Category Archives: Church History

Church History

One, Holy, Invisible Universal Church

Have you ever wondered why some churches included the phrase “we believe in the one, holy, invisible universal church” in their statement of faith or confession?

Well, I’m glad you asked. 🙂

The reason is that for a few hundred – no, make that a thousand or so – years a lot of believes believed that there was one, universal visible “church.” Like a lot of things, this visible church started out united, but became fragmented over the years leading to the development of the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, the Nestorian Church and, eventually, the Protestant Church (or, should I say, churches).

Unfortunately, this fragmentation did little to change the view that there was one ‘visible church’. Instead, folks simply assumed that THEIR church was the ONE, and everyone else was not. (sigh)

Sometime during the 1500’s this view (thankfully) began to change – as noted in the Westminster Confession of 1646 which states:

The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all. (Ch. XXV)

However, this was not to be the end of the debate (double sigh).

Continue reading One, Holy, Invisible Universal Church →

Church History, Theology Thoughts

Baptism: My Way or the Highway

Catacombs of San Callisto: baptism in a 3rd-century painting

A good friend of my is getting ready to move a new town and is in the process of looking for a group believers to hang with. During this process he ran across a small church that requires all new members to be baptized by their pastor, regardless of whether or not they had been baptized previously.

Needless to say, my friend did not…hmmm…shall I say, “like” this requirement. 😕

As I was talking to my friend about this baptism requirement, I remembered a story about my grandfather who was a Pentecostal pastor. In one of the areas where he pastured, there was a big disagreement on the words one used when baptizing a new believer.

  • Do you follow Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:19, “…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”
  • Or do you follow the early church in baptizing folks in “Jesus name only”? (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, etc)

The disagreement, which has roots back to third century AD, was so bad that neither group would accept the baptism of the other. And, of course, if you were not baptized, then you were not a ‘true‘ believer…or so the thought process went (this is why baptism certificates were such a big deal).

Anyway, my grandfather was not interested in this mindless, futile bickering. Therefore, he came up with a brilliant solution to the problem. He baptized folks in the “Name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit and in Jesus name only!”

Church History, Theology Thoughts

And the Son… Part II

blog 1Yesterday we talked about the historical roots of the “Filioque Controversy.” Today we will briefly discuss why this addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed effects how one views the Trinitarian nature of God.

In the Latin West, the view that the Holy Spirit proceed from both the Father and the Son led to the doctrine of “Subordinationism.” This doctrine states that both the Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father. Note that there are various types of subordinationism in which detail out the way in which the Son and the Spirit are subordinate (i.e. in nature, being, relationship, etc).

However regardless of how one splits or defines Subordinationism, the end result is a hierarchy within the Trinity with The Father on top followed by the Son and then the Spirit (see image to the right).

On a practical level, this hierarchy can lead people to:

  • Focus on the individual members of the Trinity versus the unity of God
  • Disregard the Spirit as the third and lowest member of the Trinity
  • Promote a gender hierarchy (i.e. if the Trinity is equal in essence but different in roles, then male and females are equal in essence but different in roles – a belief that promotes the supremacy of males and the subordination of females).

On the other side of controversy is the belief that the Trinity is equal in both essence and role. Meaning that there is no ‘true’ hierarchy within the Trinity as they all work together in unity (see image below).

Continue reading And the Son… Part II →

Church History

And the Son…

Our discussion of Gregory of Nazianzus’ famous quote last week got me to thinking a lot about the “Filioque Controversy.” This is a 1,700 year controversy within Christianity that has a profound impact on how one views the Trinity.

The controversy started fairly soon after the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. During this general council, the Church Fathers modified the Nicene Creed of 325 AD to help defend against various heresies (Arinism, Apollinarianism, Macedonianism, and Chiliasm). In this creed (now called the “Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed”), the following statement was made and agreed upon:

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified

However in 410 AD, a regional council in Persia modified this line to include the Latin word “filioque” – which means “and the Son” (note that the creed was originally written in Greek):

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified

Continue reading And the Son… →

Church History, Theology Thoughts

What Is Not assumed….

Andrei Rublev, Gregory the Theologian (1408)
Andrei Rublev, Gregory the Theologian (1408)
““What is not assumed, is not redeemed”“

I came across this great quote by Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390 AD) today while re-listening to some old VLI lectures.

Gregory made the statement during the great fourth century debate on the nature of Jesus Christ in an effort to stop the budding Apollinarism heresy.

Apollinarism came about as a way of explaining the Council of Nicene’s (325 AD) decision that Jesus was of “one essence with the Father” In effect, this heresy stated that Jesus had a human body and soul, but a divine mind.

As a response, Gregory coined the phrase “what is not assumed is not redeemed” as a way of saying that Jesus had to have been fully human in order for Him to redeem humanity.

If Jesus was somehow less then fully human, then the parts that were not “assumed” were not “redeemed” – whether those parts be the mind, soul, body or spirit.

The result of this debate was the Nicene–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381:

We believe in one God, the Father  Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; And ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father;

And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;

And we believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

We look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the Life of the world to come. Amen.

Book Reviews, Church History, World Missions

What are the most influential books in your life?

It is no secret that I am a bibliophilia (i.e. a lover of books). It is a strange thing as I used to hate books – that is until 4th grade when my brother and his best friend turned me onto Louis L’Amour. The rest, they say, is history.

Recently a friend was asked what where the top 10 influential books in his life – a task that proved to be very difficult. So much so that he decided to limit himself to 22 books.  Today I have decided to follow his example and list the top ten most influential books in my life (and yes, I have kept my list to 10).  🙂

The Short List (i.e. this is my running list of books that have had the most impact on my life)

1) “From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya : A Biographical History of Christian Missions” by Ruth Tucker (1989)

This book fueled my love of following the Goose to the crazy parts of the world. It also started me on the journey of enlarging my view of the Global Church.

2) “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs” by John Foxe (1563)

A faith builder for sure. Oh to have a faith like these saints! May the Lord grant me the strength to stand firm each day.

3) “Breakthrough: Discovering the Kingdom” by Derek Morphew (1991)

Kingdom Theology 101: Probably the most influential theological book I have ever read. Continue reading What are the most influential books in your life? →

Book Reviews, Church History

Irish Saints by Robert T. Reilly

Irish Saints by Robert T. Reilly
Irish Saints by Robert T. Reilly

My love for the ancient Celtic church started about six years ago when I first read Bede’s The Ecclesiastical History of the English People.  Since then I have strove to learn more about these men and women of God who flourished on the edge of the world.

Robert Reilly’s book Irish Saints offers a rare glance into this church through the lives of their Saints and heroes:

  • St. Patrick (418-493)
  • St. Brigid (453-524)
  • St. Brendan (484-577)
  • St. Columcille (521-597)
  • St. Columban (540-615)
  • St. Malachy (1095-1148)
  • St. Laurence O’Toole (1128-1180)
  • St. Oliver Plunkett (1629-1681)
  • Mother Catherine McAuley (1787-1841)
  • Father Theobald Matthew (1790-1856)
  • Matt Talbot (1856-1925)
  • Bishop Edward J. Galvin, S.S.C. (1882-1956)

One of the things that struck me as I read Reilly’s book was the view these Saints and heroes had about material possessions. In the early days (i.e. the days of St. Patrick and Columcille) the Saints forsook material possessions as means to reach those who did not know Christ.

As time went own, folks begun to view material possessions as “sinful” – as such, they forsook material possessions in the hopes of becoming “holy” or “pure.”  Quite the opposite heart from the original saints of Ireland.

Overall it was a good book and good overview of Celtic Christianity through the years.

Book Reviews, Church History

A History of Nestorian Christianity In China by Yang Sen-Fu

Nestorian ChinaI was browsing the shelves of my local library when I came across Yan Sen-Fu’s book about Nestorian Christianity in China. Talk about a find!  It was awesome. 🙂

Nestorianism is a fairly unknown branch of Christianity – at least in the West. They broke off from mainline Christianity in 431 A.D. when the First Council of Ephesus declared the teachings of Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople, about the nature of Jesus to be heretical (ie. did Jesus have one or two natures?). As a result, the followers of Nestorius turned eastward to Persia, India and China.

Before I go on, I think it is worth noting that I don’t think the teachings of Nestorius where really “heretical”. I think it was mostly a political move by the other bishops to gain control over the church as the Coptic Church was “kicked” out in a similar move in 451 AD. But, that is just my view. 😉

Back to Yang Sen-Fu’s book – It was originally written in Chinese and was translated into English by Dr. Herbert Hatcher in 2007. As a result, the book was a tad hard to understand as the wording didn’t always work out… but the essence of the book translated well. Continue reading A History of Nestorian Christianity In China by Yang Sen-Fu →

Book Reviews, Church History

The Celtic Way of Evangelism by George G. Hunter III

Ah… the good, old Celtic church. Sigh. What a group of radicals. Wink

As some of you know, I have a "thing" for the church in the British Isles from 300 A.D. to about 700 A.D. During this time, the Celtic church was more or less independent from the larger Roman Catholic Church (or anyone else for that matter…).

I say "more or less" because even though the Celtic church was outside of the leadership structure of the Roman Catholic Church, the monks still managed to obtain fiction and non-fiction scrolls. It just goes to tell you that bibliophilia is a powerful disease – overcoming wars and miles of once-charted oceans lands.

Yet, that's enough about that, let's move on too our book review!

When I first picked up this book, I was a tad skeptical – "oh great, ANOTHER evangelism book! This is just what the world needs…sigh."

However, I must state that after I finished the book, I was pleasantly trilled with how Hunter approached the topic. [@more@]

*laugh* Tongue out

Ok. I must confess. Even through the book is says it's about "evangelism" – it's really about contextual missions. There. I feel better.

Allow me to explain.

Between 300 to 700 A.D. there were too main models of spreading the Gospel or evangelism. The first model was that of the Roman church – in which the priest/missionary/evangelist:

  • Presented the gospel message
  • Waited for a decision
  • And then entered into fellowship with the new believers.

Note that at the heart of this model was the idea that in order to become a Christian, one must first become "civilized" – which, of course, is another way of saying "becoming Roman".

The second model – that of the Celtic church – was to send teams into un-reached villages and:

  • Enter into fellowship with the unbelievers
  • Minister to them as the opportunity arouse
  • Then, after folks trust and know you, invite them to follow Jesus.

You may say "ummm..Ardell, isn't that just relationship evangelism? I mean, that 'top topic' has left the dock years ago!"

In some ways, you are correct. The Celtic model is a type of relationship evangelism. However, it also differs (or at least it differs from my understanding of modern "relationship evangelism").

First off, the Celtic model is based upon community. There is a team – ten or twenty people – who work together to reach the pagans. As a result, the unbelievers in the village have the opportunity to see Christianity at work within a group setting – warts and all.

Second, it's deliberate – but not in a slimy, tricky, underhanded kind of way. The Celtic evangelists had a purpose – to love others and to start a church. However, they did not let this purpose undermined the fact that we are called by God to love other regardless of whether they join the church or not.

Third, and I love this part – the Celtic model allowed for the Mystery of God. The Roman Church – as is parts of the modern fundamental movement – liked to have everything explained logically. The Celtic culture was one that enjoyed the supernatural and mystery of an unexplainable Creator Lord.

Hmmm… This review is getting long… as such, I'm going to end it with one last comment.

Book good. Read if can.

Bye.

Church History, Theology Thoughts

The Ministry of Conversation

The ancient Christian monks of Ireland would establish bases next to villages or trade routes with the hope that various strangers would stop in and say “hi”.

The abbot of the monastery would stop whatever he was doing and visit with the stranger. In fact, if the abbot was in the middle of fast – he would break the fast in order to have a meal with the stranger!!

Talk about a different worldview then the Roman Catholic monks who considered their “spiritual fast” more important then honoring a stranger….

Back to the Celtic monks….

Why did the abbot act that way? Because of the “Ministry of Conversation”.[@more@]

The Ministry of Conversation is more then just talking to another person – It’s taking a personal interest in the life of the other person. What do they like? What is happening in their life – good and bad?

Or, to put it a different way, how do you feel when someone sincerely cares about you? Doesn’t it make you feel special? Loved? Cared for?

That is what the ancient Celtic monks where doing – they were loving the strangers who came to their door, regardless of why they came or who they were.

We, as the church, have lost the value of the Ministry of Conversation in lieu of “spiritual” actions.

As we move into a post-Christendom society, I pray that the church will recapture the value of conversation as demonstrated by the Celtic monks of yesteryear.