Thanks for visiting my blog, Serving Bread. Here you'll read stories, insights, reflections and ramblings from a campus minister, father, husband and Jesus-follower. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Thanks to my enrollment in a “Missions’ History” class through Fuller Seminar, I am even more fascinated by the history of the expansion of the church. Friends, our history is rich: at times beautiful and at times embarrassing. An interesting theme that has come to surface is the role that renewal movements play in the life of missions and the larger church.
These movements tend to arise within the context of the church to bring a correction to the direction of the church. But within a generation, these movements realize that the only way for the vision to survive is to break away from the very church system it was trying to renew.
For example, Martin Luther never intended that his challenge to the direction of the Catholic Church would spawn off a denominational schism that continues to exist today where Christians (at least in the west) are divided between Protestants and Catholics. Luther intended to bring correction, not division, to the church.
Another fascinating cycle of renewal movements is with the Anglican Church or Church of England. The Church of England’s beginnings is more complex than simply that King Henry VIII wanted to annul his marriage, but that the Pope in Rome would not allow it, so he split from Rome. The church in what is known today as the British Isles had a variety of influences that always caused conflict (cultural and theological) with Rome.
Rome never quite knew how to interact with Celtic spirituality. The Celtic Christian movement was much more missional in its focus, particularly in their interaction with other pagan tribal groups. And if the story of St. Patrick inspires us, he exemplified a spirituality that focuses on mission rather than maintenance.
So when Henry VIII broke from Rome, the marriage issue was the last straw in a long line of conflicts between the two centers of spirituality. The Church of England brought some reforms (also known as the English Reformation) to Christianity, which included a more emphasis on scripture and a lifting of the celibacy requirement for priests.
About two centuries later, Anglicanism had pretty much been infused in all aspects of Christian life. Nominalism became more common. And out of that context rose John Wesley. His holiness movement and his emphasis on loving the poor began to gain momentum in the Church of England. These ‘radicals’ were to be known (derogatively) as Methodists. Though Wesley and the Methodists had a powerful impact on English spirituality, they never intended to break away from the Church of England. But within a generation, the Methodists had formed a new church.
And about a hundred years later (near the end of the 19th century), Phineas F. Bresee, a Methodist, grew increasingly frustrated with the direction of the Methodist church. He organized a group of people within Methodism who would return to the original intentions of John Wesley—to preach the gospel to the poor. Within a generation, this group had formed their own denomination—the Church of the Nazarene.
What is the point here? Renewal movements are extremely important in the life of the church. There are many reasons why they are needed and why a movement that was fresh in one generation grows stale by the next one. As a Presbyterian, I see the desperate need of men and women within the Presbyterian church to be committed to bringing renewal to a dying church (if I can be bold enough to call it that). Of course, I admit that I’m not one of those people.
But to continue splitting to form something new could ignore God’s work in a particular movement, and seems to encourage a spirit of ‘quit-ism’ and individuality, rather than perseverance and long-suffering.
Perhaps there are moments where a divorce from the ‘old’ are necessary and the best solution available, and perhaps even healthy. The Protestant Reformation was needed. It did invite much trouble to how we see and do Church, but it also brought to the surface important and necessary corrections.
I have many friends who have either returned to or joined a more traditional and liturgical church. They have left the ‘cool’ and ‘hip’ thing that was once exciting, to join something that they once had probably thought to be irrelevant. Perhaps, they have grown disillusioned by a spirituality that promises renewal, but doesn’t offer much.
-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----
|
Related Posts: |
Very interesting post. I have a few thoughts and questions.
First question, you still consider yourself a Presbyterian? Aren’t you a member of another denomination nowadays? Or do you see yourself going back to that denomination some day — once they renew themselves, perhaps? Just curious.
What is interesting about the history of the Church is that aside from the big schism with Protestants, the Roman Catholic Church has been able to, by and large, absorb most renewal movements. (The schism in 1054 with the Eastern Orthodox Church was not over a renewal issue.) I think one could argue that the majority of the monastic orders and even Vatican II were renewal movements. But these movements always maintained the primacy of the Pope, unlike the Reformers. Having an agreed-upon hierarchy helps maintain unity. The fact that many of the Base Churches inspired by Latin American liberation theology are receiving a hard time from Rome may be due to the fact that they question the hierarchy, though there are other important theological issues at hand as well.
That the Protestant churches don’t have a divinely appointed head makes splitting much easier. There isn’t a single thing that we all agree upon that keeps us together as sociological bodies. I say this as one rooted in a congregational tradition, so I appreciate a non-hierarchical polity. I think that you’re right about people leaving traditions rather than sticking it out with them. The fact that we have so many denominations in the US alone is a negative consequence of the Reformation, in my opinion. I occasionally wrestle with this issue since I have left the tradition of my youth. The denomination of which I am a member has two sister denominations, and we all split off from the Swedish Lutheran (ie, state) Church. We were all a part of the same renewal movement among the Swedish Lutherans, but then we wanted to emphasize different issues. Some wanted a specific view of baptism, others a specific view of eschatology, while my denomination chose to emphasize freedom in Christ and mission.
Your last paragraph is the most haunting to me. So many renewal movements start in good places, but eventually develop a tinge of, “We know how to be real Christians.” Such an attitude is always dangerous and harmful, in my opinion.
(Technically, yes, I’m still a member of the Presbyterian Church. I’ve worshipped in a few different churches since I became a member 16 years ago, but have never switched my membership affiliations.)
I wonder how many splits and new denominations were over theological issues and how many were renewal movements that gave up on the tradition they were trying to renew…
One of the things that the professor of the class mentioned is that by and large, the Catholic Church has been successful at absorbing and/or crushing renewal movements. Much of the Catholic renewal movements were through the monastic movements, which gave them far more autonomy than the local church. (And the monastic movement was the primary way that the church did Mission up until the Protestant Reformation) Over time, some of the monastic houses turned corrupt or lost it’s “radicalness” allowing the Church to easily absorb it, and others were just banished as heretical, which basically choked them from having any life to continue.
What this challenges for me is holding the tension of allowing God to do the new thing (as a leader, this requires humility), and the wisdom to stress the essentials of the faith.