I have written critically in the past about James Davison Hunter’s approach to not really changing the world. In the last analysis, his tag phrase “faithful presence” ought to be a means to victory, not a goal in itself. If we make it a goal, it is as though the coach settles for getting his team to just show up for the games, and the end result of that approach is what theologians used to call a “losing season.”
But my purpose here is not to dig through those old bones. One of the points that Hunter made very well, and which I appreciated very much, concerned the role of elite institutions in accomplishing whatever transformation might occur. Quite properly he leans against the idea that reformation is necessarily a grass roots “proletariat” sort of thing.
I actually think that the necessity of this kind of grass roots reformation is a bit of propaganda from the other team that we have bought into, and which has been greatly debilitating. In Rodney Stark’s book, The Rise of Christianity, he has a powerful chapter that demonstrates the explosive growth of Christianity was actually centered in the middle and upper classes of Roman society. The idea that Christianity grew so rapidly because it appealed to the downtrodden, the disenfranchised, the outcasts, and so on, was an idea that was floated early on by Friedrich Engels, and yes, that one, the Communist Manifesto guy.
The problem is that the data just doesn’t back that idea up. Christianity was an urban movement, and it was dominated by the educated and literate. Paganus was a word that referred to country bumpkins, and became associated with attachment to the old ways — hence, pagan. The preaching of the gospel attracted not a few prominent women (Acts 17:4). Members of Caesar’s household believed (Phil 4:22). Erastus, an important city official at Corinth, was a believer (Rom. 16:23). Lydia and Philemon were good examples of wealthy householders who were attracted to the gospel. One of the leaders of the church in Antioch had graduated from Eton with Herod (Acts 13:1). Stark shows how 1 Cor. 1:26-28 has been over-interpreted, and besides, Paul there says “not many,” not “not any.”
The same kind of phenomenon occurred in the Reformation. As C.S. Lewis put it, “The fierce young don, the learned lady, the courtier with intellectual leanings, were likely to be Calvinists” (Eng. Lit. in the Sixteenth Century, p. 43).
But this brings us to the rub. Why does the idea that only the dispossessed would risk everything for Christ seem so compelling to us? Well, we think it is easy for them because they have nothing to lose. But while it is true they have no influence to lose, they also have none to use.
This is why, for well-placed Christians, there is resistance to overcome. We know for a fact that the world is sticky, like pine sap, and we do get attached to it. When we are attached to something valuable, we could use it, but only by risking it. Thus the well-connected are in a position actually to do something, but they are also a group of people who really do have something to lose. But once that resistance is overcome, and many of the well-connected believers start to push their chips to the middle of the table, reformation begins.
This is another way of saying that the work of reformation requires leadership, but there is no such thing as Christian leadership without sacrifice and risk.
But remember — your millenialist utopian ideal (that non-A-postmil type) — will be short-lived, experienced by only a subset of the church down the road.
The nunc dimittis sought by saints since Abel was a comeuppance fest? A time down the road when “we’ll show them” who’s on the winning team?
That’s a sad, small, weak and uninspiring goal, pastor Doug.
Millions upon untold millions of saints have lived and loved but left this spinning globe not yet seeing the ultimate realization of …?: a time when folks will still have sin & hurt & death?
That’s your utopian dream?
Is it a fair question to ask of nonAmillPostmillialists:
Do you find yourself needing to work through an apparent bit of discordance between the impending judgment which new testament writers seem in such a fuss about, and the presumed multi-multi-multi-generational delay your position teaches?
Or do you knock that judgment day over as the vagaries of each individual life span, rather than Jesus’ plenary return?
Like a broken-bat single.
Great post, Douglas.
“But while it is true they have no influence to lose, they also have none to use.”
The principle of oikos influence would seem to discredit as much. What’s your ground for this proposition?
DS
So, Eric, us amilpostmills (Jesus started the millenium when He first came and it will feature worldwide gospel victory for who knows how long before He comes back) are off your hook?
And of course we all face death and minor judgments, but the BIG judgment the NT and the NT church looked forward to as imminent was the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70, which Jesus and His team sometimes described in what the late David Chilton called “collapsing-universe” terminology. On this, read Kenneth Gentry in general and Peter Leithart on II Peter.
The list of prominent people sounds impressive but is drawn from different NT books written within a wide geogaphical area. The names could be viewed another way: maybe they are highlighted precisely because there were so few. of them.
And if the Book of Acts is (as I believe) Paul’s defence brief for his trial in Rome then Luke, at least, would be motivated to include the “respectable” names to help guard the faith against the charge of rebellion against Rome
Doug’s last line is the key – no leadership without sacrifice. But, being a “structure” guy, there’s a very simple principle here that runs from Genesis to Revelation. If you humble yourself, you will be exalted. If you submit to dying alone, you become a great harvest. And this process goes on and on throughout history. The firstfruits church died to topple the Herods. That’s one growth ring. Those saints were glorified, enthroned in heaven. More saints died in Roman arenas and pagan sacrifices came to an official end in Constantinianism. That’s another growth ring. The next major one was… Read more »
Of course, there is a possibility is that the next big event is not happening on our turf, and it’s already happening elsewhere.
Your conclusion is spot on. We spoke about this three years ago as we discussed the First Great Awakening and the Reformation in the context of the present day. I remember your comment that things would be a mess now since we lacked leadership. I was somewhat confused with your response. My simple minded expectation is that those that have been raised in the Reformed circle would have the full insight to act based on not only the solid Biblical truth but, a historical context of the Reformation itself and the American Revolution. Then as I thought it through I… Read more »
Read yours and this the same morning; somewhat similar spiritual reasoning: means-goals, etc.
http://utmost.org/classic/justification-by-faith-classic/
Andrew — “the BIG judgment the NT and the NT church looked forward to as imminent was the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70”
That fall, as with many others hitting the jews & believers & gentiles alike are indeed judgments, no doubt about it.
But the BIG judgment? — no way.
70 was hardly a blip on the screen for most believers around the globe.
Eric,
In 70 AD, there were no blips, no screens–and very few believers all around the (entire) globe.
Fred — “very few believers all around the (entire) globe”
Other than tens of thousands upon thousands in Spain, Africa, Italy, Asia — even North & South America?
Eric, It was actually a pretty cataclysmic event for the saints at the time. And if for some reason it wasn’t, it should have been. To be a Jewish Christian at the time and to walk upon the rubble of Jerusalem….you think they would just shrug their shoulders and move on, unaffected? Paul, who said he would rather have been lost himself if it would have saved his brothers, would have just gone “Meh, big deal”? It was the final overturning of the old order, the final judgement on God’s obstinate people who had always murdered the prophets, and then… Read more »
Eric, by what means do you believe there were believers in North and South America in AD 70?
Matt —
The final consummation / overturning = Christ on cross, no? — not a building falling.
That temple had been equally destroyed more than once before.
Be reminded we have NO biblical witness that this temple destruction was what was prophesied.
The witness many recite could better be taken as about Christ’s person & body, not the sandstone blocks (which still have a few still standing upon one-another, by the way).
Jane — His witness & His Word have salvific effect.
His Word often produces converted hearts for Himself, no?
Is there a reason to think His Word was ineffectual in Mesoamerica?
I have to re-ask Jane’s question. Eric are you saying there were Christians in North America at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD? Where did they come from? The only reason to think His Word was ineffectual is that it was not present in that no Missionaries had arrived on these shores yet. I fear I am missing something in the discussion.
Hi Jonathan
The Word was present and speaking in North America in 70 AD.
In what form Eric?
A form that created folks and could recreate their cold, dead dear hearts
Eric, in honest curiosity, are you saying that Jesus was here in America in AD 70?
Are Nephites about to enter the conversation, or am I just totally lost?
Eric,
No, that wasn’t the final consummation. Christ must reign until all of his enemies are under his feet, the final enemy being death. 1 Cor (15:25-26). THEN God will be all in all. The sweeping away of the final remnants of the old creation order was an important step in that direction. The scaffolding had to be shaken off.
And no biblical witness? Try Mark 13.
But regardless, even if it wasn’t the event that was prophesied, it was no mere blip. That’s 2000 years of cold distance talking.
Matt — well said about death, sir.
Re your temple prophecy focus — does that include “there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down“?
I take it you are not a literalist on that point, then — given stone upon stones still?
Ok Eric I will just ask it straight out. Are you speaking of the Mormon belief system?
Jonathan — angels preaching to the lost tribes? — freaky (and a bit silly). No. So as long as we’re shooting straight: The same Word who made you, what? — sometime in the last century? — He has no trouble re-making you with faithful heart. He is not dependent upon our efforts to speak to you. He has spoken and continues to speak to and in the “nature” that is you. Just as accurate written Scripture is the record of what He said, so is nature — our very selves — an accurate record of what He said. Scripture and… Read more »
Eric, In this context, yes. The disciples are marveling at the temple and its buildings, and Jesus tells them not to get too caught up in it, because they won’t be lasting very long anyway. They then specifically ask him when it will take place, and what would be the signs, while the temple is still in view and in mind (v. 3). Then begins the Olivet discourse, with many parallels to Matthew 24. Some of the Lord’s advice in that text is imminently practical. Those still in Judea should flee to the mountains, because things are going to get… Read more »
Matt — “when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled”
Seems a disconnect stands out if we take your “imminently practical” hermeneutic vs Jesus’ instruction on how to calmly prepare for the speech you’ll give when when dragged into court.
It is only the attraction of “the abomination of desolation” that must be fleed, not the terror of persecution.
Eric, You seem to be confused about what we’re actually talking about. I’m still talking about the destruction of the temple. When the signs came that the temple was about to be destroyed, they should get the heck out of dodge, because it wasn’t going to be pretty. Judgement was coming on the Jews and those who murdered the prophets. How Christians should respond to persecution doesn’t have anything to do with what I’m talking about. You said the destruction of the temple would be just a blip on the radar. It was not. The Bible simply doesn’t treat it… Read more »
Matt — you are saying Jesus wanted the few disciples He spoke with to get out of dodge when the Roman army came in with their sledge hammers.
Yet the passage you cite as preeminent is all about deportment under persecution.
I don’t see Jesus advising them to really save their skins.
Eric, Is this a hypothetical there could have been Christians in the Americas in 70 AD? Or is this an historical fact that there were people that called on the name of the Lord Jesus and believed in their heart that God raised Him from the dead in the Americas in 70 AD? If the latter is the case what happened to these people? Were there still Christians in the Americas when European settlers came to these shores? I am trying to understand you but I haven’t gotten there yet. Thanks.
Looks like some magistrates in N.C. have made a choice:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/31/i-hate-to-wax-so-biblical-but-the-reason-at-least-six-north-carolina-magistrates-have-abruptly-resigned/?utm_source=co2hog
Good Bless them.
Dang. Is resigning the best civil disobedience we can muster? I do not know the answer.
I get impatient too.
The Holy Spirit is adamant in that I wait on Him; its hard to obey, but necessary.