A Firm Foundation (Part One)

Part One

Introduction

Last week, I led you through a brief history of the Church immediately prior to the Reformation and I wrote about some of the consequences of ignoring the lessons of history (See previous post--Title: Ignoring The Lessons Of History; Date: 8/22/12; Label: Theology). I'd like to stick with history and a two part series on the Reformation and the Reformed Tradition to build off last week's lesson. Last week's lesson painted a pretty bleak picture of the Church by the middle of the 16th century. However, the dramatic upheaval experienced by the Church during the 16th century eventually reached its crescendo in what is known as the "Reformation." Martin Luther, perhaps the most notable reformer, was far from the last. An abbreviated timeline of the reformation’s beginning will help to introduce some prominent figures of the Reformed Tradition and set the stage for what was considered to be a more radical reformation. Just to clarify, the Reformation described the overall movement that was set in motion by Luther in order to correct corruption and gross deficiencies of the Church of his day. The Reformed tradition is one of the many Protestant strains under the umbrella of the larger Reformation movement.

Reformation Trajectory

1517—Martin Luther posts 95 theses in protest against the Catholic church’s saleable indulgences.

1518—Luther defends his theology in Heidelberg; later he appears before Cardinal Cajetan at Augsburg, but refuses to recant; in December, Frederick the Wise protects Luther from being handed over to the head of the Catholic church in Rome.

1519—Luther questions papal infallibility in a debate and begins New Testament sermon series beginning a new era of biblical preaching.

Ulrich Zwingli begins New Testament sermons and the Swiss reformation is born.

1520—Papal bull gives Luther 60 days to recant or be excommunicated. Instead of recanting, Luther burned the papal bull.

1521—Luther is excommunicated. At the Diet of Worms, he refuses to recant and is condemned as a heretic and outlaw. Before his punishment is carried out he is “kidnapped” and hidden at Wartburg Castle and begins translating the New Testament into German.

1529—Diet of Speyer—Luther’s followers are called “Protestants” for the first time.

Luther and Zwingli attend Marburg Colloquy to try and reach an agreement on their differences on the Lord’s Supper.

1531—Zwingli attempts to force French support for the Reformation by allowing Swiss mercenaries to be hired.

Zwingli joins the forces and is killed in battle.

1532—John Calvin starts Protestant movement in France.

1533—Calvin flees Paris and undergoes a dramatic conversion. Eventually passes through Geneva.

1536—Luther agrees to Wittenberg Concord on the Lord’s Supper, in an attempt to resolve differences with other reformers, but Zwingli’s followers do not accept it.

Calvin is persuaded by Farel to remain in Geneva where he publishes the first edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion.

1538—Calvin goes to Strasbourg where he becomes the pastor to the French-speaking congregation.

1541—John Knox establishes Calvinist Reformation in Scotland which would become the launching pad for the third wave of reformed movements in America.[1]

History and Theological Method

After Luther, more radical reform in other parts of Europe can be traced to the work of Zwingli and Calvin. Zwingli, probably unlike Luther, was somewhat influenced by Christian humanism. However, John T. McNeill in his book The History & Character of Calvinism writes,

“The Reformed theologians diverged from the Christian humanists, who were their teachers, in the emphasis they placed upon the majesty and holiness of God, the sinfulness of man, and the gulf between God in His holiness and man in his sinful state…The natural law itself is for Zwingli the working of God’s spirit in man’s heart. Man’s nature has been ‘shattered’ in the Fall. For this reason he required political government. Even the Christian, says Zwingli, remains a wretch in God’s sight (Gottschelm) and needs the compulsion of the state. Without divine aid, man can no more perceive the being of God than a beetle the being of man.”[2]

However like Luther, Zwingli insisted on strict biblical preaching. This practice would similarly be followed by Calvin in Geneva. Although all these protestant movements are interrelated with respect to their impact on the Reformation, the reformation in Switzerland as led by Zwingli was not necessarily dependant on Luther particularly with respect to its application of Scripture.  John H. Leith, in his book titled, Introduction to the Reformed Tradition, writes,

“In the application of Scripture to the life of the church the Swiss reformers were more radical than Luther. Luther wanted to eliminate from the life of the church everything condemned by Scripture, but the Swiss insisted that every Christian practice should have a positive warrant in Scripture. As Zwingli himself wrote, ‘Eventually I came to the point where led by the Word and Spirit of God I saw the need…to learn the doctrine of God direct from his own word.”[3]

Leith would go on to write about Zwingli that, “The church would be cleansed and reformed by the study and preaching of Scripture.”[4] As was sometimes the case during Zwingli’s era, reform was not always limited to a war of words or limited to the business of the church. Because the church and the state were so closely related, reform of the church in many cases also meant reform of the state which Zwingli believed was necessary as noted above by McNeill. However, the state along with the church had the ability to defend the status quo by force if necessary. Consequently, Zwingli was killed in battle in 1531 alongside Swiss mercenaries while trying to force reform on the French.

Following Zwingli’s reformed tradition begun in Switzerland, was John Calvin. As noted above, between 1533 when Calvin fled Paris and 1536 when he was in Geneva, he underwent a dramatic conversion as is evident when he writes, “Since I was more stubbornly addicted to the superstitions of the Papacy than to be easily drawn out of that so deep mire, by a sudden conversion, He subdued my heart (too hardened for my age) to docility.”[5] While there were undoubtedly many people that planted seeds that ultimately led to Calvin’s conversion, one of the more influential people in Calvin’s life was William Farel. Farel was a French humanist and the leader of the reformation in Geneva. He convinced Calvin to remain in Geneva to advance the work of reformation he had begun there. Leith writes that “Under Calvin’s leadership Geneva became the center of great influence in the development of Reformed churches through Europe.”[6] Like Zwingli, Calvin sought to reform the church by returning to the root of its revelation—the Scriptures. This emphasis on the Scriptures along with other significant theological developments would continue to be one of the distinctives of the Reformed tradition throughout its history. While in Geneva in 1536, Calvin would publish Institutes of the Christian Religion, which would prove to be a seminal piece that “affected the course of history.”[7] Institutes outlines a complete systematized theology that has shaped and, in some cases, defined the Reformed tradition throughout its history. For example, the Heidelberg Catechism drafted in 1563 was influenced by Calvin’s theology and, “Became by some estimates ‘the most popular and enduring confessional contribution of the Reformed Churches.’”[8] Then, nearly a century later;

“In 1646 the Westminster Confession was issued. From the first article on Holy Scripture to the thirty-third and final article on the Last Judgment, this confession, along with the Westminster Catechism, is a classic statement of scholastic Calvinism and has proven to be among the most influential and widely used documents within the Reformed tradition.”[9]

No doubt the development of the Reformed tradition has a rich heritage advanced by the dynamic personalities of people like Zwingli and Calvin. However, we have yet to address how the Reformed tradition’s theological method and biblical hermeneutic has developed some of the theological distinctive by which it is known. What follows, is an exposition on how the Reformed tradition develops its understanding of what is commonly referred to within Protestantism as the “Five Solas” (“Sola” in Latin having the approximate meaning of “only” or “alone”).

Sola Scriptura – Scripture alone is the guide and source of authority.

Sola Christus – Christ alone is the source of our salvation.

Sola Gratia – Grace alone saves us.

Sola Fide – Faith alone and not works is necessary for justification.

Sola Deo Gloria – God alone is to be glorified in all we do.

Theological Methodology and Distinctives

Methodology

In order to fully grasp the distinctives of the Reformed tradition, it will be helpful to first place those distinctive within a general theological framework or “methodology.” For much of the Reformed tradition, that theological methodology is known as covenant theology. Although not all those claiming to be from the Reformed tradition hold to a strict covenantal theology, it has historically been the grid through which the Reformed theologian has perceived God’s outworking plan. To understand the relationship between the Reformed tradition, covenant theology, Calvinism and distinctives of the Reformed tradition, an analogy from nature might prove helpful. If, for example, the Reformed tradition were a vast mountain range, covenant theology would be a forest located on that range of mountains with Calvinism as a tree in the forest located on that mountain range and the distinctives of the Reformed tradition the leaves on the tree in the forest located on the mountain range. With that in mind, covenant theology considers God’s dealings with humankind throughout history from Creation to Consummation. Covenant theology is not a matter of doctrine or dogma but instead is the organizational structure of the biblical text. In essence it is the biblical hermeneutic for Reformed theologians who hold to a covenantal theology. Theologically, there are three covenants: The covenant of redemption, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.

According to Herman Hoeksema, “Almost all Reformed theologians since the seventeenth century speak of a pactum salutis, a covenant of redemption.”[10] The covenant of redemption is generally understood to be the eternal agreement within the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit whereby it is agreed that the Father appointed to Son to be redeemer of the elect by the power of the Holy Spirit. Hoeksema makes reference to Scriptural support for the covenant of redemption when he writes,

“Scriptural ground for this covenant between the Father and the Son is also found in Luke 22:29: ‘And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me.’ Emphasis is laid on the original word for ‘appoint,’ which is diati,,qemai (to appoint by way of a testament or covenant). From the same word is derived the term diaqh,kh (covenant). Hence the text in Luke means that by way of a covenant the kingdom is appointed unto Christ. Again, since a covenant is understood to be an agreement between two parties, the conclusion was that there was an eternal agreement between the Father and the Son.”[11]

Following the covenant of redemption is the covenant of works made between God and Adam in the Garden of Eden. Under this covenant, life is promised in exchange for obedience and death in exchange for disobedience. Adam, and as a consequence all mankind, is condemned because Adam broke the covenant God made with him. The covenant of works thereafter remains in place after the fall to operate as the moral law. Hoeksema writes,

“When Adam violated the covenant of God by willful disobedience, and God maintained his covenant in Christ Jesus, the idea of the covenant did not change. The covenant remained the living, eternal relationship of friendship, which is possible because in Christ his people again become conformed to the image of God. God maintains his covenant in spite of and even through sin. He established his covenant in Christ, and in him that covenant can never be destroyed or abolished.”[12]

Immediately following Adams disobedience, God established his covenant of grace. This covenant promises blessing for all people trusting in the promises of God ultimately leading up to Christ and the ultimate fulfillment of all of God’s promised blessings. Hoeksema writes about the covenant of grace that, “The covenant of grace is the expression of the fact that God is not prepared to give up on human beings, despite their apostasy from God.” The covenant of grace is the foundation for God’s remaining covenants. The remaining covenants are a subset of the covenant of grace primarily because they are given not because they are earned but because of God’s graciousness. These covenants are biblical as opposed to theological because they are explicitly identified in the bible as opposed to implicitly understood as in the case of the aforementioned theological covenants. The biblical covenants are: the Adamic covenant whereby God upholds his covenant of grace in the promised seed of Genesis 3:15; the Noahic covenant where by God’s grace, Noah and his family is preserved through the deluge of the judgment flood and thereafter God’s covenant promise not to bring such judgment upon the earth again; the Abrahamic covenant whereby God gracefully establishes his covenant to make Abraham into a great nation; the Mosaic covenant whereby God makes the promise that “I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God” and this after he has, by grace, delivered them from slavery in Egypt; the Davidic covenant whereby God establishes a kingdom and throne through David and his lineage; the New Covenant whereby God ultimately fulfills the promises, in their fullest sense, of all the previous covenants he made through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Since the Reformed tradition is part of the greater Protestant landscape, it recognizes Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the only two sacraments. These sacraments are a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. The Lord’s Supper is understood as the mysterious participation in the real presence of Christ as mediated by the Holy Spirit. Paedobaptism or infant baptism is advocated by many covenant theologians as a sign of the promise extended to the family of believers (Acts 2:38-39) replacing the old covenant sign of circumcision. However, some Baptist covenant theologians feel that only those who can make a public profession of faith first should be baptized. It is against this covenantal backdrop that the theological distinctives of the Reformed tradition take shape and it is within this larger context that we can begin to better understand some of those distinctives which we will review in detail in Part Two of our lesson.

Alternative Considerations on Covenant Theology

Although understanding the unfolding revelation of the bible in the context of covenant theology has considerable merit, it is not the only theological method used to understand how God sovereignly governs the affairs of his creation. For example, Dispensational theology sees biblical events as broken up into distinct and successive eras. This method of “doing” theology is not without its merit as well. Covenant theology seems inordinately obsessed with finding a unifying theme or continuity in the sixty-six books of the bible. The covenantalist too easily links biblical events simply because they resemble one another. For example, the Reformed theologian sees baptism in the New Testament as a replacement of the covenant of circumcision from the Old Testament. They are similar insofar as they are a sign pointing to something else but baptism is never formally connected to circumcision in any way in Scripture. This insistence on a biblical continuity is one of the weaknesses of covenant theology. Unfortunately, this insistence that all biblical events develop into a unified whole forces the biblical reader into a position of having to discount former covenants as being less effectual than succeeding covenants. The covenant theologian neglects the possibility that former covenants may still be effectual and are yet to be fully realized. For example, covenant theology melds Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church in such a way that God’s promises for Israel can now be claimed by the Church. This approach fails to pass the smell test of a simple reading of the biblical text. Instead, covenant theology presupposes the Church as God’s ultimate goal and as such must harmonize all biblical events into a unified theology that adheres to those presuppositions. However, it is not entirely unreasonable to insist that God deals with his creation differently at different times in history. If God promises that he has a plan for Israel then it seems unreasonable to believe that the Church can now claim that promise as their own in Israel’s stead.

Part One Summary

            While last week’s lesson painted a rather bleak picture of the Church and its practices, we can see from this Part One that out of something broken, something magnificent was being constructed. The word “Reformation” has as its root the word “form.” “Form” as a noun is the shape of something. “Form” as a verb is to shape, build or construct something. I’m not trying to insult you with a simple English lesson and I’m hardly considered an accomplished grammarian. However, we throw words around these days without giving them much thought and when we talk about the Reformation and Protestantism that grew out of it, many people think it was the creation of something new. That’s why the meaning of words is so important. “Reform” is a verb that means to form again—not form anew. Let me illustrate: One of the very first things my girls and I do when we work with church groups who travel to Mexico on short-term mission trips to build homes is to work with them closely in the early stages of their house build to construct what will eventually be the form for the house’s cement foundation. Although the design and construction is quite effective, it is nevertheless fairly crude and somewhat prone to distortion as the ground inside and outside the form is prepared for the cement foundation. Add to this 20-30 people stepping on it and running over it with wheelbarrows and the form is often very distorted when it is time to pour the cement into the form. Therefore, it is necessary to reshape the boards of the foundation form—it must be “reformed.” In doing so, we don’t build a new form, we reform what was at one point correct but became distorted and damaged over time. It was this way as well with the Reformation. Luther never intended to create something new, he just wanted to reform what was at one point correct but became distorted and damaged over time. Once reformed, the Church much like the houses built in Mexico could be built on A Firm Foundation.

---

[1] Friends of William Tyndale, A Reformation Time Line, [on-line], available from http://www.williamtyndale.com/0reformationtimeline.htm#Menu:%20Reformation%20Timeline, Internet, accessed April 25, 2008.

[2] John T. McNeill, The History & Character of Calvinism, (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1957) p. 76

[3] John H. Leith, Introduction to the Reformed Tradition, (John Knox Press, Atlanta, GA, 1981) p. 34

[4] Ibid., p.34

[5] McNeill, The History & Character of Calvinism, p. 108

[6] Leith, Introduction to the Reformed Tradition, p. 36

[7] McNeill, The History & Character of Calvinism, p. 119

[8] W. David Buschart, Exploring Protestant Traditions, (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 2006) p.88

[9] Ibid., p. 90

[10] Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, (Reformed Free Publishing Association, Grandville, MI, 2004) p. 403

[11] Ibid., p. 405

[12] Ibid., p. 464

Ignoring The Lessons Of History

Introduction

            Spanish philosopher George Santayana gave us the now famous quote: “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Unfortunately, historical truth is not highly esteemed in our public schools. Instead, history is most often deconstructed, reinterpreted and rewritten in order to support a premeditated historical bias. The danger of this practice is not always immediately obvious. However, an honest assessment looking back over the years reveals that mistakes are oft unnecessarily repeated with the same pain and destruction. It seems clear that if the lessons of history had merely been consulted honestly, so much personal and corporate grief and suffering could have been avoided.

            Last week I came across a news story by the Associated Press about a New Jersey “beachfront villa” for Philadelphia priests slated for auction. Seriously, anytime “priest/pastor/minister/clergy,” etc. and “beachfront villa” appear in the same headline, I’m hooked! The Archdiocese of Philadelphia was auctioning off the 10,000 square-foot Villa St. John in order to offset a $17 million deficit as they try to untangle themselves from the criminal trials and lawsuits resulting from clergy abuse charges. The property was used as a vacation home for retired priests. The Archbishop, who was selling his home also owned by the church, said it was no different than families whose expenses are greater than their income (just like families except for the sexual abuse charges and massive lawsuits). The Archbishop said that “Holding on to the properties at this time would be inconsistent with the mission of our Church” (so does that mean there was a time when owning a 10,000 square foot beachfront villa for priests was consistent with the mission of the Church?). Finally, the Archbishop confessed that the decision was made only after careful consideration and prayer to ensure the future financial stability of the archdiocese (I can’t help but wonder if that’s code for: “This sex abuse mess is gonna cost us a fortune!”).

            Too cynical? Well don’t assume I’m only picking on the Catholic church. This tendency toward allowing the “operation” of a church or para-church ministry to become the tail that wags the dog does not discriminate between denominations. Losing sight of the fact that God’s focus is and always has been to be in relationship with “people” knows no bounds. Massive Protestant churches run like well-oiled manufacturing plants. Programming, production, implementation and quantifiable results (i.e. people and profits) in order to expand the church “operation” which restarts the cycle of programming, production, implementation and quantifiable results. The “operation” expands with the addition of more people and profits. An expanded “operation” then adds more people and profits which require an expansion of the “operation” and more programming, production, implementation and quantifiable results. Perhaps you’re beginning to see a fairly circular pattern here. But do you see what’s missing? That’s right—a focus on relationships with people and transformed lives! This is what irritated Jesus so much about the religious leaders of his day. They became so meticulous about their religious “operation” that they lost sight of God’s purpose for them—teach the people how to be in relationship with God and lead transformed lives! Again, we must be willing to learn the lessons of history in order to avoid making the same mistakes. I know some of you dread the idea of a history lesson but I implore you to consider that we must first know where we’ve been in order to chart a clear course for were we should be going.

Critical Mistakes

From its humble yet impressive beginnings under the leadership of the Apostles and Early Church Fathers, the Church was intent on keeping God at its cultural and theological center. That reality found its formalization under Charlemagne and the creation of “Christendom” – the unification of Church and State in the early ninth century. While Church and State appeared to work together in harmony, there was a “constant struggle one with the other for the mastery.”[1] The papacy would reach its pinnacle of power by the middle of the thirteenth century under the leadership of Pope Innocent III. Nevertheless, the Church was on a headlong collision course with the Protestant Reformation. The growing influence of Nationalism, the developments within Scholasticism and the ever-increasing immorality of the papacy and its clerics were the primary forces behind the Church’s decline by the time of the Reformation.

Fundamentally, the Church lacked the long range planning required to meet the needs of a massive and diverse empire. The Church mistakenly assumed that all would simply submit to what had historically been the crushing authority of the papacy. However, “Man is not governed without his consent or cooperation”[2] and the papacy was out of touch with the needs of its distant constituents. Many regions lacked the regular oversight of papal representation, and nobilities who understood the dynamics of their respective citizenry increasingly assumed leadership roles. The Church failed to recognize humanity’s natural desire to belong to something bigger than itself. If that desire is not directed to find its answer in spirituality, it will turn elsewhere to find it. Since the Church was sorely lacking in spirituality by the fifteenth century, which I will develop more fully later, people satisfied their need to belong through Nationalism. Under separate nation states, people could now “relate” to the person who was in authority over them. In part, because these new national leaders where in relative close proximity to their constituents as compared to the Pope in distant Rome, but mostly because the leadership understood the cultural forces affecting its people.

Perhaps a good modern day example may be General Electric’s attempted takeover of Honeywell-Europe. After Honeywell’s rejection of General Electric’s multi-billion dollar takeover proposal, General Electric’s CEO admitted that he was completely surprised by the attitude and demands of the European Workers Union. Obviously, he probably has a firm grasp on the dynamics of American union workers since General Electric employs thousands of them. However, his lack of understanding of the cultural makeup of the European union severely undermined General Electric’s takeover bid.

The natural course of the Empire’s growth demanded the divestiture of some of the papacy’s authority away from Rome. This is imminently clear with the forced relocation of the papacy to Avignon, France known as The Babylonian Captivity from 1309-1377 A. D. Rome, in its usual arrogance, refused to recognize that the empire was too big for a centralized office of absolute authority. Consequently, Rome instated its own Pope and created “The Great Schism” whereby the Church was then under the reign of two Popes. In his book The Decline of the Medieval Church, Alexander Flick writes; “Christendom looked upon the scandal helpless and depressed, and yet impotent to remove it. With two sections of Christendom each declaring the other lost, each cursing and denouncing the other, men soberly asked who was saved.”[3] In 1409 a Council deposed both Popes and elected a third Pope. If two Popes were not bad enough, now there were three since none recognized the authority of the other. The Church’s attempt to reform itself came in the form of The Counciliar Movement from 1408-1448 A. D. Although historically successful, formal Councils proved to be an obstacle to reform. The Counciliar Movement reinforced the prevailing nationalistic attitude by allowing lay representatives to participate in a democratic process instituted to elect a new Pope. The voice of the people insisted on being heard. Advocates of the new democratic process insisted that; “An ignorant king or bishop is no better than a crowned ass.”[4] The absolute control the papacy so desperately tried to maintain was systematically being dismantled by the nations it was trying to control. While Nationalism undermined the papacy’s governing authority, Scholasticism would eventually develop theologians that would undermine the papacy’s theological authority.

Leading up the fourteenth century, Scholasticism attempted to reconcile all Christian doctrine, as endorsed by the papacy, with “reason” and develop all Church teaching into an orderly system of Canon Law. This would be the Church’s attempt to legislate all aspects of the Christian life. For centuries the papacy was content in telling Christians what to believe and what to think theologically. Now, under the watchful eye of the papacy, it made a grave miscalculation when it sanctioned men to think for themselves. Under Scholasticism came the rise of Universities. Although originally designed to educate the clergy, it ultimately educated the children of nobilities and left its clergy largely ignorant. In his book History of the Christian Church—Modern Christianity, Philip Schaff writes that; “Charlstadt, the older colleague of Luther, confessed that he had been a doctor of divinity before he had seen a complete copy of the Bible.”[5] The primary method of teaching at Universities was via debate between master and student. Charismatic teachers or masters would attract a substantive following. Ironically, the papacy’s approved teaching method would be used by its opponents to defend their new theological principles—in contradiction to the papacy. Obviously, the papacy did not consider the possibility that scholars might reach conclusions contradicting the papacy’s official doctrines.

The development of new ideas is an inevitable outcome when men are allowed to think for themselves as opposed to being told what to think. This, however, was not necessarily the Church’s miscalculation. The error, I believe, was not considering appropriate new ideas as a method of ongoing doctrine and organizational reform. The papacy’s rejection of new ideas on the basis of its supreme authority over all truth was not a “logical” argument for those trained in the discipline of “wars of logic.”[6] Like adult interaction with a maturing child, the Church’s arrogant position of, “because I said so,” was no longer acceptable. Although Scholasticism as a movement did not last, in large part because of the rise of Nominalism, its developments, specifically the Universities, would be the seedbed of the “new learning”[7] of the Renaissance. Williston Walker writes; “It seems as if the human mind, having reached a certain stage of development, opened to new thoughts and conceptions of the world as a plant bursts into a flower.”[8] By sanctioning what was in essence free thought, the papacy managed to impale itself on its own sword. It allowed those who were part of the powerful ruling class to think for themselves while leaving its own clergy largely ignorant and incapable of defending itself intellectually against rising dissatisfaction with the papacy. Thereafter, the period of The Renaissance Papacy would clearly expose the Achilles’ Heel of the Church – corruption.

In his book, The History of the Christian Church—The Middle Ages, David Schaff writes, “With Boniface VIII began the decline of the papacy. He found it at the height of its power. He died leaving it humbled and in subjection to France. He sought to rule in the proud, dominating spirit of Gregory VII and Innocent III, but he was arrogant without being strong, bold without being sagacious, high-spirited without possessing the wisdom to discern the signs of the times. The times had changed.”[9] In truth, Boniface could actually have been the poster child for his successors. Dante, in his Divina Commedia, pronounces Boniface a usurper, “Who turned the Vatican hill into a common sewer of corruption.”[10] The papacy’s downfall was caused, in large part, by its complete lack of credibility due to its pervasive corruption and gross immorality. Personal papal wealth was shameful. Following Boniface, Pope John XXII was said to have amassed $2,000,000 in personal wealth by the time of his death although others estimate the amount to be as high as $60,000,000.[11] Corruption and abuses were not new to the Church and its reform was the goal of The Counciliar Movement at Pisa, Constance and Basel. However the Church was now gripped by secularism and selfish tyranny. Simony, the buying and selling of Church offices, and nepotism were practiced regularly. Pluralism, the holding of more than one office at a time while drawing a stipend from each office, was common. P. Schaff writes that, “Celibacy was a foul fountain of unchastity and uncleanness.”[12] In his book The Reformation, J. A. Babington writes that; “Pastors are the first to enter, and the last to leave the tavern, and are always stout fellows at the drinking bout. In their drunken orgies they often blurt out the secrets of the Confessional.”[13] Remission of sins was had for a price. Indulgences were peddled like drugs by modern day drug dealers with the Pope as the Kingpin. Attempts at reform from within were useless. The Church’s momentum would now send it crashing into the coming Protestant Reformation.

In the end, many forces were at work that would eventually lead to the Reformation.  Interestingly, there are two ways to look at the events that transpired during the period from 1300-1500 A. D.  In his book Church History In Plain Language, Bruce Shelley writes, “Human systems rise and thrive and then fall because the processes of time have their own built-in ‘judgment.’ Institutions, which at first glance seem to be quite worthy, eventually crumble to ruins because the centuries themselves bring out the flaws. What is ‘judged,’ of course, is not this man or that but the system itself. At bottom it is the inadequacy in human nature that comes under judgment, for in the course of time it is human nature that turns a good thing into an abuse.”[14] Alternatively, Walker states that; “The Reformation was not a beginning but the culminating stage of a great movement, of which the new political life of Europe, the unlocking of strange continents, and the revival of learning were all equally part.”[15]

The Church failed to recognize the immense strength of the changing Nationalistic culture. Additionally, it sanctioned learning yet refused to educate itself. Ultimately, however, The Church no longer reflected the glory of God through its behavior. Instead, it magnified man’s utter depravity. Nevertheless, Walker writes; “The medieval Church, by its uniformity, its discipline, and its corporate moulding power, did a work for the crude social life that grew up on the ruins of the Roman empire or among the new peoples outside the bounds to which Roman conquest had once extended that no freer conception of Christianity could have accomplished.”[16] For all its obvious faults, out of the ruins of the Medieval Church can be seen a faded and worn picture of a once glorious Holy Roman Empire that paved the way for much of today’s Christianity.

Final Thoughts

            Of course as Protestants (evangelicals in particular) we read this history and wag our fingers or shake our heads in righteous indignation at the Catholic church’s behavior. However, let me warn you that one Protestant Reformation does not preclude the need for a universal Christian Reformation. Let me repeat Shelley’s earlier warning: “In the course of time it is human nature that turns a good thing into an abuse.” Many of us are familiar with massive Protestant/evangelical churches with huge budgets and bureaucracies that might rival the United States federal government! Most, if not all, of them are laudable in their efforts to be faithful to the mandates of the Scriptures. However, many have grown so massive that managing the “operation” of the church constantly takes on a greater significance as the church grows and expands. Eventually, managing the “operation” of the church becomes the mission of the church as an unconscious shift away from a people-oriented organism to a business-oriented organism begins to reshape the fabric of the church. Of course, failure to be a people-oriented church isn’t limited to large churches. There are countless small churches and medium size churches that are focused on the ministry efforts of a few key individuals within the church. It’s all about them and the role they play while everyone else has been assigned the role of spectator. It could be an Elder or a Worship Pastor or perhaps even a prominent financial contributor. In any event, church becomes a venue to facilitate their desire for recognition and adulation. When church becomes a business-oriented church or a church where a few people can receive their earthly rewards for being “giants of the faith,” when people are more interested in hearing the voice of the person they see on the stage on Sundays then they are in hearing the voice of the Creator of the universe, when being entertained on Sundays replaces genuinely holy and transformed lives, then a good thing has turned into an abuse and we are again guilty of Ignoring The Lessons Of History!

---

[1] Williston Walker, The Reformation, (New York:  Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900), p. 6

[2] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ And Culture, (New York:  Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1951) p. 134

[3] Alexander Clarence Flick, The Decline of the Medieval Church, (New York:  Burt Franklin, 1930), vol. 1, p. 293

[4] Ibid., vol. 2, p. 56

[5] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), vol. VII, p. 10

[6] Class Notes, The Development of Scholasticism, p. 1

[7] Walker, The Reformation, p. 27

[8] Ibid., p. 27

[9] David S. Schaff, D. D., History of the Christian Church, (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), vol. VI, p. 11

[10] Ibid., p. 11

[11] Ibid., p. 70

[12] P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, p. 9

[13] J. A. Babington, The Reformation, (Post Washington, N. Y./London, Kennikat Press, 1901), p. 6

[14] Bruce Shelley, Church History In Plain Language, (Dallas, TX:  Word Publishing, 1982, 1995), p. 224

[15] Walker, The Reformation, p. 2

[16] Ibid., p. 4-5

How People Grow

Introduction

Among the pantheon of books I've read, there are a few that rise above the rest. I enjoy gleaning as much as I can from whatever I read but not everything I've read has been personally transformative. How People Grow by Drs. Henry Cloud and John Townsend is one of those books that has been personally transformative and one that everyone should read. How People Grow is an exceptional book that relates the many elements of personal growth to clear biblical principles. The authors emphasize that “all growth is spiritual growth.” Cloud and Townsend insist that everything a person needs to guide them along the path of spiritual growth or through the sometimes turbulent waters of life’s struggles is found in the Bible. Cloud writes, “All the processes that had changed peoples’ lives were in the pages of Scripture. The Bible talked about the things that helped people grow in relational and emotional areas as well as spiritual ones.” (Pg. 20) How People Grow, although based on sound theological and psychological scholarship, is an extremely practical tool that is easily understood and readily applicable to everyday life. The book was particularly impactful for me as it put words to my past experiences and how those experiences have, in part, shaped my current reality. The insight into myself and some principles on how to grow beyond the struggles of my present reality have offered me some much needed hope that although my past may have shaped some of my current realities, those experiences need not build a prison within which my current realities are doomed to live themselves out.

The Master Gardener: The God of Growth

            In this section of the book, Cloud attempts to shift the reader’s perspective from a natural human view of God to a biblical view of God. The trajectory of this section is to move the reader from the God of the Law to the God of Grace. Cloud reminds us of the Apostle Paul’s instruction that someone who is under the law is perpetually condemned and is, in fact, attracted to sin. (Rom 7) Under the law, we find ourselves in a situation where we try to earn our way back to God through our own efforts to avoid God’s condemnation of our sin. Conversely, Grace, according to the authors, means that; 1) God is for us not against us and consequently wants good for us; and 2) God’s favor cannot be earned and is not deserved. Nevertheless, we desperately need God’s favor in order to facilitate our growth. Both aspects of Grace are necessary ingredients for our continued growth as Cloud writes, “To grow, we need things that we do not have and cannot provide, and we need to have a source of those things who looks favorably upon us and who does things for us for our own good.” (Pg. 67)

            Although I have been an evangelical Christian for more than half my life and a Protestant for nearly thirty years, I grew up in a Catholic home with its ritualistic inclinations toward a works-salvation. Add to that the ingredient of growing up with an abusive, alcoholic father and much of my life has consisted of trying to earn my Heavenly Father and my earthly father’s acceptance. This meant always trying to do better through my own strength in order to avoid condemnation from God while at the same time avoiding the ire of my father which when combined left me emotionally and spiritually stagnant until my mid-twenties. I finally left the Catholic church and was too big to take any more physical abuse from my father. Converting to Protestantism slowly transformed my view of God from one of the Law to one of Grace. When my wife and I moved to a small evangelical church, the Body of Christ pointed me down the road that began the healing process. Subsequent churches I have attended have continued to reinforce that Love and Grace informed by the truth of Scripture are the rule of life. However, my greatest growth came during the decade spent at Seminary pursuing my graduate degree where Love, Grace and Truth were essential principals to understanding the basic elements of God’s revelation of himself in Jesus Christ. Learning that the Law demonstrates our need for Grace gave me the freedom to begin the difficult, and often failing, process of letting go of trying to earn my way back into God’s favor and has instead freed me to be in relationship with a God who is on my side.

Finding The Best Climate

            In this section, Cloud offers a biblical view of the way God works within our lives and world. Cloud makes his point through two illustrations where “Plan A” represents God’s direct intervention in the lives of his people. This “Plan A” is what most of us pine for when we are struggling and confused with the trials, tribulations, pain and suffering that are an inevitable part of our lives. However, most of the time, comfort and relief does not come through God’s direct intervention. Instead, God uses people as his means to touch our lives during difficult times. Many of us, according to Cloud, believe that this is “Plan B.” It may be effective but it’s still not as good as Plan A. Cloud attempts to reorient us to the truth that Plan B is actually Plan A. (Pgs. 119-120)

As previously stated, I grew up in a tremendously dysfunctional home. My father was an abusive alcoholic while the rest of us in the family played the traditional roles found in alcoholic families (i.e. enablers, appeasers, black sheep, avoiders, etc.). My point is not to cast stones or disparage my late father but simply to state a fact of the way I grew up. Over the years, I have come to accept that just as I am a product, to a certain extent, of my early childhood experiences, my father was a product of his early childhood experiences. I'm not making any excuses for anyone's behavior, but recognizing this reality has been instrumental in the process of forgiveness both for him and for myself. Nevertheless, during the many years when his alcoholism nearly drove me to kill myself, I prayed desperately for God to step in and "DO SOMETHING!" My "Plan A" was for God to step in personally and put an end to the madness that an addiction injects into a person's life. That didn't happen. Instead, we had to endure years of pain and anguish all too common in cases of substance abuse. My "Plan B" was for the opportunity to escape and be surrounded by people who had enough bandages to dress my wounds and give me the chance to heal. Well, in God's infinite wisdom, "Plan B" was actually "Plan A!" God gave me the gift of my wife who, together with the Church, began the difficult process of moving me along the path of healing. As though giving me an amazing wife weren't enough to prove that God is on my side, I received the gift of two daughters who have been faithful Christians from the start and are a daily reminder to me that "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Cor 5:17)

During the storms of my early life, I thought my "Plan A" was the best and only way. I saw no value in enduring the struggles of my life the way they, in fact, eventually unfold. Even now, I am grieved by the many personality and character flaws that seem to be hard-wired into the person I am even though I know I am a "work-in-progress." However, I also know that the path of my life has made me uniquely qualified to speak into the darkness and brokenness of other people's lives with the perspective of an insider. I also know that what I thought was "Plan B" was the path that eventually led me to my wife, leads me to cherish my children and most importantly continues to drive me toward a God that isn't angry with me but instead loves me and wants to be in relationship with me forever. So from a God-perspective, my "Plan B" was God's "Plan A" all along!

The Gardener’s Handbook: The Bible

            In the final section of the book, the authors present the centrality of Scripture as the preeminent source for growth. They write, “The Bible stands alone as God’s only perfect guide to life and growth.” (Pg. 191) They illustrate its comfort in the lives of those who suffer and grieve as well as a means of discipline for those who are serious about their journey of faith toward becoming a more righteous person. They demonstrate the riches found in the state of spiritual poverty and the freedom that comes from obedience. Ultimately, the key to the centrality of Scripture in the life of the believer is the truth it conveys about all of life. This truth, however, is not some abstract concept. Instead, Truth is embodied and exemplified in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ who is our perfect model for growth.

            For twenty-two months from 2006 to 2008 I experienced a very dark night of the soul. During that time, God masked his presence from all my senses. Scripture became spectacularly central in my life because it was my only lifeline to God even if it was just on paper. There were no answers to prayer. There were no consolations. There was nothing. I experienced the most acute sense of suffering and grief I could ever imagine as I continually reached out to God without any comfort. I have gone back and read my journal entries during that point in time and it was truly a very dark time in my life. I didn’t want to live and I didn’t want to die. I didn’t feel anything. I slept an average of three to four hours a night for the entire time. I was exhausted and broken. Looking back, I can now see that by the end of the twenty-two month period, I had been thoroughly disciplined and was a poster child of spiritual poverty. My only lifeline was the Bible and God’s promises to carry me and give me the strength to persevere even though I had no sense of God’s presence in my life at the time. At the end, I was simply desperate for God. After twenty-two months, almost to the day, I woke up after a full night of sleep and God was so present to me I felt I could touch him. The one thing that remained a constant in my life before, during and after that difficult time was the centrality of Scripture in my life and that has made all the difference.

Final Reflection

            How People Grow was instrumental in helping me put words to the experiences of my life. As I read through the book I often found myself cursing the fact that I could have benefited greatly from the book had I read it twenty-five years ago! Nevertheless, Cloud and Townsend make a compelling argument that the Bible contains everything we need for spiritual growth with the understanding that “all growth is spiritual growth!”

A Call To Evangelism & Discipleship

Introduction

            I have a quick quiz for you (for those of you who are freaking out right now—relax it’s not that kind of quiz!). Let’s suppose for a moment, hypothetically, that we ran out of water one day. Drought, over-usage, contamination, whatever you want to pretend the reason to be, the point is that there is no longer any drinking water. You’ve watched as family, friends and neighbors slowly die for lack of water. Now let’s suppose that one day you are digging in your yard when suddenly you strike a shallow water aquifer with an unlimited supply of pure clean water. What would you do? Think about it before you answer. You have something that is life-giving and life sustaining in a dying world. Your options seem obvious. You can do nothing and keep your find secret and exclusively to yourself or you can tell others and invite them to your find so they too can be saved. Certainly there are those that would either keep the find to themselves for fear of running out or leverage the find for personal profit. However, I suspect that most people would tell others about their find and thereafter share the life-giving water. It would not be unreasonable to assume that those people would then tell and show their friends and those friends would inevitably do the same and so on and so on and so on. Perhaps you think it’s an odd metaphor but Christian evangelism and discipleship is really no different.

            Many Christians fail to practice Jesus’ command given at the end of Matthew’s Gospel to go out and make disciples of all nations. But I don’t believe it’s because of disobedience, I believe that many Christians just make it harder than it needs to be. Furthermore, I believe most Christians are paralyzed by the misconception that evangelism is filled with theological intricacies and complexities and discipleship requires a highly specialized and programmatic approach that is both time consuming and theologically focused at all times. While evangelism and discipleship contain some of these components, biblical evangelism and discipleship really only requires one thing—relationship! After a relationship is established, evangelism and discipleship follow quite naturally. Let me try to explain:

Evangelism

            “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” (Romans 10:14)

The “-ism” in the word “evangelism” essentially denotes a set of beliefs or doctrines that are considered authoritative by some group. Evangelism is therefore, by definition, a bias in favor of something and against other things. As a consequence, it is exclusionary and that’s what

makes evangelism so uncomfortable to so many people both inside and outside of the church.

But, what is the bias of Christian evangelism? At its most basic level, Christian evangelism has as its bias the “Good News.” It is a bias which necessarily is a cause for joy and celebration and a bias against despair and hopelessness. No doubt this view of Christian evangelism finds immediate consent by the Christian faithful. However, “Good News” is a somewhat nebulous term that requires a theological framework for a better understanding. Consequently, the bias of Christian evangelism should be the presentation of the Good News within the context of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ generally and specifically that God’s love for us was revealed clearly through the person of Jesus Christ.

This final and specific element of the Good News is the very personal and relational element around which my own philosophy of evangelism has been formed. Understanding that the creator of the universe loves me deeply and proved it by going to the cross in my place so that we could, one day, spend eternity together has been a truly life-changing experience for me. More importantly, God asks nothing in return except to accept the invitation to be in relationship with him. In this respect, salvation is much more than getting a “get-out-of-hell-free” card. Since we have all, believers and unbelievers alike, been created to be in relationship with God and one another, this relationship element appears to be a natural touch-point for evangelism. It is in the context of “relationship” that I have codified my own salvation story. The story I share with non-believers, is this: I am compelled to follow a God who knew all my mistakes before I made them yet willingly died on a cross in my place for those mistakes and rose from the dead to say “I forgive you! I don’t hate you! I love you! I want to be in relationship with you forever!”

“But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

In modern church vernacular, this is “my story.” Evangelism, at its core, is simply telling “your story.” What makes the “Good News” good news to you? This relieves us from the paralysis of not knowing where to start. It is technically and theologically true that the “Good News” includes everything from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21. However, if you were standing in line at a coffee shop and struck up a conversation with the person in front of you, could you communicate that before it was time to put in your coffee order? Probably not. “Your story,” specifically, is not all of the salvation story of Genesis1:1 through Revelation 22:21. Nevertheless, “your story” is somewhere within God’s overall salvation story. You simply need to define it within the context of your life. At what point does God’s salvation story intersect with yours? That’s “your story” and the tool God will use to reach others. People get hung up on the idea that their “story” has to be some spectacular conversion experience like encountering a burning bush as in the case of Moses or being suddenly struck blind as in the case of Paul. While that might describe “your story,” (if so, I would love to hear your story) that’s not necessarily the norm for most people. Most people couldn’t tell you exactly when they became believers. I’m one of those people. There has never been a time in my life that I am conscious of when I haven’t believed in God. There have been times in my life when my actions and attitudes did not reflect that belief. But, you see, those times are part of “my story.” Let me use the Apostle Peter to illustrate my point. At what point do you think Peter became a follower? Was it when Jesus asked him to set aside his fishing nets and follow him (Mt 4:19)? Was it after he saw Jesus walking on the water and thereafter joined him for a few steps of his own on the water (Mt 14:29), was it after witnessing the feeding of the 5,000 (Mt 14:13-21) or perhaps the 4,000 (Mt 15:32-39) thereafter? Can you tell exactly where and when Peter became a believer? Keep in mind that it was after all of these events that Peter denied knowing Jesus three times (Mt 26:69-75)! Did Peter begin to believe after seeing the empty tomb (Lk 24:12) or perhaps thereafter when Jesus appeared to him and ate with him (Jn 21:15-19)? The answer is, no one knows exactly when Peter became a believer. I would like to postulate that Peter was probably a believer all along and his “story” was probably a compilation of all these events which formed a basic message that contextualized his salvation experience in such a way that, if you had a chance to sit down and talk to him, you would find his “story” to be highly personal to his life experience with Jesus.

Application

            There is no perfect, foolproof evangelism method. In seminary, it was called the “sledgehammer argument” because people have tried for millennia to formulate the perfect method of communicating the Gospel message in such a way so as to leave the hearer of the message no option but to believe the message. Let me save you the anguish of trying to find the perfect formula for evangelism. If Jesus could feed 5,000 with a few fish and loaves of bread, walk on water, give sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, cast out demons and raise the dead and in fact rise to life after his own death and the people who were right there to witness it all still did not believe, what foolproof method do you suppose you might have that could be more convincing? No, there’s no foolproof method of evangelism and you need not be a theologian to be an evangelist. You just need to be “you!” God saved you so that you can be you not someone else or something else. Granted, God may be transforming the old you into a new you but it is still you and that is what God will use to point others to himself. You simply need to define what it is that compels you to follow Jesus. That’s not some cold technical description of how God saved you. It’s personal—it’s “your story” of how God captured your heart. Do you remember the hypothetical illustration I used at the beginning about finding water? How would you have communicated your find to those around you who were dying of thirst? Well, telling people about Jesus is no different. People are dying all around us of spiritual thirst and Jesus is the “living water” (Jn 4:10). Just tell people “your story” and trust that God will use that story to point and bring people to himself.

Discipleship

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19-20)

Technically, a “disciple” is a follower and “discipleship” is the process of teaching someone to be a follower. Growing up in the church, I was always accustomed to discipleship as being associated with a formalized program (i.e. Sunday school, small groups, etc.). As such, there was a distinct beginning and end and a prescribed methodology and emphasis. Deviation from the prescribed method was discouraged because there was an end-goal to the process (as though discipleship could become a completed action!). This is the context within which my concept of discipleship was initially formed. Although there is certainly a place for programmed discipleship, I have come to realize that this is far from the biblical model of discipleship. That’s not to say that programmed discipleship is not biblical, it merely lacks the element that is common throughout all the biblical examples of discipleship—relationship. I believe that the one-size-fits-all approach is a grossly truncated road to Christlikeness which should be the trajectory of discipleship. Therefore, if the objective of discipleship is to grow into the likeness of Christ then that necessarily implies that we either spend time with Christ or with someone who is on the trajectory of growing into His likeness.

During most of my adult life, I vacillated when it came to discipleship—engaging when I felt I had the time to pursue a specific program but otherwise keeping my distance from discipleship relationships. However, over the years of being a parent to two wonderful, and faithful Christian girls, I have begun to learn what I think biblical discipleship was intended to look like. Certainly being a parent is far from a programmed venture (although I think that would be much easier—Parenting for Dummies!). Instead, discipleship with respect to my girls is illustrative in understanding my current philosophy when it comes to discipleship—effective discipleship involves the sometimes messy task of doing life together in close relationship. Discipleship in relationship is simply the process of presenting the truths of the Gospel in real, everyday life situations—using real bullets so to speak. For example, my oldest daughter wrote her college entrance essay on the most influential person in her life and she picked me! She writes with respect to the ten years of pursuing my graduate degree, “No matter how hard it gets, he never quits.”[1] Although I have told her about the need to persevere in life and faith, she learned the lesson of perseverance by being in relationship with me and her mother. She goes on to write, “All my life I have followed behind my dad, stepping in his footprints because he is who I want to become. Life happens so fast and society expects me to be the perfect, blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl that is on the pages of so many magazines, but my dad accepts and loves me for who I am instead of trying to fit me into a mold.”[2] I have certainly told her that we are all created in the image of God and that he loves each of us specifically and unconditionally but she learned what that means by being in relationship with me and her mother. And there are countless other illustrations as well. However, the purpose of these illustrations is not intended to say anything about me—I wasn’t the author of these principles. My wife and I are followers as well. To illustrate my point one step farther, when my younger daughter wrote her college entrance essay about the person who influenced her the most, she wrote about her sister! Simply put, she has followed her sister as her sister has followed my wife and I as we follow Christ. Both of my girls have been a living experiment of what discipleship looks like at the street level. This appears to be the clearest example of discipleship found in Scripture. Christ said that his disciples would do what they saw him doing (i.e. healing, casting out demons, etc.). In fact, even Christ claimed that he could only do what he saw his Father doing (Jn 5:19).

Application

            One of the saddest things I’ve experienced in and out of the church is the segregation between young people and old people. This reality is to the detriment of both the young and the old. The gap between the way things used to be and the way things are seems so difficult to bridge. Clothes are different, hair is different, music is different, cars are different, everything is different. Even church is different! There are, however, a few very important things the young and the old have in common: Both desperately thirst to be in a loving relationship with God and both thirst to be in a loving relationship with others. Next time you’re in a social setting that includes people from a broad spectrum of age groups, see how they tend to group. Usually, older people will associate with older people while younger people tend to migrate toward people closer to their own age. Both age groups unwittingly shun the very relationships that would enrich their respective lives. The elderly don’t think young people respect them and the young don’t think the elderly have any relevance for their lives. Both sides are wrong. The elderly can give a perspective of what has gone before and act as a warning beacon for those younger to avoid mistakes already experienced. The elderly have scars that come with stories—stories of pain, suffering, sorrow, faith and perseverance. The young, on the other hand, have a tremendous perspective on what is yet to come. Their enthusiasm for life’s possibilities can be the impetus for the elderly to live less in the past and to keep moving forward. The young also have scars that come with stories—stories of broken homes, lost dreams, trying again and again and again, stories of hope that tomorrow will be better than yesterday. Apart, one believes hope is a thing of the past and the other believes hope is something that might never be realized. Together, the two have a force that is wise with lessons from the past and passionate for the possibilities of the future—together, hope has not slipped through their grasp nor is it beyond their grasp.

            I would like to challenge each of you to an experiment. For most people, it’s fairly simple to be in a discipleship relationship with someone who is your age or close to your age—you’re probably involved in some of those relationships right now. Therefore, I challenge you to seek out someone who is significantly older than you if you are young and significantly younger than you if you are old and disciple one another. By disciple, I mean just do life together. Spend time together. Let me just give you a couple of pointers to help ease you into the process for both young and old respectively. If you’re young, start by just asking questions and listening. For once, just pretend that you really don’t know everything. You might be surprised just how much you can learn. If you’re old, stop insisting that you’re way is the right and only way just because that’s the way you’ve been doing it for so many years. You might be surprised to find out that you’ve been beating your head against a wall in some particular area while there’s been an easier way but you’ve been too stubborn to consider that your way might have been wrong. Let me also offer a few practical suggestions to make your encounter more comfortable: If you’re a young man, try pulling up your pants to somewhere above your bottom. If you’re an old man, try pulling down your pants to somewhere below your chest. If you’re a young woman, try dressing more modestly and less like a street-walker. If you’re an old woman, try dressing in something other than reused drapery fabric. Consider each other’s interests before insisting on your own interest as being the best and only way (Phil 2:3). For both young and old, try listening to the other’s music. Try the other’s favorite foods. Visit the other’s favorite places. Watch the other’s favorite television programs. Read the other’s favorite books. Finally, don’t quit when things get messy. This is not the way of Jesus. The disciples were often a bunch of goofballs. They fought with each other. They failed to get what Jesus was trying to teach them over and over and over, but Jesus never gave up on them. He did life with them daily for three years whether things were good and they were healing and driving out demons in His name (Lk 9:1) or whether things were bad and they were arguing with each other about which one of them would be the greatest in His Kingdom (Lk 9:46). In short, discipleship is always most effective in the context of relationship. Here’s what I can promise you if you accept my challenge: It will be inconvenient, it will be time-consuming, it will be hard, it will be painful, it will be messy, it will bring you great joy, it will bring you great hope and most importantly, it will bring you closer to the One who has call each of us to go out and make disciples of all the nations!

“Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you.” (Philippians 3:17)

---

[1] Meagan D. Seredinski, Love Conquers All, (College Entrance Essay, 2009), p. 1.

[2] Ibid.