Introduction
I
came across an advertisement this week that caught my attention. It was a
promotion for a new reality television show (because we don’t already have
enough of those! {read sarcasm}) that
follows the lives of
six pastors with highly successful church ministries (“megachurches”) in the
Los Angeles area. The program is aptly titled Preachers of L. A. The show is
scheduled to debut this fall and follows the son of an evangelist who was
shunned by his church after a divorce; a pastor whose church is “full of
celebrities”; a bishop whose weekly broadcast reaches 250 million homes
worldwide; a pastor whose greatest obstacle comes from “within his own family”;
a bishop who was a gang member and drug addict before turning to God; and a
pastor who was a pioneer of competitive skateboarding. The show focuses not
just on the religious lives of the six men but also on their flashy lifestyles
and extravagant wealth. “The Bible says I wish above all things that you
would prosper,” proclaims one of the pastors, “I believe that.” Another of the
pastors claims, “P. Diddy and Jay-Z…[notorious
hip-hop/rapper entertainers] They’re not the only ones who should be driving
Ferraris and living in large houses.” In short, these “pastors” have become
celebrities by using their past experiences as a bridge to attract large
followings. And with large followings comes lots and lots of money. Of course
they insist that the money and the extravagance the money affords them is not
their objective. According to these pastors, the money makes it possible for
them to reach more people and bring more people in to hear the gospel message.
Having been part of a megachurch myself at one point, let me just assure you
that that particular response to criticism against opulence and extravagance
personally and professionally is right out of the megachurch handbook. Another
response voiced by one of these particular pastors is that the wealth has
nothing to do with greed and everything to do with being rewarded by God for
being faithful. Hmmm—how nicely self-serving {read sarcasm again}!
My purpose in this lesson is not to
be specifically critical of megachurches or pastors who earn money for their
ministry efforts; even lots of money. No, my purpose in this lesson is to
suggest that there has been a transition in the Church, particularly the Church
in America, away from a Church model marked by sacrificial service by its
ministers to a for-profit business model not too unlike any other business
model with the key component being a charismatic leader who can successfully
construct a bridge between the secular and the sacred that any and all can
easily pass over. This charismatic figure develops a program that can keep the
masses sufficiently entertained with the sights and sounds they enjoy in their
everyday lives and stories of sinful early life experiences redeemed by God’s
grace; a grace that can redeem all those who have sinned. The grace that was so
precious at one time that ministers gave their life to preach it, is sold like
a commodity in our churches today using comfortable seating, recording quality
musicians and Hollywood caliber special effects as promotional tools. All
perfectly consistent with pastors driving their Ferrari’s on the way home to
their multi-million dollar mansions.
One of my greatest fears is that
this business model is the trajectory of our churches, at least here in
America, and I’m pretty sure the Gospel message was never intended to be a
commodity to be bought by fans and sold by entertainers. Furthermore, I don’t
believe pastors were every intended to be trained to climb the corporate ladder
and become CEO’s of their own independent church franchises. I am reminded of
an experience from my very first class in Seminary. At the start of the class,
the professor asked how many of those in attendance were there because they saw
their Masters degree as an opportunity to earn more money in ministry. Having
entered Seminary myself as a successful and prominent businessman, I knew that
ministry would take me, socially and economically, in the opposite direction. I
happily accepted that fate as part of my calling and devotion to the One who saved
me. I assumed everyone there was of the same mind. However, I was shocked when
at least 80% of the class raised their hands in response to the professor’s
question; I remember it like it was yesterday; those young would-be ministers
were fully intent on “moving up” in ministry. To them it was no different than
any other job out there—the more qualified you are, the higher the pay, and
more prestigious the position. Is this really what the Church has come to; a
place for personal and professional advancement? I dare you to find this
attitude or model among ministry leaders anywhere in the New Testament (You don’t
have to look hard to find it in the Old Testament, all you have to do is watch
the attitude and behavior of many of the Pharisees and religious leaders.). I
promise you’ll search in vain. Instead, the model we see in the Bible is
ministry leaders who left everything and risked everything to advance the Gospel
and edify those given to their care. Personal and professional integrity was
critical and any adulation by followers was always redirected toward the One
who deserved it—Jesus Christ. This is not always the case today. Ministry
leaders are celebrities who travel in exclusive circles, require personal
security and enjoy popularity that any cult leader could only dream of. My
purpose in this lesson is to question whether or not what we are doing in our
churches is biblical. Should we continue to do things the way we’ve been doing
things because they appear to be successful? Are we willing to overlook what is
blatantly unbiblical because we think more people in the pews is worth it? Is
it possible that most of the bad things in the Church’s history started out as
good? The Church has endured many corrective measures throughout its history. In
the 14th-16th centuries, church clergy became
increasingly unqualified to carry out the responsibility of their office. Popes
and bishops were more interested in power, position and wealth than they were
in properly educating the church clergy given to their care or insuring that
Church doctrine was properly biblical. There were countless “reformers” who
finally had enough of the Church’s corrupt leadership and began to insist that
the Church reform its unbiblical and corrupt practices. I think it is our duty
to recognize and understand the historical trajectory of corruption in the Church
in the past so that we can recognize it in our own day and, if necessary, lead our
own charge for reformation. Let’s look back at the historical trajectory of
corruption that led to “The Reformation” and see if it isn’t perhaps time for
us to consider whether or not we should begin Breaking With The Past in our own day.
A Look Back
Martin Luther and
the reform movement in Germany is the central point in history from which all
other subsequent reform movements would derive their impetus and inspiration.
Not only would Luther play a pivotal role in history, his ideas would
fundamentally change the world. The “Reformation” as initially contemplated by
Luther, although similar, took on varying characteristics in Switzerland under
the leadership of Ulrich Zwingli and later John Calvin and generally by the
practices of the Anabaptists as introduced by Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz and
in England beginning with the rule of King Henry VIII.
Born in 1483,
Luther’s march toward his ultimate destiny began when he was knocked down by a
bolt of lightning while walking to a nearby village. Out of fear, he called out
to St. Anne, the patron saint of miners, to save him. Luther went so far as to make
a deal that if his life would be spared, he would enter the monastery and
become a monk. Two weeks later, Luther would in fact enter the monastery where
he “proved to be a dedicated monk.”[1] In attempting to overcome his
obsession with guilt, Luther makes a comment worth noting. He says, “I kept the
rule so strictly that I may say that if ever a monk got to heaven by his sheer
monkery, it was I. If I had kept on any longer, I should have killed myself
with vigils, prayers, reading and other work.”[2]
What is of
interest is the similarities between Luther's words and those of the Apostle
Paul in Philippians when he says, “If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put
confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the
people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to
the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic
righteousness, faultless. But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for
the sake of Christ (Phil 3:4b-7).” In the end, Luther too would concede that
salvation was by grace alone through faith and that none of his human effort
was sufficient to rid him of his guilt or earn his salvation. The significance
of this revelation for Luther was monumental specifically, “If salvation comes
through faith in Christ alone, the intercession of priests is superfluous.
Faith formed and nurtured by the Word of God, written and preached, requires no
monks, no masses, no prayers to the saints. The mediation of the Church of Rome
crumbles into insignificance.”[3] Yet destroying the Roman
Catholic Church was not Luther’s objective. Nevertheless, Luther struck at a
church favored fundraising scheme—the sale of indulgences (an indulgence is a
remission of temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been
forgiven). After an egregious misuse of finances by the Dominican John TetzeI,
who was selling indulgences in order to finance the completion of St. Peter’s
basilica in Rome, Luther was compelled to speak out against Tetzel’s practice.
It was at this point on October 31, 1517, that Luther penned his famous 95
theses, which he promptly posted in Wittenberg. Among other things included in
his theses, Luther made a direct attack on the practice of selling indulgences
claiming that they did not remove guilt and instilled a false sense of
security. The fuse was lit and there was no stopping the inevitable. In 1521,
Pope Leo X deemed Luther a heretic and excommunicated him from the Roman
Catholic Church. Ultimately, it was too late as the revolt against the papacy
in Rome gained momentum when the Mass began to be abandoned and statues were removed
from churches. What began as an attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church
from within ended up dividing it to begin the Protestant Reformation.
Nevertheless, “Luther's greatest contribution to Protestant Christianity: The
ability of each person, regardless of age or station in life, to come face to
face with God Himself and feel His love, mercy, grace and power.”[4] Building on this foundation,
many reformers, from the very zealous to those who instituted reform for
self-interest reasons, would emerge, both during and after Luther’s generation,
along with various forms of reformation. Switzerland would see the rise of
Ulrich Zwingli as the leader of the reformation in that region. While Luther
was debating his reform views with John Eck at Leipzig, Zwingli became the
priest of the Great Minster Church in Zurich. Zwingli instituted reform simply
by preaching biblically based sermons. “Using the pulpit as his major platform
from which to effect reform, he preached against both indulgences and fasting.”[5] Influenced by the famous
biblical scholar Erasmus, Zwingli became proficient in the language and
enamored with the message of the New Testament. He diligently used the Bible to
direct his activities. In fact, “In one important respect Zwingli followed the
Bible even more stringently than did Luther. The Wittenberger would allow
whatever the Bible did not prohibit; Zwingli rejected whatever the Bible did
not prescribe.”[6]
In 1522, a group of believers broke the Lenten fast citing Zwingli’s teaching
on the sole authority of Scripture as their justification. Zwingli publicly
defended their actions. When the bishop of Constance came to put an end to the
practice, the cantonical (territorial division within a given country)
government ignored him and sided with Zwingli. This development was critical as
it set a precedent of the cantonical authority over that of the bishop.
Contrary to Luther, who didn't appear to be favorably disposed to anyone, Zwingli
seemed to be the consummate church statesman. He had the full support of the Zurich
City Council to implement his reformation plans while at the same time he was warmly
considered the people's priest. Like Luther’s theological practices, Zwingli
also continued to share some of the same theological practices as the Roman
Catholic Church. Nevertheless, the inevitable clash between Catholic and
Protestant cantons within Switzerland escalated and led to the battle at Kappel
in 1531. Tragically, Zwingli was killed in the battle and Zurich along with its
move toward full-scale reform was stifled. Stifled because by the 1940’s, the
reform movement in Switzerland would emerge powerfully under the leadership of
John Calvin. However, prior to Zwingli’s death at the battle of Kappel, he
would watch two of his supporters, Felix Manz and Conrad Grebel, dramatically
veer away from his teachings to form the “radical” Anabaptist movement.
Manz and Grebel were early supporters of
Zwingli’ s reform efforts. However, both were well educated and began to study
the Bible carefully on their own. Their conclusion was that the apostolic church
of the New Testament was far different from the church of their day. As a result,
they set out to re-establish the apostolic church of the New Testament. One of
the more prominent aspects of the movement was the practice of baptizing only
believers. This necessarily excluded infants since they could not make a
profession of faith. Furthermore, Grebel and Manz insisted that all those who
had been previously baptized as infants must be rebaptized as believers. As a consequence,
they were labeled “Anabaptists” meaning “rebaptizers.” Although not the only
significant theological difference, its baptismal practice was one of the more
obvious departures from not only the teachings of the Catholic Church but from
those of Luther and Zwingli. Another important aspect of the Anabaptist
movement was their desire that the church be free from state influence and
comprised strictly of true disciples. Zwingli, the statesman, distanced himself
from the radical movement because he needed City Council support to further his
own reform agenda. In 1525, the Zurich City Council ordered a debate between
the Zwinglian group and the Anabaptist group regarding the matter of baptism. After
hearing the arguments presented by both parties, it was decided that Zwingli
and his group presented the more compelling case. As a result, the City Council
ordered that the practice of believer baptism only was to stop and that all
parents were to baptize their children within the week or be banished from the
city. Manz and his party defied the order and moved to a nearby village where
they established the first church free of state participation or influence. The
Zurich City Council could not overlook this defiance and arrested those newly
baptized and put them in prison. However, upon their release, they went about
evangelizing neighboring villagers. Finally, in 1526 the City Council ordered
that anyone found rebaptizing would be put to death. To further perpetuate the
cruelty Christians exhibited toward one another, the City Council ordered the
death to be by drowning. “Apparently their thought was, ‘If the heretics want
water, let them have it.’”[7] In 1527, pursuant to the
Council’s ruling, Manz would become the first Anabaptist martyr. For years
thereafter, Anabaptists were brutally persecuted from city to city decimating
the movement in many places where it had previously thrived. The Anabaptist movement
was, in a sense, a child of the reformation in general and Zwingli's
reformation in particular. They were, however, of the same mind as Luther in
his assertion that the “just shall live by faith (Heb 10:38).” The movement
originated as a religious movement not a political movement although it
questioned the church-state relationship. Nevertheless, its radical nature
instilled fear in both Catholics and Protestants. As a result, Anabaptists were
persecuted by both parties who claimed that, “Order and orthodoxy had to be
maintained at all costs and the rebels destroyed lest Christian civilization be
undermined.”[8]
After the death of Zwingli another brilliant
reformer emerged to advance the reform movement where Zwingli left off. John
Calvin was a scholar and lawyer. Although born a generation later and in a
different country, Calvin shared Luther’s views of the central Protestant beliefs.
However, while Luther's defining doctrine was justification by faith, Calvin’s
was grounded in the sovereignty of God. In 1536, William Farel, a member of the
Geneva City Council, brow-beat Calvin into serving the Council in Geneva
saying, “‘Jean Calvin, if you fail to stay in Geneva and help with the
reformation of this fair city, God will curse your studies, curse your work,
and curse your life!’”[9] Remaining in Geneva,
Calvin attempted to institute an extremely stringent program of moral
discipline on the citizenry. In 1538, amongst mounting opposition to Calvin’s
proposed changes, the City Council ordered both Farel and Calvin to leave
Geneva. However, in the years between 1538 and 1541, Calvin’s supporters
gradually regained governmental power and in 1541 succeeded in luring Calvin
back to Geneva. Once there, his programs for personal morality were accepted by
the city and summarily put into practice. Primary to Calvin’s theology was his
emphasis on the sovereignty of God. In Calvin’s view, God chooses to save
whomever he wants. Those whom he has chosen, or elected, are saved and those he
has not chosen are damned. “While Calvin did not profess to know absolutely who
were God’s chosen, he believed that three tests constituted a good yardstick by
which to judge who might be saved: participation in the two sacraments, Baptism
and the Lord's Supper; an upright moral life; and a public profession of faith.”[10] As is seen in the moralistic
programs instituted by Calvin, moral righteousness was a prominent element in Calvinism.
Calvin’s emphasis on the sovereignty of God would likewise impact his view on
the relation between the church and state. While Luther, saw the state as
supreme and Zwingli saw, the state as a partner, Calvin resisted the absolute
power of the monarchy and saw the church as separate from the state much like
the Anabaptists. However, where the Anabaptists were naïve in political
matters, Calvin was shrewd. Rather than the church having nothing to do with
the state, Calvin believed it was the church’s responsibility to guide the
state in spiritual matters. Calvin’s reformation, although containing a
political aspect, was nevertheless religiously motivated. Conversely, the
reformation beginnings in England had little to do with religion.
While the reformation was tearing Europe
apart, Protestantism took a much different form in England. In England the
reformation was a political rather than a religious movement. As a consequence,
it experienced considerable instability and wavering between Catholicism, and Protestantism
depending on who occupied the throne at any given time. Initially, however, Protestantism
was adopted by King Henry VIII to advance his political agenda. Henry’s saga begins
with his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Catherine, however, was previously
married to Henry’s brother, Arthur. Because of the biblical prohibition against
marrying a brother’s wife, which carried with it the curse of being left
childless, Henry needed special dispensation from Pope Julius II to marry her.
Unfortunately for Henry, Catherine was barren and could not provide for an heir
to the throne. “Henry wondered if Julius had not overstepped his sacred rights.
Was Catherine's inability to bear a son evidence of God’s curse upon the union?”[11] In the interim, Henry
fell in love with Catherine’s lady-in-waiting, Anne Boleyn. Henry requested
that Pope Clement VII annul his marriage to Catherine so he could marry Anne.
However, there were a couple of minor obstacles in the way of granting Henry's
request. First, the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain was Charles V and he
had recently invaded Rome and captured the papacy. More importantly, however,
Catherine was Charles’ aunt. As a consequence, Henry's request for an annulment
was denied. With this failure, Henry did what every good king would do—he fired
his closest advisor, Cardinal Wolsey the Lord Chancellor of England. More importantly,
however, Wolsey was replaced by Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell, who were
ardent sympathizers of Luther's reform ideas. In essence, they advised Henry
that if the pope would not grant the annulment then he should split the English
church from the church in Rome. In this way the king, not the pope, would be
the spiritual authority of the church. Consequently, if the king wanted to
annul his own marriage, he could simply grant himself an annulment. The consummate
example of the adage: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely!” In reality,
however, it was not nearly that simple or that neat. The English Parliament
debated the matter for many years. It did not reach an immediate conclusion but
instead gradually granted powers over the church clergy to the king. In 1533,
Henry married Anne Boleyn and later that year the English court ruled Henry’s
marriage to Catherine to be null and void. The pope summarily moved to
excommunicate Henry, which further motivated him to overthrow the papal authority
in England. Henry dug up an old 14th century law prohibiting the
dealing with foreign nations and used it to insist that the English clergy
cease dealing with the pope. There was some, but relatively little, resistance
on the part of the clergy. The church itself, however, experienced little if
any change. For all practical purposes, the Church of England was still
Catholic. “The sole religious issue, then, in England’s initial ‘reformation’
was papal supremacy. Henry intended no break with the old faith. He considered
himself, in fact, a guardian of the Catholic dogma.”[12] However, insisting that
each church have an accurately translated English Bible was instrumental in feeding
the country’s growing Protestant convictions. It wasn’t until Henry’s successor
Edward VI took the throne that the Protestant reformation got wings. With the
help of Thomas Cranmer, Edward became an enthusiastic supporter of
Protestantism. Cranmer, “Using the king’s power to advance their cause, the
Protestants did everything they could to destroy the old religion and promote
the new.”[13]
Cranmer began allowing clergy to marry, repealed the Six Articles of Catholic
dogma instituted by Henry and replaced the Latin service with his own Common
Book of Prayer. Unfortunately, Edward died after only six years and was
succeeded by Mary, the first child of King Henry and Catherine of Aragon. Mary
was devoutly Catholic and went about changing everything back to Catholicism.
She was, however, far more brutal in instituting change and put many Protestant
leaders to death earning her the title “Bloody Mary.” Given enough time, Mary
may have been successful in eradicating the Protestant movement in England.
However, she died after only five years and the Protestant movement left
unchanged by Mary progressed alongside the Catholicism re-instituted by Mary.
Mary was succeeded by Elizabeth I the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.
Elizabeth would hold the throne for forty-five years. Her greatest legacy was
her ability to find compromise between Catholics and Protestants. In today's
political jargon she would be considered a centrist. Elizabeth retained certain
important aspects of Catholicism while at the same time pleasing Protestants
who wanted an end to Catholicism in its entirety. For the benefit of
Protestants, she accomplished this by allowing English Protestants (called “Puritans”
because they wanted to purify the church) to be part of parliament. She also
allowed them to have a certain amount of freedom to practice Protestantism
while still recognizing the Queen as the head of the Church of England.
Contrary to the reformation in Europe, England’s reformation was heavily
steeped in politics. However, “the sudden access to Scriptures created
widespread excitement.”[14] Although the English reformation
began as a political movement, the Puritans were instrumental in taking it to
the next level and making it a religious movement as well.
Comparatively speaking, the reformation
movement in Switzerland, including the Anabaptist movement shared many
commonalities with Luther’s reformation. Even the English reformation, although
highly political, could not escape Luther’s religious influence. Although all
contained an aspect of political reform to a greater or lesser extent, their
primary similarities were rooted in the rejection of papal supremacy and a
return to the authority of the Scriptures. As painful as the reformation was
for many who suffered and died during the process, it was clear that based on
the rise of nationalistic sentiment and the papacy’s moralistic failings, Breaking With The Past was the only way
the Church could continue to be faithful to its mandate to “make disciples of
all nations (Mt 28:19).”
Application
Do you see a common thread with all
these reformers? They were all motivated to change those things about church
practices that didn’t conform to the Bible. Whether you agree with their
theology or not isn’t really the point. The point is that they defined
successful ministry as conformity to biblical teaching not by popularity. Most risked their lives to reform what they believed were unbiblical
church practices. In fact, Luther was kidnapped and hidden away in order to
save his life. At the top of this website is the vision, mission, message, and
method of this ministry and they are consistent with the heart of the
reformers. Unlike the Church the reformers set out to reform, they had a focus
to reach the nations with the Gospel as opposed to maintaining a religious
empire (mission); they were convinced that the Bible was a life instruction
manual that should be available to everyone not just religious leaders (vision);
they believed that salvation was by grace alone and there was nothing we could
do to buy or earn our salvation (message); they were committed to the principle
that sound teaching was rooted in the Bible and not traditions perpetuated by
religious leaders (method).
As many of you are aware, I do not
solicit or accept funds for this ministry. I fund all expenses and research
costs myself through my other non-ministry work (construction). In short, this
ministry is not my job, it is my passion; it is born out of my love for Christ.
Don’t misunderstand what I am saying; I am not opposed to being paid for
ministry. In fact, Paul makes it clear that ministers are well within their
rights to expect payment for their services (cf. 1 Cor 9). What I am saying, particularly in the case of pastors
in America, is have we taken what was once good in terms of ministry as a paid
vocation and corrupted it with a twisted understanding of what is a successful ministry.
I wonder, how many pastors do you suppose would continue in ministry if they
didn’t get paid for it?
We love our sports, music and
Hollywood stars don’t we. No matter how many mistakes they make in their
personal lives—marital infidelities; drug misuse or abuse; criminal activities;
lying, cheating or stealing, nothing seems to deter us from our continued
adulation as fans. We don’t really care about their personal short comings, we
only care how they make us feel when they’re on the field, court, or ice or
when they’re on the stage or in front of the camera. For the most part, we don’t
take their professional performances personally. When we’re done watching them
or listening to them, we turn off the television or radio and don’t give them a
second thought. In fact, we can even hate some (or all) of their personal
shortcomings while being completely enamored with their professional accomplishments;
we love and use them for their intended purpose—entertainment. Think about it—how
often do we do this with our ministry leaders? For example,
I am aware of a senior pastor of a megachurch who was removed from his position
because of repeated marital infidelity. After a few years away from ministry,
his personal “fans” finally convinced him to take over the senior pastor’s role
at another church where he used his past personal failings as a powerful
illustration of God’s forgiveness and grace. The message was obviously appealing
as he once again led a rapidly growing and successful ministry. After two years
he was again removed from his position by the church’s leadership because of personal
misconduct. Once again his fans urged him to return to ministry. He is now the
senior pastor of another church and, you guessed it, is using his past personal
failings to once again demonstrate God’s forgiveness and grace. My purpose is
not to debate the power of God to forgive as many times as necessary. My
purpose is to get you to consider if maybe we have crossed the line from being
followers of Jesus Christ to being fans of a particular religious system,
ministry program or ministry leader. Would it really be unusual for followers
of Jesus Christ to become enamored with the messenger instead of the message? This
phenomenon is nothing new. Let me direct your attention to an encounter with
Paul and see what you think.
1 Corinthians 3:4-11
4For when one says, “I follow
Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men? 5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you
came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed,
Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he
who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man
who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own
labor. 9For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field,
God’s building. 10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and
someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any
foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
As you can see, some things never
change. Therefore, it may be necessary now as it was during the time of Paul as
it was during the time of the reformers for a course correction. If we want the
Church to be the Church according to the Bible then we must be willing to make
any and all necessary changes to the way we do things. Should we continue on
our current course or is it time to consider Breaking With The Past?
[1]
Bruce L. Shelley, Church History In Plain
Language, (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1995), p. 238.
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Ibid., p. 240.
[4]
Scott Wenig, The Essence of Luther’s
Theology and it Relevance for the Contemporary Era, Lesson 4.
[5]
Scott Wenig, The Zwinglian Reformation in
Switzerland, Lesson 5.
[6]
Shelley, Church History In Plain Language,
p. 250.
[7]
Ibid., p. 251.
[8]
Scott Wenig, Anabaptism and the Radical
Reformation, Lesson 6
[9]
Scott Wenig, John Calvin and the
Reformation in Geneva, Lesson 7.
[10]
Shelley, Church History In Plain Language,
p. 261.
[11]
Ibid., p. 266.
[12]
Ibid., p. 267.
[13]
Scott Wenig, The Reformation in England,
Lesson 8.
[14]
Shelley, Church History In Plain Language,
p. 269.
No comments:
Post a Comment