God’s Governance

Review: William C. Placher. A History of Christian Theology: An Introduction. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1983. pp. 219-236.

The context of this historical development is taken from end of the 16^th ca. Luther’s influence spread throughout some areas of Germany and all of Scandinavia but Italy, Spain, most of Eastern Europe and France were still loyal to the pope. Nonetheless, parts of Germany, Scotland, England, Switzerland, and Netherlands experienced religious reformations. Among the noted theologians in the reformed tradition, Calvin is at the pedestal.

Calvin

Calvin was privileged to be born in a middle-class French family who afforded his studies in Paris. He joined a circle of French humanists before he became a Protestant and was acquainted with talking about God rather than about himself. Since France’s papal loyalty posed a threat to Protestants, he left to seek a life of a scholar. Along the way, he passed through Geneva with no intention of staying. But the leaders of this newly reformed city urged him to stay for long to provide a solid theology and political leadership, even to the point of cursing him if ever he fails to do his duty. Calvin was convinced and set out to modify their liturgy, ethics, and confessions. Later, he was questioned by a prominent citizen. He was then forced to leave the city. Yet after three years, the Catholic threat upon the city compelled them to call back Calvin (219-20).

Calvin is a strong systematician of Christian faith. His attempt to interdependently understand God and humanity is forceful. The emphasis on God’s glory and the severe effect of sin upon man’s quest for knowledge of God was turned out upon idols that prevented man from seeing the world in the right perspective. The role of the Scriptures, therefore, is important as a sole guide in understanding God and humanity. The details in the Bible may not be accurate, but it is authoritative in matters of faith. Faith is not mere belief in the reality of God and facts about Christ, but it is life changing. Calvin’s faith is Christ-centered. His emphasis on the Law is its value on shaping and molding moral ethics and not just to convict humanity of sin and restrict them from harming others. The law is not a means to salvation for only God’s grace makes it possible and good works should be acts of gratitude. A person is justified first before being sanctified (220-21).

It should be noted that Calvin’s doctrine of predestination is not the central perspective of his theology but he did believe in double predestination. While all men deserves damnation, God’s will to choose few to be saved by his grace can never be unfair and only God knows the reason why only some. Calvin refused to explain the assurance of salvation. His main interest is the glory of God rather than soteriology (222).

Calvin’s stance on the church and the Christian state is of mutual cooperation to check out the moral of the citizens, especially those who are partaking the communion that they may not dishonor Christ, the head of the church. Martin Bucer’s influence on Calvin’s theology is clear. Concerning the presence of Christ in the bread and wine, Calvin theorized that it is the spirit of man that receives the body and blood. He dwells between Zwingli’s symbolic and Luther’s literal interpretation of the presence of Christ in the elements. His theories of church organization utilizes four kinds of officials—i.e., the ministers (for Bible study and theological discourse), teachers, elders (for government and morals), and deacons (for charity). The regular gathering of consistory or presbytery is the real authority in appropriately dealing erring members. The criminal law and moral legislation are executed only by the city government (223-24).

Two Calvinists: Knox and Arminius

Calvin’s stance on civil obedience to constituted authority is conditional. Citizens can obey their Catholic kings, but if the demands are to make them betray their faith, people can disobey even with the help human rights tribunal (224). But in Scotland, John Knox was struggling with the corrupt church and government. He was jailed as a galley slave by the Catholic Church for two years and became impatient with Calvin’s principle on obedience to ungodly kings and rulers. For him, Christians ought to oppose corrupt government (225).

Calvin’s doctrine of predestination suffered negative feedback in Holland. When Calvinism became the official religion, people began to lax in their zeal for good works and prayers just because they felt they are not predestined to do so. Jacob Arminius began to find fault in Calvin’s claim that God determines who will accept grace and who will reject it. After Arminius’ death, his theology was set forth by his followers (Remonstrants) claiming that Christ died for all and God’s grace is offered to all. Some people can reject it, thus, grace is not irresistible. The Calvinists in Europe laid their five basic principles (Unconditional election, limited atonement, total depravity, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of saints) at the Synod of Dort (1619) and they condemned Arminius and his followers (226-27).

Reformation in England

Wyclif’s reform was not totally eradicated after his death. It was even supported by the reforms that came from the Protestants. Henry VIII wanted a divorce, but the pope did not grant it. In 1530, he cut off his relations to the pope and declared himself head of the Church of England. Monarchial theology became infectious in the church’s system. When Edward VI inherited the throne, Calvinist influence grew in their theology, Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, was responsible in writing the Common Book of Prayer. He was more interested in the history of liturgy than in theology. But when Mary took over the throne, she returned England to Catholicism. Cranmer was forced to recant his Protestant faith. He was burned at stake when he recanted his recantation; more Protestants were persecuted during Mary’s rule of England (227-28).

In 1558, Elizabeth secured the kingdom for Protestants. The Church of England adopted in 1571 the Thirty-nine Articles with some compromise on the doctrine of (double) predestination. Transubstantiation was rejected and the real presence of Christ’s body and blood was reaffirmed. Anglican faith lies in between the extreme Catholics and hyper-Calvinists. They moderate theology and polity clearly indicates rejection also of the pope’s authority in favor for the Scripture, but their interpretations were taken from previous Christian interpreters of Christian faith. Their theological debate was more focused on liturgical issues; thus, English theology remained vague (228).

From Puritans to Quakers

Purification of the church and theological ambiguity were main concerns for the Puritans. They were more emphatic on avoiding liturgical elements in worship that was never clearly mentioned by the Scripture, such as kneeling, elaborate vestments and stained windows. In polity, they favored the presbyters rather than the bishops who stood superior to any other Christians. Instead of liturgical elaboration, their emphasis was more experiential and religious piety among ministers. Godly character, thriftiness, and hard work were main virtues their ministers were to uphold; thus, material success was often associated with sign of grace in their divine appointed career (229-30).

Varieties were found among the Puritans in general. On church polity, they attempted to appeal on the NT pattern of church liturgical service, but it was in vain for there was no clear ways on how the NT church did their ceremonies. And some Puritans tried to hold their ceremonies against the traditional structure of the Catholic Church. They also wanted to read the Scriptures apart from any influence of traditional assumptions. They reacted to the corrupt church and tolerated reformed bishops. But most Puritans have different views on church polity, infant baptism, and communal practices. R. Baxter, for instance, accepted open communion for those who live godly lives. Placher notes that today’s Baptists and their emphasis on adult baptism were originated from the Radical Puritans (230-31).

Evidently, The Westminster Confession was a manifestation of theology mixed up with politics. This attempt to formulate a statement of faith for England has been embraced by Scottish and American Presbyterians. With the influence of Oliver Cromwell, religious toleration of all Protestant groups was materialized. Each congregation was considered independent. Sooner, other religious groups, like the Levelers, began to appear and emphasized economic application of their theological interpretations. Religious authority became so vague due to the toleration. The moderate and radical Puritans were divided. The radicals became experiential in their emphasis while the moderates were emphatic on the authority of the Scriptures. Among the inner-experience group of Puritans that lasted were the Quakers (Society of Friends) who came from the Ranters—a group of wandering preachers against the established moderate Puritans. Their leader, George Fox, call the people a church rather than the building (232).

Early Quakers have different practices and religious experiences which were mystical. They appealed to the Inner Light rather than the Scripture. For them, real conversion brings assurance of salvation and freedom from moral failures. Social protests were made by walking naked to urge for repentance while some have dramatic trembling that earned them their reputation. They hold to equality of men (rich or poor and men or women) but refused to remove their hat before social authorities. They denied the bodily resurrection after death. They also believed on the right of women to preach be missionaries. But their desire to reform their society was a failure (232-33).

Several tensions are clear. With the rise of John Calvin, conflict with the Catholic Church was still present. The tension between the church and city-states are sometimes threatening and fatal. Calvin’s doctrinal formulation on predestination aroused issues on salvation but there was no tension between grace and works for works were affirmed as a product of salvation, not means for salvation. Calvin may have found himself reacting against Catholicism but his reform became structuralized. Arminius, perhaps a true Calvinist, was condemned due to his attempt to re-interpret what Calvin taught. It was a sad reality when reformation ceased to be redemptive, but became oppressive.

The reformed structure was challenged by the Spirit through the movement of the Puritans. In their varieties of beliefs and practices, their emphasis to the Spirit or inner voice is reactionary to the deformed structure of Reformation.

Cultural Engagement

Since American Evangelicalism arrived in the Philippines, the tradition was established. The imported reputation of the new “religious” movement has been slowly accepted by Filipinos. But never was the Evangelical movement identified as a Filipino movement. Since evangelical missionaries arrived in the Philippines, some Filipino concepts on Christianity has changed. They began to think of bungalow-type church designs, hospitals with airstrips, and dorms made in USA. The liturgy became programmatic and the hymns and preaching were the type of propositional expository, at least more sophisticated than that of the Catholic homily and Latin oracles. Evangelical services have done away with the elaborate ceremonies but have come to accept the formal rendering of worship (It always gave me a grin to see my predecessors wearing coat and tie in those days with hair coated with coconut oil and suave).

Evangelicalism is also known for their emphasis on the “evangel” among Filipinos, especially on the Catholics. If there were a group of people that were mostly “converts” to evangelical movement, certainly they were Catholics. In a sense, the crusades and the Four Spiritual Laws were not to “Christianize” Filipinos but, to “evangelicalize” them. The evangelist does the talking while others do the picture taking. (At least, missions has been reputed before as a good source for income; more pictures, more support. Some missionaries lived in mansions and their pastors-contacts are in nipa hut.) While it is true that there were many who came to know the saving knowledge of Jesus (with dates of course as to when or else you will be dealt with accordingly again), most were not able to identify themselves as Filipino Christians.

Most of evangelical Filipinos wear multi-colored dress with foreign designs that does not truly represents their faith. Some have American suits, Japanese-Chinese inner long-sleeve, a Spanish pant, animist underwear, and a Filipino heart. Often, Filipinos are like chameleons that blend cunningly with other environments but one thing they will never escape, they will always look, see, behave, and think like who they are. Among the common people, evangelicalism—with their treatment on the significance of salvation over Jesus—will always have the tendency to have a foreign taste that can be added among the religious alternatives. As long as the proposition is the overarching principle rather than the person, a theological discrepancy is always in visage.

Lately, when evangelicalism was so comfortable in their four-corners of formality and doctrinal superiority, the Spirit’s movement created a tension on the structure that evangelical Christians built. The charismatic movement was treated with eternal suspicions; in fact, some of their practices were attributed to the works of the devil by some notorious fundamentalists. To some extent, there were some converts who easily applied their manly works to that of the Spirit also. Their gullibility has led them for abuse of power, trust, and freedom. But this new charismatic wine was not suited without tremendous tension in the old evangelical wineskins. Some evangelical churches were divided (of course, Filipino Baptist churches are known for their multiplication by division). But in most cases, the split that holds a more charismatic spirit is more fruitful and passionate in their zeal for Christian living. A distinction can be made. Evangelical churches have the truth, but evangelical charismatic churches have the truth as well as “power.”

Nothing is more serious today than the tension that the Spirit has created against the evangelical structure. Most evangelical pastors now are having a serous reconsideration on the significance of the Spirit’s power in their pursuit for church growth. Many pastors are tired already of plodding against the grind of frameworks that doesn’t workout—although some frameworks are made by bored (not board) members and deacons. Some evangelical pastors were still holding to their conservative leanings by appealing to the Scriptures but most of their arguments against the Spirit’s moving in other churches are arguments out of silence.

Questions

How is the Spirit’s tension felt in your local context of framework?

How should the Scripture be used concerning inner voices and Spirit’s activities in the church today?