Creation and Covenant: The Story of Scripture

The Following is a story I wrote for a class I took called, Reading the Scripture in the Church. I hope you enjoy it.

Creation and Covenant: The Story of Scripture

Timothy Wenger

BTS 5310

2015-04-10

Prologue: Creation and Sin

In the beginning was God the Creator.

And the Creator spoke into the nothingness and created light. The Creator loves light.

The Creator spoke again and created sky. The Creator loves sky.

The Creator spoke again and created land and sea. The Creator loves land and sea.

The Creator spoke again and created plants. The Creator loves the plants.

The Creator spoke again and created the sun and the stars. The Creator loves the sun and the stars.

The Creator spoke again and created fish and birds. The Creator loves fish and birds.

The Creator spoke and created animals for the land. God loves animals.

The Creator spoke and said “Let us make humans, who can care for what we’ve created. They will be our face on creation.” So the Creator created humans, and they were given the earth to care for. The Creator loves humans.

So the Creator had created, and created a way to care for the creation. When this was all done, the Creator rested.

But the humans didn’t care for creation. They wanted to be more than just the creator’s face, they wanted to be creators.

They created separation from the Creator by not obeying the Creator

They created enmity with each other through violence

They created destruction of nature by building cities

The Creator still loved the Creation, and so the Creator creates one more time: The Creator creates a Covenant.

Act 1: The Covenanting God

Act 1: Scene 1 Covenant with the World

The Creator mourned the hurt caused to creation, and looked at the humans and saw that there was one left who had not participated in this destruction. This human was Noah.

God spoke to Noah and told him that God was going to create a fresh start for creation. The Creator told Noah to build a large boat to hold all of the different birds and animals. Noah obeyed, and when he finished building the boat, The Creator brought all of the different animals to the boat, once the animals were on board, Noah and his family entered the boat as well. Then the Creator sent rain and flooded the earth.

            Noah and his family waited on the boat until the water receded. They found themselves on top of a mountain. Noah thanked God for saving them and all of the animals.

            Because they were created in God’s image, God told the humans that they cannot kill each other and that though they were now allowed to eat animals, they must drain the lifeblood out of them as a sign of life’s importance. In return Creator made a covenant with Noah and all of creation, that God will never again destroy the earth. As a sign, God placed a rainbow in the sky, so that all would remember the covenant God made with creation.

Act 1: Scene 2: Covenant with a Family

            So Noah’s descendants populated the world. But rather than spreading out and allowing the land to sustain them, they created a city, with a massive tower as a challenge to God’s authority. So God forced them to spread out by making them speak different languages, but the humans still did not understand their proper relationship with God, the land and each other.

            There is a man named Abram, who was married to Sarai, God called them to leave their home and come to a land that God would show them. God made them a promise that Abram’s family will become a great nation, that will be prosperous, and that will bless all peoples. So Abram and Sarai and their household left their home. God showed them the land of Canaan, and told them that though there are people living there now, one day Abram’s family will possess the land. God makes a covenant with Abram that Abram will father many nations, changing Abram’s name to Abraham and Sarai’s to Sarah, God promised to give the land of Canaan Abraham’s descendants’ and to be their God. God tells Abraham to circumcise all of the men in his household as a sign of God’s Covenant with Abraham. This covenant is God’s plan to help all people come back into a proper relationship with God, the Land and each other.

Act 1: Scene 3: Covenant with a Nation

            Sarah gave birth to Isaac, who in return had a son named Jacob, and God made this same covenant with them, that they would become a great nation, be given land, and be a blessing to all nations. During a famine, Jacob and his family moved to Egypt thanks to his son Joseph.

            But after Joseph’s death, there was a new Pharaoh of Egypt who did not know about Joseph. Jacob’s family had grown exponentially into a people group called the Hebrews. The new Pharaoh was worried that they might take over Egypt. So the pharaoh enslaved them, making them build many projects. But the Hebrews remembered the covenant that God made with their foreparents, and cried out to God to save them.

            God heard them and remembered the covenant that God had made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. A Hebrew named Moses was hiding in Midian after killing an Egyptian. His father in law, Jethro, was the high priest there, and Moses tended Jethro’s flocks. One day a sheep wandered away from the herd and Moses had to go after it. The Sheep climbed up a mountain, and went into a cave. Moses followed after it and found a bush that was on fire but was not being consumed.

            And The Creator God spoke again. God told Moses that the God of Abraham has heard the cries of God’s people. God chose Moses to free the Hebrew slaves from Egypt and lead them to the Land God promised to their foreparents.

            Moses was unsure that he could do this. God gave him another name for God to tell the elders of the Hebrews: “I AM WHO I AM.” This is a promise that God’s identity will be revealed to them through God’s actions.

            Moses returns to Egypt, and tells the Pharaoh that God wanted the Hebrews to be free. Pharaoh refused, and makes the Hebrews work even harder. In response God sent 10 Disasters on Egypt, demonstrating that the great I AM controls all of Creation. But it took the final disaster, the death of all the first born sons of Egypt for the king of Egypt to allow the Hebrews to go free. After the Hebrews had left, Pharaoh decided that he had made a mistake and wanted the Hebrews back, so Pharaoh’s army was sent to recapture the Hebrews. Moses and the Hebrews were caught between the Pharaoh’s army on one side and the Red Sea on the other. God told Moses to put his staff into the water and the sea parted for them to walk across. Once they got across, the sea crashed down onto the Egyptian army and the Hebrews were safe.

            Moses led the Hebrews through the wilderness. When they were thirsty, God gave them water, when they were hungry, God gave them bread called manna and quail. Moses was very busy with leading the Hebrews when his father in law came to visit him. When Jethro saw how busy Moses was, he told Moses that Moses was supposed to be the Hebrews’ representative to God, and that he needed to delegate his judging duties so he could focus on teaching the Hebrews what God wanted them to do.

            Shortly afterwards, they arrived at Mount Sinai. Moses climbed the mountain and God made an offer. Since God had saved the Hebrews from Egypt, if they kept God’s covenant, then God would make them into a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. They would demonstrate to the world how to be in right relationship with God. Moses brought this offer to the Elders of this new nation, Israel, and they accepted. Moses returned to the top of the Mountain, and God gave him the 10 Commandments that made up basics of the covenant. On top of that, God gave more instructions about how to be in right relation to God, others, and the creation. Include instructions for a tent that God could meet with them.

Act 2: Israel living under the Covenant

Act 2: Scene 1: The Land of the Covenant

            Moses led them to Canaan, but when Moses sent in spies to examine the land, while they saw that the land was fertile, most of them were afraid of the inhabitants of the land, only Joshua and Caleb believed that God would hand them the land. Because of this, God made Israel wander in the wilderness until the generation that did not trust God passed away. Before Moses died, he taught the new Generation about the Covenant that God made with their parents. The people recommitted to the Covenant with God, and God allowed them to enter the Promised Land.

            God then chose Joshua to lead the people of Israel. As they approached the City of Jericho, Joshua sent spies to examine the city. They were almost caught, but a prostitute named Rahab let them hide on her roof, after the city officials escape, they promised Rahab and her family safety.

            When Israel came to Jericho, instead of attacking, God told them to walk around the city. After seven days of walking around the city, the priests blew their trumpets and the walls came tumbling down. The Israelites killed everyone except for Rahab and her family. Israel swept through Canaan, God conquering town after town for them. Once Israel had taken over, Joshua gathered the People of Israel at Shechem and they renewed the covenant they made with God.

Act 2: Scene 2: The Cycle of Covenant

            But once Israel got into the land, they fulfilled their part of the covenant for a while, but eventually they would stop living in right relationship with each other and with God. When this would happen, God would allow the remaining inhabitants of the land to oppress Israel until they called for help. God would raise up a Judge who would lead the Israelites to freedom, they would renew their covenant and live faithfully for a while, but eventually sin again and repeat the cycle.

            One such Judge was Deborah, who rallied Israel and defeats the Jabin King of Canaan, another was Gideon who led Israel against the Midianites. When Gideon rallied thirty thousand soldiers, God told him to send home 29700 of them so Israel could not think that they did it by themselves, rather they needed to rely on God.

Act 2 Scene 2: A Love Story

            During the time of the judges, an Israelite named Elimelek went to Moab to escape a famine with his wife and two sons, while there his two sons married Moabite women. But by the time the famine ended, both Elimelek and his two sons had died. His wife Naomi, was left in a foreign land with two daughters in law, Orpah and Ruth. Naomi decided to return to Israel. She told her daughters in law to go back to their families, but Ruth refused saying that she would stay with Naomi. They returned to Israel. Because they did not have any way to make money, Ruth would go to a nearby farm and pick up the shafts of wheat the laborers left behind. One day as she was picking up wheat. The owner of the farm, Boaz saw her and fell madly in love with her. Boaz told her that instead of walking behind the labourers, she could pick alongside the women who worked for him. When Ruth returned home with the extra food, she told Naomi what had happened. When the harvest was finished, there was a big party, and Ruth slept with Boaz. Boaz tells her that he loves her and they get married, and Naomi was invited to live with them.

Act 2: Scene 3: David’s Covenant

            Several years later, there was a Judge named Samuel. Even though the people knew that God was supposed to be their leader, they wanted a king like the nations around them. Samuel and God tried to dissuade them, but the people were adamant. God relented and allowed them to have a king, as long as God got to choose it. God’s first choice, Saul, did well initially, but eventually became too power hungry, so God chose another, David, the youngest child of a shepherd, the grandson of Ruth.

            David turned out to be a better King. He brought peace to the kingdom and even though he committed significant sins, he truly desired to obey God. When David tried to build a temple for God. God refuses to allow David, a warrior king to build God’s Temple, rather God makes another covenant. God will make David’s name great, and David will always have an heir to the thrown in Jerusalem.

Act 2: Scene 4: Kings and Prophets

            God allowed David’s son Solomon to build God a temple. Solomon spared no expense as he built a home for God. God lived among the people. But after Solomon’s death, his son forced the people of Israel to build too many projects. As a result the Nation of Israel split into two, the northern ten tribes became Israel, while Southern two tribes became Judah, David’s heirs remained king in Jersusalem, but their kingdom was diminished. God continuously called both kingdoms to remember the Covenant they had made with God. But while they would follow covenant for a while, eventually they would fall into idol worship, and injustice. When this happened, God would send a prophet, who would bring them back to the Covenant. The prophets warned Israel and Judah that eventually God would eventually lose patience with their ignoring the covenant and would eventually remove them from the land of the covenant. During Hoshea’s reign in Israel, Shalmaneser, King of Assyria conquered the northern Kingdom and sent the people of Israel into exile.

            Judah continued in this cycle for a while. When Josiah was King, they were cleaning out the temple and found a copy of the Covenant. Josiah had it read to the people, and they made a new covenant with God that they would obey God’s teachings. However, later kings brought the people back into idolatry, and God eventually allowed Babylon to conquer them, destroy the temple and send the people of Judah into exile as well.

Act 2: Scene 5: Exile and Return

            God did not forget God’s people though. Even though they were sent into Exile, God continued to send prophets, who told them to settle in to where they were and care for the wellbeing of their new homes. Eventually Babylon was defeated by Persia, and Cyrus allowed people in exile to return to their homes. A few of the People of Judah (or Jews) returned home, but because they had been in exile for so long, many decided to stay where they were. The Jews that returned home rebuilt the temple. There was a sense in which the exile had not ended because so many Jews were still outside of the land of the Covenant.  

Intermission: Scene Change

            Many years later, Rome has taken over a large part of the world. They had control of the Jewish homeland, and taxed the people heavily. The Jews wished to be free from this oppression. Many believed that God would send a leader like the prophets and judges of old who will save them. Some people, who called themselves the Pharisees thought that they needed to follow every commandment in the covenant to the letter and began building traditions around the Torah to keep them from breaking actual Torah, they hoped that when they did it good enough, God would send the leader. Others, called the Essenes believed that the world is too sinful and hid in the wilderness, waiting for the leader to come and lead them to battle to liberate the Jews. Others, called the zealots, believed that if they started the revolution, God would send the leader to them. The last group was the Sadducees, who did not necessarily like Rome, but Rome kept them in power so they wanted to keep the status quo. The common people also hated Rome, because they were taxed so heavily and hoped that the leader would come, but did not necessarily have a vested interest in how it would happen.

Act 3: Jesus and the New Covenant

            God did not forget the covenant, Israel was supposed to be the way in which the Creator reformed the world into the way it should be. With God, Humans and the rest of Creation all in right relationship with each other. It was time for the Jews to become the People of the Covenant. To do this, God needs to challenge their understanding of what it means to be a people of the Covenant. God sent part of Godself, the Son, Jesus to Earth, not as a warrior, but as a baby. Jesus is born a Jew, of the line of David, but he is also the descendent of Ruth and Rahab, non-Jews who were welcomed into Israel.

            When Jesus had grown up. God sent a man named John to prepare the Jews for the coming of the long expected leader. John told them to repent, John told them to take care of each other, sharing their possessions with those who had done, and to be baptized as a sign that they were becoming truly a part of the Covenant.

            Jesus one day came to where John is preaching, and told John to baptize him. When Jesus rose out of the water, a dove appeared in the sky, and God spoke saying “This is my Son, who makes me pleased.” From there, Jesus went into the wilderness where he was tempted to lead through social programs or acts of power, but Jesus passed the test. Jesus then began to call people to follow him.

            Jesus climbed the side of a mountain and taught those that followed him how to follow the covenant. It sounded different than how they remembered Moses teaching them about the Covenant. They had to love enemies. They had to set aside their own justice to bring others back into community, into right relationship.           

Jesus traveled around performing miracles, telling everyone that God was in charge again. He healed people who were not allowed in the community. He welcomed non-jews to live the way God wants humans to live. He challenged the status quo, telling the rich to not oppress the poor, and the religious leaders to not be hypocrites.

People listened to him, some of his followers were Zealots ready to fight, the crowd wanted to crown him King. When Jesus entered Jerusalem during the Passover, people said “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord”.  It looked like he was going to free Israel from the Romans.

During the last night of the Passover, Jesus met with his followers. He washed their feet, and served the traditional Passover meal. But when he picked up the bread. Jesus said “This is my Body, broken for you”. Then when he picked up the cup of wine, he said “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

Then Jesus got arrested. His rocking of the status quo and challenging the religion of the day pissed off both the Sadducees and the Pharisees. They brought him before the Roman authorities and said that he tried to cause an insurrection. Jesus was crucified, the penalty for rebellion.

Jesus’s followers were shocked and confused. What about restoring Israel so it could be the blessing for all nations? What about bringing God, humans and creation back into right relation?

            Jesus didn’t stay dead. God raised Jesus up, and Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary mother of James met him outside his tomb. Jesus was Resurrected. Jesus met with his disciples and told them to spread the good news that God is Charge to all nations. Jesus has completed his mission and ascended into heaven, promising to come back.

Act 4: The New Covenant

Act 4: Scene 1: The New Covenant Spreads

Jesus’ followers obey his commandments. God’s Spirit descends on them, and they preached that there was a new Covenant open to all. God is in charge, and that everyone should be in right relationship with God, fellow humans, and creation. Their message started in Jerusalem, spread to the rest of Judea, to Samaria and to the ends of the earth. As the message spread, groups of people, called churches, started to form who tried to live out the Covenant as best they could.

Church leaders started writing letters to distant congregations to help them understand what it means to live in the new Covenant. One of these leaders was Paul, who traveled a lot starting many new churches. As non-Jews joined this new covenant. The church realized that they need not be bound by the physical symbols that the old covenants used, as long as they only follow God, and love their neighbours.

Act 4: Scene 2: The Church Today

            The story doesn’t end there, today the Creator God calls us to enter into this new Covenant. The world has not had all of its relationships healed yet, so we need to continue to do that. We need to Follow Jesus’ teachings loving God and loving neighbour. We can look at the story that has happened before us, and learn from it.

            When we see oppression, we should remember that God saved the Israelites from oppression in Egypt and with the Judges, and that we are called to act for justice.

            When we see the poor, we should remember Ruth and Naomi who were welcomed back into the community through Boaz. When we see sexism, we should remember Rahab and Deborah, women whose action saved Israel. When we see racism and xenophobia, we should remember that Jethro, a Midianite, taught Moses how to lead his people, and that Rahab and Ruth were outsiders welcomed into the people of God.

Act 5: Return to Right Relationship with the Creator

            One Day, God will finish the work of the Covenant. Jesus will come back, and we will be in right relationship with God, and the rest of Creation. It will be like the beginning when God the Creator made everything. There will be no separation. Gender, language, and ethnicity will not be barriers. There will be justice for all. God will be in Charge.

Christian Restorationist Theology

The following is an essay I wrote for my Systematic Theology Class at CMU. I only post my essays after I get my grades back so there isn't a chance of mistakingly being charged with plagiarism. As I get more grades back I will post more of my essays from this term.

Christian Restorationist Theology:

Critiques and Learning

Tim Wenger

BTS 5780

Karl Koop

08-12-2014

Introduction

As the church seeks a faithful response to the problems of today, some within it seek to look to the early church for the necessary answers. This belief is called restorationism. This essay outlines what restorationism is and how it developed over the course of history. It will focus in on Anabaptist restorationism¹ but will also touch on other historical and contemporary forms of restorationism. Restorationsim throughout history teaches us the importance of where we come from, but it is also important to remember that other groups have arrived at different points through similar processes and we must learn from each other.

The Concept of Restorationism

In an age when there are so many different claims on the truth, it is hard to know who to trust. There is often a perceived need to find a source of authority for our beliefs and actions that extends beyond ourselves. One of these sources of authority is the early church. It is easy to see that the church today and the church in the first century are very different. One response to this is called restorationism.

Restorationism is the attempt to bring the church back to the original state (two closely related terms are restitutionism and primitivism, for the simplicity of the essay, I will just be using the term Restorationism). The belief is that the early church represented a “Golden Age” where it was what it should be. However, there must have been some sort of fall to explain why we do not share the wanted characteristics with the early church. Generally the fall is dated to three Centuries later, when Constantine turned Christianity into the official religion of the Roman Empire because true Christianity, with its emphasis on love, non-violence voluntarism is not compatible with the basic needs of an empire which uses military force to coerce compliance.² Restorationism is the attempt to recover the beliefs or practices lost in the fall³. It is important to note that there must be some sort of fall/ loss within the restorationist framework. Without a loss, there is no reason to “get back” to the original church.⁴

Historical Roots of Restorationism.

This understanding that the early church represents something more pure than the church is presently is something that has been understood for a long time. Even before the traditional restorationist fall at Constantine, Clement of Rome (circa 96 CE) thought that the earliest christianity was the purest. He wrote “The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ... having therefore received their commands... they went forth in the assurance of the Holy Spirit, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is coming... [T]hey appointed their first converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be Bishops and deacons for the future believers.”⁵ This view that the early church was pure can be seen throughout christian history until the 19^th century.

According to Littell, it is possible to see interpretations of history narrated in terms of Golden Age, Fall and Restitution in church history. Early church fathers blended this narrative (which can be understood as coming from pagan philosophy) with their understanding of church history. Tertullian saw Nature as being normative, with those who worked with their hands in the fields and in workshops having “primordial knowledge” while the philosophers and academics are lacking it. Similarly for Tertullian, the simple early church has authority in its beliefs and actions, but overtime fell to corruption.⁶

For Lactantius, “philosophy” was a recent invention, while an inborn knowledge of truth was lost at the tree of knowledge. St. Ambrose locates the Fall with when private property was instituted. St Gregory wanted to return to an “adamic state of brotherhood, communism and peace” and criticized those who thought philosophy more important than other simpler lives.⁷

These understandings led to attempts to return to the Golden age, such as early monasticism which emphasized “pious-anti-intellectualism and a cultivation of the innocence of the child like mind. Pacifism, communism, celibacy... simple living.”⁸

This belief in wanting to get back to a pure church led to the development in the Middle Ages of a new myth of a lost tribe somewhere in Asia or Africa that had come to a near-christian faith through intuition as a critique of the overly-speculative nature of Medieval Christianity, as well as a protest to Papal and Byzantinian power.⁹

Joachim of Fiore (circa 1190 CE), Transformed this understanding of Golden Age, Fall and Restoration through his three dispensations of history ending in a fulfilled apocalypse, rather than a previous periodizing of history put forward by Augustine. For Joachim of Fiore, after the fall there were three ages, the first age, the Age of the Father, was during the old covenant where legalism ruled via prophets and judges, the second age, Age of the Son of the institutional church ruled by grace, and a third age that was soon to come of perfect freedom, the Age of the Spirit, where the humble would be lifted up, the old Roman church would fall and a new leader would rise up.¹⁰

According to Karl Koop, It was also visible in the High Middle ages in the “Spiritual Franciscans, Waldensians, Apostolic Brethren, along with strong papal supporters like Bernard Clairvaux” who recognized significant problems in the Catholic Church from early on.¹¹

Restorationist Anabaptism

Some of the most prominent restorationists in history are from the Radical Reformation. They viewed the early church as having a strong emphasis on pacifism, if they wanted to be true Christians, like the early church, they needed to be “defenceless and martyred... the way of the church from Christ to Constantine.”¹²

These Anabaptists,¹³ blamed Constantine for the fall because it was with Constantine where Christianity moved from being a religion of voluntarism, to the religion of the state. At Constantine, the church was given power to force others to follow it, where it was previously the persecuted church it had become the persecuting church. As such, the Anabaptists wanted to restore to restore the church to it's pre-constantinian nature. ¹⁴

According to John Howard Yoder, other radicals viewed the fall as occurring elsewhere in history. For some it was the events in Eden; the Levellers opposed class distinctions because in Genesis 2 there are not any. Flemish Anabaptists were accused of taking of their clothes in their services as a symbol of Adam and Eve's Innocence.¹⁵

These Anabaptists broke away from both the Catholics and Magisterial Reformers (who were sometimes called “halfway men” due to the fact that they would not continue their reformation of the church to include separation of church and state), and formed free congregations with strong emphases on pacifism and church discipline to keep the church pure.¹⁶

It is important to recognize that a label like restorationist or primitivist is something that we have placed on the radicals through the lenses of history. As John Howard Yoder points out, the radicals would not have claimed this as part of their identity, however, the inverse is true as well, the Catholic and Magisterial Reformers would not have thought it wrong to hold to restorationism. Applying these terms to the early anabaptists merely recognizes that they have a stronger orientation towards a beginning that their contemporaries did not.¹⁷

In fact all Christians in the 16th would have claimed biblical authority for their positions. Luther argued from Paul's presentation of the Gospel, while Catholics arguing for apostolic succession and their ability to develop their theology would also quote scripture.¹⁸ Even spiritualists like Sebastian Franck and Kaspar Schwenkfeld, who downplayed following the bible literally sought to prove their point with scripture.¹⁹

John Wesley the Restorationist

A non-anabaptist who was heavily influenced by restorationist thinking was John Wesley. John Keefer highlights how in Wesley's life and founding of the Methodist Church, a lot of his motivation is to recapture something from the early church that was missing in his age. John Wesley's father, himself a priest in the church of England, taught Wesley to look at the Patristics to understand the apostles' writings in bible. When Wesley was attended Oxford, he was able to read many of the Pastristics' writings.²⁰

As students, he and his brother Charles founded “The Holy Club,” a group dedicated to recreating the early church via modelling itself after what it read in Acts 2 and 4, practising a community of goods, and a strong emphasis on prayer, fasting and participating in the Lord's Supper.²¹

Towards the end of his time at Oxford, Wesley's attention was turned by the Non-jurors towards the ecclesiastical tradition. His attention moved towards recreating the liturgical and sacramental aspects recorded in the “Apostolic Constitutions” and “Apostolic Canons” because he viewed them as teaching authentic Apostolic teachings on church order.²² However, when he tried to be a missionary in Georgia he was supremely rejected.

Later Wesley attended a Moravian meeting on Aldersgate street, where he had a profound religious experience, and his connection to the early church: Conversion as a work of the Holy Spirit. Aldersgate changed Wesley's restorationism “from ecclesiology to soteriology”.²³

As he and his brother developed Methodism, he believed that they were bringing back apostolic faith. He believed that he had overvalued apostolic church practices previously, and instead needed to be dynamic and willing to allow the Holy Spirit to lead them to develop practices that fit their own cultural situation. As such the Methodist's practices of “watchnight and lovefeast services, their practice of discipline, their charities, and the foundation of the schools” were themselves expressions of Apostolic faith within a different culture.²⁴ Wesley believed that the Methodist church was very close to bringing in a new age of Apostolic faith, and yet he also recognized the “mystery of iniquity,” that the church continuously requires salvation.²⁵ When John Wesley was buried, part of his tombstone read:

This Great Light arose

(By the singular Providence of God)

To enlighten THESE Nations,

And to revive, enforce, and defend

The Pure, Apostolical Doctrines and Practices of

The PRIMITIVE CHURCH:

Which he continued to do, by his Writings and his Labors,

For more than Half a Century.²⁶

Continuations in Anabaptist Restorationist

After the reformation, Anabaptist restorationist theology had a significant change. As it is said, history repeats itself, and the religious zeal of the Early Anabaptists seems to have tapered off over the centuries. When Thielman J. van Braght wrote The Martyr's Mirror in 1660, he was a Mennonite Elder in Holland. There was a conflict at the time called The Lammerenkrijgh, (or the War of the Lambs), whereby there were two camps, a more conservative side that retained the old belief in there being a faithful, true, visible church, and a more liberal side that was associated with the Colliagiants.²⁷ Van Braght was on the conservative side and wrote The Martyr's Mirror as an appeal that there has always been a visible church, and calling the liberal side back to them. In it there are many stories of Christian Martyrs giving their lives for the faith through the ages, then the second, larger section is stories of the Early Anabaptists being persecuted and dying for their beliefs.²⁸ As Karl Koop says “One of the primary intentions of the... Martyr's Mirror... was to show that the Anabaptists, rather than Catholic or Protestants, exhibited the marks of true Christianity though their practice of believers baptism and experience of martyrdom.”²⁹

Similarly, John Howard Yoder notices a trend, that for descendants of the Anabaptists, today's Mennonites and Hutterites, it is important to not only try to get back to the early church, but also to restoring to the early Anabaptist movement. Paradoxically, the Anabaptists who were once radicals, now represent the old faith that we are trying to recover.³⁰ However, Yoder challenges an understanding of an Anabaptist fall as occuring because they were weak or failed, but rather the need to recover their original mission is because of “the community's missionary aggressiveness”. Because Mennonites have spread their faith so far, it is necessary to recall the community back to faith.³¹

The Modern Restorationist Movement

There continues to be restorationist theology present in North American congregations. One of the foremost groups calling themselves the Restorationist Movement includes denominations such as the Churches of Christ. According to B.J. Humble the early leaders viewed the mainstream denominations (ironically including the methodists) as being tied too much to their creeds. Because their confessions of faith had too much authority in determining who was a part of the denomination and who was not, these leaders left their denominations³² and eventually began the restoration movement based on the principle of “be [ing] the New Testament church today.”³³

Humble uses a hypothetical story to illustrate why they believe that they should do this:

Imagine that a collector finds a rare book detailing a civic club that existed in London four hundred years ago. This book included their constitution and all of the relevant details about their organization and purpose. Recognizing this club's purpose of serving others, similar to the Knights of Columbus, or Rotary clubs, and realizing that there are so many causes that need support, the collector might think that it would be exciting to try to recreate this club today so it could attend to these needs since this book has all of the information necessary for doing this. If they could restore this civic club, why not the church of the New Testament?³⁴

In the following part of the paper, I will examine some potential critiques of Restorationism.

Is There Something to go back to?

As mentioned previously for the first 18 centuries of Christian history, there was a pretty homogenous view of the spread of Christianity. Michael Strickland writes that as early as Clement of Rome, it was understood that Jesus told the apostles the gospels who then, empowered by the Holy Spirit went out preaching the gospel and made converts who eventually became the bishops and deacons.³⁵ Heretics were seen as later perversions of the earlier true message.³⁶

However, within the last two hundred years or so, there have been growing critiques that challenge the idea of a pure early church. The Bauer thesis, supposes that “orthodoxy” does not necessarily mean that it came straight from God, but rather the opinions of the church in Rome. Heresies from other geographical areas are, according to the Bauer thesis, actually how Christianity developed in those areas from the beginning. To demonstrate this, one only has to look at the differences in theology that already existed as early as the second century in such different areas as Egypt, Crete, and Rome.³⁷ Further development of this thesis by Ehrman goes that the “proto-orthodox” eventually won for four reasons:

They claimed that their version was rooted in the Old Testament; they rejected Jewish practices in order to be universally accessible; they had a strong hierarchy, which later developed the canon; and finally that they communicated with each other in a concerted effort to become the world wide official version of the church.³⁸ This hypothesis, along with an early dating of texts like the Gospel of Thomas which show different interpretations of Jesus' life question whether or not the Church of the New Testament actually is an historical reality.

However, it should be pointed out that in recent years, the Gospel of Thomas has been given a second century dating by many scholars, and that the Baurer Thesis, while it gives a legitimate questioning of a simplistic reading of New Testament and demonstrating the variety seen in early Christianity, has had many of its presuppositions questioned by scholars.³⁹

Is there something worth going back to?

Historical questions aside, there is a question about whether or not the early church is in fact something that we should emulate. Even within the New Testament Canon itself there are significant reasons why we should question whether or not the early church is as pure as it is made out to be. First of all, in the gospels the apostles are not portrayed as being the most intelligent. Repeatedly they are shown to not understand Jesus' message. One moment Peter is confessing Jesus as the Christ,⁴⁰ the very next paragraph Jesus has to say to Peter “Get behind me, Satan” because Peter doesn't understand the nature of the suffering Christ.⁴¹ James and John ask Jesus if they can sit on either side of Jesus when he comes into his kingdom resulting in conflict between the disciples.⁴²

Even if the argument is given that these are pre-pentecost examples of the disciples, and as such do not count as the early church, there are many examples of the early church having problems too. Repeatedly in Paul's writings he mentions conflicts in the church. Paul refers to a time when Peter refused to eat with the gentiles because it was unclean to do so. Paul challenged Peter arguing that the gentiles should not have to follow the law.⁴³ Later in the same letter Paul expresses his frustratation with those who want to make the gentiles follow the Law, by saying that he wishes they should continue what they started at their circumcision and cut off the rest of their penises.^44,45 And it is not just Paul, even the author of the book of Revelation has problems with the church in Laodicea, calling them lukewarm because they do not realize how much help they need from God.⁴⁶

Is it possible to go back to back to them?

Even if the Early church is worth going back to, it is also important to note that within restorationism, there is an underlying belief in the possibility of human perfection. The internal narrative is that the early church was nearly perfect and the Constantinian shift (or whatever historical point is labelled as the fall in the specific case) has drastically altered the church, but if the contemporary church can just reclaim what was lost by emulating the early church then the church would be very close to perfection.⁴⁷

But is this even a realistic goal? Is the purpose of Christianity to become perfect? Or have we fallen too far to recover? It is easy to accuse restorationism as supporting a works-righteousness theology. If the belief is that we need to recover the early church to save the church, then it neglects the fact that salvation, individually as well as corporately, rests in Christ. The accounts in Revelation 19 and Matthew 25 of the last days both recount that Jesus/ the Son of Man must come back in order to bring about the kingdom of God. It is not something the church can do.

Restorationism hurts relationships

Implicit in restorationist theology is that those who are not restorationists must be wrong. Karl Koop argues that this is untenable. Christians are always rooted in theological, cultural and historical issues that impact that impact how one views the world. However, Koop argues that Christians need to view the world through “catholic lenses” that encourage them to consider themselves part of the communion of the saints globally throughout history.⁴⁸

Van Braght's Martyr's Mirror which was written, at least partially, to demonstrate that the Anabaptists exhibit true christianity, in line with the early church as opposed to the Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions demonstrates this assumption that all other beliefs are wrong.⁴⁹ According to Koop, it neglects the possibility that the Holy Spirit is able to work through the fallen church. A more faithful church will allow for a multiplicity of ideas, allowing for other faith traditions to represent God's Truth.⁵⁰

Where to go from here?

Throughout this essay, I have tried to explain Restorationism, how it is a continuation of idea that was present before the early Anabaptists, as well as present in the church afterwards. I then presented some critiques about Restorationism.

Restoration does in fact have some legitimate strengths. Even if the early church of history and reported in the bible didn't exist the way we thought it did, or wasn't as pure as we thought it was, there is still something to to be gained from restorationism. Restorationism looks back in time in order to develop a grand narrative that explains where the church is going. This is good, however, as Karl Koop suggests, instead of focusing on just the early church, and perhaps a faithful remnant through history, we should look with discerning eyes at all members of the community of saints, and by studying their traditions try to gather a broader understanding of what it means to be Christian. Mennonites, who learned the importance of voluntarism and pacifism from the early church, can look to other historical restorationists such as the Methodists to understand the importance of salvation that they learned from the early church. Members of older congregations, can learn from the members of today's Restorationist Movement's critique of the denominational structure with its overly bureaucratic and systematized faith, while denominations like the Churches of Christ need to recognize that when the entire focus is on the early church, they neglect the traditions that they are rooted in. They have removed the roots that ground them in the Christian faith.

Restorationism seeks to ground itself in the story of the early church, its adherents should also seek to understand the historical developments that led the global church to where it it. While some of it may be problematic, there is almost two thousand years of Christians asking the same questions, and coming up with different answers. It is important to not throw any of these perspectives away, even if they do not reflect the realities of today's context.

Bibliography

Hughes, Richard T., “The Meaning of The Restoration Vision” in The Primitive Church in the Modern

World, edited by Richard Hughes, ix-xvii. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995.

Keefer, Luke L. "John Wesley : disciple of early Christianity." Wesleyan Theological Journal 19, no. 1

(March 1, 1984): 23-32. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed

December 1, 2014).

Koop, Karl. “Reading Tradition through Catholic Lenses: Moving Beyond Restorationism,” in New Perspectives in Believers Church Ecclesiology, edited by Abe Dueck, Helmut Harder and & Karl Koop, 125-142. Winnipeg: CMU Press, 2010.

Littell, Franklin H. 1959. "Christian primitivism : a historical summary." Encounter 20, no. 3: 292-

296. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 2, 2014).

Littell, Franklin H. "A pattern of religious primitivism." Union Seminary Quarterly Review 1, no. 3

(March 1, 1946): 22-25. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 1, 2014).

Strickland, Michael. "Revising the ancient faith: primitivism, the Gospel of Thomas, and Christian

beginnings." Restoration Quarterly 49, no. 4 (January 1, 2007): 217-227. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 2, 2014).

Yoder, John Howard. “Primitivism in the Racial Reformation: Strengths and Weaknesses” in The

Primitive Church in the Modern World, edited by Richard Hughes, 74-97. Chicago: University

of Illinois Press, 1995.

Zijpp, Nanne van der. Global Anabaptist Enclyopedia Online, “Lammerenkrijgh.” 1959. http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Lammerenkrijgh&oldid=111295.

1This bias is mostly because it is within my Mennonite context that I have personal experience with restorationism.

2Franklin Littell, “A Pattern of Religious Primitivism” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 1, no. 3 (1946): 24, ATLA Religion Database with ATLA Serials, EBSCOHOST.

3Karl Koop, “Reading Tradition through Catholic Lenses: Moving Beyond Restorationism,” in New Perspectives in Believers Church Ecclesiology, ed.Abe Dueck, Helmut Harder and & Karl Koop (Winnipeg: CMU Press, 2010), 126.

4Richard T. Hughes, “The Meaning of The Restoration Vision” in The Primitive Church in the Modern World, ed. Richard Hughes (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995), x.

5Michael, Strickland, “Revising the Ancient Faith: Primitivism, the Gospel of Thomas and Christian Beginnings..” Restoration Quarterly 49, no. 4(2007): 217-218, ATLA Religion Database with ATLA Serials, EBSCOhost.

6 Franklin H. Littell, “Christian Primitivism: a Historical Summary.” in Encounter 20, no. 3: 293 Atla Religion Database with AtlaSerials, Ebscohost.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11Karl Koop “Reading Tradition through Catholic Lenses,” 130.

12 Franklin H. Littell “Pattern of Christian Primitivism,” 23.

13I understand the difficulty of using the term Anabaptist to refer to a monolithic movement. In this case, I am using the term because Franklin Littell uses it, as I use other sources with more specific definitions, they will be included.

14 Ibid., 24.

15John Howard Yoder “Primitivism in the Racial Reformation: Strengths and Weaknesses” in The Primitive Church in the Modern World, ed. Richard Hughes (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995), 75.

16 Littell “A Pattern of Christian Primitivism, ”24.

17 Yoder “Primitivism in the Racial Reformation: Strengths and Weaknesses,” 74-75.

18 Ibid., 75.

19 Ibid.

20 Luke L Keefer, “John Wesley: Disciple of Early Christianity.” Weslyeyan Theological Journal 19, no. 1 (1984): 23-24, ATLA RELIGION Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOHOST.

21 Ibid., 24.

22 Ibid.

23Ibid., 25.

24 Ibid., 26.

25 Ibid., 30.

26 Ibid., 23.

27 Nanne van der Zijpp . “Lammerenkrijgh.” in Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. (1959) http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Lammerenkrijgh&oldid=111295.

28Thieleman J. Van Braght, Martyrs Mirror: The Story of Seventeen Centuries of Christian

Martyrdom, From the time of Christ to A.D. 1660. trans. Joseph F. Sohm 2^nd ed,. (Waterloo, On: Herald Press, 1938), .

29 Koop “Reading Tradition through Catholic Lenses,” 131.

30Yoder “Primitivism in the Racial Reformation: Strengths and weaknesses,” 76.

31 Ibid., 79-80.

32Bill J. Humble, "What is the Restoration Movement?." Restoration Quarterly 22, no. 1-2 (1979):13, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

33 Ibid., 14.

34 Ibid.

35 Strickland, “Revising the Ancient Faith,” 217-218.

36 Ibid., 221.

37Ibid., 222.

38Ibid., 224.

39Ibid., 224.

40Mark 8:29 English Standard Version.

41Mark 8:31-33 ESV.

42Mark 10:35-45 ESV.

43Galatians 2 ESV.

44Galatians 5:12 ESV.

45I may be a little hyperbolic in my reading of this, but, depending on the translation, the words castration or emasculating are actually used.

46Revelation 2:14-18 ESV.

47 Littell,“Christian Primitivism: a Historical Summary.” 292-3

48Koop, “Reading Tradition through Catholic Lenses,” 127.

49Ibid., 131

50Ibid., 136.

Pendulum Swing: From Faith to Social Justice

Over the past year, I have heard several people say that every 500 years or so, there is a major shift in Christianity. Constantine's reign in 306 CE marked the church moving from a fringe religion, to eventually being a state religion. The Great Schism between Rome and the East in 1054 CE left scars in the Global Church that are only now beginning to heal. The Reformation in 1517 resulted in many divisions within the Western Church. Each of these events impacted the world in huge ways.

 Many people are suggesting that we are again in a major, the most recent example I've experienced was at Mennonite Church Canada's National Assembly. During a Young Adult Event, MC Canada Executive Director made reference to this shift, and has outlined some of his thoughts on the topic here. To help navigate this shift, the national church has assembled the New Directions Task Force to look at what the future of the MC Canada will look like, and we had some good discussion during the Assembly about it.

In a recent podcast, Willard and Dan Dyck talked about the future of the church. Willard suggested that the future of the church will be one where the church engages in issues such as Aboriginal Justice and Climate Change, and I agree, the Church needs to engage with social justice issues. It needs to in order to stay relevant, but it also needs to in order to stay faithful to the people who God is calling us to be.

From the creation of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament, God has called a people to show the world around us how to live differently. The Lex Talionis Law in the Torah (an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth) was a demand for equality under the law. Where other cultures allowed those in the upper classes to severely punish those in lower classes for any infraction, the Torah limited retaliation to an equitable punishment.

With Jesus, the people of God became open to all, not just the Jews, but also the Gentiles. The message was do not conform to Rome's morals, of greed, and violence, but make Jesus your King. Peace, Justice and Love became the law written on our hearts.

As history unfolds, we see a pendulum swing. From the weakness of Christ to the Strength of Constantine, from ritual in the middle ages, to faith in the reformation, etc. But we often swing too far. When the pendulum swung towards faith in the reformation, we began to lose the importance of action. Martin Luther wanted to remove the Canon of James from the Canon, thinking that it wasn't relevant to our faith. We swung to a place where faith resulted in inaction.

The Anabaptists always spoke out against this, showing how Faith in Christ requires us to love our neighbors, remember Menno's Famous quote: "True evangelical faith cannot lie dormant. It clothes the naked, it feeds the hungry, it comforts the sorrowful, it shelters the destitute, it serves those that harm it, it binds up that which is wounded, it has become all things to all people." As the world realizes that faith requires action it begins to swing in the other direction. We can't just pray about an issue, being a follower of Jesus means going out and fixing it. 

However, I have cause for concern about this swing. At some point we can/will/have swung too far. Sometimes our concern for social justice becomes more important than the reason why we seek it in the first place. Sometimes I see Mennonites go from being Anabaptist to Secular Humanists. I see us as being more concerned about the ends and not the means.

I see us neglecting our prayer lives and bible readings, casting them aside rather than realizing that they are the reason we seek after justice.

My Social justice concern comes out of my love for Jesus. I care for the other because I see that they are made in God's image. We need to remember that it was the Prophet Amos, a man who was calling Israel back to following God, who said "Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!" (Amos 5:24). As we shift towards a Christianity that is a voice for the downtrodden, let us also remember that we believe in prayer and faith.

Should we let kids watch Veggietales?

I wrote the following article for the Doxa, CMU's student newspaper, it appeared in their February edition. As always, I want to encourage discussion, I welcome you to let me know where you think I've gone wrong in the comments.




Warning: The following article may feel like you just got punched right in the childhood.

If you like to talk to tomatoes
If a squash can make you smile
If you like to waltz with potatoes
Up and down the produce aisle...

Have I got some news to you.

What if Veggietales is actually detrimental to faith formation? What if Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber have played a role in making an entire generation of Christian children callous to the dark stories with the Bible. What if they trivialize the christian experience?

An example: In the classic episode: King George and the Ducky, instead of fighting in the great pie war, King George, played by Larry, Takes a bath with one of his many rubber duckies. As he finishes a musical number he notices something far a way, a little child named Thomas in a sawed off barrel taking a bath with another duck. King George must have it so he sends Thomas, to the front lines, the generals ordered to pull back and let him get the full force of the attack. At this point Nathan the prophet arrives with a flannel-graph sheet and tells him a story of a rich man who steals a sheep from a poor man. George is sad, but is given the opportunity to make up for his transgressions because Thomas miraculously survives, shell-shocked. But George gives him a royal bath, and everything is alright. Therefore learning the lesson that we need to consider others' feelings as well.

This light hearted story about a King and his love of toys, is really the Story of David and Bathsheba with any of the gory details removed from it. In fact, it sends messages that are actually harmful.

First of all Bathsheba is replaced by a toy, she is literally the king's play thing. She loses all agency. She is less than human. An object to be done with as David pleased. While she doesn't have much agency in the biblical narrative, she is stripped of even the dignity that comes with being human, or even vegetable.

Secondly, Veggietales trivializes the consequences of David's actions. In the Biblical Narrative, Uriah is killed when the other soldiers pull back. He died because the King decided his wife was attractive. There is no cutesy reconciliation at the end of this story. Bathsheba is pregnant, but the child dies.

During the Nuremburg trials, Hannah Arendt watched as Nazi's talked about how they struggled getting the trains to run on time, it never occurred to them that they were the trains shipping Jews to concentration camps. She described this as the Banality of Evil. People are able to do hideous things by breaking them down into trivial things, like pulling a lever, or pressing a button.

So when a person is thrown into the lion's den and the next morning is seen eating pizza with the animals, we lose the fact that Daniel was willing to die instead of stop praying. When slurpies are being thrown from the walls of Jericho we ignore the fact that real lives were lost. We have made the harsh stories in the gospels banal. Suddenly adultery and murder are not such a bad thing because it is just a rubber ducky.

So what do we do? Obviously I am not saying that children are ready to hear every story that is in the bible. We do not let children watch an 18A movie, it is okay for children to learn the darker stories when they are mature enough to understand. When that day comes we should sit them down and talk about the dark reality that the stories have, not trivialize it within catchy musical numbers.