b3NjaMiN

The Christian Doctor (Quote)

What makes Christian doctors different from their atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish etc counterparts ?

Love … in Christ
Love … in the principles which are contained in Christs message
Love … in his forgiveness of our flawed humanity

Dr Tim Berlyn
South African now in Mexican waters

Exploring Christian Thought 2/2

p.198

So much modern preaching moves in an otherwordly sphere which does not impinge on our secular existence. On the one hand there are those who are so determined to reinterpret the gospel for modern man that they are 'practically drowning in hermeneutical reflection'. On the other hand, there are those 'who shy away from the heresies that could result and who often go on preaching with an artificially preserved naivete as if we were still living in the sixteenth century.

-

Preaching and ethical discussion today must relate to secular man. There is a need to rescue Christian dogmas from the sphere of the otherworldly and bring the church out of the ghetto and back to earth, to the place where man actually lives in his secularlity and where he 'may' live with his faith. There is concern about the schizophrenic Christian who lives in two worlds - who attends Sunday worship but who finds that itdoes not relate to the realities of secular life from Monday to Friday.

-

Theology is an attempt to address the Christian faith to the contemporary world. As the world changes from generation to generation, so must the form of address. It is therefore quite mistaken to think of theology as timeless and unchanging - 'no form of preaching nor theological system can contain timeless validity and simply be accepted by later generations'. To put it simply, theology must scratch where it itches.

-

The Relation of Theology to Modern Thought Forms, Helmut Thielicke (1908 - 1985)

-

It is over the business of relating to contemporary thought that theologians are most dividied today. The issue, carefully analysed by Thielicke is not whether to relate theology to the modern world. All theologians of any distinction are doing that. The controversy concerns how to do it. Often theologians are called 'conservative' or 'modern' according to their approach. Thielicke recognizes that there exists such a divide, but finds neither term satisfactory to describe the issues at stake - both because they can degenerate into mere slogans and because they do not point to the heart of the matter. Proposal for 2 basic types: Cartesian and non-Cartesian

-

Cartesian (so-called after the philosopher Decartes)

The Cartesian approach is concerned primarily with the world, with modern receipients of the Christian message. This concern is not wrong in itself - indeed all vital theology is concerned with its audience. But with Cartesian theology it becomes the starting point - and in such a way that it controls the whole process. Cartesian theology begins with the view of man as 'come of age'. Christian theology is then built on a secular analysis  of man and trimmed to fit it leading to the erosion of Christian doctrine and a preoccupation with methods of interpreting the faith for today ie. 'continually sharpening knives and no longer having anything to cut' (Karl Rahner). They inevitably force the thologian to edit the gospel and only some of its contents 'can slip through the net of the prior conditions'. This is not the desire of the theologian and there arises a discrepancy between his personal faith and what he can express intellectually.

-

Non-Cartesian

Often called 'conservative', this term is misleading. The non-Cartesian approach is not simply a desire to preserve the past. There are some who simply regurgitate the theology of previous centuries and try to conceal this by using modern techniques of communication, 'which simply deck out the corpse in such a way as to suggest that it is still alive'. This approach is wrong:

"The past which is conserved traditionalistically is an alteration rather than a preservation of the past. The fidelity of unchanged repetition is a sham fidelity. To repeat Luther's sayings about a government unaltered in a democratic age instead of adjusting them to the new situation is to be false to Luther".

Evangelical Faith, Vol. 1, 6:2

Non-Cartesian seeks to be contemporary, meaning that, as with Cartesian theology the contemporary world-view is taken seriously. If we love our neighbour and desire to reach him with the gospel we will not be satisfied until we understand him. We will not simply attribute his rejection of or indifference to the gospel to his own hardness. We must be prepared to ask if it is our fault, if we really belong to our own age. But while non-Cartesian theology takes the contemporary world-view seriously, it refuses to make it normativer. It is not the starting point for theology. The gospel must be actualized - addressed to the actual situation of modern man. But this must not happen by a process of accommodation - by pruning the gospel to make it fit a modern world-view. We must recognize that ultimately natural man cannot receive the gospel - the Holy Spirit must apply it. It is the recognition of this point, without using it as an excuse to avoid constructing a contemporary and relevant theology, that is the mark of a vital non-Cartesian theology.

-

"Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate. [Costly] grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son."

Cost of Discipleship (1937), Dietrich Bonhoeffer

-

The Church of the Fathers (to AD 500)

Between the years AD 100 and AD 500, the Christian church changed almost beyond recognition. In AD 100 the church was a small minority, spasmodically persecuted. While the gospels and epistles were in circulation, they had not yet been gathered together to form a 'New Testament'. While there were brief affirmations of faith like 'Jesus is Lord', there was no formal creed to be recited. The organization of the church was still fluid and varied from region to region, as in New Testament times. Finally there were no set forms of worship, although particular prayers like the Lord's Prayer, might be used.

-

By the year 500, a very different picture had emerged. The great majority of people within the Roman Empire called themselves Christians and Christianity had become the offical religion of the state. There were also substantial churhes outside the bounds of the empire, as in Ethiopia or in India. The Scriptures consisted of an Old and a New Testament - the latter being identical to ours today, with a few lingering local variations. There were two major creeds which were widely used. There was also a clear understanding of 'orthodoxy' as opposed to heresy, especially regarding the doctrines of the Trinity and the person of Christ. The ministry of the church everywhere took the threefold form of bishops, presbyters and deacons, though lesser regional differences remained. The worship of the church was entirely liturgical, with fixed set forms of prayer.

-

Most of these changes came gradually over the 400 years. On the whole they were for the good and reflected healthy growth on the part of the church. But not all of the changes were necessarily for the better. Many today would consider the alliance with the state and the transformation of Christianity into an offical religion to be at best a mixed blessing, if not an actual curse. Many would be less than enthusiastic about the pattern of ministry that emerged and about the suppression of free forms of worship.

-

There were 2 major turning points in the life of the early church. The first came in AD 70. Until then the disciples of Jesus were predominantly Jewish and would generally have been considered a 'deviant' group within Judaism. The 'Nazarenes' could be seen as a Jewish sect, alongside the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes (Acts 24:5). The mother church was at Jerusalem. The apostle Paul had to struggle for the recognision of his mission to the Gentiles. He fought hard to establish the point that Gentile converts did not need to become Jews by being circumcised. But in AD 70 Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans, as Jesus has prophesied, and there was no more Jerusalem church. From this time on it was the Gentile church which was dominant. The leading church soon became the one at Rome, the capital of the Gentile world. While for the New Testament church the burning issue was 'must Gentiles be circumcised (become Jews)?', for the 2nd century church the question was 'may Jewish believers continue to keep the Jewish laws (remain Jews)?' Christianity had been transformed from a Jewish sect into a potentially universal faith.

-

The second major turning point came with the conversion of the Emporer Constantine to Christianity in 312. Until this time, the church was a dissenting minority, persecuted from time to time. This changed rapidly. Constantine ended persecution and offered the church support and official favour. Of the emperors who followed him, only one was pagan. Christianity became the official state religion.

-

The link between the church and the state was greeted enthusiastically by some at the time (eg. Eusebius of Caesarea) and is still defended by many today. But some had doubts from the beginning, and it is increasingly fashionable today to regard the link as a horrible mistake. A number of issues are involved. First, the adoption of Christianity as the state religion led to a massive influx of superficial converts from paganism. This resulted in declining moral standards and the adoption of some pagan and idolatrous practices. Second, the persecuted church of the martyrs became before long the persecuting state church. Legal coercion was used at first against Christian groups deviating from the mainstream 'Catholic Church' and later against pagan worship. The suffering servant church was in danger of becoming the oppressing church. Third, as Europe became Christian, Christianity was in danger of becoming the tribal religion of the Europeans. The link with the state brought problems with it. But it should be remembered that the mainstream of Christian history has been in Christian Europe. It is there that the church has repeatedly undergone renewal, and from there that the gospel has spread around the world.

-

The early church, like the Roman Empire, was divided into the Greek-speaking East and the Latin-speaking West. Behind the linguistic difference lay the cultural differences between the Greek and Roman worlds. The earliest Gentile Christianity was Greek and the New Testament was, of course, written in Greek. Even in the West the earliest churches were Greek-speaking - the church at Rome remained predominantly Greek-speaking into the 3rd century. The first traces of Latin Christianity are round in North Africa and the African Tertullian (at the end of the 2nd century), was the first important Latin Christian writer. In the early centuries the Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking churches coexisted happily, although there were tensions from time to time. Later on, after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West in the 5th century, the two churches drifted apart, later on to become the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches, respectively.

-

Reformation and Reaction (1500 - 1800)

In 1500 papal supremacy over Christendom appeared secure. The Eastern churches, for long the centre of Christianity, had suffered a devastating blow in the capture of Constantinople by the Turks (1453). 'Conciliarism', the doctrine that the general council is the final authority to Christendom, over the pope, appeared to have been suppressed by repeated condemnations. But the foundations of papal power were not secure. Before long they were to be shaken by the earthquake of the Protestant Reformation, and some would prophesy that the pope would retain control over no more than Italy and Spain.

-

A number of factors paved the way for the Reformation. The late medieval papacy amply illustrated the maxim that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and there was considerable anti-papal feeling. Wycliff shows how attack on abuses could develop into criticism of doctrine. The church was in the vulnerable position of owning fabulous wealth while manifestly lacking the moral qualifications needed to justify her privileges to the populace. There was a revival  of interest in the classical past, called 'Humanism' (not to be confused with today's atheist or agnostic Humanism). In Southern Europe this interest focussed mainly on pagan Greek and Roman Classics, but in the North there was a distinctively Christian Humanism, led by Erasmus. The keyword was 'back to the sources' - the Hebrew and Greek Bible and the early Christian Fathers. Humanists were bittingly critical of much contemporary church life - the lives of the popes and clergy, the state of the monasteries, the obscurities of medieval Scholastic theology. But when the Reformation came, Erasmus' disciples were divided. Some opted for reform at the costs of breaking with Rome, others reckoned unity to be of greater importance than reform.

-

The pioneer of the Reformation was Martin Luther. He was prepared to stand alone against the might of the Roman Church. Before long his teaching had widely spread throughout Germany and then further afield to Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. But Lutheranism was not the only version of Protestantism. In Zurich, Zwingli began to preach reform at much the same time as Luther. While he was to some extent influenced by Luther, he was an independant thinker and differed from Luther on some matters. Before long Protestantism was split into two streams - Lutheran and Reformed (or Swiss) Protestantism. Zwingli died young and his place as the leading Reformed theologian was taken by the Frenchman John Calvin with the result of that the Reformed faith is often known as Calvinism.

-

Luther and Zwingli were magisterial Reformers - that is, they introduced reform in co-operation with the magistrates or rulers. They did not wish to break the link between the church and the state. Their aim was not to found a new church but to reform the old one. While there was reform of doctrine, the ideal of the state church, to which all citizens belonged, remained. But there were others for whom this was only half a reformation. The radical Reformers wanted to go further than the magisterial Reformers. This they did in a variety of ways. Some were 'rationalists' who questioned fundamental Christian doctrines like the Trinity. Some were 'spiritualists' who disparaged the Bible and all outward forms. They stressed the importance of the Holy Spirit speaking to the individual soul, the 'inner light'. Some were revolutionaries' who believed that the final struggle described in the Book of Revelation was about to take place and that the godly should establish the kingdom of God by force. But the 'evangelicals' were the largest and most important group. They desired a more thorough reform in the light of the Bible. They rejected the idea of a state church and infant baptism, which inevitably accompanied it. Their opponents siezed on their practice of 'rebaptizing' those baptized in infancy and called them 'Anabaptists' or 'Rebaptizers'. This was a convenient label as rebaptism was already a capital offense. The Anabaptists were bitterly persecuted and largely exterminated, but their ideas survived and have become steadily more influential.

-

The Reformation found the Roman Catholic church largely unprepared. But this situation did not continue forever. The Council of Trent met in the middle of the century to define Roman Catholic doctrine in an anti-Protestant direction and to introduce a programme of Catholic reform. The Jesuits, founded by Ignatius Loyola, were the shock troops of the Catholic Reformation and spearheaded the counter-attack on Protestantism. The heritage of medieval spirituallity was not dead in the Roman Catholic church, as can be seen from the great Spanish mystics John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila.

-

The first 50 years of the Reformation was a period of new ideas. But the living creative movements of the early period were before long codefied into detailed dogmatic systems. The three major confessions (Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism) all became increasingly preoccupied with a precise and intricate definition of their beliefs, and their energies were largely expended in controversy within the different confessions. These especially concerned questions of the relation between God's grace and human free-will. The rise of these new orthodoxies did not go unchallenged. The pietist movement in the 17th century pioneered by Spener among others, stressed the importance of practical Christian living rather than argument about minor points of theology. The 18th century saw the rise of rationalism as a rival to the Christian faith.

-

For a few this meant Atheism, but for many it meant a new religion based on reason rather than revelation. 'Deism' was seen as a religion of reason in opposition to the superstitions of traditional Christianity. Rationalism, being an attack on Christianity from outside the church, had only a limited effect on Christian doctrie, but it did begin to undermine the Christian consensus in Western Europe. A force in the opposite direction was the Evangelical revival, which began in England with the Wesleys and others and spread throughout the English-speaking world and beyond.

-

The English Reformation has its own interesting features. In the short space of 25 years there were no less than 6 different settlements of religion.
-

• Until 1534 England was a Roman Catholic country
• In 1534, Henry VIII made himself pope in England - the 'only supreme head in earth' of the English church. But apart from abolishing the pope, Henry kept most Catholic doctrine, being a 16th century 'Anglo-Catholic'
• In 1549 the first prayer book of Edward's reign was issued. This was Protestant and in the English language, yet carefully phrased so as not to cause unnecessary offence to Roman Catholics
• In 1552 the second prayer book of Edward's reign was issued. This was openly and unambiguously Protestant
• Under Mary (1553-58) there was a return to a dogmatic form of Roman Catholicism
• The 'Elizabethan Settlement' of 1559 returned to a prayer book very similar to that of 1552

In due course, the English Reformation gave birth to Anglicanism, a distinct brand of Protestantism which has proved more hospitable to Catholic teaching than have the Reformed or even Lutheran churches. Scotland by contrast, became and remains staunchly Reformed and Presbyterian. Attempts by the English to impose bishops and the Book of Common Prayer on the Scots served only to reinforce the Presbyterian convictions of the kirk.
-
Christian Thought in the Modern World (1800 onwards)

The Reformation gave birth to the 3 major confessions in the Western Church - Roman Catholicism (as defined by the Council of Trent), Lutheranism (as defined by the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord) and Calvinism (as defined in the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Confession). During most of the period between 1500 and 1800, theological debate took place mainly within these confesisons. This was the period of confessional theology. But that has changed in the last 2 centuries.

-

During the medieval centuries and until about 1700, the truth of Christianity was largely unquestioned within Christendom. The medievals may have struggled with how to relate faith and reason. The Reformation debates concerned what is true Christianity. But whether Christianity is true was all but unquestioned. The 18th century saw the emergence of a significant movement, Deism, which advocated a simplified and 'pure' religion based on reason, as an alternative to the superstitions of Christian revelation. Deism was a rival religion, even if this may sometimes have been thinly disguised by the pretext of returning to primitive Christianity or to the essence of Christianity. Deism challenged the church from outside and by the end of the 18th century the theology of the churches remained predominantly orthodox. But during the 19th and 20th centuries this picture has significantly altered.

-

In the modern world, the Christian faith has had to face a wide range of challenges:

-

• Rationalism. In the 17th century on a small scale and in the 18th century on a much larger scale, people began to attack Christianity in the name of reason. With Deism this took the form of a rival concept of God and religion; before long it was to become an attack on God and religion. In the 19th century atheism and agnosticism (a word coined by T.H. Huxley in 1870) became common for the first time in the Christian West. Confidence in the power of reason has waxed and waned in the modern world, but the attack on revelation has continued unabated. This has come at a time when all traditional authorities are being questioned - not just Christian authorities.
• Science. Modern science emerged in the 17th century, in soil watered by Christianity. While the actual findings of science have had very little bearing on the truth or otherwise on Christianity, modern science has affected Christianity in other ways. The scientific method implies the testing of all claims and the refusal to accept any authority as beyond criticism. This method has been immensely successful in science and that has encouraged similar scepticism towards authority in other areas where it might not be so applicable. Also, modern science has given birth to technology, which has transformed our lives. It has helped to undermine man's sense of dependance on God. As Bertrand Russell aptly put it, a fisherman in a sailing boat is more likely to pray than one in a motor boat. The benefits of technology also make it easier to live for this world alone and to forget about the next.
• Historical Criticism. In the 19th century, historical criticism emerged as a new and more rigorous approach to history, practised by a new breed of professional historians. The critical historian thinks no longer in terms of authorities, which would rarely be questioned, but of sources, which must be questioned and tested. This approach has been applied to Christian history with devastating effect. The biblical records were analysed, often by people whose beliefs were far from orthodox. The Bible came to be seen less as an authority to be accepted and more as a source to be criticized. In the same way, the records of the life of Jesus hrist were examined and attempts were made to present a radically new picture of him. The history of Christian doctrine was also studied systematically and the ways in which it has changed over the ages came to light.
• Secularization. As the Christian faith has ceased to command universal acceptace, society has turned to other ideological bases. For some time, much of the world adopted a new secular 'religion', Marxism-Leninism. In the West, society is based on secular, non-religious assumptions. Religion is increasingly seen as a private affair for the individual, a matter of personal preference, like choosing to join a tennis club. This process has been encouraged by the emergence of a more pluralistic society, where a variety of different religions are practicsed.

-
All these changes have profoundly challenged Christian theology. Underlying them is the rejection of authority. Until the last century, Christianity was all but universally seen in Christendom as a 'given', as a revelation from God which must be accepted by faith. Theological debates between God and within different confessional traditions concerned the identity of that revelation. But since the last century the very idea of a revelation has been radically questioned - not just by unbelievers, but by theologians withing the mainstream churches. It is true that the questioning of authority in the modern period has bad some value in theology. There was been a healthy questioning of ill-founded assumptions. But the trouble is that while scepticism towards established authorities is the lifeblood of science, say, it is more like the kiss of death for theology. Any religion bearing more than a passing resemblance to Christianity must be based on some authority. If Christianity is about God revealing himself in Jesus Christ and rescuing man from his plight, there must be some submission before a given authoritative revelation. But to what must this submission be made (if at all) and on what terms? It is these questions which have divided Christian theologians in the modern era. The significant differences between theologians today lie less between different confessions and cut more across all confessions. This is becoming true even where the Protestant/Roman Catholics divde is concerned. Increasingly, groups of Protestants and Roman Catholics are finding that what unites them (eg. charismatic experience, liberalism, Liberation theology) is at least as significant as that which unites them to their fellow Protestants or Roman Catholics.

Exploring Christian Thought 1 of 2

Read an amazing and fascinating short history of the development of the Christian faith down the centuries from the book "Exploring Christian Thought" by Tony Lane 1984; Thomas Nelson Publishers. Very thought-provoking and in some ways, strangely similar to the issues we too often argue today between churches! How much exactly has our mission field changed? ..... in my best attempt to summarise :)

-

Augustine - p.43-45

In his earliest days as a Christian, Augustine believed that we need God's grace, the inner help of the Holy Spirit, to live the Christian life. But he also believed that the unbeliever can, of his own unaided free-will, make the first move and turn to God. In other words, God gives his grace (or the Holy Spirit) to those who respond to the gospel in faith. But after a few years, Augustine came to a deeper understanding of grace. He came to see that even faith is a gift of God, the work of his grace. 'What do you have that you did not receive?' (1 Corinthian 4:7). Salvation is all of God's grace  - the beginning as well as the continuance. This grace is not give to all - not all believe. It is given to those whom God has chosen, his elect. 'It does not ... depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy (Romans 9:16). Augustine reached these views by 397. They arose from his deeper experience of human nature and his deeper study of the apostle Paul. He then wrote his Confessions, in which he recounts the story of his life until the death of his mother, shortly after his conversion, interpreting  it in the light of his new beliefs about God's grace.

You move us to delight in praising you - for you have made us for yourself and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in you... I will now call to mind my past foulness and the sins of my flesh, not because I love them, but because I love you, O my God... In [the books of the Platonists] I read... that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... but I did not read there that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us... I longed [to serve God alone] but was bound, not with the iron fetters of another, but by my own iron will. The enemy controlled my will and with it had made a chain for me and bound me. Lust had grown from a perverse will, habit had come from indulgence in lust, and necessity was the result of not resisting habit... Give [the grace to do] what you command and command what you will.

CONFESSIONS 1:1; 2:1; 7:9; 8:5; 10:29

While Augustine's mature views were essentially complete by 397, it was the controversy with Pelagius that led to their detailed outworking (Pelagius believed that a Christian could lead a life without sin, with no more help from God than his teaching and the example of Jesus Christ. He did not believe that Adam's fall had done more than introduce death and the example of sin - it did not make sin inevitable). He believed that all men sinned 'in Adam' and that as a result all (including infants) are guilty and biassed towards sin. This bias takes the form of 'concupiscence' (or lust) which rules mankind (of which sexual lust is merely the supreme example). Fallen man is in the sad position of sinning inevitably, yet 'freely' or willingly. He retains free-will and responsibility in that he is free to will what he wants - but he is not free to will what he oughts.

God, in his mercy, has chosen to save some, but not all. This he does by his grace. First comes operating grace. This is prevenient - that is, it recedes any good will in man. 'Grace does not find a man willing [the good], but makes him willing.' It is also efficacious - it infallibly achieves its end, the conversion of the will. This it does not by destroying free-will - but by wooing it. God is the infallible seducer - he wins the soul, but in such a way that the soul responds gladly and freely. Once the will is converted it can co-operate with grace. Co-operating grace is necessary because our converted wills are still weak, and without God's help we would soon lapse. If we are to last to the end and be saved, a further grace is necessary: the gift of perseverance. This is given not to all who begin the Christian life but only to the elect.

[God] extends his mercy to [men] not because they already know him but in order that they may know him. He extends to [men] his righteousness, by which he justifies the ungodly, not because they already are but in order that they might become upright in heart... If a commandment is kept through fear of punishment and not for love of righteousness, it is kept slavishly, not freely, and therefore is not [truly] kept at all. For fruit is good only if it grows from the root of love... That man has progressed a long way... in righteousness... who has discovered by that very progress how far he is from the perfection of rightousness.

THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER 11, 26, 64

Boethius - Conversations with philosophy

In reconciling God's foreknowledge with human free-will: God's foreknowledge is 'not a kind of foreknowledge of the future but the knowledge of a never ending present, ' God sees all thingsin his eternal present' (5:6). Thus God's eternal knowledge of all my actions does not contradict my freedom of will.

THE CONSOLATION OF PHILOSOPHY, BOOK 5

p.74-76 - The Medieval West - 500-1500

-

For Western Europe, the first part of the Middle Ages, until 1000, can aptly be called the Dark Ages. The western half of the Roman empire began to crumble before barbarian invation at the end of the fourth century, and in 410 the unthinkable happened - the city of Rome itself was taken. In 476, the last Western Emperor was desposed by a barbarian Gothic king and the Western Empire ceased to exist. The West continued to be subject to waves of invations - from Islam through Spain and from the Scandinavians in the north. This was a time of turmoil and anarchy, with the near collapse of civilization. The heritage of the past was in danger of being lost. The knowledge of philosophy, for example was limited largely to the works of Boethius. The church provided what little learning there was, especially through the monasteries, which were often oases of stability. There was a brief  respite through the achievements of Charlemagne, who was crowned emperor in 800. The built a united and stable empire, in which civilization and learning were again possible. There was a brief flowering of scholarship during this 'Carolingian Renaisssance'. It produced the one only truly original thinker of the Dark Ages, the philosopher-theologian John Scotus Erigena. But before long, Charlemagne's empire fragmented and viking raids brought further setbacks.

-

Theology during this period was largely confined to the monasteries and is therefore called monastic theology. It was produced in an atmosphere of commitment and devotion, withint the framework of a life lived according to the Rule of Benedict, for example. The goal was not the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, but edification and worship. The approach was one of contemplation and adoration. The thologian was not a detached academic observer studying his material from outside, but a committed, involved participant.

-

On new year's eve 1000, a crows gathered at Rome, awaiting the end of the world. Midnight came, nothing happened and the pope, Sylvester II, blessed the crowd and sent them home. But Sylvester, formerly the scholar Gerbert of Aurillac, was himself  one of the first-fruits of a new age. Greater stability was leading to the rebirth of Western civilization. The Barbarian invaders had been 'converted' during the Dark Ages and by now all of Western Europe was nominally Christian - apart from the Jews in their ghettos and the Muslims in Spain.

The eleventh century was a time of new movements. There was a revival of monasticism, a new 'reform papacy' set about purging the church of corruption and there was a revival in learning. The theologian found himself faced with the question of the relation between faith (theology) and reason (philosophy). One modern writer says, 'The effort to harmonize reason and faith was the motive force of medieval Christian thought.' The impact of philosophy led to a new approach to theology: Scholastic theology or Scholasiticism. Theology came to be studied outside of the cloister - in the university and in other 'secular' (non-monastic) settings. The goal was objective intellectual knowledge. The approach was one of questioning, logic, speculation and disputation. It was more important for the theologian to be a trained philosopher than a godly man. Theology had become a detached objective science. This approach did not eliminate the older monastic approach, but it displaced it from the front line of theology.

-

The impact of philosophy on theology began in the 11th century with the emergence of reason (philosophy) as a method to be used in theology. Anselm used it to demonstrate the rationality of Christian doctrine. Reason had entered theology not (yet) as a means of defining Christian doctrine (which was based on revelation) but has a technique for defending and further understanding this faith. In the following century the role of reason was further expanded. Lawyers had begun to use philosophical methods to decdie or arbitrate between conflicting authorities. Peter Abelard proceeded to apply the same methods to theology. He was not always discreet in his approahc and he was condemned for his teaching, due to the intervention of Bernard of Clairvaux, the last great representative of the older monastic theology.

-

In the 13th century, theology entered a new and more dangerous phase. Philsophy now appeared not just as a tool for use in theology but as a rival system of thought. This arose through the translation into Latin of Aristotle's metaphysical works. These writings presented a new way of looking at reality, a new world-view or philosophy of life as an alternative to Christianity. How was the challenge to be faced? For a time Aristotle's metaphysical writings were banned, but this was only a temporary measure to gain breathing space. Some tried to maintain the older Platonist world-view in opposition to the new Aristotelian outlook. Most influential in the long term was the approach of Thomas Aquinas, who attempted to make a synthesis between faith (theology) and reason (Aristotle). He set out to show that Aristotle's philosophy (rightly interpreted and corrected where necessary) could be consistently held alongside Christian theology.

-

The 14th and 15th centuries brought decline in the church, though some view them as the flowering of the Middle Ages. The papacy suffered its 'Babylonian Captivity', the popes being at Avignon and under French control from 1305 to 1377. The pope's return to Rome resulted almost immediately in the Great Schism (1378 -1414), during which time there were always at least two rival popes. The religious orders also suffered decline. The fervour of the earlier centures became rarer. Numbers fell and corruption increased.

-

In the 14th and 15th centuries there was also increasing scepticism about the possibility of harmonizing theology and philosophy. This process was begun by John Duns Scotus and came to a head in the teaching of William of Ockham and his followers. Philsophy and theology went their separate ways, with theology retreating out of the 'natural' realm and relying increasingly on naked faith in God's revelation (the rationality of which could not be shown). In addition, Scholastic theology became divorced from practical spirituality, as exemplified by Thomas a Kempis, to the detriment of both.

-

The Middle Ages are often neglected, especially by the Protestants. This is a mistake. This medieval period spans some thousand years - more than half the time from the birth of Jesus Christ to today. It may not be the most glorious period of Church history, but it must be taken seriously as an important part of it. The medieval theologians wrestled with the problem of the relation between faith and reason. This remains a burning issue today and there is much to learn from the medieval experiences. Then it was Aristotle, today it may be Darwin or Marx, but the basic issues remain the same.

Miracle Received!!

What a great finale to 2006. Not only was I able to go to Papua New Guinea, but it was one of the best times of my life, well in my studies that is ..... got to ask myself plenty of difficult life questions and obtain some direction during on-the-job training..... Nature was good, but not out-of-this world, probably because I didn't travel too much, culture was fascinating, and amusing at times. Especially for a country that has changed so much so quickly with the introduction of Western culture in the last 30 years. Alas a short 5 weeks, and I suddenly find myself back in Sydney - almost like waking up from a dream. Strange?

And then off again to the other half of my elective, 4 weeks. Met many kind friends along the way, all God-send, esp. during a short period of sickness. New Year comes and goes, Christmas too, and yet again, its almost like waking up from another dream! Rush to church from the airport, seems like I left last week! Started studies again the next day...... how strange.....

Yesterday just finished the accounting associated with travel, organising my 2271 photos, putting together panaromic shoots and printing out pictures for friends in PNG and typing reports for uni. and those who have supported me financially.... God has truly blessed me indeed with so many sources of finances. 3 out of 4 unexpected, well perhaps due to inconveniences by other people :)

And 2007..... ?

Miracle In Progress

OK, here's a great opportunity to tell a miracle in progress.... Alright, suppose I've been telling most people I'll be leaving for PNG on Monday... yet actually looking at the situation currently, there's still no chance of me actually being able to stay and work in PNG if things don't change these last business day!

Lately been having problems applying for my PNG visa at the Commission in Canberra. Unfortunately Immigration demands I have a 'student visa' rather than a 'travel visa' even if I'll be doing only a few weeks there. Unfortunately due to slow application procedures I've only been able to send in my passports last week. Canberra needs certain documents to arrive from Immigration in Port Moresby. Unfortunately they had a power outage, and so everything is broken including the fax. So my Supervisor sent everything in email, only to realise that they don't use their email because of some computer upgrades!! So no fax + no email = no papers = cannot get student visa!

Oh, but wait, I didn't tell you something else, I happen not to do my QT this morning, so I think I'd better do it b4 tomorrow, I've had enough disasters for one day :) let alone an exam comin' up. I haven't called today, perhaps that's why He hasn't answered, and come to my rescue :)

It appears God isn't going to let me off the hook into my own independance eh? Well, so if I DO end up going and staying there in PNG for the entire 5 weeks you'd know it is DEFINITELY a miracle! Let's see what happens..... Am I crazy, perhaps I am....

Leadership and Discernment & Perplexity

I often naively think that the more I grow as Christians, the easier it will be to discern the will of God. Yet the opposite is often the case. In the book, D.E. Hoste (London: China Inland Mission) by Phyllis Thompson p.130-1, DE Hoste is quoted as saying to a friend

"The pressure! It goes on from stage to stage, [changing] with every period of your life.... Hudson Taylor [once] said how in his younger days, things came so clearly, so quickly to him. "But", he said, "now as I have gone on, and God has used me more and more, I seem often to be like a man going along in a fog. I do not know what to do."

This resulting perplexity adds yet more pressure onto a leader. God treats the mature leader as a mature adult, leaving more and more tho his or her spiritual discernment and giving fewer bits of tangible guidance than in earlier years. I just recently noticed it seems strange in Acts, the only times when Paul received divine visitations from Christ, was on during his conversion (early years), when Jesus specifically taught him what he was to write in his letters, and the only recorded supernatural visitation was on his road to Rome to face Ceaser - and here not for deliverance from trouble, but only encouragement through trouble!

Hence what I suspect is that God most often (but not exclusively) speaks supernaturally into those who do not know better, who are ignorant of His Word eg. new convert, dire circumstances), or need it. If many of us who are 2nd generation Christians feel that God seems to grant so few of these, perhaps its because we already have the Word implanted in our hearts, and God expects us to do what we already know!!

It is scary when we are brought up in Christian families and we know the 'mind of Christ' or 'what God would have us do in this situation', because we've read the Bible front-to-back a zillion times..... the difficulty comes in putting it into practice; into sound unapologetic action.

And so comes the answer to a question a CG member did pose to me, regarding having dry desert experiences. I hope you will realize that your experiences are not beyond the reach and understanding of leaders eg. Hudson Taylor. Perhaps as I have said, you are moving into a new season and maturity. Unfortunately I do not see an easy way out, other than forward! There will an increasing reliance on the spiritual disciplines/habits eg. reading His Word, prayer, 'not giving up meeting together like some are in the habit of doing' (Heb.10:25 - Just remembered this was preached last Sunday actually!)

So to anyone out there, if you can identify with these experiences, first do a spiritual check-up, and if you find yourself reading His Word and praying consistently (at times no matter how poor or feeble you think they are), meeting up with fellow Christians regularly, and have no huge spiritual bondages or strongholds, then there is nothing to worry. By all means, keep watch, keep searching, but in the mean time, if you aren't getting anything, you're probably not committing some HUGE sinful act that God is screaming to you to repent. Move on in faith, surety, confident of your position in Christ. Start acting from your 'knowing' , not your 'feeling'. And the clincher is this: "... when the time comes to act, God always responds to His servant's trust."

And finally, I laughed when I read this, that "people close to a leader pay a price too." Says Fred Mitchell on writing to his children when he accepted the invitation to become British director of China Inland Mission:

I have had many a sorrow of heart, and it still remains one of my chief regrets that I have not been able to give myself to mother and you children more. The harvest is great and the labourers few, which means that there have been many calls upon me. I do not justify my negligence, but any sacrifice made by you for our dear Lord Jesus' sake has not been unrewarded.

                                                    Phyllis Thompson, Climbing on Track. p.115

And so I [unapologetically] ask forgiveness from any CG members who as decided to plant themselves in our CG for the long haul, and consider yourself a part of CG and finding yourself in hot soup. But only as far as making your own spiritual journey one of less comfort. But nothing more, because it is for our own benefit and need and so that we will grow to fit into the purpose that God has for each one of us.

Perhaps one day we will look back with a big smile on God's providence and how He has increased your capacity, increased your reliance on yourself (if you think God will do everything and you are too weak to stand on your own feet), and your reliance on God (if you think you can do it all on your own strength on your own agendas) and in the mean time use this as an opportunity for mutual encouragement and drive to push on (Heb.10:24-25), and that He has allowed us to accomplish so much for Him even without holding a degree yet!

Leadership and Criticism

"There is nothing else that so kills the efficiency, capability and initiative of a leader as destructive criticism..... It tends to hamper and undercut the efficiency of a man's thinking process. It chips away at his self-respect and undermines his confidence in his ability to cope with his responsibilities."

                                          RD Abella, in Evangelical Thought (Manila n.d)

Reading reading, yet again identifying with an author's thoughts on criticism, "No leaders lives a day without criticism, and humility will never be more on trial than when criticism comes." Thankfully, I have not had to live with constant criticism yet, as if I were to, I am not sure if I'd still be standing by the week's end! And I do agree with Fred Mitchell when he wrote to a young minister,

"I think you must expect more and more criticism, for with increasing responsibility this is inevitable. It causes one to walk more humbly with God, and to take such action as He desires."

                                                (Phyllis, Thompson, Climbing on Track (London: China Inland Mission, 1954), p.116

Yet link indifference to human opinion with a weak spiritual life, and the result is disaster. Before a leader can say what Paul did, "I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court.... It is the Lord who judges me." (1 Corinthians 4:3-4), he (I) had better first ensure he's got most of his act together, his heart is owned by God alone, to be self-sufficient in Him, humble enough to repent before God and man, and yet willing  to carry his cross further in love.

Loneliness in Leadership

It is a perplexing thought I carried that since taking up cell leadership life has strangely got much more lonelier. Bigger with influence, yet smaller in 'confide'nce. I remember so well when I was just part of a cell, I felt so much of a community, friends around me. Although my CG leader didn't actually 'invest' too much time into me meeting me one-on-one, yet I still felt a firm sense of belonging, accountability, shelter, covering, protection. That was until I was approached by leaders to stand in the ring, to stand in the frontlines, so to speak to replace someone who was graduating and going back overseas. It is then I start living almost a totally different life with the same people!

Because the leader must always be ahead of his followers, he lives with loneliness. Though he may be friendly, there are areas of life where he must walk alone. I was reading how Dixon Hoste said, when he was elected to replace Hudson Taylor in the leadership of China Inland Mission, he said after his appointment, "And now I have no one, no one but God!" When you are are recognised by everyone as a leader, your circle of friends change. Because we automatically confide with our peers, who is a leader to confide in - other than other leaders who are as busy as him!!?

The loneliest preacher today is the person who has been entrusted with a prophetic message ahead of his times, a message that cuts across the temper of his/her age. OT prophets were lonely men... Enoch walked alone in a decadent society preaching judgement, his only compensation the presence of God. Jonah was alone in vast Nineveh, a heathen city of a million souls.... in similar contrasts - Jeremiah, Isaiah. Moses paid the price for his leadership - alone on the mountain, alone on the plain, misunderstood and criticised. And Paul - "You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me" (2 Tim. 1:15), misunderstood by friends, misrepresented by enemies, deserted by converts.

I wonder  whether my leader could identify with any of these, and whether he was thinking straight when he asked! Gradually your peers (ie. fellow leaders) finish off, graduate, go back, start working, get married, or even fall away. We often say one of Satan's ploys is to isolate sheep and kill them off. Yet I find this a necessary step in spiritual leadership, without which a leader cannot function, and invest and input into. After all if he doesn't invest the time in those under him, how is to come alongside them?

This I find is a price of leadership I did not know about when starting. Here is the conclusion, so well said, that I will quote, "The leader must be a person who, while welcoming the friendship and support of all who offer it, has sufficient inner resources to stand alone - even in the face of stiff opposition to have "no one but God."

And so I am not sure, but it is heartbreaking to make decisions to appoint people to leadership, knowing it will have far-reaching effects on the lives of beloved fellow workers - and make them alone and utterly dependant on God. I pray you will forgive me.....

About Time...

"The best use of one's life is to spend it for something that will outlast it." ~
                                                                           William James, philosopher

How we spend our time is of utmost importance. The way we employ our surplus hours after provision has been made for work, meals and sleep will determine if we develop into mediocre or powerful people.

Was reading a book written by Oswald Sanders regarding how a leader should use his time. Time is precious, yet so often I squander it thoughtlessly. Yet I was reminded today yet again that "a leader seldom says, "I don't have the time" because such an excuse is usually the refuge of small-minded and inefficient people." I always without exception should have enough time to do the whole will of God for my life.

J.H. Jowett has said "it is never the supremely busy men who have no time. So compact and systematic is the regulation of their day that whenever you make a demand on them, they seem to find additional corners to offer for unselfish service. I confess that as a minister, the men to whom I most hopefully look for additional service are the busiest men".

I always remembered the time I was challenged to write down how I spent each hour once, and having filled in my busiest week, was utterly embarrassed at the amount of free space left - even taking into consideration huge weeks of university/school, generous sleep, cooking and church and even a movie or sport during weekends. Where does all my time go?

I have always heard of incredible stories like David Livingstone, whom at age 10, worked 14 hours in a cotton mill, yet learned Latin and could read Horace and Virgil at age 16, and at age 27 had finished a programme in both medicine and theology. Surely he had excuses for not studying, for not redeeming the little leisure left to him! What about the habit of John Wesley who divided his time into 5-minute slots, and then tried to make each one count?

I cannot help wonder how the habits of these sorts of people seem so strange to my ears, yet it is they that go on to accomplish extraordinary things.

     The shadow of my finger cast,
     Divides the future from the past,
        Before it stands the unborn hour
        In darkness and beyond thy power; 
     Behind its unreturning line
     The vanished hour, no longer thine;
       One hour alone is in thy hands,
        The now on which the shadow stands.
                                                  Author Unknown

Crying Out...

O Lord, my Father,
Such sorrow, such pain, such burdens
How could I possibly bear anymore Lord?
Such pain and weariness is so heavy
Like a tonne of weights bearing down on my body
A thousand daggers plunged into my heart, I cannot describe it adequately

Moments I cannot even stand,
My feet, my foothold, they slip and falter even more,
My ankles carrying shackles behind them,
My knees crippled with exahaustion
I seem almost unrecognisable in my own eyes,
My actions seem like a stench to me, my own words defile my own ears

I spend hours devouring Your Word, uttering endless prayers to You
Yet I do not feel an ounce of you anywhere, are you even real?
Hear my cry O Lord,
Why do I not see You standing beside me? Why do you abandon me?
No glory, no light, no assurance
Only cold black darkness answer me
Am I meant to bear this on my own?
Why have You asked me to carry what I cannot carry,
To walk where I cannot walk,
To stand where I cannot stand

I cannot continue on like this
At times like these O Lord I am forced to stop and worship You amidst enemies,
Even if I have to make myself a spectacle before them
It is beyond my understanding, my comprehension, my reasoning, my emotions
I see my own frailty, weaknesses, helplessness like a mirror
Teach me anew O Lord to worship You even in this darkness,
When I cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel; yes, even when I cannot see my own fingers on the piano, or utter a song of praise with my lips
To worship You blindly, even yes, to worship in silence if need be

Rescue me O Lord; lift me up from the pits of anguish
Hide Your face from my iniquity and sin
Re-establish my heart O Lord, re-train my vision
Wipe these tears from my eyes with Your hands that bring comfort
Breathe into me Your life once again
Sustain the very fabric of my being, nothing more than necessary
Let my pride, achievements, be of no value or worth to me
Let my past worth, indulgences, worldy pleasures be as a stench in my eye
Have mercy on me, according to the riches of Your grace
Discipline me according to Your statutes
Conform my will according to Your purposes
Disciple me according to Your ways
Counsel me according to Your wisdom
For surely then, goodness and mercy will follow me all the days of my life
And I will dwell in the House of the Lord, forever and ever!

Come to me Lord, come to me...

- > B3n <-