Thielicke, Bonhoeffer, and Bultmann's Neo-Orthodox Prescriptions For Healthy Fellowship

In their writings, Helmut Thielicke, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Rudolf Bultmann all present important pillars of truth for the spiritual health of members in the Christian community. These tenets are based upon the understanding of who and what God is to us as well as who and what we are to ourselves and to God.

In Thielicke's book, The Waiting Father (Harper and Row, 1959), he addresses the parable of the Prodigal Son, providing an interpretation of the story that focuses on these two different brothers. The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11–32) is seen to be selfish and willful but is also portrayed as someone pathetically lost in his own desires, "bound to his homesickness . . . bound to urges . . . bound to a grand style of living." The older brother, however, is presented lacking in character, too, for in him "forgiveness has become a banality" as he easily judges his brother. Furthermore, his relationship with his father has "become a thing taken for granted," where he has become alientated from his father's loving desires. Despite outward appearances, both men inside are found wanting because of their pride and self-centeredness. For the Christian community, these two men serve as glaring reminders that it matters little whether we are openly—or silently—disobedient and discontent with God. Both attitudes pull us away from a right relationship with Him (and others).

Bonhoeffer's work, The Cost of Discipleship (Touchstone, 1995), addresses the issues of being in tune with God and His desires for us. Christians are called to be the light of the world, the salt that preserves and gives the world its flavor and vitality (Matt 5:13) . Bonhoeffer points out that Christians have no choice to be salt or not for as Jesus' disciples, "They must be what they really are." If a community claims to be Christian and yet does not show their "discipleship visible in action," then they will find themselves "irretrievably lost" and are not "followers of Jesus." Of course, this discipleship in action is not for their glory but for God's through Jesus Christ. Their good works originate with and come directly from Jesus and are present solely to point people to the light of the cross. Bonhoeffer therefore implies that if a Christian is going to talk the talk, he must walk the walk.

Bultmann's book, Existence and Faith (Living Age, 1960), is a good synthesis of these previous authors' teachings. Focusing on the Sermon on the Mount and its call to a higher justice (Matt 5:1– 12), he argues that the Law for us exists merely to "protect each other from the oppressions of others." Although not a trivial thing, justice still lacks God’s ultimate goal for humanity of an inward "willing obedience" to God. The Law focuses on the outward behavior but cannot check the inward mechanisms of selfishness and self-centeredness that cause destruction of people’s relationship with each other (and God). Consequently, as a community, people need to be more concerned about their inner motivation than legalistically following religious or societal edicts, alone.

I am drawn most strongly to Thielicke's work, for in his theology, I see a strong foundation for living gracefully for myself and others. His understanding and portrayal of the pain, suffering, and consequences that both brothers endured really touched me and pointed to a deeper place to begin my relationships at. I kept hearing, "Be merciful as God is merciful to you," as I read this essay; and over the weekend, I was even able to find application in its words. I had to forgive someone recently who had hurt me in the past and part of my motivation came from the understanding that I, too, have offended and hurt even though it may not be perceived. Thus, I have been both the Prodigal Son and the Older Brother, and to stay close to God. I must remember that it is all about modeling the mercy and forgiveness that God has shown me in my relationship with others.

~ Reflection Paper, George Fox Seminary (April 15, 2001)

GEORGE FOX, MAN OF FAITH AND FRIENDS: WALTER WILLIAMS’ STORY OF QUAKERISM

It has been said that all renewal movements in church history harken back to an earlier, exceptional period of intense spirituality, inspirational leadership, close community, and unwavering commitment to God.[1] These “revivals” have clear tell-tale signs, historically. As McClymond notes, “Revivals are corporate, experiential events. There is often a spiritual contagion, causing one person’s experiences to cascade onto others . . . it suggests a return of zeal or vitality to a group of Christian believers who have declined in their devotion.”[2] If so, the Quaker Movement that began in seventeenth-century England is a prime example of such a religious phenomenon. Moreover, its origins, outreach, and organization over the centuries have been well-elucidated in Walter Williams’ 1962 book, The Rich Heritage of Quakerism.[3]

As with other revivals or renewal movements, the development of Quakerism was (and still is) a multifaceted matter, ostensibly starting with the religious efforts of one man—George Fox[4] (1624–1691)––but ultimately having its deepest and long-lasting roots in the will, empowerment, and blessings of God. Williams writes,

George Fox had a deep concern to help men find a genuine religious experience. He, himself, had found the living Christ, and was learning the precious lessons of trust and obedience. With the passing of the months and years since that great discovery, he had been seeking to acquaint others with a knowledge of the truth. The winning of souls to Christ was now his one consuming passion. The urge of God’s Spirit was upon him; indeed, that was the reason for his coming into this part of Northern England.[5]

Truly (and evidentially), George Fox was a man of faith, a man of his times, a man of the spirit, a man on a mission, and a man of the people––realities fully discussed in Williams’ book. Amidst the cultural and political darkness that Fox observed all around him in England, he received a life-changing theophany from God. As Williams remarks, “He now had good news to tell others.”[6] Fox’s charge from God was to fully minister to God’s people wherever they were—be they in a street or in a pew, for which he frequently received beatings and imprisonments (for both him and his co-laborers).[7]

He had his work cut out for him, for seventeenth-century England was “in a state of unrest and confusion.”[8] In this age of absolutism, the elites and the powerful dictated everything in society––from the courts to the culture to the church. The Civil War that erupted in the middle of the century (1642–1660) only added to the hostilities and hardness of hearts. According to Williams, “[The people] thirsted for the gospel of a living Saviour who would give unto them ‘beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.’”[9]

Fox, like other dissenters and non-conformists in the British Isles,[10] felt that the Anglican bureaucracy had only provided its parishioners “a rigid, impersonal, coldly-institutional, Christian community from which to receive both spiritual and physical aid.”[11] The people needed and deserved more; fortunately for them, God sent George Fox and an ever-increasing band of Christian brothers and sisters “to carry the good news to other neighborhoods and towns and cities.”[12] Despite their small beginnings and lengthy imprisonments, Fox and his “Valiant Sixty” unashamedly, un-relentlessly, and unreservedly sought to bring revival to all of England[13]—and succeeded more than many could have hoped or dreamed, bringing the Spirit’s divine (and solidly doctrinal) message[14] of inward light, love, and transformation to Wales, Scotland, and the American colonies. New converts began to include what Williams called, “the ablest and most eminent recruits”[15]— such as Fell, Penington, Ellwood, Barclay, Woolman, and Penn—who added to the Society of Friends with their talents, enthusiasm, and influences.

Williams notes that the testimonies, convictions, practices, and attitudes of the Friends who followed Fox often ran contrary to worldly norms but never contrary to biblical or Godly admonitions.[16] Still, despite the aforementioned persecutions and martyrdoms,[17] the Quaker Movement continued to grow until the needs of this new Christian fellowship required greater organization to maintain the Holy Spirit’s high calling for them to live in unity, purity, and Christ-likeness.[18] In General Meetings (or Yearly), the Friends met (and continue to do so) to find common understandings, uniform practices, and proper rules of discipline.[19]

Williams described Fox, who died in 1691, as “Unafraid, he had given his all to building the kingdom of God, without reserve or complaint, even when misjudged, maligned, persecuted, and accused of personal ambition by some who envied his powerful leadership.”[20] Not unexpectedly, the question of who should lead was expectedly raised, but who could follow someone so exemplary as Fox? Yet, Fox had done his best to prepare the Movement’s followers to keep the course steady, preserving the main leadership role for the Holy Spirit. However, leadership-in-consensus was far more embraced than leadership-from-seniority, which created an unsure course of action.

Fox’s absence shook the Movement (ironically), with courage being replaced with caution. Perhaps it was based on their long distrust of human nature so easily corrupted that helped shift the Quaker voice to a whisper during the Quietism era.[21] Influential Quakers such as Whitehead and Crisp urged even further retreatment from worldly affairs and comforts, ostensibly to protect against Quakers themselves falling prey to material temptations. Although meant for good, Williams suggests that this ministry philosophy curtailed two key characteristics of early Quakerism: fullness of joy and daringness of faith.[22]

It also seemed to turn the Quaker Movement into a Quaker Institution—a juxtaposition of Fox’s earliest mission of freedom in the Spirit. Discipline and oversight became amplified and over-regulated. As Williams notes, “Friends had settled down into a peaceable, respectable sect, proud of their past, but, by and large, feeling no moving concern to do more in the future than to preserve their ‘Testimonies,’ and keep the Society's membership in good order.”[23] Sadly, for many Quakers, “Bravery” had been replaced with “Bureaucracy.”

Sometime later, even classic Quaker spirituality began to splinter. Williams notes, “There were a few—perhaps a very few—among the various groups of Friends who had become so enamoured with the rationalistic views of religion as to feel ready to discard the claims of Revealed Religion, and rely only on human reason.”[24] As with other denominations, a Quaker bifurcation in the Movement began to develop between believers and unbelievers, although social reforms and philanthropy remained central to all branches. Just the why (or perhaps the Who) and where had begun to change.

With the American Expansionism of the nineteenth century, Quakers also migrated to new regions with new social emphases and influences.[25] One can see how this scattering weakened the earlier potency of English doctrinal Quakerism. In Tolkien-esque fashion, nineteenth-century Quakerism became “thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.”[26] William remarks, “The Society of Friends had lost her missionary vision, and had largely ceased to be an aggressive spiritual force.”[27] The Bible ceased to be ubiquitously embraced by all Quakers; evangelism was largely replaced with philanthropic rationalism; for some, Jesus Christ ultimately became unnecessary for salvation.

The splintering became a final great divide under Elias Hicks,[28] whose unorthodox, radical views led to the first real schism with Quakerism. Pitted against his heresies were orthodox Quakers like Joseph John Gurney who held “that the Light within is no part of human nature, but a gift to each through God's grace in Christ Jesus.”[29] Gurney’s perspective was part of a greater revival experienced in America during the Second Great Awakening. As with other spiritual leaders of the time (Finney, Moody, Sankey), the Bible was a quintessential component of true Christianity.[30]

Yet, the Industrial Age and the rise of scientific dogmas toward the end of the nineteenth century still challenged the orthodox beliefs of Quakers (and many other denominations), leading to new, innovative praxis and programs––and reaffirmations of undiluted, evangelical Friends doctrines.[31] Not surprisingly, these conferences and declarations of Quaker faith were met with some cheers and some jeers in the twentieth century.[32] As with other denominational squabbles since 1900, the Quakers—both in England and America—have (ironically) experienced their own fair share of separatists, non-conformists, and dissenters to traditional orthodox Quakerism.

The holy, healthy, unity of God’s light that the first Quakers experienced has been swallowed up by secularism’s bureaucratic bumbledom. As Williams concludes, “God waits to work, and He employs human helpers who are fully yielded to Him.” This is a tough task with postmodernity’s love of radical religious individualism, where “the self or ego has the highest sacred authority in a person’s life, giving direction and meaning to religious and spiritual activities (or non-participation).”[33] Submission is difficult in a culture that promotes, even demands, unfettered social avenues (even those formerly considered under God’s demesne). Yet, Williams words still shine bright despite the darkness closing in: “With so rich a heritage, what responsibility rests upon all beneficiaries!”[34]

Bibliography

Knox, John S. A Lexicon of Religious Facts & Figures. Dubuque: Kendall-Hunt, 2021.

––––––. John Wesley’s 52 Standard Sermons: An Annotated Summary. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2017.

––––––. “Sacro-Egoism and the Shifting Paradigm of Religiosity.” Implicit Religion 11, no. 2 (2008): 153–172. doi:10.1558/imre.v11i2.153

McClymond, Michael. “What Revival Can Teach Us.” Christianity Today (February 24, 2023). https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2023/february-web-only/what-revival-history-christian-movements-asbury-university.html.

Tolkien, J. R. The Fellowship of the Ring. E-book: William Morrow, 2012.

Williams, Walter. The Rich Heritage of Quakerism. E-book: Muriwai, 2018.

Endnotes

[1] Daniel Brunner, “CHT511: Lecture Notes,” Portland: George Fox Seminary (2000).

[2] Michael McClymond, “What Revival Can Teach Us,” Christianity Today (February 24, 2023); https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2023/february-web-only/what-revival-history-christian-movements-asbury-university.html.

[3] Walter Williams, The Rich Heritage of Quakerism (e-book: Muriwai, 2018).

[4] John S. Knox, A Lexicon of Religious Facts & Figures (Dubuque: Kendall-Hunt, 2021), 51–52.

[5] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 100 of 5366.

[6] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 188 of 5366.

[7] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 591 of 5366.

[8] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 262 of 5366.

[9] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 401 of 5366.

[10] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 195 of 5366.

[11] John S. Knox, John Wesley’s 52 Standard Sermons: An Annotated Summary (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2017), 6.

[12] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 584 of 5366.

[13] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 964 of 5366.

[14] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 1209 of 5366.

[15] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 1793 of 5366.

[16] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 1373 of 5366.

[17] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 1786 of 5366.

[18] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 1606 of 5366.

[19] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 1686 of 5366.

[20] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 2019 of 5366.

[21] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 2159 of 5366.

[22] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 2259 of 5366.

[23] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 2313 of 5366.

[24] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 2608 of 5366.

[25] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 2957 of 5366.

[26] J. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring (e-book: William Morrow, 2012), 32.

[27] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 3052 of 5366.

[28] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 3114 of 5366.

[29] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 3225 of 5366.

[30] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 3614 of 5366.

[31] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 3769 of 5366.

[32] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 3874 of 5366.

[33] John S. Knox, “Sacro-Egoism and the Shifting Paradigm of Religiosity,” Implicit Religion 11, no. 2 (2008): 157.

[34] Williams, Rich Heritage, location 4722 of 5366.

Excerpt from Lexicon of Religious Facts and Figures (2021)—"Christian Activism in the First and Second Centuries CE"

Christian activism in the first and second centuries CE did not go unnoticed, especially by the provincial leaders who disliked any civil unrest that interfered with the Pax Romana, a peaceful and prosperous period between 14 and 180 CE. With the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE and the Diaspora (the forced dispersion of the Jews from Israel) that followed, after the first century CE, Christian castigation mostly came from Roman leadership who feared little, if any, reprisal or revenge from the Christians who were known for their passivity and peacefulness (and who had few political friends in the Senate). Thus, members of the Early Christian movement often became political targets and scapegoats for the social ills and political tensions of specific rulers and turbulent periods during the first three centuries, CE; however, this persecution was sporadic and rarely Empire-wide, but it was devastating, nonetheless.

The persecution of the Christians did not end with the deaths of the Disciples and the Apostles; their pupils and successors, the Church Fathers (ancient theologians, church leaders, and defenders of orthodox Christianity) also endured Roman hostility and maltreatment for their beliefs, as did other peripheral Christian men, women, and children (of all ages) who called them- selves, "Christian. The three main periods of persecution occurred from 64 to 95 CE (Emperor Nero to Emperor Domitian), 112 to 250 CE (Emperor Trajan to Emperor Decius), and 250 to 311 CE (Emperor Valerian to Diocletian).

Generally, people of all religious persuasions were tolerated within the Roman Empire; after all, polytheism was the norm for most Mediterranean societies at that time. Yet, for the Empire to operate, efficiently and profitably, social order had to be maintained at all costs. Submission to the Emperor was not an option, but Christians could not and would not say, "Lord, Lord, to the enthroned emperor or make a divine offering in their deified honor. This caused frequent friction with Roman authorities, and who started a conflict was less important to the Roman governors than maintaining peace and acquiescence; therefore, the troublesome elements were eliminated as a warning to others about challenging the absolute rule of Rome.

"Theological Implications of Wisdom Literature"

The Sacred Writings played a big role in the life of the Israelites. In any culture or people–group, you can find books of sayings, songs, prayers, or short pithy statements that come out of the experiences from their daily life. When these pass the test of time and are used by multiple groups, in multiple locations over several generations, they become folklore. It becomes their story and it is passed from generation to generation to keep the history alive.

These stories appear in multiple forms and are used in variety of ways that fit the needs and expectations of the people who own them. Some of the ways they are used include the following: public worship, retelling family history, instructing young members, and reminding both old and young of proper prioritization. Furthermore, for the Israelites, these stories describe the plight of the people and their relationship to God over the centuries, especially since the time of Abraham. The specifics of the story present truths of eternal religious and theological significance, as well as the majesty and mystery of God’s ways.

The paternalistic tone of Proverbs illustrates a parenting style. The adult addresses the child and asks them to “listen,” to “pay attention,” to “give ear to,” to “keep the commandments,” while all along suggesting that this is the Way of wisdom, success, honor, and righteousness. The Jewish parent would often ask the child to repeat these stories back to them in a way to be assured that the lessons were learned well.

In Proverbs 4:20–27, one can read about a father asking his boy to heed the advice of his parents (especially since in a world where there are many crossroads, the possibility of taking the wrong turn is ever present). Here, the father gives his child specific instructions of what he can and should control and by making the right and wise decision the child will be on the right path.

            My son, pay attention to what I say; listen closely to my words

            Do not let them out of your sight, keep them within your heart;

            For they are life to those who find them and health to a man’s whole

            body. Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.

            Put away perversity from your mouth; keep corrupt talk far from your

            lips. Let your eyes look straight ahead, fix your gaze directly before you.

            Make level paths for your feet and take only ways that are firm. Do not

            swerve to the right or the left; keep your foot from evil.

In this text, the father tells the son that, in his life, he will encounter many crossroads and face many decisions, which will have an impact on him. The son may not have many experiences in dealing with everything that life may throw at him, but he can have control of some basic things. These guiding principles will help him in being wise, and, furthermore, will help him make the right choice, which will, in turn, please parents and honor God. Observe the things the child can control—his ears to listen and pay attention, his heart to keep his father’s words, his health if he obeys, his lips, mouth, heart, and eyes to stay on the right path. His is told to watch the roads his feet go on, and, of course, by controlling his body and doing what he is told, he will not swerve to the right or left but stay on course. These are words of wisdom from the father to the son.

The author of Hebrews makes a similar claim, when he suggests, “Fixing our eyes on Jesus . . .  so that you will not grow weary and lose heart” (Hebrews 12:1­–3). Such practical advice is the primary religious purpose behind these books. Our faith is not only a spiritual, intellectual, and emotional, but is equally important when it comes to our daily praxis.

The author of Luke’s Gospel portrays Jesus in a same way. “And Jesus grew in wisdom, and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52). This describes the balance of the healthy and wise person. The physical, intellectual, spiritual, emotional, social, and practical balance is the plan of God for his people. Wisdom Literature contributes to this delicate and God-pleasing balance.

The more poetic and contemplative aspects of these writings present us with another way that the Israelites accomplished the task being wise and raising wise children. It is seen in their poetry, stories of their past heroes, or analogous or parabolic writings. These require the reader to take the time to sit, read, think, observe, contemplate, and experience God’s relationship to them. In a way, these are examples, like stain glass windows in the great cathedrals and basilicas of our time. The person may enter in a deep, long, and potentially life-changing spiritual experience. This may take the approach of contemplation, prayer, devotion, quietness, and longing for God.

The stark difference seen between the short, pithy practical ways of the Book of Proverbs from the longer, more creative stories passed down to them through books such as Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Job, and Song of Songs, is the posture and approach of the reader. Here, the father is not drilling and asking the child to repeat, but rather the reader or observer contemplates the plight of the people. Most of these are familiar stories, which are seen and heard over time with new and profound meaning based on the state of the observer. A child who grows up in the church may hear the story of David and the Giant, and, at different stages of his/her life, the meaning may change slightly or profoundly.

There are a few hermeneutical principles that are different in these writings.

1.     One requires the person to read and understand the song or the story as a whole. It loses its value when it is separated and compartmentalized. For example, the story of Job teaches that God allows for difficulties and suffering. At the end, the hero is protected and blessed. Similarly, the trials and suffering may not be the same or of the same depth, but one can still count on God to protect and bless even bless them.

2.     Another principle requires the reader to understand that the details of the story are not exactly the same as his/her own, although principles are easily transferable from past experiences to one’s present own experience. For example, God will provide for their daily needs as he provided for the daily needs of the Israelites in Exodus. Similarly, King David’s needs during his battles are different than our contemporary needs during our battles. One is not wandering in the wilderness or fighting giants as the stories detail.  However, one can ask for and experience God’s provisions and protection in times of struggle and hostility.

3.     When one observes a piece of art, there are many elements and stories within the story, but each individual story contributes to the whole message that the artist is portraying. Great church stain glass windows may portray many specific stories within the story, but, when seen all together, they present the major massage of the story. For example, in the picture of the last supper, one observes different conversations, different emotions, different posturing, based upon the individual Disciples’ depictions. Some are excited; others may be sad, hungry, confused by Jesus’s words, etc., but the picture, holistically, can give a more complete message of the great promise of Jesus, and possibly the great message of the communion table, which is a central part of the Christian faith.

Finally, the Song of Solomon (Songs), in many ways, explains some great mysteries of the church. One of these is the mystery of the relationship between a man and a woman. It is as deep and profound as any other experience in a person’s life, but it cannot be explained in words; it can only be observed and experienced. Thus, the contemplative way of thinking about love and intimacy helps us see and experience the story. It is impossible to write an essay that fully unravels the emotional, spiritual, physical, intimate, and intellectual depth and breadth of the relationship between these two lovers. But, when one reads Ecclesiastes, one can enter into that profound world of love, and intimacy God created for his people.

Wisdom literature, then, can be experienced through the creative ways of God’s people as they write, draw, or tell their stories. As Crenshaw concludes, “For that opportunity to think their thoughts, and thus to enrich our own, we owe an immense debt to the wise men and women who ventured forth on an endless search more than three thousand years ago.”[1]Future generations then find the answers to their questions about life, love, intimacy, fear, longing, trust, peace, contentment. The wisdom literature of the Christian church is seen and experienced through our hymnals, books, stain glass windows, religious icons, and personal stories of people as they experience God. Just as the Israelites asked their children to learn the stories, sing their songs, and live in wisdom and fear of God, the Church continues this redemptive story through the contemplation and memorization of biblical wisdom.

~ Tim Tsohantardis

Excerpt from God in the Details (Kendall-Hunt, 2017)

[1] Crenshaw, 239.

Trusting in the Historicity of the Bible

Historically and globally, people have different roles and different social obligations at different times and in different places. The Bible is replete with stories that focus on age, gender, race, or socio-economic status. In antiquity, slavery was commonplace; now it is illegal. Before the technological age, brute force set the parameters for warfare and agriculture; now, machines empower the weakest to do the heaviest tasks. Women used to be confined to knowledge of domestic duties; social revolutions have since burst the halls of education open to all members of society. Thus, context is crucial in understanding what is a universal mandate of God, and what is a community or cultural identification. In a postmodern world, where multiculturalism is promoted and mandated, where cynicism and skepticism are encouraged and rewarded above any fideism, how does a follower of Jesus be an obedient citizen of God’s kingdom while respectfully obeying earthly leaders, as the New Testament instructs?

These and other issues challenge readers as they seek to correctly understand God’s Word—His divine messages to humankind—from our limited and personal perspectives. Issues of injustice, inequality, disunity, suffering, divisions, hate, unfairness, and others have long troubled the human mind and spirit. Living in a world where everything exists in the immediate—Now!—waiting and working for an answer seems unbearable, but the biblical solution is to trust in God and cling to the mystery until such a time when the divine solution will be made crystal clear. Until that occurs, biblical readers are exhorted to trust in God’s ways, to carefully study and learn His word, to be unconditional in leaning upon the Word of God for instruction and advice, and in all things, to have the holy, righteous love of God be the guide for all human choices.

There are many approaches that scholars and theologians can take when writing about the Old and New Testament texts in the Bible. Our respective academic backgrounds lend themselves to a personal-but-pragmatic method that incorporates the biblical and the theological with the historical and the sociological. Ultimately, though, the Bible is the redemptive story of God and His people. This story begins in the early chapters of Genesis but continues on through the Old Testament books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ruth, and Esther. The tales within them are tantalizing and often terrible, with soap opera scripts, cliff-hanger endings, and last moment interventions by a God who delights in rescues and reconciliations.

Because of my great passion for Church History and the Bible, I frequently find myself pulled into watching a Bible or Church History documentary on the History Channel or Discovery (See your local listings). They always have such awesome titles—"UFOs in the Bible," "Joshua and the Battle of Jericho," "Samson and Delilah," "David and Bathsheba," 'Solomon and Sheba," and the list goes on. Unfortunately, they mostly offer an interesting but unfaithful view of the Scriptures, biblical characters, and the facts—pandering  to the masses with no biblical or Church History understanding.

Watching these movies becomes a lesson in patience and self-control.  It’s a good thing that no bricks are laying about in arm's reach. I must look like a zombie with my eyes perpetually rolled up into my head with all the false deconstructionist proclamations being spewed out like promises from a politician. "The Bible writers never believed in the One God." "Most scholars think David was mythic figure." "No historical evidence exists for Joshua." "For the Prophets, their revelation was never about the end of the world." "None of the Historical books were actually written by their purported authors." Their deviances from traditional understanding go on and on. Truly, we have entered an age of "Mediapostasy."  

Departing from truth accepted for nearly 2,000 years, these are movie and television screens filled with the false teachings that Paul warns about in 1 Timothy 6—

"If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain." 

Their perspective is limited and darkened, and they want others to join in with them in ignorance.

The media outlets suggest something quite different than biblical truth. They offer postmodern society an unassertive, watered-down version of the heroic men and women in the Old Testament, a mythic/fairytale view of Yahweh, and a convoluted, corrupt composition of the Bible. This is not unexpected considering key Biblical prophecies. Paul says in 2 Timothy 4:3,

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

The media’s version is not "Good News" and hardly something that people would turn their lives upside-down for (or die) if it meant as little as media makes it out to be. The Way would not have caught on as an international, inclusive, indelible faith and spread like wild-fire through a withered, self-centered society consumed with its own greatness, and lacking in mercy, truth, and love. In the darkness, people are drawn to the light.

For the early Christians, the Biblical message of God's plan of salvation through Jesus was the "Good News" because it offered a truthful, dependable, refreshing take on life with God and each other. It allowed them to be human, affirmed God’s love despite their faults, and promoted a positive but realistic outlook on life that benefitted everyone. For them, it wasn't one way to the divine; it was the only way. John 17:3 states, "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Orthodoxy was not a political position. Something was "orthodox" because it was true, not artificial nor fraudulent, and it had to be a powerful truth.

The Bible (including the New Testament) calls people to live Godly, holy lives fighting against their destructive human instincts. It requires Christians to take the righteous path and bravely suggest that others do likewise for a better, healthier relationship with each other and God. It suggests that each believer “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people." ~ Jude 1:3

Why? Because the accounts are true. Because there really is a God. Because Jesus really died for the sins of the world. Because Moses and the Hebrews really crossed the Red Sea. Because David really did slay a giant. Because this really is one incredible 6,000–year story worth learning about.

“The best view comes after the hardest climb.”

One of the most disastrous shams to have occurred in postmodernity is the socialist presumption that one's achieved status (what you've accomplished) is less important than one's ascribed status (what you were born as) for entrance into higher education.

To justify university admission "because I'm a man/woman," "because I'm Black/White," "because I'm rich/poor" is counter-productive and irrelevant in an intellectual milieu that formerly required advanced critical thinking, advanced logical prowess, and the utmost in honest self-awareness and self-regulation. Admitting too many ill-prepared students without these essential attributes has turned the hallowed halls of education into the hollowed halls of political conceit and contrivance.***

Historically, the sculptor (the educator) shaped the marble (the student), not vice versa, but today, the opposite occurs, forcing or limiting curriculum that barely scratches the surface of what students need to know for a robust education. It's not "higher" education if the student never climbs above the foothills (or even valleys) to the mountain top. Time to return to a Golden Age of education where attainment is more important than appeasement, where students encounter rigorous educators and not just bureaucratic facilitators.

***I blame the secondary education system for poorly training students to be better thinkers, communicators, and better-read BEFORE entering college.

Seminary Notes on the History of the Third Crusade (Nov. 20, 2001)

I found some old 3.5” discs and a disc drive (all from 23 years ago in 2001) that still worked. On one of them were these notes. Fun to read what 34-year-old John found interesting and insightful (this was before I earned my first MATS in Christian History and Thought)!

The third crusade was originally led by King Frederick of Germany, but the other two kings with him were King Richard from England and King Phillip Augustus from France. King Frederick was soon to meet his final fate while on this crusade. When they were crossing a mountain stream, somewhere in present day Turkey, he forgot his age and that he could not swim—well, anyway, he decided to cross and drowned (oops).

This left the crusade without a leader. So, they appointed the second most able soldier—King Richard the Lion Heart, as their new leader. Richard was a strong king that was always willing to do things for his people. As a boy, much of Richard's time was spent was spent sparring with his brothers and father, which gave him quite a fighting background.

During the crusade, Richard never stopped receiving bad news from such as that his brother John was still trying to overthrow him. Once in a battle against Saladin's armies, Richards horse fell out from underneath him, Saladin saw this accident and sent his servant out with two new fresh horses and a message, "A gift from one king to another." This shows that Saladin was truly a kind person.

Another show of his sensitivity was when a plague spread around Richard’s camp and Richard also got it. The legend said that during the time that Richard was ill, Saladin would send out a basket of fresh fruits everyday, and in return Richard would send him a thank-you-present of two falcons, a prized bird for its unique hunting skills.

When they went home, they returned only with the belief that they had been brave enough to go on the crusade and that they had been good enough fighters to live. They were happy because they were going home to their families in Europe, and the thought that they were definately going to heaven. (based on the word of the Priests and Popes). There were just a couple of problems: they hadn't gotten the land, and many of their soldiers were dead. There was also sure to be an uproar about King Frederick’s death.

Letter, Johan Hus to Zbinek, Archbishop of Prague (1408)

Most reverend father, your obedient servant in the faith and truth of our Lord Jesus Christ! I very often remind myself how at the beginning of your rule your reverence (paternitas) laid it down as a regulation that whenever I noticed any laxity of discipline, I should report it at once, either personally or, failing this, by letter.

It is in accordance with this regulation that I am now forced to make a statement to the effect that incestuous and criminal persons are escaping rigorous correction. They go about without restraint like untamed bulls and runaway horses with outstretched necks, while humble priests who pluck away the thorns of sin and fulfil their duties under your rule in an excellent spirit, who shun avarice and give themselves freely for God’s sake to the work of preaching the gospel, are thrown into prison and suffer exile, as if they were heretics, for preaching this same gospel.

Reverend father, where is the piety of preventing the preaching of the gospel—the first duty Christ enjoined on His disciples, when He said: Preach the gospel to every creature? Where is the discretion of restraining from their toils diligent and faithful labourers? In very truth, I cannot think it is your grace, but the madness of others, that sows such seed. What poor priest will dare to attack crimes or to inveigh against vices?

Truly the harvest is great, but the true labourers are few. Therefore, father, pray the Lord of the harvest that He may send faithful labourers into the harvest.

For it resteth with your grace to reap the entire harvest of the kingdom of Bohemia, to gather it into the Lord’s garner and to give an account for every sheaf in the day of death. But how can so large a multitude of sheaves be stored up by your grace in the Lord’s garner if you take away from the reapers their sickle, to wit, their power of speech, at the whim of indolent persons, who neither reap themselves norsuffer others to do so, when their crimes feel the lash of God’s word?

Herein, alas! is the word of the apostle fulfilled:

They will not endure sound doctrine, they will turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables and will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.

Verily this saying of the apostle’s will receive fulfilment, seeing that charity hath grown cold among the clergy, and iniquity hath abounded among the people, because the clergy have failed in charity and given up preaching the gospel and faithful imitation of Christ. For which of us, alas! is following the life of Christ in poverty, chastity, humility, and diligent preaching?

Woe, woe, woe! the apostle’s word is fulfilled:

All seek the things that are their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ’s.

Therefore, most reverend father, turn your eyes to the things of the spirit, love good men, mark the bad, do not be flattered by the vain and greedy, but delight in men of humble mind and lovers of poverty. Drive the lazy to work, do not hinder faithful toilers in the Lord’s harvest-field: for that may not be bound which achieves the salvation of souls. I would write at greater length; but I am hindered by the toils of preaching.

The Lord Almighty direct the mind of your grace as regards the matters written above, that you may render due account at the fitting time to the Shepherd of shepherds.

Excerpt from Gregory the Great: The Book of Pastoral Rule, c. 590

The conduct of a prelate ought so far to be superior to the conduct of the people as the life of a shepherd is accustomed to exalt him above the flock. For one whose position is such that the people are called his flock ought anxiously to consider how great a necessity is laid upon him to maintain uprightness. It is necessary, then, that in thought he should be pure, in action firm; discreet in keeping silence; profitable in speech; a near neighbor to every one in sympathy; exalted above all in contemplation; a familiar friend of good livers through humility, unbending against the vices of evil-doers through zeal for righteousness; not relaxing in his care for what is inward by reason of being occupied in outward things, nor neglecting to provide for outward things in his anxiety for what is inward.

The pastor should always be pure in thought, inasmuch as no impurity ought to pollute him who has undertaken the office of wiping away the stains of pollution in the hearts of others also; for the hand that would cleanse from dirt must needs be clean, lest, being itself sordid with clinging mire, it soil all the more whatever it touches. The pastor should always be a leader in action, that by his living he may point out the way of life to those who are put under him, and that the flock, which follows the voice and manners of the shepherd, may learn how to walk rather through example than through words. For he who is required by the necessity of his position to speak the highest things is compelled by the same necessity to do the highest things. For that voice more readily penetrates the hearer's heart, which the speaker's life commends, since what he commands by speaking he helps the doing by showing.

The pastor should be discreet in keeping silence, profitable in speech; lest he either utter what ought to be suppressed or suppress what he ought to utter. For, as incautious speaking leads into error, so indiscreet silence leaves in error those who might have been instructed. The pastor ought also to understand how commonly vices pass themselves off as virtues. For often niggardliness excuses itself under the name of frugality, and on the other hand extravagance conceals itself under the name of liberality. Often inordinate carelessness is believed to be loving-kindness, and unbridled wrath is accounted the virtue of spiritual zeal. Often hasty action is taken for promptness, and tardiness for the deliberation of seriousness. Whence it is necessary for the pastor of souls to distinguish with vigilant care and vices between virtues and vices, lest stinginess get possession of his heart while he exults in seeming frugality in expenditure; or, while anything is recklessly wasted, he glory in being, as it were, compassionately liberal; or, in overlooking what he ought to have smitten, he draw on those that are under him to eternal punishment; or, in mercilessly smiting an offense, he himself offend more grievously; or, by rashly anticipating, mar what might have been done properly and gravely; or, by putting off the merit of a good action, change it to something worse.

Since, then, we have shown what manner of man the pastor ought to be, let us now set forth after what manner he should teach. For, as long before us Gregory Nazianzen, of reverend memory, has taught, one and the same exhortation does not suit all, inasmuch as all are not bound together by similarity of character. For the things that profit some often hurt others; seeing that also, for the most part, herbs which nourish some animals are fatal to others; and the gentle hissing that quiets horses incites whelps; and the medicine which abates one disease aggravates another; and the food which invigorates the life of the strong kills little children. Therefore, according to the quality of the hearers ought the discourse of teachers to be fashioned, so as to suit all and each for their several needs, and yet never deviate from the art of common edification. For what are the intent minds of hearers but, so to speak, a kind of harp, which the skillful player, in order to produce a tune possessing harmony, strikes in various ways? And for this reason the strings render back a melodious sound, because they are struck indeed with one quill, but not with one kind of stroke. Whence every teacher also, that he may edify all in the one virtue of charity, ought to touch the hearts of his hearers out of one doctrine, but not with one and the same exhortation.

Excerpt from The Gospel of Philip

Before Christ came, there was no bread in the world, just as Paradise, the place were Adam was, had many trees to nourish the animals but no wheat to sustain man. Man used to feed like the animals, but when Christ came, the perfect man, he brought bread from heaven in order that man might be nourished with the food of man. The rulers thought that it was by their own power and will that they were doing what they did, but the Holy Spirit in secret was accomplishing everything through them as it wished. Truth, which existed since the beginning, is sown everywhere. And many see it being sown, but few are they who see it being reaped.

Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Matt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father."

The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene

Chapter 4

(Pages 1 to 6 of the manuscript, containing chapters 1 - 3, are lost.  The extant text starts on page 7...)

. . . Will matter then be destroyed or not?

22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their own roots.

23) For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own nature alone.

24) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

25) Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell us this also: What is the sin of the world?

26) The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin.

27) That is why the Good came into your midst, to the essence of every nature in order to restore it to its root.

28) Then He continued and said, That is why you become sick and die, for you are deprived of the one who can heal you.

29) He who has a mind to understand, let him understand.

30) Matter gave birth to a passion that has no equal, which proceeded from something contrary to nature. Then there arises a disturbance in its whole body.

31) That is why I said to you, Be of good courage, and if you are discouraged be encouraged in the presence of the different forms of nature.

32) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

33) When the Blessed One had said this, He greeted them all,saying, Peace be with you. Receive my peace unto yourselves.

34) Beware that no one lead you astray saying Lo here or lo there! For the Son of Man is within you.

35) Follow after Him!

36) Those who seek Him will find Him.

37) Go then and preach the gospel of the Kingdom.

38) Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it.

39) When He said this He departed.

Chapter 5

1) But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?

2) Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you.

3) But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.

4) When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.

5) Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman.

6) Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them.

7) Mary answered and said, What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you.

8) And she began to speak to them these words: I, she said, I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to Him, Lord I saw you today in a vision. He answered and said to me,

9) Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of Me. For where the mind is there is the treasure.

10) I said to Him, Lord, how does he who sees the vision see it, through the soul or through the spirit?

11) The Savior answered and said, He does not see through the soul nor through the spirit, but the mind that is between the two that is what sees the vision and it is [...]

(pages 11 - 14 are missing from the manuscript)

Chapter 8:

. . . it.

10) And desire said, I did not see you descending, but now I see you ascending. Why do you lie since you belong to me?

11) The soul answered and said, I saw you. You did not see me nor recognize me. I served you as a garment and you did not know me.

12) When it said this, it (the soul) went away rejoicing greatly.

13) Again it came to the third power, which is called ignorance.

14) The power questioned the soul, saying, Where are you going? In wickedness are you bound. But you are bound; do not judge!

15) And the soul said, Why do you judge me, although I have not judged?

16) I was bound, though I have not bound.

17) I was not recognized. But I have recognized that the All is being dissolved, both the earthly things and the heavenly.

18) When the soul had overcome the third power, it went upwards and saw the fourth power, which took seven forms.

19) The first form is darkness, the second desire, the third ignorance, the fourth is the excitement of death, the fifth is the kingdom of the flesh, the sixth is the foolish wisdom of flesh, the seventh is the wrathful wisdom. These are the seven powers of wrath.

20) They asked the soul, Whence do you come slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?

21) The soul answered and said, What binds me has been slain, and what turns me about has been overcome,

22) and my desire has been ended, and ignorance has died.

23) In a aeon I was released from a world, and in a Type from a type, and from the fetter of oblivion which is transient.

24) From this time on will I attain to the rest of the time, of the season, of the aeon, in silence.

Chapter 9

1) When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her.

2) But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.

3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.

4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?

5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?

6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.

7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.

8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.

9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.

10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.

Galatians 1 & 3 (New International Version)

Galatians 1

1Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2and all the brothers with me,

To the Churches in Galatia:

 3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

 6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

 10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Paul Called by God

 11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

 13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

 18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24And they praised God because of me.

Galatians 3

 1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

 6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a] 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

 10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

 15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

 19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

 21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

 23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Sons of God

 26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The Measure of Martin Luther King, Jr.

As most will affirm, history concerns more than just mere events and circumstances marking the passage of time. It is driven and created by people—men and women—whose lives and actions have affected their community and culture (and beyond) in profoundly positive and negative ways. Thus, it is not difficult to find in the historical timeline poignant contributions of such people as Augustine, Anselm, Calvin, Wesley, and the like. These greats not only touched the lives of those immediately around them; they also profoundly affected the future through their words and deeds. In many ways, what is considered good, moral, and true in contemporary time was established centuries ago.

Moreover, in their brief time on earth, these prominent men and women bravely and honestly spoke of what they believed and acted upon those principles for all to see—regardless of the consequences. They demonstrated their personal character, morality, and spirituality in how they treated others and in their advocacy and promotion of truth and goodness. Regardless of any controversy in their own time, they have become models for all to follow.

With this in mind, an exploration of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929–1968, American) is appropriate and beneficial. In consideration of his life and written works, a deeper understanding of King and what he fought for in post-WWII America can be uncovered. One can see the inter-connectedness of King’s spiritual beliefs and their application for many in the present day. Although by no means anyway perfect, it is evident that, through a careful examination, one can encounter the superb mind, gracious temperament, and unrelenting altruistic attitude of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Brief Biography of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Although King’s brief life was cut short at age thirty-nine by an assassin, his life nevertheless was a full one.  He was born to Reverend and Mrs. Martin Luther King, Sr. on January 15, 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia. Besides a typical elementary education, King also attended both Booker T. Washington High School and Atlanta University Laboratory School. Regarding his own childhood, King stated, “The first twenty-four years of my life were years packed with fulfillment. I had no basic problems or burdens. . . I sallied through high school, college, theological school, and graduate school without interruption.”[1] Considering the social problems and restrictions of his time and culture, King was very fortunate in this regard.

King was a precocious young man and despite not yet graduating from high school in 1947, he was given a license to preach. He was later ordained a Baptist minister and graduated from Morehouse College in 1948, graduated from Crozer Theological Seminary in 1951 with a BD degree. Thereafter, he was installed as the senior pastor of the Dextor Avenue Church in Montgomery, Alabama in 1954, and received his PhD in Systematic Theology from Boston University in 1955. It is clear and evident that King was a highly intelligent and resourceful man.

Beginning in 1955 (until his murder by James Earl Ray in 1968), King was deeply involved in the civil rights movement and other social causes. During these endeavors, King was elected president of the Montgomery Improvement Association in 1955, endured many threats upon his life, had his house bombed in 1956, was elected president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957, was stabbed in the chest in 1958, was jailed innumerable times,[2] led many demonstrations and peace marches, wrote many books advocating for social equality, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.[3]

In the modern cultural milieu of narcissism and self-serving political systems, it is far too easy to associate King with a multitude of social activists who serve a private, personal agenda rather than the greater public good, but this would be a tremendous mistake. Yet, King deserves his day of honor. As one reads and listens to King’s words, it is apparent that his motivation is more sacrificial than sanctimonious, more authentic than argumentative, and more compassionate than controlling. King’s actions and words speak more of a man of character and heart who lived out his inner beliefs with integrity, honesty, and humility.

Character and Social Activism

For Martin Luther King, Jr., being a Christian (and a human being) meant more than just having a passive existence in life. These two realities demanded of him a high degree of loving action, which naturally evolved into a high degree of social action. In King’s mind, every human being, every believer and non-believer, was a “child of God.”[4]  This entitled each individual to the respect and dignity God grants to His beloved creations, regardless of their appearance or biology.  This required certain sacrifices and responsibilities of the believer. He wrote,

“The Christian virtues of love, mercy, and forgiveness should stand at the center of our lives.”[5] 

The believer does not just have the title of “Christian;” the Christian should act, think, and feel as a devoted follower of Christ should, as demonstrated in the Bible. This meant, essentially, that people ought to live out their lives in similar fashion to Jesus’ expression of love to neighbor and to God.

No greater example of this can be found than in the parable of the Good Samaritan. King expressed that the Christian truly is the good neighbor who “looks beyond the external accidents and discerns those inner qualities that make men human and, therefore, brothers.”[6] The life of the believer is not to be a cutthroat, self-centered, isolated, insulated experience. Christians ought to develop and cultivate a depth of perception and kindness like that of their namesake. There is no time or justification for “pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities”[7] for the Christian.

Furthermore, as men and women of proper Christian character, an attitude of compassion should be maintained even for people perpetrating evil. King states,

“We must recognize that the evil deed of the enemy-neighbor, the thing that hurts, never quite expresses all that he is.”[8] 

Jesus’ words of “Father, forgive them for they know not what they are doing,”[9] certainly seem apropos considering King’s aforementioned pronouncement. Jesus’ words were not theoretical to King.

He summed up his call to Christian character when he writes,

“Only through an inner spiritual transformation do we gain the strength to fight vigorously the evils of the world in a humble and loving spirit.”[10] 

King’s admonition seems in complete agreement with Christ’s Biblical example. The Gospel was not meant to just be studied like a dry, outdated, historical tome; it is a trumpet call for the Christian responsibility to share God’s love with the rest of the world. Bringing the Good News to others meant taking care of them, personally and physically. This required courageous involvement in the Christian revolution, as he saw it, going on in America in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Character had to be followed by social application—the two were not separable or disconnected.

King wrote,

“Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the economic conditions that damn the soul. . . is a dry, dead, do-nothing religion in need of new blood.”[11] 

This certainly calls to mind visions of painted sepulchers and Pharisees in Matthew 23:27. For King, it was the difference between saying one is a Christian versus actually being one in word, deed, and attitude. Not surprisingly, King saw this as a call to action against the evils of the world involved in the racial oppression of peoples in the United States and the world. If all people on earth are the children of God, then segregation and prejudice are evil sins pitting brother against brother (or sister against sister) much like Cain and Abel.

Discrimination, based on selfishness and greed, only causes undue pain and suffering, no matter how it is justified in human society, and is clearly condemned in key Biblical texts. Thus, King challenged the racial prejudice that he encountered and stated,

“We Negroes have long dreamed of freedom, but still we are confined in an oppressive prison of segregation and discrimination.”[12]

He further remarked,

“Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals. . . This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.”[13] 

In his sermons, speeches, and writings, King was calling for men and women to rise up and take an active part in removing racial prejudice from American society. This action was to be applied exuberantly, yet in peaceful love. Thus, King called for passive resistance in the style of both Jesus Christ and Mahatma Gandhi.  King wrote,

“Nonviolent soldiers are called upon to examine and burnish their greatest weapons—their heart, their conscience, their courage, and their sense of justice.”[14] 

King could see in history that violence only brought out more violence; moreover, the Bible had shown Jesus’ example of dealing authentically but peacefully with His attackers. King saw these two factors and used them to maintain the loving discipline of nonviolence.  He sought to change the social structure of his time, but in a way that did not compromise the foundation of his faith, which could only make matters worse.  His desire was to fix the social problem—not fan the flames of anger and hatred—and passive resistance successfully accomplished King’s goal.

The result of the passive resistance movement was a productive one, even though the people promoting it often found their well being threatened with violence and hardship. Many black and white advocates of racial equality were jailed, abused, physically harmed (or worse) in their unwavering yet loving challenge of the social status quo in the South. Fortunately, this sacrifice seems to have been worth it, in the end. The goal of desegregation in America was legally accomplished; unfortunately, the ultimate goal of universal brotherhood and complete equality has not been fully realized in greater society, yet, but perhaps it will in time, with a great deal of thanks to people like King.

King has been a powerful example for millions of Americans to emulate in the forty some years since his death, and social equality in America can easily be linked to him. However, no one is an island, and King never attempted to run this movement alone. Truly, he only succeeded because people of all races began to work together for the common good of humanity.

Conclusion

King once stated,

“The end is reconciliation; the end is redemption; the end is the creation of the beloved community.”[15] 

Ultimately, he did not want a reversal of the social structure—that did no one any good; he wanted greater community between blacks and whites, and between all human beings and their God.  Moreover, King did not want vengeance—he only wanted loving justice. He saw his black brothers and sisters suffering under the oppressive weight of a society claiming to be Christian, but not acting in Christ-like ways. He wished to help America “transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.”[16]

Although his chosen path to promote racial equality was often controversial, through listening to King explain his motives and methods, and through seeing the man in action, it is evident that King’s motivation was consistent and noble. He sought to fulfill the greatest Biblical commandment to love God with all his heart and mind, and to love his neighbor as himself. 

This is no better understood in a passage of his “I Have a Dream” speech, given on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. in 1963. King proclaimed to his listeners that day,

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold, which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.[17]

Racial tensions still exist today, but they definitely have been lessened dramatically in the United States because of the remarkable efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr. His bravery, balance, and benevolence in attacking the problem of racial inequality in America should be appreciated for what it was—Christianity at its best. Alhough Luther has been gone for many decades, one can still hear the echoes of his calling for Americans, for all humanity, to daily and bravely live out a life of love, character, and godliness.

Endnotes

[1] Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength to Love (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963), 113.

[2] Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” 1963; http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/resources/article/annotated_letter_from_birmingham/.

[3] “Timeline of Events in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Life; http://www.lib.lsu.edu/hum/mlk/srs216.html.

[4] Martin Luther King, Jr., The Measure of a Man (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1963), 14.

[5] Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992), 21.

[6] King, Strength to Love, 33.

[7] Martin Luther King, Jr., Why We Can’t Wait (USA: New American Library, 1964), 79.

[8] King, Strength to Love, 51.

[9] Luke 23:34 (RSV).

[10] King, Strength to Love, 27.

[11] King, The Measure of a Man, 27.

[12] King, Strength to Love, 92.

[13] Martin Luther King, Jr., Stride Toward Freedom (New York: Harper & Row, 1958), 174.

[14] King, Why We Can’t Wait, 25.

[15] King, I Have a Dream, 22.

[16] King, I Have a Dream, 105.

[17] King, I Have a Dream, 90.

Christmas in the Catacombs

Naamah walked down the main street of Salonika, tightly holding her father’s hand as they made their way toward old town.  The constant wind from nearby mountains stirred up the dust in the road so that the street vendors appeared like ghosts in the smoky, brownish-orange haze.  The sellers and buyers seemed to be in a yelling-contest, and Naamah drew closer to her father, trying to put as much distance between her and the angry people.

Neither of them was smiling; in fact, one could hardly tell that they were on their way to celebrate anyone’s birthday, but who could blame them?  It had been just three days since Barnabas had been murdered--pulled from his home by a bloodthirsty mob, stirred up by the local Oracle who blamed Barnabas for the plague.

Barnabas did not resist them, nor did he fight back when they began to beat him, mercilessly.  To his last breath, he kept praying for them, quoting the holy texts, which only angered them more.   Again and again, he said, “Father, forgive them,” and “Blessed are you who are mistreated.”  The crowd hissed at him like vicious vipers getting ready to lunge.

From the shadows of a nearby doorway, Naamah’s father, Kadmus, saw the horde throw stones at the poor, old missionary until blood ran like a river from his head and his heart gave out.  Worried that he, too, would be murdered by this frenzied pack of wolves, Kadmus stole back to the safety of his home to tearfully tell his family what had happened. The loss was devastating to the whole community of believers, and it felt unbearable.

Kadmus and Naamah approached the entrance to the city cemetery. As he swung open the rusty gate to enter the graveyard, he cautiously glanced around.  The street seemed empty; few people wanted to visit such a morbid location. They slipped through the gravestones and chalky tombs to the back of the necropolis, and entered a small, marble vault.

The chamber, itself, was unassuming with plain walls, no windows, and one modest sarcophagus near the back of the room, but its looks were deceiving.  The crypt contained a well-hidden passageway leading down to the ancient catacombs that lay underneath the city.  A small oil lamp burned on the sarcophagus. Kadmus picked up a small candle from a box lying on the ground near the opening, lit it, and then holding Naamah’s hand, they moved into the catacombs. He said to her, “Stay close.”

Naamah was surprised at the smell of the underground passage. The earthiness was there, yes, but the faint odor of incense and perfume also wafted from the wall niches containing the dead. It didn’t take them long to move through the maze of alcoves before they came to a dimly-lit room occupied by several people—three men, two women, and another child.

Kadmus let go of Naamah’s hand and rushed to the eldest man in the group, and they embraced.  Naamah heard her father softly weep into the old man’s shoulder, and she saw the man gently pat her father on the shoulder.  It troubled her to see her father so sad.

“Courage, Kadmus. This is not the end; it is only the beginning,” he said. 

Kadmus responded, “I . . . know, Thaddeus. It’s just that he was the one who first told me about Yeshua, the one who saved me.” Thaddeus kept Kadmus at arm’s length, and said, “Yes, Barnabas was an amazing man who shared the love of the Father with all he could. Truly, Yeshua would have been proud of him…and you, my friend.”

“I’m not sure about that,” Kadmus said, wiping tears from his eyes.

“Believe it, brother.” Thaddeus walked to a center table in the room with one big, bright candle on it, and said,  “What I do know, friends, is that Barnabas wouldn’t want us to wallow in sorrow for him, because he’s now with Yeshua, in unimaginable joy and comfort, as we all will be, eventually.”

Naamah heard one of them say, “Amen,” and others quickly echoed her.

“Violent men are filled with darkness because their gods are false; they have no hope; they have nothing to soothe the pain in their hearts, but we do. Yeshua taught us what Love really means, and from where true hope rises, like the water from a spring that no one can stop.”

Thaddeus picked up the candle from the table and moved to the wall behind him, which was covered with unlit candles.

“They try to snuff us out, but they can never put out the light of God.”  Thaddeus held up the candle above his head. “And this light is shared by the Holy Family—Father, Son, and Holy Sprit.” He lit two candles near the top of the wall.

“God’s light illuminates the hearts and minds of all who embrace it.”  He lit three more candles underneath the top two.

“Even though some die for the faith,” he said, lighting two red candles under the five; “Even though some pass over more peacefully,” he said, lighting two white candles beside the red ones; “The love of God shines ever brighter with each believer that lovingly shares it with his brother and sister.”  Soon, all the candles were lit on the wall—a mixture of red and white luminescence.  Finally, he placed the white candle at the top of the wall.  The light cascaded down it and the whole room was filled with the candles’ radiance.

“So, as we celebrate the birth of the Savior Yeshua this winter morning, let’s not forget what was spoken to the shepherds in the fields long ago. Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.” 

They all began to sing a hymn, and Naamah felt the warmth of the candles on her face and in her heart.

Post-Reformation Drama and Diversification

Henry VIII Separates from the Catholic Church

Renown for his many wives and supremacy as the head of the Church of England, Henry VIII was a powerful yet controversial king. Coming to the throne at age eighteen, Henry (1491–1547 CE) was pushed into a marriage with Catherine of Aragon (his dead brother’s former wife) and presumed to be an advocate for Catholicism in England. Desperate to produce a male heir (and in love with another woman), Henry VIII took steps to free himself from the former matrimonial arrangement set up by heads of the English state for mainly political reasons.

When Pope Clement VII refused to affirm his annulment of his marriage to Catherine, Henry split from the Catholic Church and created the Church of England, which was Catholic-like in liturgy but Protestant in theology. He spent the rest of his life reforming (or dictating) religion in England, dissolving the Catholic monasteries, shutting down Catholic revolts in the land, establishing common English religious tenets through Parliamentary articles (1536, 1538, 1539), utilizing English Bibles (such as the 1535 Coverdale Bible) to be used instead of the Catholic Vulgate version.

After his death (and with no legitimate male heirs), daughter Mary Tudor Started her reign as Queen of England at age thirty-seven. Mary I (1516–58 CE) was a staunch Catholic despite earlier affirming the Oath of Supremacy to Henry VIII. Determined to make things right once again, she tried to return religious authority to the papacy while ironically remaining head of the Church of England. She wanted England to be without heresy, doubt, or discord. An unloved and unliked regent, she repealed much of the legislation pushed through Parliament under her Protestant half-brother Edward VI’s reign in England. Mary is most infamous for her open persecutions, imprisonment, and executions of over 300 dissenters, giving her the title, “Bloody Mary.”

Elizabeth I and the Via Media

The daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, after Mary Tudor's death, Elizabeth (1533–1603 CE) became Queen of England and promoted Protestant practices that were uniform—thus uniting the kingdom in common worship while permitting greater “comprehension” of the people and a stabilizing the political scene. Never marrying, she received the nickname, “The Virgin Queen.”

Religious life had been violent and unstable for some time when Elizabeth I took the throne of England. With counselors on both side of the religious aisles whispering advice and admonitions in her ear as a young regent, Elizabeth decided to take a more pragmatic and personal approach to solving the political and religious problems surrounding the Church of England. Unlike some of her peers and predecessors who sought to enforce a strict religious belief system in their land, Elizabeth I chose a more diplomatic and encompassing approach to satisfy her religious desires along with her political aspirations—the Via Media or “Middle Way.”

In a time when rulers often set a steadfast religious standard that many of their subjects could not follow for personal or ethical reasons, Elizabeth attempted to provide as “comprehensive” a religion as possible to unite her country under one main faith. This stabilized her country and took the wind out of the sails of many religious factions. True, there were still some on the fringe who took a rigid posture, but the majority of her subjects were able to join under a common bond of worship and faith.

The compromise that she offered was basically a reformed Catholic Church, which followed Protestant doctrine but in an episcopal structure. Thus, she was able to throw off the authority of the Pope over her while at the same time not dissolving the hierarchy that provided power and stability to the religion and country. This may not have set well with the Catholic Church or men like John Calvin, but for a ruler more interested in political gain than theology, the Via Media suited Elizabeth’s purposes rather well.  

The Dissenters

Although most branches of Protestantism in this era agreed upon main principles such as salvation by grace through faith alone and the ultimate authority of scripture, several sub-groups emerged who disagreed (or dissented) with the Church of England's religious authoritarianism. These "nonconformists" were striving for a true, full reformation of the church. To wit, they thought the continental reformers had become too political but the English reformers were too washed out.

As most advocated for religious liberty, they were also condemned as radical elements in society by the state and were eventually made illegal especially after the act of uniformity in 1548, –52, –58, and –62. These sub-groups included the Puritans, Presbyterians, Lollards, Quakers, Congregationalists, Levellers, Methodists, Unitarians, the Baptists, among others. To escape religious persecution in England (and in the Continent), many adherents of these sub-groups emigrated to America, including the Pietists.

The Lollards were a movement who closely followed the teachings of John Wycliffe. They pushed for more pious reform of the church, saying that true priests were pious people and that even pious laymen could perform the sacraments. They believed that religious authority came from piety. They upheld scriptural authority over church hierarchy. They also believed that the real church was the "church of the faithful" and definitely not the corrupt Church of Rome. They also believed in predestination and consubstantiation in the Eucharist (but not transubstantiation).

The Puritans were English Calvinists who wished to purify the church by a return to biblical religion. Even within the group, there was no complete agreement on their methods and so some sects of Puritanism were more separatist and violent than others. Still, all were opposed to many traditional elements of the Church of England. They forbid crucifixes and priestly outfits. They thought there should be no bishops but elders were allowed (based on biblical precedent). Socially, they encouraged a sober life, emphasis on Scripture, simple lifestyles, and honoring the Sabbath.

Another famous nonconformist group in England (and in America) were the Quakers. Led by leaders like George Fox and Margaret Fell, this was a mystical Christian purist movement often mockingly called, "Quakers, " because as George Fox said, "They called us Quakers because we bid them tremble at the word of God." They had no universal set of doctrines; instead, an inner light was the guiding force for members of this group. They believe in the primacy of the Holy Spirit, who had inspired Holy Scripture. A hallmark of Quaker meetings, they regularly waited in silence for God to speak to them and had no official pastor or minister but sought spiritual judgment through consensus. Over the years, they've been called many different names: Seekers, Friends, Children of Light, the Saints, and so on.

The German Spark That Lit the Church on Fire

Somewhat unsurprisingly, the Middle Ages ended as turbulently as they began. The church itself had undergone a great transformation from its lowly beginnings in the third century to the height of power and opulence in the 14th century. Sadly, it often became hard to see healthy spirituality within the church institution because of the secular tainting that had occurred over the centuries. This originated in two different ways. First, the training of priests was all too often perfunctory and unchallenging. Often times, priests and bishops might purchase their clergy/ office positions (also called simony), leading to a corruption of personal religious integrity. Second, the church had grown rich and rotten, living more in the world of man than the world of God. There was a general worldliness about about the system with its opulence, nepotism, and pluralism abundantly embraced by its leaders in a faith that demanded purity,  honesty, and sacrifice.

All this reached a head with the invention of the Gutenberg Press that launched Europe into a new literacy and print culture, providing people with new opportunities and abilities to share information in faster, better ways. Moreover, the Reformation just did not begin in the 1500s. There were several forerunners to the religious change that was about to occur in Europe including Wycliffe, Hus, and Erasmus (among others). These pre-Reformers' responses to the impropriety of the church ranged from stark rebellion to gentle reform but they all had the same critique in mind—the church had grown too secular and needed to repent.

The Reformation itself began within the church itself with one of its most educated and faithful followers – Martin Luther. Despite an earlier career plan of becoming a law student, Martin Luther entered the religious world, becoming a monk in 1505, a priest two years later, and finalized his religious edification in receiving his doctorate in 1512. It cannot be said the Martin Luther did not live and breathe the church; he knew it inside and out.

It was when the church began to sell indulgences (for the forgiveness of sin and removal of earthly penalty) that Martin Luther could tolerate it no further. In his eyes, the selling of forgiveness for sin was not real repentance, unbiblical, and was even more of a stumbling block to true grace and restoration. Indulgences being sold were done in order to finance church building projects such as the rebuilding of St. Peter's Basilica—not for the good of parishioners. Luther was aghast and wrote numerous theses about how the church had erred and proclaimed a manifesto for change, for the church had become sinful and secular.

The church authorities, of course, were indignant and resentful of Luther's "arrogance." They demanded that he recant his assertions, kicked him out of the Augustinian order, and demanded that he come back to Rome for trial. Fortunately for Luther, several German princes in the area "kidnapped" him so that they could help him fight back against religious rulers they also considered to be hypocritical despots. Luther refused to back down, pleading his case in debates with church legates, going so far in one of them to call the Pope "the Antichrist." Luther also took advantage of the new print culture, writing several different pamphlets (which were distributed widely) including "An Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation," "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church," and "The Freedom of a Christian."

Not surprisingly, Luther was excommunicated in 1521 by Pope Leo X and attended the Diet of Worms to defend himself in front of the Assembly of theologians (mostly on the side of the Holy Roman Empire). Luther would not apologize nor change his position, bravely maintaining his theological criticisms, demanding them to show where scripture affirmed their position. His teachings were condemned and so, with no other options, Luther officially broke from the church. 

First, in 1524, Luther said that priests no longer needed to wear the traditional church habit or outfits; he then proclaimed celibacy to be unnecessary and in 1525, married a Cistercian nun with whom he had they had six children, thereafter. He proclaimed two main theological innovations that ran counter to the "Catholic" way: Sola Fide (By Faith Alone) and Sola Scriptura (Scripture Only). Any other approach was dangerous and worldly.

The schism of the church was finalized and the term, "Protestantism," was coined. Later, Lutheranism as religious movement was the finalized of the Augsburg Confession, which detailed the essential Protestant doctrines and the central Catholic Church errors. Other Reformers followed such as Zwingli, the Swiss Reformer who died during the Swiss Civil War, Anabaptists Conrad Grebel and Thomas Muentzer, who wanted to take the Reformation even further, and Dutch Anabaptists Menno Simons and Balthazar Hubmaier.

C. S. Lewis, "A Christmas Sermon for Pagans" (1946)

Beautifully accurate analysis from C. S. Lewis in his "A Christmas Sermon for Pagans" (1946). I think it speaks to the Christian Existentialism of the Postmodern Age.

"As for the ideologies, the new invented Wrongs and Rights, does no one see the catch? If there is no real Wrong and Right, nothing good or bad in itself, none of these ideologies can be better or worse than another. For a better moral code can only mean one which comes nearer to some real or absolute code. One map of New York can be better than another only if there is a real New York for it to be truer to. If there is no objective standard, then our choice between one ideology and another becomes a matter of arbitrary taste. Our battle for democratic ideals against Nazi ideals has been a waste of time, because the one is no better than the other. Nor can there ever be any real improvement or deterioration: if there is no real goal you can’t get either nearer to it or farther from it. In fact, there is no real reason for doing anything at all.

It looks to me, neighbours, as though we shall have to set about becoming true Pagans if only as a preliminary to becoming Christians. I don’t mean that we should begin leaving little bits of bread under the tree at the end of the garden as an offering to the Dryad. I don’t mean that we should dance to Dionysus across Hampstead Heath (though perhaps a little more solemn or ecstatic gaiety and a little less commercialised “amusement” might make our holidays better than they now are). I don’t even mean (though I do very much wish) that we should recover that sympathy with nature, that religious attitude to the family, and that appetite for beauty which the better Pagans had. Perhaps what I do mean is best put like this.

If the modern post-Christian view is wrong—and every day I find it harder to think it right—then there are three kinds of people in the world. (1) Those who are sick and don’t know it (the post-Christians). (2) Those who are sick and know it (Pagans). (3) Those who have found the cure. And if you start in the first class you must go through the second to reach the third. For (in a sense) all that Christianity adds to Paganism is the cure. It confirms the old belief that in this universe we are up against Living Power: that there is a real Right and that we have failed to obey it: that existence is beautiful and terrifying. It adds a wonder of which Paganism had not distinctly heard—that the Mighty One has come down to help us, to remove our guilt, to reconcile us."

Cultural Contexts of the Early Christian Movement

Since the dawn of humanity, people have sought to understand the reality of the world in which they live. A common theme held by these seekers suggests that a supreme being exists (typically referred to as “God”) who interacts with the inhabitants of earth. Many people groups have expanded upon this idea throughout history and offered their own perspectives on the realities of God.

For centuries, Christian theologians have also examined, pondered, and debated the texts of the Bible in search for the true interpretation of scripture. Their studies have brought to the surface succinct tenets of what it means to be an orthodox Christian and what actually constitutes the being of God. In Westernized countries, Christianity has offered the most widely accepted understanding of God and the world. Modern Christianity embraces the belief of a Triune Deity, made up of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit—three separate personages in one. For many, this is a trustworthy explanation of the nature of God; for others, it is not so cut and dry.

These skeptics are quick to point out that amidst the formulation of religions such as Christianity, there has been much cultural, political, and social change surrounding them. Because of the ageless interactions between nations, cultures, and beliefs, many skeptic claim that unseen influences have occurred, surely influencing Christian beliefs from what they may have been, originally. These doubters sense controversy concerning the possible intersections of other religions with early Christianity—such as from African, Persian, and Greek/Roman cultures. These challenges may have some merit, so, in the interest of truth, an investigation is warranted. 

To this end, this article will first offer to the reader a general understanding of who and what orthodox Christianity believes God to be.  Secondly, the reader will be presented with the rudimentary beliefs of several religions that the early Christians would have come into contact with in their lives. Furthermore, the possibility of historical inconsistencies and weak theological integrity of these various religions will be touched upon, briefly. From these surveys, it will hopefully shed light on whether early Christianity borrowed any doctrinal ideas in the understanding of God from their regional neighbors.  

The Christian Understanding of God

Perhaps the clearest example of the Christian orthodox view of God comes from the Nicene Creed—a statement of faith composed by the early Church by the Church Council at Nicæa in 325 CE, under the authority of Constantine the Great.[1] In it, the basic understanding of God and Christianity was articulated (as well as someone so transcendent can be). The Nicene Creed states,

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made...We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and  glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and  apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.[2]

God is seen as the creator but also as a person, one with Jesus, His son, who is also God and one with the Holy Spirit, who is also God. Thus, the orthodox view of God is as a Triune entity, made up three distinctive yet encompassing persons. The key statement from the Nicene Creed for this paper’s purposes is, “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.” One can see that the statement promotes the Trinity as more than just a force or simple personage. God is a complex being, made up of three members who intricately share in their lives together—Father, Son, and Spirit.

Of course, this understanding is not without problems. The reality of the Trinity is a difficult concept to understand and questions have arisen over the centuries as to its origins. Many skeptics have pointed out that though the New Testament is replete with references to the Holy Spirit, the Old Testament lacks similar proof. Yet, although the same exact terms may not necessarily be used in both Testaments, nevertheless, a clear presentation of the Holy Spirit as Hiss own person can be perceived from a variety of scriptural sources.

Genesis 1:2 states, “The Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.”  Note the author of Genesis purposefully chose the words, “Spirit of God” and not just “God.” Genesis 1:26 states, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” The use of “us” and “our” indicate plurality of persons, not singularity. Exodus 31:3 further states, “And I have filled him with the Spirit of God.” Again, the Spirit is spoken of as a real entity, not just a mood or passion. The Spirit is seen to have purpose and intent in its actions. 

These verses demonstrate that the Spirit of God, as a unique personage with and in God, was included in the Biblical texts from 2500-4000 BCE.[3] As such, the Old Testament and New Testaments are still able to make claims to a monotheistic God. Other religions may make similar claims to Christianity, but the authenticity of their sources is often suspect due to the time frame of their arrival on the religious scene, dubious authorship, and unsanctioned alterations or additions. 

As mentioned earlier, for a full examination of the question of extra-cultural influence on early Christianity, it is essential that the religions surrounding the early Christians be inspected. Therefore, three main regions will be examined—Africa to the south, Persia to the East, and Northern Europe.

The African Understanding of God

In considering the African understanding of God, it must be acknowledged that owing to the size of that continent, a great number of divergent theologies exist.  So, to narrow down African Theistic thought to a few concepts is difficult, to say the least. However, in the pursuit of truth, some generalizations will be made. 

First of all, the “most minimal and fundamental idea about God, found in all African societies”[4] has God as “the Supreme Being.”[5] He is considered “omniscient”[6] and “knows everything, observes everything and hears everything, without limitation and without exception.”[7] At this level, African theology may have some things in commonality with Christianity;  however, from there on, the theology shifts in a dramatically different direction. 

God is considered Spirit but not in the Orthodox Christian way. For the African people, “In theory God is transcendental but in practice He is immanent.”[8] In other words, although God resides in a dimension outside of normal time and space, He still manifests Himself to humanity in “natural objects and phenomena.”[9] This belief crosses over to animism (the attribution of conscious life to natural objects or to nature itself) and pantheism (identifying the deity with the universe and its phenomena) in a variety of ways. Widening the gap further, many African tribes believe that God “does not eat, and has no messengers”[10] nor family—completely contradicting the life and nature of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as well as the whole Trinity as presented in the Bible.

Perhaps most importantly, the African understanding of the nature of God suggests that “People might know some of His activities and manifestations, but of His essential nature they know nothing.”[11] God, then, is “mysterious and incomprehensible, as indescribable and beyond human vocabulary.”[12] This concept completely disagrees with the Christian view of God. 

According to the Bible, God has revealed Himself in so many ways that it would be hard to say that humanity has no notion of His nature. The Apostle Paul proclaims in Romans 1:20,

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

Moreover, in 1 John 4:16, it states that “God is Love” whereas in African Theology, “There are practically no direct sayings that God loves.”[13]  

This lack of intimate connection with God is further exemplified in the theology of ancient Egypt. One of the more ancient civilizations that clearly should have influenced Middle East thought, Egyptian religious thought was rather superficial. Their theology “did not possess the terminology for the expression of a system of abstract thought...[they] thought in concrete pictures.”[14] Thus, the two most important parts of life to the Egyptians were the sun and the Nile and the Egyptians molded their religion around those forces of nature. 

Furthermore, as the Egyptian theology evolved, “The forms of the state began to pass over into the world of the gods.” Religion in Egypt became politicized. In Egyptian theology, through reincarnation, “The deceased Pharaoh became Osiris and enjoyed the same resuscitation by Horus and Isis, all the divine privileges, and the same felicity in the hereafter which had been accorded to the dead god.”[15] Ironically, whereas in the majority of Africa, God was a transcendent spirit, untouchable by humanity, in Egypt, God was a mortal, human pharaoh.  

Clearly, Egyptian and Christian theology have little in common. There is no Egyptian counter-part to the Trinity. In Egypt, theology was used to govern the people through power and might. In Christianity, love and servanthood were (and still are) the hallmarks of godly living.  Egypt enjoyed many separate and distinct gods but early Christianity had just one God.

The Persian Understanding of God

As Christianity got its start in Judea and Galilee, it is reasonable to wonder how much its Persian neighbors to the east influenced its development. A great deal of trading, both of goods and social conventions, passed back and forth in the Middle East and religious movements—such as the Zoroastrians, who interestingly appear to share commonalities with Christianity.

In fact, many Zoroastrians claim that “It is probable that the Jews were influenced by the Zoroastrian faith of Iran in those days—and took the concepts of heaven/hell, God’s evil adversary, the resurrection and the final purification of the world-the virgin birth, the Saviour, etc.”[16] from them. In addition, they assign a date of 6000 BCE[17] as the date of the founding of Zoroastrianism. With the similarities to Christianity and the claim of an earlier historical origin than that of both Christianity and Judaism, it appears that Zoroastrianism could have a valid claim of being a strong influence.

Yet, appearance is not always reality, and put to the scrutiny of historians, scholars, and theologians, the Zoroastrians’ assertion lacks merit. To begin with, the time frame suggested by most conservative Zoroastrians can easily be debated because “The collection of Zoroastrian teachings was not completed until the fourth century CE—centuries after the early Christian movement began, leaving in some doubt who may have influenced whom in such matters as angels, resurrection, and eschatology.”[18]

Additionally, eight hundred years is a long time to maintain textual integrity during such an intense period of social change and upheaval. Secondly, even accepting the date of 600 BCE as the birth of Zoroaster[19]—(the Greek name for Zarathustra, the founder of Zoroastrianism), the Jews in captivity in Persia had been reading for hundreds (if not thousands) of years of a God of justice, love, and mercy and of the coming messiah in David’s Psalms and Isaiah’s prophecies. To say that the Jews owed their theology to the Zoroastrians is like claiming the United States owes its freedom to the Young Democrats.

Beyond these historical problems, an in-depth study of the Zoroastrian understanding of God shows it falls far short of the Christian view. Much like the Egyptians, Zoroastrian theology is superficial and operates at a more basic level than Christianity. The Zoroastrians worship “a single god, Ahura Mazda, who is supreme.”[20] As spirit, their God “has no size, form or weight and therefore, it cannot be described physically.”[21] The Zoroastrian God, like the Egyptian god, Re, is a god of light and fire, which “is a symbol of their God.”[22] There is a strong dualistic nature to the Zoroastrian God and their whole faith.

Although the Gospel of John also makes reference to God as light, it is presented in conjunction with God coming in the form of a human being, sent to be humanity’s redeemer. In Christianity, this paradoxical and simultaneous ontology of humanity and divinity occurs through Jesus Christ. Zoroastrianism solely promotes the idea that “Humans are responsible for their own fate.”[23] Furthermore, contrary to the Christian principle of sharing the Gospel with the World, the Zoroastrians do not accept converts. To be part of the faith, one has to be born into it. Such an approach clearly suggests Gnostic tendencies.

The Greco/Roman Understanding of God

Christianity did not only have to face pantheism, polytheism, Gnosticism, and dualism in its fledgling days. It also had to contend with the Hellenism of the Roman Empire, which promoted all things Greek—including its religions. This is perhaps one of the strongest areas of debate for the skeptic because the philosophic approach of the Greeks and Romans had a sophistication and depth similar to that of Christianity. The Christian ideals of heaven, perfection, and godliness have long been attributed to platonic influences and most of the Epistles in the New Testament show form and function commonly used in the Greco/Roman culture.

Philosophic approaches aside, theologically, the Greeks and Romans were polytheists, at least in word, and had a number of Gods to choose from. The Roman gods were the same as the Greek gods but with different names. The Romans also promoted their gods in status to “state-gods and were caught up in political religion.”[24]   

Zeus, as the head deity or “sky-god,”[25] stood for “righteousness”[26] although he and the other deities were less than perfect. Often, the Greco-Roman gods suffered from poor choices and ill-fated occurrences. Zeus was often adulterous and deceptive in his dealings with mortals and immortals. Although Zeus was a supreme being, he had a father—Cronus—and a mother—Rhea.[27] Thus, he was a created, flawed, yet all-powerful being.

As the Roman Empire progressed through time, religion became more syncretistic and “a new stress on the demons, the intermediate spirits, and new gods from the east and south came in alongside the old.”[28] The Romans worried little about tainting their faith with new gods. In fact, their approach went hand-in-hand with the nature of Hellenism. The historian Polybius considered the Greco-Roman gods to be merely “an opiate for the people.”[29]  Eventually, much like the Egyptian pharaoh’s, the flawed (and often unbalanced)Roman emperors even began to be worshiped as divine.[30]

Suggesting that Christians borrowed their doctrine from Greco-Roman theology is a weak position to take for not much of the Greco-Roman gods corresponds with the Christian God. The Christian God, however, was above all one of purity, love, and goodness, but the Greco-Roman Gods were more like mortals with special powers (think “postmodern Avengers”). The Christian God required piety and self-control, but Greco-Roman gods (like Bacchus and Mars) promoted lustful, epicurean living.  In a strong sense, then, the Greco-Roman gods probably would have been considered by the early Christians as models of everything bad and therefore, undesirable.

Conclusion

By casually reviewing the various religions surrounding the early Christian church, it is easy to superficially presume that it might seem realistic that some elements of Christianity may have been borrowed from other cultures. There are hazy similarities that could lead one to propose such a theory. Terminology and religious metaphors are tossed around in such a fashion as to imply sameness. 

However, upon deeper inspection, it is clear that in most cases, in principle, early Christianity operated on a much different depth than other religions. Whereas most other religions appeared to focus on humanity’s role in life, Christianity mandated focusing on a pure and holy God. This surely lead to a high standard of consistency and integrity and one demonstrated by the words of John in the New Testament. He writes,

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this, you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.”

Likewise, in the present time of syncretistic embrace and substitutional pretense, the postmodern church should heed John’s words and keep its eyes Heavenward toward a Triune God who is authentically and authoritatively one in Person, Spirit, and Love.

Bibliography

Breasted, James. Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt. Philadelphia: University of Pennslyvania Press, 1972.

Hailey, Henry, ed. Halley’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965.

Havewala, Porus Homi, “Who are the Zoroastrians,” [Online] August 6, 2001,                                          <http://members.ozemail.com.au/~zarathus/zor33.html>

Jeffers, James. The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament. Illinois: InterVarsity, 1999.

Keller, Werner. The Bible As History. New York: Bantam, 1980.

Mbiti, John. African Religions and Philosophy. New York: Anchor, 1970.

Mistry, Pervin J., “Spirituality in Zoroastrianism,” [Online] August 6, 2001,                                              <http://members.ozemail.com.au/~zarathus/spirit33.html>

Lewis, James and William Travis, Religious Traditions of the World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

Parada, Carlos, “Zeus, Greek Mythology Link,”[Online] August 6, 2001,                                       <http://www.hsa.brown.edu/~maicar/Zeus.html>

Parrinder, Geoffrey, World Religions From Ancient History to the Present. New York: Hamlyn, 1971.

Robinson, B.A., “Zoroastrianism,” [Online] August 6, 2000, <http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htm>

”The Nicene Creed,” [Online] August 6, 2001, <http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/intro/lr-nicene- creed.html>

Endnotes

[1] Livingstone, Oxford Concise Dictionary, 400.

[2] http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/intro/lr-nicene-creed.html.

[3] Halley’s Bible Handbook, 34.

[4] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 37.

[5] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 37.

[6] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 39.

[7] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 40.

[8] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 43.

[9] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 43.

[10] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 43.

[11] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 45.

[12] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 45.

[13] Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 49.

[14] Breasted, Development of Religion and Thought, 8–9.

[15] Breasted, Development of Religion and Thought, 39.

[16] Havewala, “Who are the Zoroastrians.”  

[17]  Robinson, “Zoroastrianism.”

[18] Lewis and Travis, Religious Traditions of the World, 57.

[19] Havewala, “Who are the Zoroastrians,” [Online] August 6, 2001.

[20] Robinson, “Zoroastrianism.”

[21] Mistry, “Spirituality in Zoroastrianism.”

[22] Mistry, “Spirituality in Zoroastrianism.”

[23] Mistry, “Spirituality in Zoroastrianism.”

[24] Parrinder, World Religions, 149.

[25] Parrinder, World Religions, 147.

[26] Parrinder, World Religions, 148.

[27] http://www.hsa.brown.edu/~maicar/Zeus.html.

[28] Parrinder, World Religions, 159.

[29] Parrinder, World Religions, 166.

[30] Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World, 17.

The Greatest Commandment

I love this stanza from 1 Corinthians 13:

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

And I know many people say, "Exactly! Loving others is the only thing that matters. I don't have to believe in the miracles or think that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. Just sentimental love is what I want . . . Ahhhh . . . Wuv . . ."

But that is not a careful reading of the text. First Corinthians states, "These three remain: faith, hope, and love"—not "only love remains" or "don't worry about faith and hope," but all three matter, with love binding them all together. That is great Christianity, truly, but take one of the three out of the equation, and life's questions become very difficult to be solved, if at all.

Asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus stated in Matthew 22,

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments’." 

Notice which comes first—Loving God is the greatest commandment—not just loving others (although that is integral to Godliness). And, according to Jesus, loving God means loving the Law and the Prophet—you know, the Old Testament, the Bible. Jesus loved people, of course—but He had faith in God and His Scriptures first, which gave Him the hope and purpose and power to love others that society considered unlovable until His death on the Cross. To be a Christ-follower means loving God the Father, wholly, and trusting that His ways, His words, are THE path for a good, productive life.

And, by all means love, but start with loving our heavenly Father, to whom you owe everything.  If you hold His Word and His commandments and His ordinances in disdain, if you mock others who adore His greatness and His guidelines for holy living, you are being unloving, untrusting, and unhopeful about God and to others. You are only loving yourself, which is easy and basically self-idolatry (despite what Whitney Houston proclaims in her song, “The Greatest Love of All”). Real love of God and others produces hope, which in turn produces faith, which fosters more love, more hope, and more faith in a wondrous, amazing cycle of relationship, response, and replication. 

So, if you call yourself a Christian, then first pour out your love on God, sing out His praises, tell Him what you are so thankful for, give Him that twenty-second spiritual hug that Psychologists say is quintessential for mental and emotional health, and then let that love shower down upon others around you who are in desperate need faith, love, and hope in their own lives. We must be Christ to the world; people need to see the love of Jesus in our hearts for everyone, including God.

Remember, love never fails unless people fail to love—and it all starts with the Love of God.

Why Is Evangelism Passé in Postmodernity?”

The question running through my head this morning is “Why is evangelism so disdained in postmodernity?”

Simply, it is self-evident that too many people follow gospels of their own making, which are no gospel at all (Galatians 1:6–10). Throughout biblical/church history, many ambassadors of God have shared the Good News from God, which is different from the other vacuous man-made politicized centers of religiosity available in Jesus's time and until today. Yet, although currently many lukewarm assemblies market tremulous paths of faith, their “customers” perceive them to be merely grifts (shams) of self-determinism, whose “evangelists” push programs and profits, but little peace and pomades for the soul. Instead of the transcendent Gospel of Jesus Christ, people are offered a Gnostic (secret) gospel of self-empowerment, prosperity, physical fitness, emotional placebo, and so on. Though they strive to encounter God, instead they too often find a church of humanity—ostensibly, a bureaucracy or social club, which is why they think, “Well, if that’s the case, I’ll just shop around or make my own.”

While that might help them feel comfortable for a while, it brings them no closer to God and they still thirst for everlasting divine waters. To fight off the emptiness of the void, they gather around with other like-minded frustrated seekers for consolation and acceptance. Manifestly, their gospel is 1/2 of the Greatest Commandment (Mark 12:28–34; Matt 22:34–40; Luke 10:25–28). While they may be loving their neighbor as themselves, they refuse to love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength. Ultimately, they stop short and suffer for it. As Isaiah and Jesus noted, they

"Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving" (Isaiah 6:9 & Mark 4:12).

Thus, when an authentic Evangelist comes around to share with them the true Good News of GOD (as defined in the Bible), it scares/angers people because it makes them aware of their own empty spiritual state and the foolishness of their chosen path or community. In fear or despair, they lash out and vilify the Messenger (or worse), digging an even deeper chasm between them and their salvation. It is a tragedy of their own design and making, sadly. Fortunately, no expanse is too far for God to traverse, nor any sin too wicked to be forgiven. Salvation can be found, but only through the Person—and Grace—of God.

King David said it well in Psalm 103 (TLB):

I bless the holy name of God with all my heart. Yes, I will bless the Lord and not forget the glorious things he does for me.

He forgives all my sins. He heals me. He ransoms me from hell. He surrounds me with loving-kindness and tender mercies. He fills my life with good things! My youth is renewed like the eagle’s! He gives justice to all who are treated unfairly. He revealed his will and nature to Moses and the people of Israel.

He is merciful and tender toward those who don’t deserve it; he is slow to get angry and full of kindness and love. He never bears a grudge, nor remains angry forever. He has not punished us as we deserve for all our sins, for his mercy toward those who fear and honor him is as great as the height of the heavens above the earth. He has removed our sins as far away from us as the east is from the west. He is like a father to us, tender and sympathetic to those who reverence him. For he knows we are but dust and that our days are few and brief, like grass, like flowers, blown by the wind and gone forever.

But the loving-kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting to those who reverence him; his salvation is to children’s children of those who are faithful to his covenant and remember to obey him!

The Lord has made the heavens his throne; from there he rules over everything there is. Bless the Lord, you mighty angels of his who carry out his orders, listening for each of his commands. Yes, bless the Lord, you armies of his angels who serve him constantly. Let everything everywhere bless the Lord. And how I bless him too!

Note that David is speaking about a Who and not a “What.” In his Psalm, David introduces the reader to the Being of God—not just the social schedule or activities for the Assembly. David is not acting as an agent for a church or movement, but rather as an ambassador—an evangelist—for the loving divine Entity in his life. David wants others to personally experience the wondrous relationship that he has with our wonderful God.

The Good News of David is that God is—THE—God of action, of doing, of being, of life itself. No community of humanity (or watered-down, polluted evangelism) can compete with the benefits of God. Ponder this: Those who are lost, God is able to find. Those who are hurting, God is willing to mend. Those who all alone, God is open to embrace. Nothing and no one is beyond His rescue. God pardons, heals, redeems, crowns, satisfies, renews, performs, judges, and makes known. In Him is found kindness, grace, mercy, timeliness, charity, reward, reliability, efficacy, understanding, and everlasting compassion, compassion, compassion.

In postmodernity, more than ever, people need more than a spiritual placebo—they need the Person of God and passionate people to proclaim His Power over darkness.