Know Your Family Tree: Turning Points in Church History

Friends, good morning. It's wonderful to have the invitation to speak at Adolf Sunday School again.

The last time I spoke here in the mornings at Adolf Sunday School, I think it was 2018,

when one of the last times I was on the baton.

My name's Rhys and I teach at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia.

It's an Anglican Theological College. We call it, you'd call it a seminary.

And I teach chiefly church history, but have some other responsibilities on the side.

And because Australians are so lousy in thinking about history, I do this talk so often,

which is trying to give people a bit of a handle on 2,000 years.

It's ambitious and it will be slightly naive, but nonetheless really important.

Let me just get some handle on what the Lord has done over this extended period of time.

So let me pray for us.

We praise you, God, Father, Son and Spirit, for this wonderful hour together,

that we might learn and think and grow and understand a little better how we might serve you in the world.

So please, in all our words, in our thinking, in our speaking and listening,

may we honour you for Christ's sake. Amen.

Amen.

Well, there's a hangout in front of you with three columns, effectively.

Each of those columns represents a significant moment in church history.

Now, I could have added other columns.

You might note there's no medieval column, for example.

That is a function more or less of the fact that I teach three history units at Ridley,

Early Church, Reformation Church, and Modern Evangelicalism.

So I don't teach a unit of medieval history.

So the limitations of this handout or of this session

are a function of the limitations of my own teaching and competencies.

What I want to do is to introduce you to each of those three periods

and show how each of those three periods is like and dislike the periods preceding.

And that way we can kind of get a picture of how church history has developed

in the course of the last 2,000 years.

So, for example, we want to look at the early church,

roughly speaking, the first 500 years.

In that period, the chief debate was about who is God, who is Christ.

So, if you will, the doctrine that was chiefly debated

was the doctrines of God and Christ.

Of course, they talked about any number of other things.

That goes without saying.

But nonetheless, when they talked about those other things,

they realised that to have an answer to those other questions,

they first of all had an answer to the question,

who is God, who is Christ.

And then you could work out the others.

They kept being forced back to that really fundamental concern.

They were talking about who is God,

the doctrine of the Trinity,

who is Christ,

how can this man, Jesus Christ,

be the second person of the Trinity?

So, the great distinctive that they highlighted

was how Christ can be with us.

Emmanuel, God with us.

How can the second person of the Trinity

be amongst us, walk with us,

die for us?

So, when they talked about any number of things,

they kept coming back to this core belief,

Christ with us.

This core distinctive.

How Christ,

the second person of the Trinity,

the Son of God,

could walk this earth

with us.

And when they settled these debates,

they summarised their conversations

through a number of different creeds.

And you might know some,

the Apostles' Creed,

the Nicene Creed,

or perhaps the Affirmation Creed.

In those creeds,

you'll notice that there's no mention

of the word grace.

There's no mention of the word atonement.

There's lots of words that we would use

that don't appear.

They're mainly about Christ

and Christ who is with us.

Not that they didn't believe in the atonement,

and not that they didn't believe

in the Holy Spirit,

but nonetheless,

their debates were circling

around this kind of core idea.

They wrote creeds

to summarise those debates

and to defend those insights.

If you agree with the Apostles' Creed,

or the Nicene Creed,

or the Affirmation Creed,

for that matter,

you can describe yourself

as Orthodox or Catholic.

That doesn't mean Greek

or Russian Orthodox.

That doesn't mean Roman Catholic.

These are words that just describe

your commitment to the creeds.

So I can describe myself

as an Orthodox Christian.

I'm in no sense Greek.

I can describe myself

as a Catholic Christian,

but I'm in no sense Roman Catholic.

But I describe myself

in these terms

because I will heartily affirm

the Apostles' Creed

or the Nicene Creed in church,

or elsewhere,

that matter.

This is also an unusual period

because in this moment,

in these first 500 years,

Christians went from being

a persecuted minority

to having legal status

in the Roman Empire.

So this was the beginning

of what we might name Christendom,

where church and state

are working together

for the common good.

Previously,

the state,

the Roman Emperor,

believed that the church

didn't represent the common good,

and therefore they must be persecuted

and minimised.

But there came a point

in the beginning

of the 4th century

when the Emperor said,

no, you know what?

I think they are no longer

a threat to the state.

We will work with them.

At least initially,

the church was given

some legal status

like their own buildings

and you didn't have to

be fed to the lions

and you misbehaved anymore.

So this was,

crudely put,

the way the first 500 years

of church history

operated.

The early church,

or some people might

describe it as

the patristic period.

I'm going to pause now,

take that sip of water,

and ask if you have any

thoughts, comments,

follow-up questions.

There are no dumb questions,

right?

There are just dumb answers.

So you should feel free

to ask whatever

you want to ask.

If there's things here,

and of course,

it's racing through this,

so if people who know

something about the early

church might find

3,000 holes in what

I've just said.

Brother?

I thought the distinction

between Orthodox and

Catholic came in the

11th century.

Yeah, so that is true

when you use those words

to describe denominations,

but those words are

commonly referred to,

commonly used to describe

a commitment to the

creeds.

So you're correct.

The word Catholic

was used very early on.

The word Orthodox

was used very early on.

But they weren't words

being used to describe

the difference between

the Roman church

and the Greek church.

What was the difference

in this time period?

There was hardly a difference

in this time period.

Yeah, yeah.

So Catholic means

according to the whole,

and the Catholic position

was that if you belong

to the majority church,

if you can say the creeds,

if you can't say the creeds,

you're a schismatic.

You don't belong to the

majority church or the

whole church.

I think that's a question

Yeah, so if at this time

the focus was on this

defence of Christ with us,

does that mean there was

very little discussion

of the doctrines of grace

and spirit,

or they were just secondary?

Yes.

They were accepted facts,

or how did they

understand those things?

Yes, of course.

Because we know today

you can't live with just one.

You need all three

to degree your faith.

So they were talking about

grace and the spirit

all the time.

Okay.

But to answer their questions

about grace and the spirit,

they had to push deeper

and kept coming back

to the question,

you can only define grace

if you first understood

who Christ is with us,

how the second person

of the Trinity

can walk this earth.

but that's kind of

the concrete foundation.

So it's not that they

didn't have the questions,

they didn't ignore

the questions,

but they kept saying,

well, if we want to

answer that question,

perhaps there's a prior question

and we still need to

work out who Jesus is

before we can work out

who Jesus was

who sent the spirit

according to Acts 2.

There's a back question.

Yes.

We may be stepping

way out of bounds,

but a little bit

about the text

and the development

of the text

and how it was passed down

in those first 500 years.

Yes, thank you.

You mean text of the Bible?

Correct.

Documentation,

a little bit,

maybe a little bit

about the languages

that were used

because we were in Europe,

et cetera.

Yeah, sure, sure.

Is it even possible

to squeeze it in

in 30 seconds?

So give me 35.

So in the first

100 years or so,

the texts,

Colossians,

Matthew, whatever,

were circulating

more or less independently

and then churches

started accumulating

or copying the texts

that were circulating

independently.

So one church

just had Colossians

and one church

had Romans.

They swapped them.

Now each church

has Colossians

and Romans, right?

So it took about

100 years

and then

the list

of books

that belonged

in the New Testament

became pretty settled.

by about the year 180.

But there was still

some further debate

whether

two Peter and Jude

belonged.

But it was a slow process

over the first

couple hundred years.

So for years

I've described myself

as Orthodox,

Catholic,

Protestant,

sometimes plain vanilla

Protestant,

and evangelical,

depending on who

I'm talking

Yeah, sure, sure.

And nevertheless,

I have some quibbles

with the creeds,

even the Apostles' Creed.

For our church history class

we've been reading

Pusto Gonzalez's book

The Story of Christianity,

right?

So in the chapter

I'm reading

he reproduces

some version

of awe,

the old Roman creed,

right?

And I found myself

writing yes,

yes,

yes,

next to

his English

statement

of the creed.

But I can't write

that quite

with the Apostles' Creed

or the Nicene Creed

or the Athenation.

Yes, I see.

So the creeds...

So my question is,

am I still justifying

calling myself a Catholic?

And I'm not.

Yeah, sure.

The creeds

aren't the scriptures.

So you're allowed

to disagree

with the creeds.

There are some

quibbles around

the edges

about what

in the creeds

we might easily

or with more

difficulty

ascend to.

But that aside,

I still think

the chief way

we use the word

Catholic and Orthodox

is to describe

our commitment

to creed or Christianity,

the big tradition

that begins

with that discussion

of the doctrine

of the Trinity.

Yeah, so people

might quibble

or try and work

out what it means

that Christ ascended

to hell

or Christ ascended

to the dead.

That might be

a classic debate

amongst Christians

what they're doing.

Well, this is great.

These are the questions

about the early church.

Just let's get

to the Reformation.

We'll see

how many questions

we have here.

So the early church,

the first 500 years,

discussed the doctrines

of God and Christ.

They summarised

their debates

with the language

of Christ

with us.

They wrote them down

or they captured them

in the Apostles

of Nicene

or Athanasian Creed.

and if you can

agree with them

in substantial amounts,

you can call yourself

an Orthodox Christian

or a Catholic Christian.

It was the beginning

of Christendom.

But a thousand years later,

Christians

in the West

started finding difficulties

with the way

the medieval church

was doing its ministry

and explaining its theology.

So the medieval church

had become a place

where grace

was seen

as a substance,

something that you could trade,

something you could buy

or sell,

something that you could

participate in

if a priest

of the church

performed the sacraments.

grace somehow

seemed a commodity

that you could

provide exchange for.

The story of how

the Western church

got to that place,

of course,

is a long

and complicated one.

If you have

a certain view

of grace

that it's a commodity,

you'll think

the church

is a place

of exchange.

What you

think of grace

shapes

what you think

the church

is for.

If you think

grace

is

a personal

encounter

with the Lord

Jesus Christ,

or if you think

grace

is the personal

presence of the Lord,

you'll think

the church

is a place

where you're

encouraged

to personally

meet the Lord.

But if you think

grace

is a substance,

not personal,

impersonal,

something you can

exchange,

then you'll think

the church

is a place

of exchange.

What you do

with grace

impacts

what you think

the church

is for.

So the

reformers

of the

16th century,

they had no

problem with

the left-hand

column.

The reformers

believed in

the doctrine

of the Trinity

and Christ,

the second

verse of the

Trinity,

walking this

earth in a

body.

They believed

that Christ

is with us.

They upheld

the Apostles'

Creed,

the Nicene

Creed,

the Affirmation

Creed.

They had

no problem

using the

word

orthodox

or Catholic

to describe

themselves.

But now

they're trying

to tweak,

they're trying

to adjust,

they're trying

to rethink

one particular

thing,

though it will

have big

implications.

They're trying

to think

more carefully

about what

grace is

and therefore

what the

church is

for.

And you'd

know that

one of the

great doctrines

that the

reformers

decided to

hold on to

in a certain

way of being

taught was

the doctrine

of justification.

We often say

justification by

faith.

Actually the

phrase is

justification

by grace

through faith.

justification is

a way of

describing grace,

that you

can't merit

it, that you

can't achieve

it, that you

can't do

anything that

would earn it.

The reformers

held on to

the slogan

Christ for

us in our

place,

taking our

penalty.

justification.

It wasn't

that they were

giving up on

Christ with

us, that

was a given,

like that

wasn't even

debated.

No, it's a

much narrower

set of

concerns now

concerning grace

in the church

and they

summarise that

under the

slogan Christ

for us or

in explaining

teaching,

writing about

the doctrine

of justification,

justification

by grace

through faith.

So if you

will, the

early church

provided a

broad pedestal

and now the

reformers are

standing on

that pedestal,

they're a bit

higher up and

they're building

another layer,

another floor,

another story.

It's not quite as

wide as the

first layer,

but it builds

taller.

And they

decided to

summarise this

teaching about

Christ for us

in

confessions of

faith.

These are not

creeds.

They believe

the creeds,

they agree with

the creeds,

they have held

the creeds.

Now this is

an addition to

the creeds.

These are

confessions of

faith which are

trying to more

particularly describe

what grace is

and what the

church is for.

So they wrote

the Augsburg

confession, if you

are more Lutheran,

the Heidelberg

confession, if you

are more

reformed, the

Schleitheim

confession, if

you're more

Baptistic, the

39 articles, if

you're an

Anglican

Protestant.

These were

statements

effectively, not

in time, but

effectively about

the nature of

grace and the

nature of the

church.

So if you can

agree with the

Augsburg

confession or the

Heidelberg

confession, you

can describe

yourself as a

Lutheran

Protestant or

Reformed

Protestant or

Anabaptist

Protestant or

Anglican

Protestant according

to the

confession that

you ascribe to.

So I'm an

Anglican

Protestant.

I'm also

Orthodox and

Catholic, right?

Because I can

still say the

creeds.

Being Anglican

doesn't mean that

you reject the

creeds, right?

It might in some

circles, but not

in mine.

And in this

era, there was

still the

assumption that

church and

state would

work together

for the

common good.

There was a

tiny bit of

separation.

Calvin tried

to move his

church a little

away from the

city authorities

in Geneva, but

effectively they

were not

overturning

radically, that

is the

magistrate

reformers, the

assumption that

church and

state would

work together.

So can you

see that

in this

middle column

Protestant

believers have

tried to

supplement or

clarify some

issues that

have remained

uncertain or

unclear from

the early

church?

Or if they

hadn't remained

unclear, they

had nonetheless

in the middle

age been obscured

by Roman

Catholic teaching.

So if you

pause and hear

your thoughts or

your comments.

Yes.

stop.

Yeah, I think it's

really important

the point where

they were, they

destroyed the

left-hand side of

the column.

Correct.

And one of the

arguments that I

think Roman

Catholics use

against Lutherans

is there was

never a Lutheran

before Martin

Luther.

Yes.

There was never

a Calvinist

before John

Calvin.

Yes.

But they're

trying to show

that they were

in lockstep with

the early church.

So they weren't

schismatics.

Instead, they

were going back

to the patristic

church fathers and

the understanding

of grace and

Christ that they

taught.

Correct.

But I think a

lot of Protestants

think that there

was novelties and

innovations and

very Calvinist,

very clear that

he's going back

to Augustine and

the church fathers.

So I appreciate

that.

Well, the

Reformation

effectively was

the rediscovery

of Augustine,

Augustine's

doctrine of grace,

which effectively

means the

rediscovery of

Paul.

So you're

absolutely correct.

Luther did not

see himself as

a revolutionary.

He just wanted

to recapture

something of

the scriptural

authority of the

early church and

to then hone what

he believed was

an era of the

late medieval

church.

It's also true

that there were

lots of reformers

through the

middle ages and

lots of people

were complaining

about the Roman

church and the

papacy, right?

So Luther's not the

first.

The clever thing

though about

Roman Catholic

church in the

middle ages is

that when there

were people who

were agitated for

reform, the

papacy let those

folk become an

order.

The Franciscans,

the Dominicans,

and of course a

whole lot of

others, the

Benedictines.

So they allowed

the disagreement to

stand but also

contained the

disagreement in

order.

So it's a very,

I don't mean this

cynically, it's a

very clever model,

right?

You're kind of

allowing there to

be this range of

opinion but

nonetheless this range

of opinion is

being cleverly

circumscribed.

Suppressed.

Yes, well no,

they weren't being

suppressed because

they're allowed to

exist, right?

They're allowed to

exist.

And in fact,

St. Francis was

given amazing

permission to

preach whereas it

was illegal if

you were a lay

person to

preach.

St. Francis was

a lay person and

the Pope said,

yeah, look, you're

not going to say

anything stupid so

I'm going to let you

preach.

So they were

allowed to do it,

right?

But it was kind of

channeled perhaps is

better than suppressed.

Yeah, yeah.

I've just written,

no, I just haven't

written.

I've just translated

a biography of

St. Francis from

German to English

and so I'm

willing to get

people's wrong

views of St. Francis

right.

Why wasn't

Lutheranism able to

be channeled in

that way?

Oh yeah, sure.

It sort of made

its own little thing

within the broader

tent.

Yes, because

Luther was German.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

So Luther did

not live in central

Italy.

He lived in Germany,

had protection from

his prince.

His prince was able

to deflect to some

degree criticism.

Although Luther was

still not allowed to

travel outside Saxony

so he was limited

into where he could

go actually and he

resented that

massively because it

was the young guys

who were getting all

the glory and not

him and he hated

that.

But so he was

kind of constricted

but he wasn't

he wasn't

burned.

You mentioned

at one point

you said this

talking about

in the West

this was happening.

What's in the East?

Are they developing

in the same fashion

looking at the

Eastern Church?

Is the East

looking

and investigating

the same issues

and coming

in the same trajectory

or was it a

different experience?

Yes, thank you.

No, it was quite

a different experience

because the

Eastern Greek

speaking church

and the Western

Latin speaking

church had been

growing apart

for hundreds

and hundreds

of years

and that

movement apart

was formalised

in 1054

in the Great

Schism.

So they're

pretty different

worlds at this

stage.

But are there

theological

issues still

centred on

grace?

Are there

completely

different

things they're

pondering in

that church

versus the West?

Yes, thank you.

Today you mean

or in this period?

In this period.

Yeah, sure.

I'm probably not

qualified to speak

about the

16th century

Greek church

but they did

have a different

view of the

spirit so that

probably did open

them to having

slightly different

nuanced views of

grace.

So we know

why Lutheranism

wasn't contained

on the other

side of the

spectrum.

Why wasn't

the Cathari and

the Adelgensi

contained?

You mean they

were contained,

right?

Why were they

absorbed?

Yes.

Yes, I see.

Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So there were

some groups in

the south of

France who

were regarded

as heretical

and they

were chiefly

regarded as

schismatic,

ultimately heretical

because they

were refusing

the Pope's

authority.

Francis never

did that.

Francis looked

for the Pope's

authority.

He submitted

to the Pope's

authority.

He wanted to

further the Pope's

authority.

So Francis

was a man of

the church.

he was pushing

that the church

should rethink

its wealth,

but he

nonetheless was

not a

revolutionary

like the

Cathari and

the Adelgensians

were.

In fact,

the Pope,

Francis lived

at the same

time as the

other groups,

and the Pope

liked Francis

because he

was saying,

look, here's

a guy who

can want to

reform the

church and

he's loyal

to me.

So Francis

was the

example opposite

at the very

same moment

the Cathari

and the

Albigensians

in the

south of

France.

Rob?

Just with

that statement

you just

made,

you implied

that there

might be

a little

politics

involved.

Who would

have thought?

Who would

have thought?

And then

to go back

to the theme

you just

mentioned

earlier about

returning back

to the

original theme

of Paul

and Augustine

and all of

these things,

we kind of

used the

Holy Spirit

to bring us

to that

place and

to bring us

to the

present.

Is that a

fair assumption

that it's

we're getting

back to the

core?

We need to

get back to

the core

issues.

And that's

where it

separates the

reformed from

the true

Catholic Italian

church.

So it's

kind of an

odd question

but I

don't know

if I'm

getting my

idea across

of how

the Spirit

is now

leading more

in these

reformers'

thoughts.

Yes,

so I

assume that

the Spirit's

always at

work amongst

Christians.

That is,

that there's

no moment

when the

Spirit gives

up on us.

So it

is true

though that

Calvin wrote

a lot about

the Spirit

and that's

Calvin's

way of

writing a lot

about grace.

My assumption

is that grace

is the personal

presence of the

Lord.

A gift to

you.

God gives,

not just gives

this other

thing to you,

he gives

himself to

you,

he gives

himself to

us.

That's grace,

God's personal

presence to

us.

And how

does God

give to us

his personal

presence?

Well, it's

from the Lord

Jesus, the Lord

Jesus by his

Spirit.

So,

implicit in

the Reformation's

conversations about

grace is a

belief, a

commitment to

the doctrine of

the Spirit.

Calvin writes

about a lot,

Luther,

Lesto,

but still,

in a sense,

the understand,

description,

conversation of

the Spirit

probably awaits

the Great

Awakening a

couple of

hundred years

after this

moment.

Thank you.

Well, let's

look at the

third column

then.

I would have

thought,

2,000 years

in the first

25 minutes.

The Reformers

talked up the

doctrines of

grace and

therefore the

doctrine of the

church.

What's the

church for?

If this is what

grace is, what's

the church had to

look like to do

to prosper that

view of grace?

stone.

They summarised

their beliefs,

they had lots

of them of

course, but we

might sloganise

them in Christ

for us, and

they wrote down

their views

slightly different

from different

denominations in

confessions of

the faith.

Confessions

aren't meant to

be held

universally by

all Christians.

Confessions

are written for

particular

denominations.

And if you

believe or

agree with one

of those

confessions of

faith, you

can describe

yourself as a

Reformed

Christian or

an Anabaptist

Christian or

an Anglican

Christian or

something.

The assumption

still was a

church estate

working together

for the common

good.

But given

that, 200

years later,

Protestant

churches were

dead.

Protestant

churches lacked

life.

You can be

entirely

Protestant and

entirely dead.

This was

blowing people's

minds.

They believed

that Christ is

for us.

They believed

that the

church's job

was to present

the gift of

Christ, Christ's

personal presence

to the world.

But still, this

did not lead,

in many quarters,

to a vibrant,

personal,

piety.

You can talk

about a

close walk

with the

Lord, but

that doesn't

mean you

have a

close walk

with the

Lord,

right?

So, in

this period,

the 18th

century,

beginning,

perhaps all

before as

well,

Christians

started talking

more about

the doctrine

of the

Spirit and

being driven

by the

Spirit into

mission.

They agreed

with the

stuff the

early church

had spoken

about in

terms of

the doctrine

of the

Trinity and

the nature

of Christ.

Of course,

they agreed

with that.

And they

agreed with

the Protestant

Reformers about

the nature of

grace and the

nature of the

church.

But they

needed, as

it were,

another layer

or level on

top of those

two earlier

levels to

specify, to

clarify a

smaller number

of doctrinal

confusions.

So, these

Christians of

the 18th

century, we

might call

them the

revivalists or

something,

started preaching

heavy-handedly

the doctrine

of regeneration

or Christ

in us.

they believed,

of course,

with the early

church that

Christ is with

us.

And of course,

they believed

with the

Reformation

leaders that

Christ in

his death and

resurrection is

for us.

They just

believed that

we needed to,

we'd lost,

we need to

remind ourselves,

we need to

focus again on

what it means

that Christ

can be in

us.

A healthy

directive.

It's unhealthy

if you've

forgotten that

Christ is with

us and that

Christ is for

us.

That can be a

very unhealthy

kind of

Christianity.

But Christ

in us, when

it assumes

Christ with

us and

Christ for

us, can

be a very

healthy kind

of Christianity.

It becomes

a renewal

movement within

the Protestant

churches.

The folk who

might have been

leading the

evangelical revival,

people whose

names you might

have heard of,

John Wesley,

George

Whitfield,

John Edwards,

Christians,

and so on.

When they

wanted to

capture, to

summarize, to

defend this

new belief, they

did not write

more creeds.

We had enough

of them.

They did their

job.

They helped us

understand that

Christ is with

us.

Nor did they

write confessions

of faith,

describing grace

in the church.

They had no

real issue with

the way the

Protestant churches

had defined

grace or the

church.

Now, they

decided if you

want to highlight

the close

presence of the

Lord, if you

want to highlight

Christ being in

us, then you

need to actually

sing songs and

write letters.

Those were the

chief strategies

that the

revivalists used

to defend this

close walk with

the Lord.

If you want to

defend the

close walk with

the Lord,

why don't you

use emotions and

sing songs and

talk about your

close walk with

the Lord?

It's much more

difficult to

defend and promote

a close walk with

the Lord if you

decide you've got

to write a 75

chapter confession

of faith.

And of course,

we still know

and sing some

Wesley hymns or

hymns by Isaac

Watts.

They're glorious,

and I hope that

the church in the

West continues to

sing them.

But the

evangelical

revivals also

were great letter

writers.

And this is a

period which

common people

could write

letters.

Formerly, there

had always been

letters, right,

written by generals

or diplomats or

monarchs.

But now,

common people,

if you will,

could write

letters from my

heart to your

heart and

encourage you

in your own

personal walk

with the Lord,

individually,

specifically.

John Newton,

the converted

slave trader,

was a magnificent

correspondent.

If you ever get a

chance to read

Newton's letters,

you'll be amply

rewarded.

They're just

beautiful pieces

describing soul

concerns.

In these days,

well, this is

how the postal

service worked

in the American

colonies.

You could write

a letter and

you'd take it to

the postman who

delivered it.

And the person

receiving the

letter had to

pay for the

stamp.

So they

realised that

wasn't going to

work, so they

flipped it, right?

The person

sending the

letter had to

buy the stamp.

Now, of

course, the

Boston Post

Road, not

very far from

here, was a

great,

viaduct for

letter writing

in the

American

colonies.

Now, if you

agree with a

Charles Wesley

hymn, or if

you read

John Newton's

letters and

you think,

yeah, that's

my understanding

of a walk

with the

Lord, you

can describe

yourself as

an evangelical

Christian.

So, personally,

I'm an Orthodox

Christian, as I

can say the

creeds.

I'm an

Anglican, or

I'm a

Reformed

Protestant

Christian, and

I'm an

evangelical

Christian, because

I believe that

you need to

work hard to

promote and

encourage and

defend a

personal walk

with the

Lord.

I understand

that this

word is

highly contested,

and in

American

politics more

than perhaps

where I'm

from.

But as

an historical

term, I

think it's

worth defending.

We give it

up, that's

okay, you

don't have to

use the

word.

But what

other word

are you

going to

use to

describe the

distinctions of

the 18th

century

revivals and

their defense

of a personal

experience of

the Lord's

work, right?

You've got to

find, that's a

long mouthful.

I think I'm

going to stick

with the word

evangelical.

But this is

also a weird

period because

at this point,

the church and

state are now

moving apart.

Christendom is

no longer

assumed.

The American

Revolution, the

French Revolution

see to it that

church and state

no longer work

together for

the common

good.

And that does

free Christians

to some degree

to think again

about the

spirit and

mission and

what it means

to represent

the Lord,

what it means

to encourage

a personal

walk with

Christ under

those new

kind of strange

conditions after

perhaps 1,200

years of

church and

state working

together for

the common

good.

I think we

need to

recapture all

three moments.

I'm not

advocating that

you choose

one of these.

I'm personally

advocating that

we commit

ourselves to

each of

these.

That's

sometimes a

little bit

difficult.

That is,

there's sometimes

some pinch

points because

you take that

reformed view

and it might

seem to

undermine that

evangelical

position or

you take that

evangelical

position and

it might seem

to undermine

that

creedal

commitment.

So it's

not always

an easy

ask for me

to say

why don't

we aspire

to capture

all three

moments.

But I think

it is the

healthiest,

most faithful

Christian

combination.

Christian

Christian

was in

Manhattan

just before

the Second

World War

at Union

Seminary.

This was his

observation of

American

Christianity.

It's

Protestantism

without the

Reformation.

What he meant

by that was

that people

were keen

to stress

your individual

right to read

the scriptures

according to

your own

light,

according to

your own

conscience.

But he

thought that

American

Christianity

had lost

something of

the middle

column.

You're in a

better position

to judge that

than I am.

But I think

it's one of those

interesting

observations.

The church I

preached there

took a wedding

out recently