jade -
"I do not agree with the assertion of so many speakers of tongues that the only way to tell if someone is *really* seeking after God is if they have these visible public experiences."
I understand your frustration with this concept. It seems that tongues, in particular, are held up as spiritual gifts every believer should receive. I believe that physical manifestations of the Spirit are Biblical, as scripture reads:
"And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit."
-Joel 2:28-29
On the day of Pentecost Peter quoted this and said in that day it was fulfilled. (Acts 2:16.) In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul told us to desire spiritual gifts such as that of prophesy - indicating that not all gifts are given to all people.
While obvious physical manifestations of the Spirit (such as tongues) are certainly Biblical and present in our day, I do not believe that they are necessary as proof of salvation. The Spirit may just as well be quietly present.
Paul pointed out that if there was no interpreter for a speaker in tongues, he should remain silent, because the aim should be to build up the church. (1 Corinthians 14:27-28) While outpourings of the Spirit are to be desired, I think that we have a tendency to forget this goal - to strive to excel in building up the church. (v. 12)
One more verse from this chapter that I love :)
"What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also." (v. 15)
Whether we speak in tongues, prophesy, or not, we who have the Spirit are blessed in being able to pray and praise Him with our mind and spirit - to worship Him in Spirit and in truth. (John 4:23)
6. Gary McGinnis said the following at 12:11 PM on Jun 20:
Hello to all; Christ is in our midst!
I am an Orthodox Christian who is now almost 56 years old, and so I remember more about the 1960's than I really care to. I was involved in a non-denominational campus church that was indeed trying to recreate what it thought the early Church was like. However, like many non-denominational efforts, that vision of the early Church operated in a historical vacuum. Rather than investigating primary sources that would have notified us that the early Church (and, indeed, the whole Church for the first millennium and a half) was episcopal in polity, liturgical in worship, unanimously practiced infant baptism, and was non-dispensational in eschatology, we took our point of departure from what we deemed to be the faults of all current denominations. Predictably, we accomplished little more than a repetition of ancient errors, with the addition of that radical subjectivism that was the underlying style and most basic presupposition of the times.
Therefore, in my opinion, the key words in these posts are "imagined" and "refreshing informality." That is, the supposed recreation studiously avoided reading the works of those who were actually there, such as St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr, and so on. Instead, supposed cultural values of the counterculture controlled the whole endeavor. These values included the following: Distrust or wholesale rejection of any authority outside my own skull or apart from my emotional penchants (there goes the threefold apostolic ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon), dislike of repetition and pattern (there goes the sanctification of time itself via the Church calendar), and the supposed right to redefine every word and concept in terms of radical individualism (there goes the historic meaning of words such as church, love, fellowship, worship, Scripture --- you name it).
John mildly commended what he called "refreshing informality." While I understand that he is trying to be kind by seeing some good elements in what the counterculture offered, I must beg to differ even with this. What is it about Divine Worship, whether in the Old Testament or in the ancient Church (as it really was, not how we "imagine" it) that makes us think that it was informal at all? Was the temple worship informal? Was the synagogue worship informal? As the apostolic Church laid to rest her martyred dead in the catacombs and celebrated the Eucharist, do we think they did so in accordance with the whims of whoever was in charge at the moment? And so I'm afraid that the informality, while it might have been refreshing at the time, again had nothing to do with historic Christianity and everything to do with the congenital American habit of identifying personal preference with truth. Moreover, if Christianity isn't historic, it isn't Christianity, any more than a non-historic Incarnation can be an Incarnation.
Fr. Alexander Schmemann, of blessed memory, warned in the 1960's that the greatest challenge to Christianity in America is secularism. Of course, he was speaking specifically of the Orthodox mission to America, but much of what he said applies to American Christianity in general. It would be a mistake, he said, to define secularism as direct hostility to religion. Secularism neither opposes nor supports religion. It simply tames it, keeps it in its place, turns it into the Religion Department of life. As Eisenhower said, "Belief in religion is a good thing, and I don't care which one it is." The problem, of course, is that the Church, in its truly historic, apostolic form, sees herself as the basis of and the manifestation of the new life, not merely as the mystical manifestation of the old life. America is among the most religious nations in the world, just as the Athens of St. Paul's day was one of the most religious cities on Earth (Acts 17:22 ff.). For what that's worth.
In my view, then, the counterculture Christianity of the 1960's was just as much a part of American Civil Religion as was the "establishment" religion of which it was the alleged corrective. Both of them tend to make Christianity into the platform of a special-interest group rather than what it is: The Kingdom of God on earth, in unbroken communion with the Kingdom of God in heaven. (That's what the communio sanctorum clause of the Apostle's Creed means.)
The meaning of Scripture, the meaning and structure of the "church," the truth of the Trinity, and so on: These things are not up for grabs. They do not need redefinition. On the contrary, WE need to be redefined in their terms. Yes, we do need to discover (or rediscover) them, but they can be discovered or rediscovered only if they have current, concrete, historical existence. We do not need to be introduced to an abstract concept born out of the imagination of the hottest, most exciting religious writer.
The Apostolic Church already exists. She always has, and she always will. She cannot possibly cease to exist any more than her glorious Head can cease to exist.
7. San Soo said the following at 1:55 PM on Jun 20:
Gary-
Well said. I'm not Orthodox...yet. It's getting harder and harder to avoid. I think the so-called "Reformation" needs to end. The experiment known as "Evangelicalism" needs to get connected to the Church.
8. castillo said the following at 2:24 PM on Jun 20:
What if we could just read the Bible at face value and go from there? How great would that be?
I once met a man who became a Christian in the "Jesus movement." He ended up moving to India as a missionary and is giong to die there, how much more could someone act out their faith? I believe the attack on speaking in toungues and worship are a bit unfair and biased. Sure, there are those who abuse it, but I have felt the sense of God in these places more than others..
9. San Soo said the following at 2:32 PM on Jun 20:
Castillo-
The problem with "just reading the Bible" is that Christ did not drop a book out of the sky and say "Good luck!". The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. It takes the whole community of Christians, beginning with the Apostles to show us how to live, how to worship, how to pray, and how to interpret the Bible. Being a lone ranger is not God's plan.
10. Heather said the following at 2:47 PM on Jun 20:
Also, if it were just as easy as reading the Bible "at face value" (whatever that means), why do we have so many denominations and churches that disagree? Many of them claim to be strictly interpreting the Bible, without looking to Christian tradition, and yet they call come to different conclusions.
San Soo, I share your feelings about the Reformation and evangelicalism. My spiritual journey led me to the Catholic Church, although I considered Orthodoxy and respect it as a valid expression of the One (sadly divided) Church established by Jesus. I will pray for you as you seek the Truth!
11. Gary McGinnis said the following at 3:24 PM on Jun 20:
My dear friends, please consider this: When Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven, He didn't leave behind a book. He left behind a Church. The Bible, at least in the sense of the New Testament, did not yet exist, and was not formally defined for CENTURIES after Pentecost (A.D. 367 in St. Athanasius's Festal Letter, to be precise). So we have to stop and ask ourselves: How did the Church live for all those years while the N.T. was being compiled? Bear in mind that these brothers and sisters were being killed virtually every day for a faith that we basically think wasn't invented until the Reformation. So my plea is: Get real.
Regarding "just reading the Bible," that's plausible-sounding romanticism. For almost 2000 years, 1 Tim. 3:15 has existed: "...I write so you may know how to conduct yourself in the church of the living God, THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH." Are we still able to hear what St. Paul is telling St. Timothy, the young BISHOP of Ephesus? Here is Holy Scripture itself telling us that the Church, and NOT the Bible, is the foundational reality of human existence in Christ. I realize that this might sound blasphemous, but it's only because we've drunk the denominationalist Kool-Aid. Jesus Christ did not die for a harem. He is not a disembodied head. He has a Church, a Bride, a Body. No one can stop anyone else from reinventing Christianity in his or her own image, but the result will decidedly not be the Church, because the Church only lives by the same life energy as her life-giving Head gives her. Hence the great mystery of marriage, for example. May God grant that someone gets the drift of what I'm saying. Amen.
12. San Soo said the following at 4:53 PM on Jun 20:
Thank you, Heather. Currently I am a member of the Catholic Church, but I feel as though I will have to go another direction.
13. xeres said the following at 6:00 PM on Jun 20:
Interesting....the Reformed folk are very interesting. The people in that camp are more concern or known for the process of defining the faith. Also, they are also known to have a huge emphasis on revolving the doctrines around the essence of God's sovereignity, which explains their willingness to accept Calvinism.
Moving on, I started out as a non-demonational but moving towards being Wesleyan. I'll admit, majority of today's generation aren't that biblically and theologically literate on a lot of things, much less their denominational backgrounds. It can be hard to explain why you are a certain denomination of the Christian faith when if you don't have the basic familarity of church history and it's relation to your denominational history.
14. Leah said the following at 6:10 PM on Jun 20:
John, I could be wrong, but when they said He was already living the essence of Christianity, man: It's all about, like, compassion and justice and stuff. All he needs is Jesus. I was under the impression the "All he needs is Jesus" was talking to the hippie's attitude, as if the hippie was running around saying "All you need is Jesus, man!" Could be wrong, though.
15. Leah said the following at 6:23 PM on Jun 20:
I've seen a few comments on non-denominational churches and whether they work, so I thought I'd put my 2c in: I know three siblings who used to be MKs in PNG. (Missionary kids in Papua New Guinea :P). They're all at university or graduated now, but their parents are still in PNG. There were so few Christians in their part of PNG that there were no denominations; everyone just formed one church. Anything controversial was avoided as this would have created divisions. This is not to say those controversial things were wrong; but simply that they would have been unhelpful in that circumstance.
My friend said that it was a good experience, however it did leave him lacking in certain aspects of theological knowledge (which he easily picked up on when moving back to Australia anyway).
Gary McGinnis- The bible was compiled by the Council of Nicea, called by Constantine, in 325AD.
I also don't think you need to be so pedantic when commenting on John's comment of "informality". You knew what he was getting at.
San Soo- I would argue that the church is not the foundation of truth. Churches often get things wrong! And what should we turn to to get it right? The bible. The bible is the ultimate truth. While it may not have been in the form of the bible before 325AD, the individual books still existed. I completely agree that the church is important, and that we shouldn't go it alone, but to imply that the church is the foundation of truth and the bible is secondary is wrong.
Not to mention, the reformation was highly important. Luther started the reformation when he announced his belief that we are saved by faith alone. To say this movement needs to end is awful. It promotes our saving grace- it is not by confessing to a Catholic priest that we are saved, it is simply by our faith in Jesus.
Heather- if these churches with differing opinions looked to church tradition, they would still get differing opinions!
16. San Soo said the following at 7:15 PM on Jun 20:
Leah-
I like your spunk. However, there are some things that are not clear in this discussion. First off, that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth is not my opinion alone. The Apostle Paul said it first in 1 Timothy 3:15:
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
That verse has totally changed the way I look at things. I do not believe the Bible is "second", as you claim. I believe it is not up for individual interpretation. No one has the right to go start a church and say he/she is the priest, pastor, whatever. Jesus builds the Church (Matt 16).
You claim that Martin Luther argued that people are saved by faith alone and not by confession to a priest. Luther said many things, but he never denied the necessity of the church. I used to be a Lutheran, and what made an easy transition into Catholicism (which I do not claim to be the One, true Church) is that I was used to the Lutheran liturgy where the pastor would say "As a duly called and ordained servant of the Word I pronounce/announce the forgiveness of your sins." Priests in the Catholic/Orthodox Church do not forgive sins. Christ does the forgiving. The Bible commands us to confess our sins. Priests facilitate the presence of Christ; after all, we're an incarnational faith.
17. Gary McGinnis said the following at 10:29 PM on Jun 20:
Sorry, but the Council of Nicea did not compile the N.T. The first list of books that were eventually accepted as canonical doesn't appear until St. Athanasius' Festal Letter of A.D. 367, and it is generally known that the canon was fixed at the council of Hippo (393) and the council of Carthage (397), largely through the authority of Jerome and Augustine, who attended both those councils.
Even if Leah's assertion about Nicea were correct, the basic points are still made: The Church came before the N.T., the N.T. arose out of the life and faith of that Church, can be rightly understood only from within the faith-experience of that Church, and that Church bears little or no resemblance to anything generated by the 16th-century Reformation, and even less resemblance to the current denominational chaos.
18. Joy W. said the following at 11:35 PM on Jun 20:
Gary McGinnis and San Soo,
I was intrigued by your reference to I Timothy 3:15, so I went and looked it up. There's a key point I'd like to consider, included in verse 14:
"These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (I Timothy 3:14-15, NKJV)
Note why Paul is writing: so Timothy, and presumably those in his church, know how to conduct themselves in the house of God. I'm not questioning the identification of the church as "the pillar and ground of the truth," but even then letters from the apostles (which now comprise our New Testament) were given to God's people to teach them how to live.
19. Samuel PG said the following at 1:20 AM on Jun 21:
Wow, so much on the plate here...
On tongues,
Keep in mind that "Pentecostal" and "charismatic" are not synonyms. Pentecostal is a denomination, charismatic is a general theological bent. Pentecostals are charismatics, but not all charismatics are Pentecostals. It is common within the Pentecostal denomination to hold that a person cannot be known to have the Spirit unless they speak in tongues. In the larger charismatic movement, however, the majority of Christians do not hold that tongues is the sign of salvation and recognizes that different gifts are given to different saints.
20. Samuel PG said the following at 1:53 AM on Jun 21:
On the Bible and the Church...
Let me lay out a little bit of my background for y'all so you can take my biases into account. I am a non-denominational charismatic evangelical Protestant Christian. I attended a Catholic high school for four years. I currently attend a large inter-denominational Christian university with a Wesleyan bent and study on professors from all types of Christian background. I am a theology major with an emphasis in church history. You can now attribute everything that follows to one of the aforementioned pieces of my history. Have at it.
Gary, I really appreciate what you have written here. You have a beautiful ecclesiology. On the one hand, I completely agree with you. While both the Orthodox churches as well as the Roman Catholic church are much more likely to educate their members in the history of the church, it has been my sad experience that contemporary Christians are by-and-large ignorant of early Church fathers, the creeds, the life stories of the saints, and much more, regardless of their standing as Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant (I will throw Anglican in here as well, because they generally do not appreciate being regarded as Protestant). This ignorance is to the detriment of the Church and must begin to be repaired. The traditions and teachings of the Church cannot be disregarded without causing great damage. Just as all saints alive on the earth today are members of the one Body, the Church Militant, irregardless of tradition, ethnicity, or nationality, so we are intimately tied to the Church Triumphant that has gone before us into the one truly universal Church. We cannot ignore their voices. Mark said it well when he pointed out that each new generation catches a slightly different glimpse of just Who God is. The fact of the matter remains that we are in a position where we must also learn to see God through the eyes of former generations.
In defense of movements that end up throwing away so much church history while trying to get back to the early church, your statements are not totally accurate. For instance, we do not see evidence of a liturgical church service or infant baptism until the second century AD. Of course that is early, but what many of these movements mean by saying that they are trying to regain the early church is that they are trying to regain the earliest church, which is found solely in the pages of the Bible. In Scripture we see no Church calendar, no order for a liturgy, no infant baptism, no clear-cut episcopal polity. I believe that the traditions of the Church have so much to offer, but at the same time these movements see themselves as trying to cut through all of the extra baggage that began to gather after the Bible was penned and return to the earliest church.
San Soo,
You say that you belong to the RC Church and yet you believe that Evangelicalism needs to be connected to the Church. If you are saying we need to be united to the RC Church, you may say that although I disagree. If you are saying we are detached from the Church universal, the very Body of Christ, however, you disagree with your own tradition. The RC Church recognizes Protestants as brothers in Christ, estranged brothers perhaps, but brothers nonetheless.
I agree with both you and Gary that we evangelicals need to rediscover the treasures of the Church: the life stories of the saints, the tradtions, the calendar, the benefits of a liturgy, the all-important creeds, the wisdom of the Church fathers, the immense importance of a strong ecclesiology, etc. I am working to help repair the problem, as are many many evangelicals today (look over a few issues of recent Christianity Today magazines, which highlighted a new interest among evangelicals in Church history and tradition, as well as new dialoge with the Orthodox churches). On your part, there seems to be a flaw in your ecclesiology that prevents you from seeing Protestants and evangelicals especially as brothers and sisters in Christ. You correctly point out that Protestants have too much of a tendency to fail to see any Christians between 400 and 1517 AD. At the same time, you seem to fail to see many Christians of your own era who are dedicating their lives to the Gospel and dying for their faith.
Here is to the future wedding banquet of the Lamb! I hope we sit together.
21. castillo said the following at 2:55 AM on Jun 21:
San,
I don't think it''s really a problem, but here are some thought about modern church. I go to a seeker-sensitive church, they never talk about miracles, prophesy or speaking in toungues, yet I once met a woman who converted to Mormonism because they believed in prophesy, met some pro-homosexual Christians who spoke in toungues and have seen miracles happen when we pray.
What I'm getting at is that a lot of churches just go with the flow and do what they've always done... the God I read about in my Bible is different than the one I see presented at church and unfortunately they think numbers are good...
22. Robert J Espe said the following at 7:12 AM on Jun 21:
For those who are concerned/curious about the gifts of the spirit/speaking in tongues thing, please visit http://www.ag.org That is the website for the assemblies of God church, the position papers on the site accurately represent the beliefs of mainstream pentecostal/charismatic theology. We do NOT believe speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation, although some misguided people have characterized it as such.
I'm kind of an odd duck, I'm a young worship leader at a pentecostal/charismatic church. So I sing, and play guitar, have been known to jump and all that. But I'm really more comfortable with the liturgical traditions. I think we lose something when we completely dismiss structured religion (after all, religion was organized to help people on their journey). For example, we have services that cater to young people who claim to have more fun, but without the catechism, almost no one my age or younger really understands their faith intellectually. I realized this when I had to explain to an adult (20's-30's) class why the virgin birth is a critical/non-negotiable/can't have Christianity without it point. If they had grown up in a church that recited and TAUGHT on the Apostle's creed, they would have known.
It seems the people who make an intellectual effort end up doing it on their own instead of being guided by their church's teaching. I'm not saying that people should accept whatever their church says, but CS Lewis pointed out that the divisions in Christianity are so complicated, they should only be treated by real experts. So if people want to learn, they will save time by reading the arguments of opposing experts, as opposed to hashing out infant baptism with another spiritually young friend.
23. Robert J Espe said the following at 7:17 AM on Jun 21:
Leah,
I'd like to weigh in with San Soo, and point out that you already believe that the church and not the Bible is the pillar of truth. As you said, the CHURCH compiled the Bible in 325 AD. It was also the church that wrote the creeds that contain the essentials of Christianity. Now "the church" is not to be confused with "a" church, and it doesn't mean a denomination. It means "the church" the way St Paul used it. Of course right now "the church" is so divided, it is a lot harder to recognize that truth. Sad.
24. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 7:26 AM on Jun 21:
San Soo - I agree. Justification by faith (alone) is a blatant novelty concocted in the sixteenth century without historical or traditional precedence. As you said, faith in Jesus Christ is incarnational (et homo factus est, "He became man") and thus the reception of graces is incarnational as well (the Sacraments).
Also, regarding the alleged secularization of the Church: I cannot help but agree as well. In fact, the situation in the Catholic Church is a case study in this secularization process. I do not know what strange fever inspired our clergy to go off the deep end back in the 60's, but today we are reaping the whirlwind for it. "God is not mocked, whatsoever a man soweth he shall reap." I have nothing much to say to you except to stay Catholic, and believe me, the Eastward tug is tempting on occasion, but only by communion with the Roman See do we have a chance to rebuild Christendom and restore our civilization to its right mind.
25. John said the following at 9:24 AM on Jun 21:
" ... the CHURCH compiled the Bible in 325 AD."
Actually, was it not the Holy Spirit, working through human instruments, who compiled the Bible as we have it today, minus apocryphal books that were judged not to be inspired by the Spirit?
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
To say that "the church and not the Bible is the pillar of truth" is to step onto a slippery slope, one that leads to replacing the Word of God with human authority. Without naming names, that kind of thinking might lead one toward a particular denomination whose leaders have not always been infallible in their pronouncements.
Church members should be good Bereans, and search the Scriptures daily, to see whether their church's teaching lines up with the inspired word. Acts 17:10-11.
26. ejp said the following at 10:18 AM on Jun 21:
I haven't been to seminary, I grew up in a home church, and am currently attending a "Bible church"- which I believe is similar to baptist. I've attended Assemblies of God churches (charismatic) and spoken in tongues, I've found great comfort and meaning in Catholic writings and teachings. I've seen good and bad habits, teachings and attitudes in every camp. Some of the issues that have been argued in this post are very important. We as Christians should know the history and teachings of our church. We should depend on more than our own 'gut' feelings about things. However, I do 'feel' that Christ died for people. Confused, stubborn, unique and struggling people. My personal spiritual journey is a quest to know Christ and the Father. He has revealed himself through Scripture, through the history of his people: both Jews and the Church, and to other believers, who have encouraged, led and taught me day to day. I don't believe that faith is touchy-feeley, on the level of Guideposts. Yet, while I am intellectually stimulated and drawn by theological arguments, I still see salvation and faith in Jesus as something simple and basic, that a child can understand. So yes, let us be as wise as serpents, and careful in all we do and believe, but also as harmless as doves, not letting hatred or divisions take hold.
27. Mandi said the following at 11:05 AM on Jun 21:
It's a narrow view, and a dangerous one, to be convinced that things always were the way they are. Or worse, that everything that went before, was inferior.
Amen, Candice!
I'd add that it's also a view lacking in humility. How can the modern disarray claim to be more authentic than the belief and worship of the Christians evangelized and discipled by the Lord's Apostles themselves?
So much more to say about this...in the interests of time, I basically repeat my comments on "Do You Date the Church?"...the part I'll just copy and paste here is re: hippie "informality" of worship vs. the Early Church:
The Greek word used in Acts 13:2 is "leitourgounton", the verb form of the old Greek noun "leitourgia". I'm not a Greek scholar by any stretch, but you don't need to be to see what that word is. The original text of the Bible shows there was "liturgy" in Acts 13. Most post-Reformation traslations have taken the liberty to change the word to the verb "ministering". God also told His people how He wanted them to pattern their worship -- after the things in Heaven (Heb. 8:5 and 9:23, Revelations chapter 4, and Isaiah chapter 6...waaay too much to get into here).
God bless.
28. Mandi said the following at 11:07 AM on Jun 21:
Leah, real quick --
I guess you missed my comments responding to you about Tradition on "The Arrogance of Christianity" post (they're the last ones on the post), eh? ;) (Time zones!) They include interesting arguments from Protestant, Jewish Christian (convert from Orthodox Judaism to Christianity), and other sources.
Just curious about 2 things, Leah: which Scriptures do you think the Apostle Paul is referring to in 2 Tim 3:14-15, and do you believe in the Triune God?
Don't think anyone's saying Scripture's not the inspired, authentic, precious Word of God.
Besides, Scripture itself tells us to hold on to the tradition of the Apostles.
29. Samuel PG said the following at 12:44 PM on Jun 21:
Mandi,
I appreciate your interesting finding of the word leitourgounton in Acts 13:2, but you are wrong about what it means. You don't have to be a Greek scholar to know the meaning of the word (although you will understand it better that way), but you also cannot know the meaning by simply looking at the word transliterated into English. Look at the following transliterated Greek word: "arrobon." It appears to be similar to "Arabian," but is in fact the Modern Greek word for an engagement ring. The thing is, that is not what it meant when the word was used in 2 Corinthians 5:5. In Koinonia Greek the word means "earnest-money or caution-money," it was a deposit used as a guarantee in financial transactions.
Leitourgounton meant literally "to serve public offices at one's own cost," but in biblical usage meant "to be a public servant" and therefore by analogy "to perform religious or charitable functions (worship, obey, relieve)." (All of this is according to Strong's).
Language changes over time. The English word liturgy did of course derive from the original Greek leitourgounton, but it did not retain its meaning. We must not make the mistake of reading modern English usage into the Greek text of the Bible.
Keep in mind I mean the following as a joke, but read all of Acts 13:2-3:
"While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.' So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off."
When was the last time that you attended a liturgical service that gave the Holy Spirit the kind of liberty to speak prophetically to the congregation?
30. Samuel PG said the following at 12:51 PM on Jun 21:
Ok, I know I need to make this very clear, even though I said it in my above comment as well. The liturgical jab really was a joke. I often attend liturgical services and find them to hold some great things that non-liturgical services do not, although I could also truly say the same thing about my appreciation of non-liturgical. I really am not attacking you liturgical Christians, because hey, I love you guys.
31. Brittany said the following at 2:03 PM on Jun 21:
Hi there!
I was raised in a Pentacostal church from the age of 5 until I was 13 (moved) and now worship at a Weslyan church (quite a change!). Since I moved away from my original church, I have not witnessed anyone else speaking in tounges (or prophecy) and honestly, just talking about it makes many uncomfortable!
As one who has been blessed with both gifts of the spirit, I know that these are obviously not necessary for salvation. Are Baptists or Weslyans going to hell because they do not practice this in their churches? Of course not! Nor do any pentacostals I know believe this.
As far as speaking in tounges goes...when I do (quietly to myself in church or in prayer) I feel God's...well, warmth is the only way I can describe it. It is a peace. I hear His voice and sometimes I feel strongly prompted to speak in tounges for someone specific.
I really hope that those who have not seen/experienced this gift, are not afraid or angered by it. Some of us sing well, some of us preach, some of us are great friends and some of us have gifts in the spirit of God. Amazing he blesses us unworthy people with such great, holy gifts. :)
32. mark said the following at 2:13 PM on Jun 21:
HI all,
Thanks again for the interesting reading. I thought I'd comment on how I look at the different churches with their different views and practices.
Over the yers I have been a part of close to 10 differnt denominations. Ya, all prodestant. I have found that in each case they have loved Jesus. I found that they accepted that I loved Jesus. We didn't really have a divission as far as I was concern.
Now I look at all God has created. From the stars to the planets, from the plants to the animals, from one person to the next person there is so much diversity. But people with our mass production want to make everything almost exactly the same. I think all the differances in the church is God's will. He likes getting worship and I believe He liks everything from the litergial to the free worship. Because men in authority would want us all to basically worship in one way and God likes all the variety of worship out there I think God is behind all the denominations. They aren't divission in my mind, but they give freedom for us to worship the way we enjoy expression our love for God most. Its all a sweet savor to God.
That's how I see it.
mark
33. Robert J Espe said the following at 6:28 AM on Jun 22:
John,
You are right, Holy Spirit, working through the church, sounds like a good pillar of truth to me (especially when combined with the verse San Soo quoted).
Even the Catholic church does not believe they are above the Bible, they just place the authority of the church's moral declarations on the same level, so long as they do not contradict the Bible
My brother's best friend (who is Catholic) corrected some misconceptions of mine while discussing general topics. I figured I'd better educate myself, found this great site.
http://www.catholicbridge.com
The guy is easy to understand, and he is more dedicated to helping protestants understand Catholics than to converting them. I enjoyed learning more about Catholic thought, when you actually give them a chance to explain, we really aren't that different.
CS Lewis was right, we must never hope that our opponent is as bad as we think he is...We should always pray that he is somehow better...
34. Mandi said the following at 10:06 AM on Jun 22:
Samuel PG,
I didn’t get the joke, sorry. ;) (I actually wrote this in Word in the very wee, wee hours this morning but fell asleep, so my apologies if parts of this are incoherent!) ;)
As an Arabic speaker myself, I appreciate what you’re saying about looking at transliterated words. But the example you use doesn’t apply to leitourgounton. You say that the English word “liturgy” is derived from leitourgounton but “did not retain its meaning”. Um, to whom? And to those that have decided to change its meaning, on what basis or authority do they make such a change? Frankly, the first time I’d ever read in depth about that particular verse a few months ago, I was outraged. How dare *anyone* impose upon God’s Word translations that are more convenient to their own “personal theology” (which is just nonsense, since the Scriptures themselves teach us that there is only one Truth, and one deposit of faith.)
Like I said, I’m not an expert on this stuff by any means…but here’s what people much more in the know than me say about this word.
Take the http://www.greekbible.com/l.php?leitourge/w_v--papgpm-_a>Greek Bible:
1) to serve the state at one's own cost 1a) to assume an office which must be administered at one's own expense 1b) to discharge a public office at one's own cost 1c) to render public service to the state 2) to do a service, perform a work 2a) of priests and Levites who were busied with the sacred rites in the tabernacle or the temple 2b) of Christians serving Christ, whether by prayer, or by instructing others concerning the way of salvation, or in some other way 2c) of those who aid others with their resources, and relieve their poverty
More about that http://www.armbell.com/orthodoxx/viewtopic.php?p=344&highlight=&sid=79355824fedd8140b6374277277eced7&mforum=orthodoxx>here (scroll down to Coemgen’s post). Interesting links there too, though, the lawyer in me always wants to say I can’t/won’t/don’t vouch for everything on anything I link to ;).
This recent discussion shows more of that, especially Opteron’s post, which shows the Jewish origins and carry-overs into the worship of the earliest Christians. I don’t know the confession of that poster, but here are a couple of http://www.network211.com/ViewHolySpiritForumDiscussion.cfm?category=i7x2m2DuHe4497knx08y2kc&discussionID=226&parentTopicID=51&email=0>Protestant-looking http://www.saintandrewscac.org/faq.html”>ones too.
But much earlier than that is Justin Martyr and his http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html>First Apology. He describes what the early Christians believed about the Eucharist and how they worshiped God. Early Christianity, like Judaism it fulfilled, was liturgical. So the question is how can we remain a part of that earliest, most authentic apostolic expression of worship? By holding fast to it, not trying to be novel or formless. Of course this does not negate the need for private prayer that’s more “free”, but even then, there are only so many psalms, hymns, or personal variations on asking for mercy, wisdom, etc. or praising God.
35. Mandi said the following at 10:12 AM on Jun 22:
Samuel PG,
(More stuff from a late night of Boundless-ing ;)..)
Oh, and you’d made a comment earlier about calendars and infant baptism in Scripture. Didn’t our Lord follow the Jewish festal calendar? As the links I’d linked to you earlier show, the Early Church continued the OT liturgical life, modeling its worship after its Jewish roots. You can see this in the verses in those links that show the Apostles praying the Hours, for example. Don’t you celebrate Christmas, Epiphany, Palm Sunday, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter? The calendar (untouched, anyway), seems to show a continuity of belief and practice of that belief by Christians.
And re: infant baptism – the Scriptures speak of “whole households” being baptized, with no mention of exceptions or prohibitions related to age. The promise the Apostle Peter speaks of in Acts 2:38-39 is “for you and your children”, not “for you and children”, so these kids were young enough to be under their parents’ protection, guidance, and care. Also the Greek word oiko used in Acts 16:15a, 16:31 and 33b, again from the http://www.greekbible.com>Greek Bible, does not say anything about the word “household” being restricted to adults:
oikoV,n {oy'-kos}
 1) a house 1a) an inhabited house, home 1b) any building whatever 1b1) of a palace 1b2) the house of God, the tabernacle 1c) any dwelling place 1c1) of the human body as the abode of demons that possess it 1c2) of tents, and huts, and later, of the nests, stalls, lairs, of animals 1c3) the place where one has fixed his residence, one's settled abode, domicile 2) the inmates of a house, all the persons forming one family, a household 2a) the family of God, of the Christian Church, of the church of the Old and New Testaments 3) stock, family, descendants of one
Nor does that Greek word say that “household” is just people who have reached a certain age of maturity to “understand” or “recognize”. John the Baptist – with all of the intellectual capacity of an unborn child – understood and recognized who his Lord was because such recognition requires http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=12&verse=3&version=50&context=verse>requires the presence and action of the infinite Holy Spirit working in our finite selves. Besides, infants, though purer than most, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:10&version=50>are not righteous. They need salvation too. Where does the Bible offer an alternative to infant baptism if it’s so unacceptable to give access to the http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%203:5,%20Acts%202:38,%20John%203:5,%201%20Peter%203:20-21;&version=50;>saving, regenerative power of baptism to the youngest members of the family? Certainly, OT symbols of baptism include infants.
As I said in my comment of support to Candice earlier, the idea that that which came earlier is wrong, inferior, and/or irrelevant is just plain arrogant of us as Christians living about 21 centuries after those whom our Lord Himself entrusted to spread the Gospel and build His Church. I’m not saying you’re proud, by the way. I’m just saying in general that kind of a dismissive attitude is non-Scriptural because it doesn’t reverence the calls to adhere to the tradition of the apostles, oral and otherwise and unbecoming to us if we yearn to live a life of obedience to God. Roughly the first half of Church history shows that this is possible.
God bless!
36. Robert J Espe said the following at 11:59 AM on Jun 22:
Hey Sam PG,
to be fair (and this is from a pentecostal worship leader), Acts 13 doesn't say the Holy Spirit spoke during a service. It also says they were fasting when He spoke, and that after they had fasted (apparently again) then they laid hands etc. So, unless they were skipping trips to the snack bar in the fellowship hall, I'm thinking that took place over a period of time (a couple days at least). My translation (HCSB) renders "worshipping" as "ministering to", which I think is even more clear that God probably came and spoke to church leaders during a time of fasting and prayer (since they were ministering to the Lord while they were fasting, which takes time).
37. Samuel PG said the following at 6:29 PM on Jun 22:
Mandi,
I suppose I should ask what it is that mean by liturgy then. I assumed that when you were speaking of liturgical worship you were referring to something along the lines of the mass in which a very definite order is followed when the church gathers and culminates in the Eucharist. Even with the extended definition that you provide for leitourgounton, the modern definition of liturgy that I provided does not agree. You might argue that the Greek definition that includes praying and instructing other Christians about Christ as a service to Christ agrees, because that does take place in a liturgical service, but the same things occur in non-liturgical services.
I appreciate your mention of Justin Martyr, but keep in mind that he was born in 100. As I said in my earlier post, we have no record of the earliest church (before the second century) keeping a liturgy or the practices that I had mentioned. Justin Martyr's writings still fall under the scope of the second century church. Of course that means that they are incredibly useful, but like I said, the churches that are trying to get back to the earliest church as best they can are seeking first century ecclesiology, which is found only in the Scriptures.
For the Church calendar, remember that we are still talking about the first century which we only find within the Scriptures. There is no mention in the Bible of the Church celebrating any of the holidays that you mention. Keep in mind that Christmas was not celebrated by the Church until the 3rd century because until then it viewed natural birthdays as a pagan celebration. I know that the early church did celebrate Easter, Epiphany, etc. but not within the Scriptures.
Jesus did follow the Jewish calendar, you are correct. We still celebrate those holidays though? The Day of Atonement, the Feast of Tabernacles, Rosh Hashana, Purim? We do have Pentecost at the same time, and we celebrate Holy Week at the same time as Passover, but that has to do with when the events of Easter took place, not because it coincides with the Jewish holiday.
Colossians 2:16-17 seems to indicate that the Jewish holidays are in fact done, now that Christ has fulfilled the law. "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."
As far as infant baptism goes, I have heard this argument many times. The trouble lies in the fact that you have to assume that Cornelius' household included small children. It may have, but we are not told. Throughout the Scriptures we are told to repent and be baptized, the former before the latter. Infants are capable of knowingly repenting of their sins? If not, an assumption about one verse apparently is allowed to override the rest of Scripture when it speaks of baptism. I understand that you think circumcision was a symbol of baptism, as did John Calvin, but where does Scripture indicate that it was so? I will not go into whether or not baptism is a regenerative work, because that is a totally different (and huge) point of debate. I gather that you are Roman Catholic and so you hold that regenerative grace is imparted through baptism, but you well know that Protestants (with the exception of some Lutherans) utterly disagree.
The promise that Peter speaks of in Acts 2:38 is not just for the listeners and their children but also "for all who are far off," and is not contingent upon baptism but upon repenting and being baptized. Of course the promise stands for their children, but not until the children can repent of their sins.
You said, "the idea that that which came earlier is wrong, inferior, and/or irrelevant is just plain arrogant of us as Christians living about 21 centuries after those whom our Lord Himself entrusted to spread the Gospel and build His Church." I completely agree. As I said many times in my former post, I have great respect for the traditions and history of the Church as a guide. I do think that we should subject all church practice and teaching to the earliest church, however, found in Scripture. If early church (but late church compared to the time of the apostles) practice is not prohibited by the Bible, it is fine to keep, although not necessary. If it does conflict, then it must be corrected.
38. Samuel PG said the following at 6:38 PM on Jun 22:
Aww Mandi,
I just went straight into argumentative mode with that one. I apologize, I forgot to salt it with grace. If you'll forgive my lack of graciousness, I will be grateful.
39. Mandi said the following at 11:32 AM on Jun 26:
Samuel PG,
No worries. :)
Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle, and at his martyrdom he said he had been “in the service of Christ” for 86 years…that means he was baptized shortly after his birth, given the historical records of his age at martyrdom, not at some age of reason or maturity. Are we really willing to say that someone whose parents became Christians during the time our Lord’s own Disciples who were carrying out Christ’s commission to them was baptized wrongly? Remember that he existed before the Bible as we know it did, a couple of centuries later. So, apart from the clear inclusion of infants in the NT references to OT types of baptism which I cited earlier that specifically mention this (hafta wonder whether it’s really fair to presume God commanded Moses to leave the infants to perish with the Egyptians!, we must give a lot of weight to what the Apostles did. Are we to believe that we know more about authentic Christianity 15, 16, …21 centuries after the men our Lord hand-picked to spread the Gospel? Kinda lacking in humility and wisdom, no? (I’m not saying you do, I’m just saying that kind of attitude and thinking do.)
(The same situation applies to Polycrates of Ephesus, and the description of his “years in the Lord” and his age, by the way.)
Nothing in the earliest Church’s history even points to forbidding infant baptism, certainly not on the grounds you first must “believe” before baptism. If infant baptism is so wrong, why weren’t there protests about this in the Early Church? They certainly weren’t shy about adamantly stamping out other unbiblical beliefs and practices, as the councils that pronounced the Christian belief on such doctrines as the Trinity show us.
Where does Scripture expressly forbid infant baptism anyway? Conversely, if it was the norm to baptize the children of Christians at a later age, where is the Scriptural evidence of that?
What’s the Scriptural problem with being baptized and maturing in faith as we grow – don’t we all mature in faith? Why wouldn’t we want to protect infants from the effects of the Fall? And they are affected – even creation">http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:19-21&version=50">creation is. Infants have no sins to repent of, as the adults to whom Mark 16:16 is addressed, but they are not free of defilement before God. You can’t apply a command intended for adults to infants any more than you can apply a command intended for married couples to, say, infants or consecrated celibates..it's just the wrong audience.
Of course none of this is to say that baptism is enough. It’s simply the start of a relationship with Christ. But we need to stay the course until the end, kind of like infant immunization is just the start of good health, but constant tending and nutrition is required to keep health through other stages of life…actually, just as infants can’t “reason” about immunization, it does not mean that their parents prevent them from having the best start possible. All the more so here, since faith has much more to do with relation to God than reasoning about Him since our capacity to reason about the infinite is so limited.
God bless you!
40. Mandi said the following at 11:43 AM on Jun 26:
Samuel PG,
Re: liturgy, I guess I should have re-quoted the paragraph following the one I’d reproduced from an http://www.boundlessline.org/2007/03/do_you_date_the.html#comment-64896068>earlier comment:
The earliest and universally recognized sources outside of the Scriptures also clearly describe the Early Church as having been liturgical, and centring that liturgy on the Eucharist, which they all believed to be the true Body and true Blood of Christ. These writings are the "Didache" (or "The Teaching of the Twelve") of 70 A.D. (that's Bible times!), "First Apology" by Justin Martyr of about 150 A.D. where he put in writing the pattern of Christian worship for the emperor, and "Apostolic Tradition" by Hippolytus, written about 200 A.D. So how is it we can "date" around with churches that don't have these basic things?
The http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/june/13.30.html>Didache, as that Christianity Today article points out, is very important evidence of what the earliest Church was doing and teaching, from everything like abortion, to liturgy, to a lot of stuff in between. The info I’d linked you to a few days ago has much more in-depth discussion of the worship of the earliest Church...if I'm not mistaken, I think one of them even has a link to an annotated liturgy…footnoting back to Scripture...if you get a chance to check it out, I think it's more articulate and detailed than my knowledge.
And I guess you might have missed the exchanges on birth control a few weeks back…I’m definitely not a member of the Roman Church, though I do count many dear friends as such. :) Sometimes it’s easy to see apparent similarities between the Roman Church and the ancient Church, but most of the time they’re only apparent similarities. That’s a story for another day…I’ve already taken up too much time as it is today having this very interesting discussion with you :)
God bless!