Equip: Reformation - John Wycliffe
The more I have studied for Mercy Hill’s “5 Solas” series on the Reformation, the more convinced I am of the importance of it. This is because large portions of our church history, both dark and bright, have been forgotten; swallowed up by the passing of time. To quote Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, “Things that should not have been forgotten, were lost.” As we begin this blog series we will be looking first at John Wycliffe. Wycliffe is known as “The Morningstar of the Reformation” and was one of the first to call for sweeping change within the 14th century church.
The church of Wycliffe’s day had drastically and tragically veered off course from the pure faith and ministry of the apostles. This infection began to corrupt every level of the Roman Catholic Church, the popes claimed earthly power and authority over all of the nations of Europe. They abused their position by appointing friends, relatives and generous donors to places of power within the European nations (specifically England, the home of Wycliffe). The taxes imposed by the church eventually grew to be 5 times the amount that the English were paying to their own ruling king. Because of this, the appointed religious leaders lived in luxury and comfort both within their English estates and often their foreign homes. This resulted in large amounts of money from within England being siphoned off and, at times, even freely given to the enemies of England in order to finance war upon the kingdom itself! The poor were getting poorer, and Rome and her friends were getting richer.
At the lower levels of the church, the local clergy within England were also corrupt. Monks and friars were perpetrating terrible acts such as the Inquisition and the kidnapping of children from schools in order to fill their ranks. Sadly, many of these practices went unchallenged by the people of England because they were not able to read Scripture, and were too afraid to challenge the sins of the church. Unfortunately, these are just some of the problems within the church during the 14th century.
John Wycliffe, a respected philosopher and English priest with a love for the Bible, could not stand by and allow these things to continue unchallenged. He fought against the belief that the Pope had earthly control over the English government both with Scripture and political arguments. His bold stance gained him many friends within the English government that wanted to end the parasitic involvement of corrupt foreigners. Not content with just opposing church leadership, Wycliffe repeatedly denounced the friars and monks involved in violence, kidnappings and other atrocities. Because of this, the corrupted leaders of the church often tried to convict Wycliffe on charges of undermining the authority of the Pope. But his powerful political friends protected him. He continued to be protected until the charge of heresy was brought against him, and his political allies no longer wanted to risk the punishment of the church (condemnation and excommunication). Wycliffe was never truly convicted, but essentially exiled to the village of Lutterworth. Here he took on a new challenge: translating the whole of the Bible from Latin copies into the common English language. This would allow others to read Scripture for themselves and not depend upon corrupt church leadership that manipulated the text and ignored the Bible for material gain. Wycliffe’s ministry would continue on until he was 64 years old when he died of a stroke in 1384.
John Wycliffe’s efforts in fighting corruption in the church has rippling effects far beyond his lifetime. As the “Morningstar of the Reformation” he was an inspiration and building block for the reformers who followed him. His bold task of translating the Bible into the common tongue brought hope and freedom to those who had never read the Bible. This task has been repeated over and over. Now millions of people have been able to read the good news of Jesus Christ in their own language, and many have come to faith in Christ. The Bible you hold in your hands, whether paper or phone screen, was made possible through the initiative of Wycliffe and other Reformers. In our modern time, one organization taking the lead in the world today is named the “Wycliffe Bible Translators”.
As for me, I am indebted to the brave and faithful work of John Wycliffe. When I open my Bible in my comfortable office or some coffee shop, I do not think about the sacrifices that made that happen. Studying the story of Wycliffe has reminded me of the dark times in our history. Times when Christians were not able to read the Bible for themselves. As a matter of fact, we still live in a world where that is a reality for some of our brothers and sisters in Christ. Please keep them in your prayers and, when you can (or are led by the Holy Spirit), contribute to the work of those who are trying to get the written Word of God into the hands of Christians throughout the world. Words written in their own language as John Wycliffe did 630 years ago.
Equip: What Would You Have Done?: Christian Community in the Vietnam Era
What Would You Have Done? ‘The Vietnam War’ Documentary by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick
Ken Burns and Lynn Novick have produced a searing evocation of the decade of the ‘60s with their documentary on ‘The Vietnam War.’ Twenty-first century cultural and political turmoil since 9/11 have been accompanied by economic stagnation, moral disintegration and a rapid decline in church attendance. But these trends are much less traumatic than the crises that befell families, communities, churches and the nation in a single decade between 1961 and 1971. Since this is the decade in which I came of age, the documentary raises a serious question. How was my Christian faith shaped by this era? I want to ask this question for the readers of this blog to reflect on their own faith. What would you have done?
‘The Vietnam War’ juxtaposes the confidence and cohesion of American culture at the beginning of the 60s with the violence and division at the end of the decade. Just a few of the highlights:
- Kennedy’s inaugural promise “To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny,” was followed by the insertion of “advisors” who fought alongside the Vietnamese Army against the National Liberation Front (Viet Cong). The government of South Vietnam was so corrupt that the administration approved a secret coup against their president Diem.
- After Kennedy’s assassination, Johnson, without consulting the South Vietnamese or the American public, sent in the Marines based on a controversial, minor skirmish in the Tonkin Gulf. One episode in the series shows the marines disembarking from their landing craft near Da Nang in full armor only to be greeted by beautiful, young Vietnamese women dressed in white. Eventually the Army joined the Marines, while the American government covered up the change in strategy. Private records show that the administration had already concluded the odds of success in Vietnam were 1-in-3, yet they continued to add troops and bomb cities in North Vietnam.
- In 1968 17,000 American soldiers died in one year alone, and another 12,000 died next year. Vietnamese deaths, of course, were far greater. Meanwhile a universal draft swept all males over 18 into the armed services unless they were enrolled as students with good grades in a 4-year undergraduate school. This unusual exemption shifted the burden of war to the poor.
- An antiwar movement escalated into violent confrontation between students and police at the Democratic Convention in 1968.
- Racial conflicts starting with non-violent demonstrations in the South had engulfed large metropolitan areas in violence by 1967.
- Leaders in both these movements were assassinated three months apart—Martin Luther King on April 4 and Robert Kennedy on June 5, 1968.
Would you would you have done under these circumstances? I had three options as a college student: 1) sign up with the armed services and go to ‘Nam; 2) apply for conscientious objector status or evade the draft by fleeing to Canada; or 3) resist the draft and face the consequences. My first choice was to resist the draft. American policy seemed to have misled us into fighting a war against communism which was actually a war for national independence from colonial rule. However, at student demonstrations in Washington in 1969 organized by Students for a Democratic Society, it became obvious to me that anti-war demonstrations were led by anti-American anarchists. I realized war was not the problem. I was the problem. The same sin that made politician lie and anarchists die was in my heart. I therefore chose the first option as I neared graduation. Nixon abolished the draft before I was called up. In between, another option showed itself.
The fourth option was to experiment with new forms of Christian community. In 1970 I helped start a men’s Christian residence on the campus of Ohio State named the Fish House and published a student newspaper called, ’The Fish.’ We had no idea what we were doing other than to confront the culture with a different option for a meaningful life. That was the same year four antiwar demonstrators were shot at Kent State, and Ohio State shut down the university. Our Christian evangelistic activities on campus found a welcomed response. The small beginning at the Fish House has since grown into the Xenos Christian Fellowship (xenos.org). Many other experiments in Christian community started at that time. Chris Peterson, an elder at our church, was also involved in new experiments with Christian counter-cultural communities.
The way we answered the question of what is required by circumstances may not be the answer necessary for today. However, conditions seem to be right again for new experiments in Christian community. Rod Dreher, whose book, "The Benedictine Option," I reviewed in part, makes five suggestions:
- rediscover the past
- recover liturgical worship
- practice asceticism
- center our lives on the church community
- and tighten church discipline
His suggestions are based loosely on the Rule of St. Benedict governing the religious communities founded by St. Benedict (480-543). Dreher gives the following reasons for his adaptation of the Rule of St. Benedict. We need the past to endure shifting currents of belief in the present. Next month we will explore the lives of four Protestant Reformers in our Equip classes. When we use liturgy, we are teaching the church that our faith is old and authentic. Simon Chan, a theologian in the Assemblies of God, has written Liturgical Theology: The Church as a Worshipping Community to encourage the use of liturgy. Asceticism comes from the world of athletic training. Practices like fasting, prayer, study and almsgiving employ the body in spiritual practice. Too often, we forget the body is also part of worship. Paul instructed us to “present our bodies as a living sacrifice…” as true worship. Focus on church community is the topic of our present month in Equip classes, so I don’t need to repeat those lessons. Church discipline is the hardest step to implement. Coming under spiritual authority seems like the last reason for going to church. It is not that scary if we agree that spiritual authority is authority under God’s Word. Coming under spiritual authority is the only reasons for church membership.
‘The Vietnam War’ series is a convenient way to start recovering the past and building for the present by asking ourselves today what we would have done back then.
Equip Book Review: "The Benedict Option, A Strategy for Christians in a Post Christian Nation"
Christianity in Culture or Christian Culture?
A review of Rod Dreher, "The Benedictine Option" by Bruce McCallum
In times of political and personal turmoil, religious communities can provide a sense of membership in a caring community with a meaningful mission. Rod Dreher, editor for the American Conservative magazine and author of several books, has written "The Benedictine Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation" (New York : Sentinel, 2017, page references to Kindle Edition) to document models of communities with a sustainable Christian culture. The New Your Times called it, “the most discussed and most important religious book of the decade” (David Brooks, review of the Benedictine Option, March 14, 2017). The title calls to mind monks in cloistered mountaintops like Luke Skywalker after the Jedi revolt. But it is not a call to retreat from culture. It is a call to rebuild Christian culture from within through practices drawn from the Benedictine tradition to save our own souls. “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (KJV)”
His premise is that religious conservatives have lost the culture wars in America. The crusher for Dreher was Obergefell, the June 26, 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage throughout the United States. Since then, “Christians who hold to the biblical teaching about sex and marriage have the same status in culture, and increasingly in law, as racists. The culture war that began with the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s has now ended in defeat for Christian conservatives (p. 3).” Dreher has written this book to alert Christians to the fact that they face a choice between religious persecution or compromise with surrounding culture. His book is worth reading to explore the survival strategies religious communities have employed to prosper as a minority groups, whether as monasteries, Jewish ghettos or counter-cultural Christian churches, schools or businesses.
Dreher’s prophetic judgment on the status of conservative Christians raises the question of where to draw the line between healthy and compromised communities. To be sure, he laments the slimmed-down version of Christianity studied by sociologists like Christian Smith, who documented a ‘moralistic therapeutic deism’ in the generation of Christians coming into adulthood for whom God is a cosmic therapist who helps good people become happy with themselves and nice to others. These views represent a departure from the pattern of belief in traditional Christianity centered on repentance from sin, faith in the representative death and resurrection of Jesus and a life of service to the glory of God. However, by the time sociologists detect widespread trends, they are second nature. Dreher argues that the only way to return to healthy communities with active engagement in the life of Jesus is through a changed lifestyle.
Sexuality is the lifestyle area most in need of formation. Christian teaching on sex and sexuality is “the linchpin of Christian cultural order (p. 198),” asserts Dreher citing Philip Rieff. “Gay marriage and gender ideology signify the final triumph of the Sexual Revolution and the dethroning of Christianity because they deny Christian anthropology at its core and shatter the authority of the Bible (p. 203).” Since Dreher places sexual practice at the center of Christian culture, a few summary comments on his views of human sexuality are necessary. Dreher argues that Christian anthropology regards men and women created in their gender specificity toward specific ends, and those ends are procreation and enculturation. Marriage is part of the cosmic order meant to channel the generative powers of nature into cultural and social good. Sex is something to be discovered through the practice of chastity and fidelity and not something to be used to express personal desires. “Everything in this debate…turns on how we answer the question: Is the natural world and its limits a given, or are we free to do with it whatever we desire (p. 201)?” Of course, Dreher asserts nature is favorably inclined to human prosperity as shown by God’s incarnation in a human body. Bodily incarnation validates human community and institutions like marriage that sustain it. Gay marriage challenges this view at the very core by equating sexuality with the struggle for human rights. If gay sex is a natural, then gay marriage should be enshrined in law as a human right. Any viewpoint-religious or otherwise-that limits sexuality to heterosexual sex is a violation of basic human rights. No accommodation between these views of human nature is possible, according to Dreher, so the solution is to strengthen the practice of Christian marriage in families and in communities with the understanding that Christian marriage is a minority view in modern culture, with all that entails.
I agree with Dreher that sex is central to Christian and non-Christian culture, along with money, power and religion. Deviations in sexual practice introduce all manner of disruption to social order. Dreher’s contention that Christian sexual practice was the primary change factor in the original confrontation between Christianity and Greek and Roman pagan culture finds support from an important study of romance and sexuality in Rome and early Christianity by Kyle Harper, "From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity." (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013). Dreher’s recommendations for enriching sexual practices through the discipline of chastity(no fortification), stronger families, and parish sodalities are helpful. Where I disagree with Dreher is his limitation of sexuality to anthropology and the natural embeddedness of male and female gender specificity. Two creation accounts in Genesis separate sex and sexuality. The second creation account in Genesis 2:23-25 characterizes sexuality as an expression of personal identity. Adam’s cry of recognition, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh…” is very much an expression of identity, although it is an identity between man and woman who constitute one flesh with different sexual desires. Paul’s exhortation to husbands in Ephesus to “love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…” places marriage in the context of soteriology, not anthropology. Paul’s insight extrapolates from Christ’s teaching on divorce, which revealed the hidden identity in human sexuality, namely God unites men and women in one flesh (Matthew 19:6). For Paul, this mystery is grounded in membership in the resurrected body of Christ. Paul’s vision here is soteriological and eschatological, a horizon in which marriage will ultimately be replaced with the eternal presence of God. Indeed, since the Kingdom of God is already inaugurated, marriage is optional for Jesus and Paul. Jesus and Paul (and Benedictines) practiced celibacy because the strong erotic drive towards sexual fulfillment can be elevated to the sublime love of God—the source of resurrected, eternal life. For Paul, a single man with deep jewish ethnic roots, the elevation of eros can be experienced in marriage and singleness through the ultimate satisfaction of these desires in the realm of soteriology and eschatology.
The generative power of sex is embedded by the first creation account in the cultural sphere as a moral duty to rule over nature. The Hebrew words for male and female in Genesis 1:27 (zākār, nᵉqēbâ) signify non-cognate, gender specific human beings, each bearing the image of God. While gender is common to all sexual reproduction, it is only with male and female human beings that gender is ascribed as a unique creation of God. Sexual reproduction has a cultural function insofar as the divine mandate directs human beings to reproduce and rule over nature. It’s not simply being male or female; it’s how one behaves as male or female. Recent research in human biology has shown that gender has a cultural dimension (William R. Rice, Urban Friberg and Sergey Gavrilets, “Sexually antagonistic epigenetic marks that canalize sexually dimorphic development,” Molecular Ecology [2016], 25: 1812-22). Gonadal sex is fixed at conception, but secondary male/female traits are molded during fetal growth by exposure to the enzyme testosterone. Epigenetic factors modify sensitivity to testosterone such that secondary traits like body hair and sexual attraction can be differentially expressed in early childhood and puberty. Epigenetic traits are usually erased at conception, but sometimes male traits can imprint on female embryos and female traits on males. Although precise epigenetic markers have not yet been found, this model could explain gonad-trait discordances like body hair and same sex attraction. No “gay gene” exists. But same sex attraction or gender dissatisfaction can be manifested within the basic sex differences between male and female human beings. The question is what can be done to resolve discordances between sex and sexuality to achieve cultural good? Medical culture offers surgery, hormone therapy and gay marriage. Christian culture offers spiritual healing to all men and women with abused or discordant human sexuality, while lifelong, heterosexual bonding is the norm for reproduction. Christian culture does so to increase human flourishing, not to deny human aspirations.
It may be that we are in a period of hyper pluralism where surrounding culture is no longer merely indifferent but outright hostile, as Dreher envisions. Christians have spent too much energy trying to change American culture and not enough building up Christian culture. The results are fun youth groups and awesome worship experiences but very little understanding of the foundations of Christian life. It may also be true that it is too late to correct this imbalance with better messaging. The path to renewal is through practice. The area of practice most in need of formation is sexuality, according to Dreher. Parents and church leaders need to confront sexual abuse, childhood exposure to pornography, teenage sexuality, and marital breakdown with fearless honesty. More needs to be done to support and encourage chaste, single lifestyles. Christians must prioritize social interaction with other Christians to give and receive spiritual encouragement at a personal level where sexuality is experienced. Cultural formation is not an accidental product of Christian conversion. Adherence to a biblical Christian sexual ethic must be enforced through example, pastoral leadership and church discipline. We can be thankful for people like Dreher who have recovered links to examples from Christian tradition in the past and present. Those who want prescriptive help solving problems with sexuality will have to look elsewhere than Dreher. Some may wish Dreher spent more energy on Christian approaches to money, power or religious reformation. My remarks have been directed at his explanation of Christian sexual ethics. I believe we can do more to recover traditional Christian teaching on sex and sexuality within a modern culture that seeks companionship in marriage and knows more about human biology than our ancestors. We need to celebrate what G.K. Chesterton calls ‘the romance of orthodoxy.’ Christianity has enriched marriage and health in every culture where it is practiced. Dreher believes we live in an age where no choice is left to us but to practice Christian culture first and not Christianity in American culture. We can do no less if we want to save our own souls.
After this blog was prepared, I became aware of the Nashville Statement on human sexuality signed by Evangelical leaders. Their leadership is a hopeful sign that Evangelicals will not accommodate to the new transgender cultural agenda.
"The Benedict Option" is a recommended reading for Equip’s September focus on the Theology of Community. The book can be purchased here.
Equip is the adult education ministry of Mercy Hill Church. Equip takes place every Wednesday night at 6PM. Equip informs the body of Christ about the Nature of God through Classes and writings such as this one, in order to transform who we are by this knowledge of Him.