Church History According to Evangelicals
My new friend Reed Carlson wrote a blog post over a year ago about how he had found himself in the Episcopal Church instead of the denomination of his youth, Assemblies of God. I just discovered his post Why The AG Has Left Me and would encourage you to read it.
In the post he gives three reasons why he no longer ‘fits’ in the AG. One reason he offers is the disconnect from 1500 years of church history.
"Just a flesh wound."
I want to share with you his tongue-in-cheek description of the typical Evangelical pastor’s Church history timeline:
- Jesus
- First Century Church described in the book of Acts
- Catholics mess everything up for more than a millenia
- Luther saves the day
- Mainline Protestants mess everything up for a few centuries
- Asuza Street saves the day
He says this is the ‘Evangelical’ timeline, but I would like to submit that this is strictly the Pentecostal stuff.
For example, in the denomination of my youth, the timeline would be:
- Jesus
- First Century Church described in the book of Acts
- Catholics mess everything up for more than a millenia
- Calvin makes it even worse
- Mainline Protestants mess everything up for a few centuries
- Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone save the day!
Well, it would be that for someone with some actual knowledge of the Restoration Movement (Christian Church/Church of Christ). The majority of the people that teach in and attend these churches would be horrified to discover that Campbell was a pacifist and Stone denied the divinity of Christ for nearly his entire life.
But, fortunately, they don’t know about any of that, because this is the most common Evangelical church history timeline:
- Jesus
- First Century Church described in the book of Acts
- Me
It’s not that the hand is saying to the foot “I don’t need you.”
It’s more like, “What foot?”
Thanks for the link! I love revisiting old posts. “What foot?” is so true.
What an interesting post. I’ve always attended churches of Christ, myself. So I completely get your references to the Restoration Movement. In fact, if you decide to check my blog out, you’ll see that I just posted about instrumental music in worship, and how I’ve changed my mind from the traditional COC stance on it.
Anyway, great post. I’ll definitely check out more of your articles.
Jack…I wish you the absolute best. I’m afraid many people in the COC will not be happy with you sharing that. Feel free to stop by here any time. I may no longer fit in the restoration movement churches, but I understand them and am sympathetic.
“What Foot?” HA!
I agree that this is an interesting post. I found this link through Jack’s post, and I also grew up in Churches of Christ. I am also questioning some of the “doctrines” that I was raised to believe. My question is, shouldn’t a Christian’s timeline go OT, Christ, Early Church (NT), Me? Should there be a different timeline, or are suggesting that with almost everyone, there is a different timeline?
thanks
Hi Mathias…thanks for visiting.
The post is tongue in cheek. The main point is that between us and Jesus there is an awful lot of church history. For both Reed and I, the Christian denominations of our youth were either ignorant or dismissive of that tradition.
The same could probably be said of the OT as well.
I wonder if including Jesus in the church history timeline is too generous. Let’s see if this fits better:
1. John 3:16
2. Romans 3:23
3. Me
There. Now we’ve effectively boiled the gospel down to God saving me from sin without all that bothersome kingdom of God or church stuff.
Too far?
You’ve got to include Genesis 1-3. Interpreted historically of course.
how could I forget.
“The majority of the people that teach in and attend these churches (Restoration movement) would be horrified to discover that Campbell was a pacifist and Stone denied the divinity of Christ for nearly his entire life.”
That’s not necessarily true. I’ve shared those same facts from the pulpit in a number of restoration churches that are quite proud of their tradition and every time those points have been treated as either old news or simply points they don’t agree with. I have never received a response of horrific shock. A couple of people actually vocalized a well reasoned argument that Campbell and Stone’s ability to disagree on such serious issues and still commune with one another is the very foundation of the movement, thus highlighting a strength of the movement that many other traditions do not have.
I think your caricature of those whom subscribe to the restoration movement is too broad of a generalization.
Daniel,
Thank you for visiting. You’re right…I’m painting in very broad strokes.
Nevertheless, outside of Bible college, I never met a person in the Christian Church/Church of Christ that knew or at the least mentioned the names of Campbell or Stone.
Similarly, I challenge you to find a single Christian Church/Church of Christ that would permit their pastor to question the divinity of Christ or to suggest that serving in the u.s. military is incompatible with being a Christian.
Every now and then you’ll find those who say it’s wrong to serve in the military (unless it’s non-combat), but it’s rare. And I’d have to agree that none of them would stand for an elder, teacher, or preacher who questioned the divinity of Christ.
Just to bring it back on point, the point of the post isn’t that all Christians should disavow violence (they should) or deny Christ’s divinity (they shouldn’t), but rather that the vast majority of people in Evangelical denominations, including the one I came to faith in, don’t really know or care about church history.
Which is another way of saying that, for them, the body of Christ begins and ends with their denomination, congregation, or even just with themselves.
My brother and I have talked about this before. In the churches we grew up in you’d sometimes hear the plea to “follow the old paths.” As we got older, we found it pretty funny that for most of these people, the “old paths” they referred to went back no further than the Restoration Movement, though I don’t think any of them realized it.
If they could go back in time and see a 1st Century church, I doubt it would fit any of their notions of a “faithful” congregation.
Joey,
Your point is well met. A significant weakness of the restoration movement is its reaction from Academia. The movement was led by frontier preachers who could preach the Gospel with the best of them. As the movement started to become more institutionalized there began to be a tension between a prima facie hermeneutic and an robust theology that has been tempered by an education in orthodoxy and Church history. Today the latter is still looked at with much suspicion, unfortunately. I think its on this ground we need to engage.
Another reason why I think your statement is too broad because when you’re involved with a number of different non-denom churches you find they generally fall in one of two categories. There are the Restoration churches that know the values of their tradition and subscribe to the mission of the movement. Then are those churches that are “non denominational” because they just don’t want any form of government to tell them what they can and cant do. These are very different categories and often lead to very different church experiences. To kind of lump them all together as one, I think, isn’t fair. It’s not a cohesive body with a monolithic voice.
As far as your challenge, I’ve done both of those things on several occasions at the restoration church I have preached at for more than a year now. Sure people have disagreed with the argument presented and have told me so but we’ve always defaulted back to the foundation I mentioned in my previous post.
Daniel,
There’s no way I can argue with your experience of the Restoration movement. I can only marvel at how different than my own experience.
Would you be willing to admit that you’re not in anything like the majority of Restoration movement preachers?
I stand by what I said originally: there are a few that think Campbell and Stone saved the day and a majority that don’t even know who those guys are.
I guess the timeline still confuses me. I am aware of Campbell, bur can’t say that I’ve ever read anything of his, at least that I’m aware of. I don’t know much about him, and i guess I’ve always looked at the “restoration movement” as an attempt to get back to what the New Testament church was. I never really cared about Campbell and probably still dont. Maybe he failed and maybe there are those who prefer to follow Campbell more than they do the examples in the scriptures. I am not saying that I have the perfect understanding, not at all, as I now am questioning many things.
But the timeline. I guess I want to see it as it should be and not as it is or is thought to be. I may have erroneous ideas on some issues, but there were congregations in the bible that did as well and the point was to iron them out and get back on the strait and narrow. Sure LOVE is the focus, or at least LOVE GOD is. But as is written, if you love me, you’ll keep my commandments. And we are to “study to show ourselves approved before God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed” 2Tim2:15.
I don’t think the issue should be Campbell or Stone, or who ever, but rather the Bible. While I may think many many people dont really follow the “speak where the bible speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent” I still find that it is the way to be.
I guess, I’m not sure what the issue is with the restoration movement either. whether or not it worked out as planned, I think it was the intention that is worth viewing. restore worship and service to God to what it was in the NT. Shouldn’t a Christian strive to know more of the scriptures and follow them? if we do something different that what they show, are we doing God’s will or someone else’s?
1 thess 5:21 prove all things. we should prove what we do through the scriptures, which is what the restoration movement at least attempted to do, whether successful or not. I just think that is what was beneficial from it. a reminder that the Church is our Lord’s, and not ours to organize how we see fit. The Church of Christ, is just that I believe, Christ’s Church. there is no written creed, and while people are influenced by the “old paths” that Jack referred to earlier, it is the people who mess it up. the non denominational approach with Christ as the head, still seems to be the correct approach, at least as I see it now, from the NT.
I guess the timeline should really look something like:
OT
NT and that’s it. Shouldn’t we live according to the NT?
sorry for the length, I actually have much more in my mind, but time, and lack of ability…