Strange Theology - Part 3: Covenant Judgment, 70 AD, and New Covenant Maturity

This final part brings the series to its conclusion by examining covenant judgment, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and what it means to live within a fully realized new covenant. Rather than future speculation, the focus here is on fulfillment, clarity, and Christian maturity.

Israel, the Church, and the Question of “Two Peoples of God”:

As noted in Part II, dispensational theology maintains that Israel and the Church constitute two distinct peoples of God. Although both are said to enjoy a special relationship with God, they are understood to remain permanently separate. This raises several foundational questions: Are Israel and the Church truly distinct entities? If so, when and how did this separation occur? Does God therefore deal with them independently and according to separate redemptive timelines? Finally, what does the historical and biblical record indicate regarding these claims?

This third section examines the dispensational assertion of “two peoples of God,” tracing its historical origins, evaluating its exegetical foundations, and assessing its coherence within the broader biblical narrative.

The Dispensational Origin of the “Two Peoples” Framework:

The sharp distinction between Israel and the Church is not a doctrine inherited from the early or medieval church, but rather one that emerged in the nineteenth century through the work of John Nelson Darby. Darby developed this framework following what his contemporaries described as a period of intense theological reorientation during his recovery from a riding accident in 1827. During this time, Darby concluded that the “kingdom” described in Isaiah and other Old Testament texts was categorically different from the Christian church.¹

Darby argued that Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel should not be interpreted typologically or ecclesiologically, but rather as literal predictions concerning ethnic Israel alone. Correspondingly, the Church—unknown and unrevealed in the Old Testament—was said to be a New Testament phenomenon whose destiny was wholly distinct from Israel’s. This hermeneutical move became foundational to dispensational theology.²

As Darby himself maintained, the separation between Israel and the Church functioned as the decisive interpretive hinge upon which the understanding of Scripture turned. Later dispensational writers echoed this claim, emphasizing that God’s purposes in history were not unified but bifurcated: one oriented toward national Israel with earthly promises, and the other toward the Gentile Church with heavenly promises.³

Within this framework, the Church is frequently described as a temporary “parenthesis” in God’s redemptive plan—a pause in prophetic history initiated by Israel’s rejection of the Messiah and destined to end at the rapture, after which God would resume his dealings with Israel.⁴ This construction effectively subordinates the Church to Israel, positioning it as an interim phenomenon rather than the culmination of God’s covenantal purposes.

The Emergence of the “Replacement Theology” Charge:

It is within this dispensational framework that the term “replacement theology” emerged. Dispensationalists often apply this label to theological traditions that reject the Israel–Church dichotomy, suggesting that such views improperly assert that the Church has supplanted Israel in God’s plan. The term itself is polemical and misleading, as it assumes precisely the separation that is under dispute. Historically, the Church did not understand itself as “replacing” Israel, but rather as constituting the faithful continuation and fulfillment of Israel’s covenantal vocation in Christ.⁵

Jesus, the Kingdom, and the Ekklēsia:

The Gospels consistently portray Jesus proclaiming the Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven) as the central theme of his ministry. He also speaks of Israel, of judgment, and of his ekklēsia. The Greek term ekklēsia, commonly translated “church,” denotes an assembly or gathered people and is not unique to the New Testament. In the Septuagint, it frequently refers to the assembly of Israel itself.⁶

Dispensational theology contends that the Church began only after Israel’s rejection of Jesus, functioning as a temporary interruption in prophetic history. Yet the Gospels present a different picture. Jesus speaks explicitly of building his ekklēsia prior to his crucifixion (Matt. 16:18), and he inaugurates the New Covenant at Passover—before his rejection by the nation. The New Covenant is thus not a post-Israel contingency plan but the fulfillment of Israel’s own covenantal trajectory.⁷

Hebrews 8:7–13 explicitly describes the New Covenant as rendering the former covenant obsolete, not by negating God’s promises but by fulfilling them in Christ. The text addresses Israel and Judah directly, framing the New Covenant as the divinely intended resolution of covenantal failure, not as the establishment of a separate people.

Acts, Pentecost, and the Absence of a Prophetic “Pause”:

The book of Acts provides no evidence for the dispensational notion of a prophetic pause. Following his resurrection, Jesus instructs his disciples concerning the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:3). When they inquire about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, Jesus redirects their expectations—not toward a deferred national restoration, but toward a Spirit-empowered mission extending from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth.

Pentecost further reinforces this trajectory. The initial outpouring of the Spirit occurs among Jews gathered from many nations, signalling not the birth of a new religious entity detached from Israel, but the renewal and expansion of Israel’s mission to bless the nations. Gentile inclusion follows soon thereafter, most notably in the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10), where Peter explicitly affirms that God shows no partiality and accepts those from every nation who fear him.

One People, Not Two:

Throughout the apostolic period, the early Christian movement was understood as a Jewish sect—“the Way”—rather than a separate religion. Internal conflicts arose not over whether Gentiles could belong to a different people of God, but over how Gentiles were to be included within the same covenant community. The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) resolved this tension by affirming Gentile inclusion apart from full adherence to Mosaic law, thereby preserving unity rather than institutionalizing division.

Paul’s letters consistently reinforce this vision. Faith, not ethnicity, defines covenant membership. Those who belong to Christ—Jew or Gentile—are Abraham’s offspring and heirs according to promise (Gal. 3:26–29). Paul’s discussion of the “mystery” in Ephesians 3 does not introduce a second people of God, but rather reveals that Gentiles are now fellow heirs within the same body.⁸

Ekklēsia and Covenant Continuity:

The New Testament’s use of ekklēsia deliberately echoes Old Testament covenant language. Acts 7:38 explicitly refers to Israel in the wilderness as the ekklēsia, underscoring continuity rather than rupture. Jesus’ declaration that he would build his ekklēsia would thus have been intelligible to his Jewish audience as a covenantal renewal, not the creation of a novel institution.⁹

Israel’s Vocation and the Blessing of the Nations:

Israel’s election was never an end in itself. From Genesis onward, Israel is chosen for a purpose: to mediate God’s blessing to the nations. The Abrahamic promise explicitly envisions the inclusion of “all the families of the earth,” and the prophetic literature consistently affirms Israel’s vocation as a light to the nations—a calling ultimately fulfilled in the Messiah.¹⁰

Covenant Conditions, Judgment, and Fulfillment:

The Mosaic covenant was explicitly conditional, with blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. Scripture records that Israel experienced both. The climactic judgment of the first century—culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70—occurred precisely as Jesus had foretold and within the covenantal framework articulated in Deuteronomy and Leviticus.¹¹

Israel, Zionism, and the Modern State:

The modern State of Israel emerged from secular political Zionism rather than covenantal repentance or obedience. While the name “Israel” carries profound biblical resonance, nomenclature alone does not confer theological identity. The biblical category of “Israel” has always been covenantal and faith-defined, not merely ethnic or political (Rom. 9:6).¹²

 

13. Appendix to Part III & Notes for reference and further study:

“Chosen People,” Covenant, and the Origins of Israel

Following the flood narrative, Scripture presents humanity reduced to a single surviving family. Noah and his sons are commissioned to “be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth” (Gen. 9:1–3). This mandate echoes the original creation blessing and establishes a universal human vocation rather than a narrowly ethnic one. The genealogies of Genesis 10—commonly referred to as the “Table of Nations”—trace the spread of humanity through Noah’s three sons and frame the emergence of the nations as the fulfillment of this divine command.¹³

Genesis 11 records a disruption of this mandate in the account of the Tower of Babel. Rather than dispersing across the earth, humanity settles in Shinar and seeks to establish permanence and renown: “Let us build ourselves a city… otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth” (Gen. 11:4). The construction of a ziggurat suggests not merely urban consolidation but religious defection. Joshua later confirms that Abraham’s ancestors “worshiped other gods” beyond the Euphrates (Josh. 24:2).¹⁴

In response to this disobedience, God confuses human language and scatters the nations. Deuteronomy 32:7–9 (“The Song of Moses”) reflects on this event theologically, portraying the division of the nations as occurring “according to the number of the sons of God,” while identifying Israel—“Jacob his allotted heritage”—as the Lord’s own portion. This text frames Israel’s election not as favoritism, but as a strategic redemptive response to the fragmentation of the nations.¹⁵

Against this backdrop, Genesis 12 introduces God’s covenant with Abram. The initial command is simple but decisive: “Go.” Abram’s obedience initiates a covenantal relationship characterized by promise and purpose. The covenant unfolds further in Genesis 15, where Abram’s belief in God’s promise of offspring “as numerous as the stars” is credited to him as righteousness. The land promise is solemnized through a covenant ceremony in which God commits himself to Abram’s descendants.

Genesis 17 expands the covenant’s scope and clarifies its conditional dimensions. Abram is commanded to “walk before me faithfully and be blameless,” followed by the divine commitment, “Then I will make my covenant between me and you.” Abram’s renaming as Abraham—“father of many nations”—signals that the covenant’s horizon extends beyond a single ethnic lineage.¹⁶

The New Testament’s repeated appeal to Abraham in discussions of Israel’s identity and vocation reflects this foundational role. The promises to Abraham include not only nationhood and land, but the blessing of “all the families of the earth.” While Isaac is identified as the covenantal heir, Abraham fathers multiple sons, reinforcing the multinational scope embedded within the promise itself.¹⁷

Significantly, “Israel” as a named entity does not emerge until Jacob, Abraham’s grandson. Like Abraham, Jacob receives his new name directly from God, marking a covenantal transformation tied to divine purpose. Deuteronomy 32’s identification of “Jacob” as the Lord’s portion underscores this covenantal—not merely biological—definition.

Two phrases central to the Abrahamic narrative warrant particular attention: “believed the Lord” (Gen. 15:6) and “obeyed my voice” (Gen. 26:5). In Hebrew thought, belief and obedience are inseparable. The verb šāmaʿ (“hear”) encompasses attentive listening, trust, and responsive action. Faith is thus inherently active, not merely cognitive.¹⁸

This pattern continues with Isaac and Jacob. Each receives the promise accompanied by specific commands and responds in obedience. Jacob’s vow at Bethel (Gen. 28:20–22) further illustrates the reciprocal structure of covenant fidelity. The repetition of the promise across generations underscores that covenant participation is neither automatic nor unconditional.

(14) Covenant Judgment, Jerusalem, and the Jewish–Roman Wars

The covenantal warnings of Leviticus 26:27–35 bear striking resemblance to later apocalyptic imagery, including passages in Revelation and Jesus’ prophetic discourse in Luke 21:5–24. The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 during the Jewish–Roman wars appears to correspond closely to these warnings. An earlier precedent exists in the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC, which was explicitly accompanied by a seventy-year exile and a promise of return.¹⁹

By contrast, the Jewish–Roman wars (66–136 AD) include no comparable biblical promise of restoration or timeframe for return. While divine mercy remains available upon repentance, Scripture contains no unambiguous declaration that Israel would again possess the land or rebuild the temple following this later judgment.

The Jewish–Roman did not end with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. Following that, there were further battles that consisted of multiple revolts culminating in the Bar Kokhba uprising (132–136 AD). Roman suppression was brutal and decisive, resulting in mass death, enslavement, and widespread displacement. Judea was effectively depopulated, and Jewish national life was shattered. Ancient and later sources describe scenes of extraordinary violence, imagery that resonates with apocalyptic biblical language (cf. Rev. 14:20).²⁰

Accounts of the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70—drawing primarily on Josephus—depict famine, mass crucifixions, internal violence, and the eventual destruction of the temple, despite Roman attempts to preserve it. Jesus’ prophecy that “not one stone would be left upon another” (Matt. 24:2) was fulfilled with devastating precision.²¹

These events coincided with the rise of multiple messianic claimants, culminating in Simon bar Kokhba, whose revolt was widely regarded by many Jews as messianic in nature. Jesus had warned of false messiahs during precisely such periods of upheaval (Matt. 24:5, 23–26). Historians commonly identify this era as decisive in the widening separation between Judaism and Christianity.²²

The existence of this historical split, however, does not necessitate the conclusion that God established two distinct peoples. Rather, the evidence suggests the continuation of a single people of God, now defined by faith in the Messiah rather than ethnicity alone—a remnant composed of both Jewish and Gentile believers (cf. Gal. 3:28; Rom. 9:6–7, 27–29).

Early Christian sources indicate that believers who heeded Jesus’ warnings escaped Jerusalem prior to its destruction.²³ The question now that must be considered is: will later generations similarly heed the declarations of Jesus?

Appendix B: Historical detail of Israel’s Destruction.

The Bar Kokhba revolt was the third and final major escalation of the Jewish–Roman wars. This was a large-scale armed rebellion by the Jews of Judea against the Roman Empire, led by Simon bar Kokhba that began in 132 A.D. and lasted until 136 A.D.. The Roman army brutally suppressed the uprising which resulted in a total defeat of the short-lived Jewish state. The Roman campaigns led to the near-depopulation of Judea through widespread killings, mass enslavement, and the displacement of many Jews from the region. The last Jewish stronghold was Betar and it was here that  Bar Kokhba was killed.

“The horrendous scene after the city's capture could be best described as a massacre. 112} The Jerusalem Talmud relates that the number of dead in Betar was enormous, and that the Romans "went about slaughtering them until a horse sunk in blood up to its nostrils, and the blood carried away boulders that weighted forty sela until it went four miles into the sea. If you should think that it (Betar) was close to the sea, behold, it was forty miles distant from the sea."{113}{114}”

{Quote taken from:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt}

Certainly, parts of that description sound as if they could have been lifted right out of Passages such as Revelation 14:20, “And the wine press was trampled outside the city, and blood came out from the wine press, up to the horses’ bridles, for a distance of 1,600 stadia.”

With respect to the seige of Jerusalem that began in 66 A.D. I’ve included this brief account. The following quote is taken from The Siege of Jerusalem, by Jared Jackson and draws on sources from: Keller, Werner. 1956. “The Bible as History.” New York, NY: William Morrow & Co.; as well as from Whitson, William. 1957. “The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus,” Philadelphia, PA: John C. Winston.

“…Food rations inside the city were scarce. During the nights, ghostly figures would sneak through hidden passages to steal food amid supplies from the soldiers’ tents. Titus decreed that those captured were to be crucified. A forest of crosses littered the countryside as trees were stripped off the land to satisfy the orders for crucifying some 500 Jews per day (cf. Matthew 27:25).

A rampart was built around the city to seal off the hidden passages. Hunger became so intense that the citizens became insane with famine, resorting to murdering one another over food; they even practiced cannibalism. Those who perished were cast over the walls into piles of bodies that remained unburied. The scene of the Holy City was one of utter desolation.

The campaign was taking longer than Titus expected; the soldiers were becoming difficult to manage. They could see Herod’s temple, with its golden surfaces glittering in each evening’s sunset. Every soldier could imagine himself taking spoil of what lay beyond the walls. The Jews who tried to escape had their bodies ripped open, as pitiless soldiers searched their stomachs for jewels and gold.

The Roman army gradually subdued the city, but was impeded when it reached the temple compound. The massive stone walls were impenetrable; the soldiers gained access by burning the great temple doors. Upon gaining entry, Titus commanded his men to put out the fire and “spare the Sanctuary.” But the Jews violently attacked those extinguishing the fire. The Romans retaliated with merciless slaughter; they went berserk — partly out of vengeance, partly with greed.

As the battle raged on, suddenly, a soldier—without command—launched a torch through the Golden Window of the temple. Instantly, the flames licked the fabrics and wood that adorned the interior of that precious building. Titus again commanded his soldiers to put out the fire, but to no avail. The temple was lost. Eventually, the soldiers completely tore apart the compound, looking for rumored treasures. They plundered the city and extracted vengeance from the enemy that had resisted them so bitterly, and had cost them so much.

Having lost its glory, Titus ordered the city razed to bury the evil he had witnessed.

Some 40 years earlier, Jesus had prophesied that “not one of these stones shall be left one upon another” (Matthew 24:1-2). Despite the efforts of the Jews to defend their temple, and the endeavors of the Roman general to preserve that precious building, Christ’s words were fulfilled. The Savior’s prophecy could not be thwarted by mere human resistance. He is Lord of all! 

Why discuss such horrors? Why elaborate on the gory details? The destruction of God’s own city, Jerusalem, speaks to the judgment prophecies of Christ and should serve as a vivid warning to all of us to heed His words and prepare for His Kingdom that is to come fully. 
________________________________________

New here? You may want to start with the Start Here page to understand how this series fits together.

For a broader reflection on mortality, judgment, and why these questions matter in the first place, see: Sin, Soul, Death, and Hell.  
____________________________________

 Endnotes:

1.        John Nelson Darby, The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, vol. 2 (Kingston-on-Thames: Stow Hill, 1962), 89–127; Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 63–95.

2.        Darby, Collected Writings, 2:94–102; Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton, IL: BridgePoint, 1993), 49–72.

3.        Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 39–47; George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 36–58.

4.        Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 145–148; Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 89–94.

5.        N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 787–799; Michael J. Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel? (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 15–28.

6.        Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 44–48; Septuagint usage discussed in Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 99–103.

7.        N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 202–207; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 622–627.

8.        N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 820–826; F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 303–307.

9.        Acts 7:38; see G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 109–145.

10.     Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 65–92; Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 308–312.

11.     R. K. Harrison, Old Testament Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 195–203; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 345–368.

12.     N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 770–783.

13.     Appendix Footnotes (Continued)

14.     Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (Word Biblical Commentary 1; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 219–231.

15.     John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 94–102; Josh. 24:2.

16.     Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 113–120.

17.     Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 287–292; Gen. 17:1–8.

18.     K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 307–312.

19.     Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 564–566.

20.     R. K. Harrison, Old Testament Times, 195–203; Lev. 26:27–35.

21.     Peter Schäfer, The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 1–35.

22.     Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, trans. G. A. Williamson (London: Penguin, 1981), 300–375.

23.     Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 235–255.

24.     Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.5.3, trans. Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926).

Where Then Shall I Go

The Covid “pandemic” had, and continues to have, a profound effect on the church. As gatherings slowly returned through the various government/state imposed controls, there was a noticeable decline in regular church attendance. Also, there seemed to be a discernible chilling within the context of some personal relationships and in terms of church fellowship. Having gone through all this, I must confess that I likely contributed as much as any others in strained relationships within my local church community.

Throughout the Covid era there has been a migration of folks (that wanted to continue meeting) toward churches that defied certain “mandates” in order to continue to gather. This migration has continued right up to the present; so while many churches suffered a significant drop in attendance (some have closed and likely will not open again) other church assemblies have doubled and tripled. Personally, I am one among many who find them-self in such a transition. While I have found a place to pause and refuel, I’m far from certain that I’ve found the church group where I fit and that I’m looking for.

What we seem to be witnessing is some sort of a major exodus away from a large number of churches. In some cases (but not all) the exodus can be seen as a migration toward other assemblies. Why? Is it because of Covid – can we safely assume that to be the lone culprit? Maybe Covid was just a tool that was used to bring about an acceleration in the decline of the church institutional. Maybe it was merely the latest catalyst in a series of societal events. Perhaps it was a generally insipid response on the part of so many churches (to each of these societal events and Covid was just the “final straw”). Did those churches render unto Caesar that which was not rightfully theirs to render – is that what set off the migration in earnest?

Having already written several essays on the topic of Covid and the rational for my views, I’m not going into a lot of those details here in this short article. Suffice it to say that when many individuals sought Christian gatherings (for want or need) and turned to the church institutional, they found the doors closed and were thus turned away. The institution, bowing to Caesar’s demands, had made the decision not to join together and assemble - rather than letting the individual members decide if they would come out or not. Also, in a number of cases, the church institutional actually served to promote the governments message and even (in some instances) helped spread harmful misinformation. Apparently it was safer to assemble in the Walmart, liquor stores and/or pot shops than church buildings!

However, the church I happened to attend was nothing like I just outlined in the above paragraph. Fortunately we did open earlier than many other churches and were not the agents of misinformation. From my own experience though, I found the atmosphere between myself and quite a number of others had chilled noticeably. There was a definite division between those who religiously supported the government mandates and those who opposed them. Those like myself that opposed and resisted the mandates experienced having our faith itself questioned as we faced accusations of being selfish and inconsiderate.

The desire to seek other assemblies and gatherings (in my own case) was not solely because of Covid. Even before “the pandemic,” I had begun to feel a growing dissatisfaction and less at home within the setting where I attended church. I liked the pastor and a great many of the other congregants who attended each week. I had gotten to know some folks very well in the weekly small groups and overall it was a very friendly place. So where was the dissatisfaction and the restless feelings coming from – feelings like, “I don’t think I fit here?” This is the question I hope to explore in the rest of this article.

Over the past dozen or so years, much of what I’ve written about concerns the spiritual journey I find myself on. Many of my thoughts centered around something generally regarded as “church” and an ambivalence between the desire to fully connect vs a reluctance or aversion to being connected. In addition to the church I usually attended, I also attended and checked out other churches including the one denomination I left over forty-five years ago. I’ve looked at the “essential” or core doctrines and beliefs versus “secondary or non essential beliefs” and I’ve read dozens of denominational websites with, “What We Believe” statements. During this time I’ve met many wonderful Christians and become good friends with some of those folks. On the whole, I believe I’ve benefited tremendously and grown in both knowledge and faith. There remains however, an awareness of a still missing something – a sensation like I simply don’t fit here. The title of a recent popular song seems to sum it up best as, "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For."

Well then, the most obvious questions to what I’ve said so far are: “What was I looking for?” and, “Is it appropriate to look for that in a church?” I might also ponder: just what church is supposed to be?

What I sought most was fellowship with other Christians. By this I mean that I wanted to find a gathering or group, consisting of like-minded individuals, that got together regularly. The church gatherings would, through their regular fellowship, form into a well knit community. Through such activities as singing, prayer, scripture reading, teaching and thoughtful discussion/debate, such a church would be seen and experienced as a place that believes and takes scripture seriously. This would be a place that would be experienced as safe - where one could confess the hidden areas of their lives (sins, trials, fears, concerns, all manner of challenges etc) and know that the folks would support each other and “have each others back.” Even when there was disagreement or conflict, there could be community and there would be growth.

So is it appropriate to look for this in a church? I would agree that such a list is rather idealistic and therefore not likely to be found. However, I do think such a description is worthy of striving for and is very much in line with instructions given in 1 Corinthians 14 (especially verse 26 – all things are to be done “for edification”). During the years since I’ve been going to various churches, many of those very items I’ve mentioned have been present to one degree or another. Some churches definitely had a stronger sense of family and/or community than others. With that thought in mind, I would say that while I haven’t yet found a “permanent” church home, all so far have been pause points in my own faith journey as a member of the body of Christ.

Some observations:

• Over the past twelve or so years since my returning to church, I’ve noted some major differences from when I’d left it in the early 1970’s. This is the case regardless of which denominational or independent church I’ve attended.

• As much as I wanted to find a church where I felt like I fit, this has not been the case thus far. Though each stop along the way has felt hopeful and promising, after a spell attendance began to become more and more of a chore. The relationship just became more and more strained. This has been especially true following Covid.

• “Church” seems to have moved progressively away from societal engagement (as salt and light within the community) and into a business like, institutional model - kept behind the walls of churches. So called, “separation of church and state” seems to have evolved (with the church's co-operation) into “separating church from state.” By this I mean much of the church has been convinced they should stay out of any issues deemed to be “political.”

• Within the church setting of today, there is usually no room for questions, discussion, debate or personal sharing. Instead, it seems “Church” has gradually morphed into a “service” where we go for a half-hour music session complete with live band (called worship). This is often followed by prayer, a Bible reading and a sermon that can go anywhere from fifteen minutes to an hour. Folks are usually asked to stand during the music portion and sit looking at the back of peoples heads during the sermon portion. Before and after there could be brief periods of socializing and sometimes during the service you are even invited to shake the hand of people sitting next to you. At the conclusion of the message/sermon and closing prayer, church is done (for many of the congregants) and life resumes for the remaining 166 hours left in the week.

What I’ve just described here is how someone from the outside might view and describe a church or worship “service” in most typical Evangelical churches. Of course those who attend would likely view it much more favourably and fill in much of what is missing in the above description. Is this how it’s supposed to be?

• Current church structure does not provide much opportunity to learn from, or interact with each other.

• Every church I’ve attended, or sought out on line, claims to be “Bible believing” and to accept the principle of Scriptural authority. However, they often hold to doctrinal beliefs which they claim to be Scriptural that are in fact contradictory with the doctrinal positions held by other Christian groups. Those other groups make the same claim of Scriptural authority about their beliefs. Each group will claim the other is in error.

Most churches are set up in such a way so as to promote a kind of hyphenated Christianity. The church or denomination name is often the most common identifier and frequently that alone can signify a particular distinct set of beliefs. Certainly, they all do hold their own denominational distinctives and favourite doctrines; these generally are not open to question. By so doing, they place their distinctives above any Biblical understanding (on the same subject) that other churches might hold. It seems most churches often state their particular dogma as, “We believe....” Each brand will utilize their own catechesis process to ensure that the dogma is well established and beyond question.

• If asked about various doctrines or beliefs, many within the church will offer what they believe is, “what the Bible says,” about the subject. Many are unaware that, on certain topics, other solid Biblical views exist. What they actually have come to believe is what their denomination says that the Bible says. With no opportunity to explore, discuss and debate such topics, greater understanding will never occur.

I actually left one such group many years ago and, since I resumed church attendance, it seems I may really have a problem finding a church home where I actually fit in. There seem to be two options for me - where a fit is possible:

1) I should happen to find a church that has the same views as me (which is unlikely); or 2) I find a church open enough to include discussion on those doctrinal views in which there are differences in scriptural interpretation. I do think such open discussion would be very helpful in helping someone (such as myself) find, refine or change those views to align with scripture.

 

Thinking out loud here:

Some may find this next portion offensive although it is not my intention to offend. However, when thinking about different possibilities and models that might reflect the sort of church community experience that I personally would find most welcoming, my mind settled on a most unusual example. The question is, would I ever have the audacity to suggest what came to mind could possibly be worthy of consideration? What came to mind was a television sitcom! Could we possibly glean anything useful to the conversation, from a television sitcom that, of all places, is set largely in a bar!?

Far beyond its humours content, “Cheers” depicted the warmth and concerns of a caring community built over time. It ran from September 1982, to May 1993. During its run, Cheers became one of the most popular series in history and received critical acclaim from its start to its end and is frequently cited as one of the greatest television shows of all time. Now, I’m not for a minute suggesting that the church should somehow become a bar or engage solely in setting up humorous situations to draw crowds. I do think however it might prove quite worthwhile to study the caring for, warmth, sharing and human relationships that became evident - through all different sorts of trials and struggles.

I’ve selected a couple verses from the theme song written by Gary Portnoy and Judy Hart Angelo which helps illustrate the point I’m hoping to make. You may even find yourself humming along as you read:

“Makin' your way in the world today
takes everything you've got.
Takin' a break from all your worries
sure would help a lot.
Wouldn’t you like to get away?

Sometimes you wanna go
Where everybody knows your name
And they're always glad you came
You wanna be where you can see
Our troubles are all the same
You wanna be where everybody knows your name”

Well Then, Where to From Here?

Short of heading out to a local bar rather than the church (a silly idea… and not what I was getting at in the above section) the question remains, “Where Then Shall I Go?” Earlier I posited that there were two options (for someone such as myself) to prayerfully consider:

1) I keep looking for a church that has the same views as me. or;

2) I continue seeking a church that is open to examining and discussing those “secondary” doctrinal viewpoints about which differences in Scriptural interpretation are evident.

Personally, I see option 2 as the much better option. If I chose option 1, and could even find such a place, I’d simply be participating in the same tribalism as every other tribal church group. Also, I’d be highly unlikely to learn anything new or have the opportunity to have the errors of my belief/thinking uncovered. My limits, views and beliefs would be limited by the tribal boundaries.

Option 2 is the only choice that provides real opportunity for growing and learning. This is the option (as I see it) of the Bereans in Acts 17:11. This passage reads:

“Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”

Most folks have likely heard this verse but perhaps not the full context. This was not a new group of Christians or folks unfamiliar with scripture. These were Jews and the context was the Jewish synagogue! This is a place where the gospel message was frequently rejected in other towns. Jewish worshippers were often the folks that drove Paul out of the synagogue and right out of town (if they could). Verse 10 of Acts 11 reads:

“As soon as night had fallen, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went into the Jewish synagogue.”

In conclusion, I would like to quote a few scripture verses which help illustrate where I’m coming from. In this, I hope to avoid misunderstanding of my concerns and that my intent is clear:

1 Thessalonians 5:21, “but test everything; hold fast what is good.”

Colossians 3:16, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”

1 John 4:1, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God. For many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

“Evangelical”...or, What’s in a Label

It seems that the last several articles I’ve written, have all been related to Evangelicalism in one way or another. Indeed this is a very broad and inescapable subject that inevitably comes up in relation to a wide range of topics. In this article I want to explore certain aspects even further and will attempt to do so in as balanced a manner as I am able. I apologize in advance if it appears that I have handled the subject in less than a fair manner. It is not my intention to offend or upset anyone with some of the less than flattering thoughts I have when thinking about “Evangelical” (or at least what is labelled as “Evangelical”).

Not long ago a friend sent me an article titled, “Are Seventh-day Adventists Evangelical?”

Because we often discuss a wide range of doctrinal and religious topics, he was curious what my take on this article would be. He knows that I came from an Adventist background (having been born into and lived it until my early twenties) and therefore we sometimes see things differently. This fact often makes for some good thought-provoking discussions. Once our conversation shifted to the desirability of the label “Evangelical,” it became clear that this is one of the topics on which we differ.

That particular discussion got me thinking about that which has come to be called “Evangelical.” For this article therefore, I believe that a good starting point is deciding what Evangelical means... in a practical sense. Frankly, I’m not at all certain what “evangelicalism” has come to mean... nor do I think the majority of Christians who identify as Evangelical can actually define the term clearly. The label itself has come to include a wide variety of individuals, groups and denominations and I’m not sure the original meaning even applies anymore.

The following quote is from the article, “Why I Am/Am Not An Evangelical” by Eddie Arthur PhD. The article includes portions of the work he did as part of his doctoral thesis which he wrote on, “mission agency theology and practice researches.” At the beginning of his article, he describes what follows thusly, “This post is a long rambling description of why I don’t think the term “evangelical” is fit for purpose and why I don’t use it.”

“...evangelicals tend to hold to a core set of beliefs, but there is no hard and fast boundary of what constitutes evangelicalism (despite many evangelicals attempting to impose one). Because of this, it is generally better to describe evangelicals in terms of the things that they emphasize and which Christians of other traditions lay less stress on. One writer describes evangelicalism as a moving target...”

With respect to how scripture is approached, he shows the relationship of evangelicalism to “fundamentalism” using an illustration of a four quadrant graph. The top two quadrants are evangelical on the left and fundamentalist on the right. He then identifies the resulting problem as:

“...The problem is that there are people who would describe themselves as evangelical, and who others would describe as such, who can be found across both upper quadrants. It would be hard to slip the page of a Bible between fundamentalists and evangelicals...

...Evangelicalism in the UK is a movement which developed from the 1730s in response to a range of religious and social factors. Andrew Walls described it as a response to Christianity which wasn’t Christian enough. As a movement, evangelicalism has Anglo-American roots and spread to other parts of the English speaking world...

...I realise that there is a lot more that could be said; indeed books are written on this subject. However, to summarise, evangelical is a theological term which arose in a particular context, however, today many (probably the majority) of people who would align with evangelical emphases, do not describe themselves as evangelical. Secondly, the term evangelical has become identified with a socio-political movement (primarily in the USA) which I personally find antithetical to the values of the gospel.” (all emphasis added in the above quote is mine)

It seems it (Evangelicalism) actually began to spread as a part of the “First Great Awakening” and then really took off with activities connected to the “Second Great Awakening.”

The author of the article, “Are Seventh-day Adventists Evangelical,” makes the point:

“At the heart of the history of the evangelical movement, which for most historians of Christianity begins in the Anglo-Protestant world of the 18th century, is the idea of conversion. Christianity, even devout Protestantism, flourished for centuries without focusing on cultivating a particular moment of choice or transformation for change or commitment. But with the Great Awakening and the music, revivals, and personal experiences that these movements encouraged a new focus developed with many Protestants on the emotional connection to God.”

Historians call this movement evangelicalism, and while denominations such as Methodism grew out of it, it was more of a temperament and language across churches than a collection of denominations or a new organization itself. Many Protestant Christians did not emphasize emotions or conversion or activist transformation of oneself and the world around them, and one could be a traditional or conservative Christian without being “evangelical.”

The idea of conversion required that a Christian see a difference in their lives and while many evangelicals took that to mean strict behaviors around entertainment or dress or devotional practices, others focused on reform of the sins of the world around them. They led out in the abolitionist movement, the temperance movement, urban reform, and the missionary and church-building emphases of the 19th century.” (all emphasis added in the above quote is mine)

(https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2024/04/are-seventh-day-adventists-evangelical/)

Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.) offers this definition and description of Evangelical:

"As a distinct party designation, the term came into general use, in England, at the time of the Methodist revival; and it may be said, with substantial accuracy, to denote the school of theology which that movement represents, though its earlier associations were rather with the Calvinistic than the Arminian branch of the movement. In the early part of the 19th cent. the words 'Methodist' and 'Evangelical' were, by adversaries, often used indiscriminately, and associated with accusations of fanaticism and 'puritanical' disapproval of social pleasures. The portion of the 'evangelical' school which belongs to the Anglican church is practically identical with the 'Low Church' party. In the Church of Scotland during the latter part of the 18th and the early part of the 19th cent. the two leading parties were the 'Evangelical' and the 'Moderate' party." (all emphasis added in the above quote is mine)

David Bebbington, in an attempt to provide a better definition and understanding of the term, is widely known for his definition of evangelicalism. What he proposed is referred to as the Bebbington quadrilateral. It was first provided in his 1989 classic study, “Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s.” Bebbington identifies four main points or qualities which are to be used in defining evangelical convictions and attitudes:

• Biblicism: a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages)

• Crucicentrism: a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross

• Conversionism: the belief that human beings need to be converted

• Activism: the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort

As I look at this list of qualities, I can appreciate that it is helpful in zeroing in on and gaining a more clear understanding of the term. However, such a list is not without problems of its own. I accept that a large percentage of people who identify as Evangelical would readily accept the proposed list. I also have no doubt that some would not accept all items on that list. There are also some Protestant Christians who readily accept every item on the list but reject the label “Evangelical.”

Growing up I always saw my religious affiliation as being part of “Protestant Christianity.” Looking back, I certainly would not have identified myself or our church as being under the “Evangelical Umbrella.” In fact, I would have to describe the relationship with evangelicalism as tenuous at best. My guess is that many who grew up in my generation would still exclude themselves from identification with that term. For me, even after leaving the church and then (only decades later) returning to a non-Adventist church, I still would be reluctant to take on the label.

Despite the fact that it has been almost fifty years since I identified as a Seventh-day Adventist, I am still very much aware of my roots and experience growing up. Therefore it should come as no surprise that a recent video interview caught my eye where this very question was being asked of a certain scholarly expert. The gentleman was addressing the question, “Are Seventh-day Adventists Evangelical?” His response was most interesting. According to him, not only were Adventists definitely NOT evangelical, he insisted they are a cult and dangerous - due to their views. This happened to be the same attitude I experienced when I was a member and I gather it is an attitude that continues to be one which that church is still trying to address up to the present. The interesting thing is that SDA’s would readily endorse every item on the “Bebbington quadrilateral.” It was with some relief I realized that according to this expert, even though I am not a Seventh-day Adventist (and have not been for many years) according to his opinion, I do not qualify as being Evangelical.

So I guess this must mean that in order to qualify for the label, a person must not only affirm the Bebbington list but also correctly define and interpret each item on that list. Herein lies the problem with at least a couple of items on the list. Take for example the item referred to as Biblicism and meaning “a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages).”

Having a high regard for the Bible and seeing it as the ultimate authority – no issue there. So what does it say – the Bible I mean? Is it a book of mysteries that we really don’t understand except for a few choice sections which we like to reference? If we hold the whole thing to be true and the ultimate authority, shouldn’t there be far more teachings and discussions on all of it (even the very uncomfortable parts). If it is the ultimate authority, shouldn’t we start trying to read it unfiltered through the various denominational lenses – and maybe stop saying it says something that it really does not say?

We know there are a number of topics within the pages of scripture on which there is not universal agreement with respect to doctrine and interpretation. A classic example is eschatology and the different views as to what is meant by Christ’s second coming. Other examples would concern interpretation as to what happens when a person dies (otherwise known as the intermediate state) and what is the final disposition of sin and wicked, unrepentant sinners. For that matter, with respect to current societal issues, there even appears to be disagreement about what constitutes sin (something of which the Bible has much to say).

In a commentary on today’s Evangelicals in America, one who studies such things reported that actual Biblical literacy is at an alarming low point. It seems for many the only important passages somehow relate to how to “get saved” along with a few passages on being encouraged. These are supposed to sustain one while reading the daily headlines and noticing how bad things are getting – all while waiting for “the Rapture.” The Great Commission to make disciples of all nations seems to have been replaced by limited evangelical efforts - concentrating on simply “getting folks saved” and hauling them into the rapture life-boats.

An observation I’ve made (perhaps I’m out to lunch on this) is that many Evangelicals – perhaps in pursuit of that special personal experience – put all their effort into seeking spiritual (emotional) highs. Christian rock concerts seem full of such individuals waving their hands about, weeping readily or dancing about wildly. Their theology however is perhaps a bit more difficult to determine. In conversations I have had with a few, I’ve learned any serious questioning of doctrine or questionable behaviour, is seen to be either “unimportant details” or is somehow “legalism.” I would say however, we often are called to say/do things that run contrary to our desires and emotions – but we must do them nevertheless.

On the question of conversion-ism and salvation is there actually a clear understanding and agreement amongst all Evangelicals as to what this means? At the heart of the history of the evangelical movement is the idea of conversion. For centuries Christianity, even devout Protestantism, flourished without a focus on a particular moment of choice. With the Great Awakening this seemed to change with with the addition of a strong play on the emotions. The thing about utilizing a highly emotional appeal for decision-ism, that I personally question, is the amount of manipulation that is being employed to gain the “decision.” Sometimes it seems like a great deal of pushing and manipulation of emotions is being used. I find the technique distasteful and irritating... especially if all that is being done is manipulation toward garnering an emotional response.

That one must be born again is clearly stated in scripture – no issue there. Having a “born-again” experience though – what exactly is this? On my return to church I was often puzzled by the question, “Are you saved?” or “When did you get saved?” or “Are you spirit filled?” I can tell you about a decision I made – perhaps a cross-road I’ve come to in my life... but if you are talking about having some sort of St Paul on the Damascus road experience... that hasn’t happened. So, how exactly is an evangelical conversion measured? That’s the rub. It’s been the cause of evangelical consternation for about two centuries now.

Rather I think conversion has a lot to do with one’s understanding of the gospel and what exactly it calls us to. I do not believe it’s all about simply saying the right words in a prayer someone gives me to recite or a card someone gets me to sign – and then I’m good to go for eternity with no further commitment or expectation as to choices I make from that point onward.

Looking now at the idea of Activism i.e. “the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort.” The obvious question here is, “Effort towards what?” If the answer is, “Effort towards spreading the gospel and advancing the Kingdom,” then I fully agree. However, when Activism is taken to mean establishing lists that focus on ‘allowed vs forbidden’ behaviours... or investing in to social engineering schemes and activism, I’m going to be far less agreeable. Recall that historically, because of the “holiness” and “restorationist” influences of the 2^nd Great Awakening, many evangelicals took a very works based, legalistic approach. “Activism” had often meant promoting strict behavioural codes around entertainment, dress, and/or devotional practices, while for others the focus was on reforming the sins of the world around them.

Finally I would ask is Evangelicalism (sometimes now referred to as “Big Eva”) becoming the new homogenized church? Is it seeking compromise on various doctrinal distinctives in order to absorb individuals and denominations from a wider swath of current Protestant groups? I don’t know the answer to that but in my view many today would have a hard time sorting out the differences between Evangelicalism and Ecumenicalism. Might the Evangelical church of today become the United Church of tomorrow?

A Church that Fails to Remember

Most people have likely heard some version of the quote, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” What is it about this idea that makes this quote so memorable or, for that matter, necessary? In society today we see daily efforts to remove historical markers and rewrite the stories of our past. Why is there the effort to change history or attempt to erase it?

This above quote most likely came to be as the result of something said by writer and philosopher George Santayana. In its original form it read, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” It is unfortunate that this sage bit of wisdom is both necessary and yet frequently ignored by so many, generation after generation. It seems to be a common human failing in which an egocentric view of history is taken. Because today's views, attitudes and events are seen as morally superior, history must therefore be somehow corrected and brought into obeyance with the ‘wisdom of today.’

The darker motivation driving attempts to eliminate and/or change history, is to facilitate the take-over and/or control of a particular culture or even a complete society. One’s history is a big part of the identity and foundation of the group or culture one is part of. By attacking that history (of the target group), society can be seriously weakened and, through the resulting division and uncertainty, it can even be destroyed.

George Orwell, in his famous book, “1984,” said: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

The following quote is by, C. McMasters Ph.D. (Political science professor and blogger). It is taken from her blog post titled, “Erase History, Control the People:”

“Marxists and Socialists must destroy the Constitution and any respect Americans still have for our founding if they want to introduce a new Marxist world to America. Consider this quote by Orwell: “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

What do you think is happening here? The more we remove our history, the more we must only look at the present. If we look only at the present we’ll never see what we used to do and where we have come from; we’ll never see how far we’ve come and how much we actually have improved and changed the world for the better. By removing our past, we remove any warnings the past might offer.”

Milan Kundera wrote:

“The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long that nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was… The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” (note: Milan Kundera was a Czech and French novelist. Kundera went into exile in France in 1975, acquiring citizenship in 1981. His Czechoslovak citizenship was revoked in 1979, but he was granted Czech citizenship in 2019).

Thus far in this article, I have concentrated on the warnings to remember and protect the history of our culture and society; but what about the church? Might these admonitions and warnings be applicable there as well? It is my contention that they are both applicable and highly relevant. Further, I think many within the current Evangelical structure, and particularly those newer groups (that began around the time of the Second Great Awakening) have gradually become disconnected from their anchoring to history.

I want to start with the importance (as the church) of remembering, and how failing to do so makes us vulnerable to the snares and traps of the enemy. In “The Gospel in Words: Word of the Week: 'Remember'” we can find the following statistic: “It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the word "remember" in the standard works. Remember is used 352 times in the scriptures. When its variants are counted, that number jumps to more than 550.”

The Biblical use of the term “remember” (in Hebrew – “zakar”) means more than the simple mental exercise of recalling and regurgitating some fact or event. A call to remember is also a call to act accordingly... or, in other words, obey. In the Old Testament, to “zakar” means to employ your hands and feet and lips to engage in whatever action that remembrance requires. Thus we could say the very first failure to remember recorded in the Bible was when Eve partook of the forbidden fruit (and then Adam soon after). The text clearly indicated that Eve was able to recall the warning concerning the forbidden fruit but her action was NOT in line with the obedience that the remembrance required.

The following two verses are just a sample from many in the Bible where action is directly tied to recall:

Psalm 22:27 “All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him,”

and

Hebrews 13:7 “Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.”

There is obviously a close tie between remembering and history in that both relate to something past. The Scriptures, in addition to instructions to remember, also have more specific direction respecting remembering history. For example Isaiah 46:9-10 says (quoting “The Message” paraphrase) “Remember your history, your long and rich history. I am God, the only God you’ve had or ever will have — incomparable, irreplaceable — From the very beginning telling you what the ending will be, all along letting you in on what is going to happen, assuring you, ‘I’m in this for the long haul, I’ll do exactly what I set out to do.’”

The following is from the article, “The Biblical Importance of Remembering History”:

“Throughout Scripture the Lord invites his people to examine their history in order to see examples of his love and power, to encourage them to continue serving Him, and to warn them away from sin and idolatry....

The Scriptures speak loudly about the importance of history. In Daniel 2:21 we find that the Lord “changes the seasons and guides history, He raises up kings and also brings them down, he provides both intelligence and discernment.” God’s divine power and wisdom ultimately control human events, but history is also the story of man’s response to God in rebellion and reconciliation. A rigorous study of history must incorporate both of these elements, keeping the divine narrative in mind while taking seriously the human actors involved.

There are several occasions in Scripture when the Lord tells his people to remember specific events and people from their past. In Micah 6:5 God commands, “My people, remember what King Balak of Moab planned to do to you and how Balaam son of Beor answered him…Remember these things and you will realize what I did to save you.” By appealing to Israel’s collective memory of how (He) rescued them, the Lord calls their attention back to himself.”

History and the Church:

Having established the importance of history and the related concept of “zakar” (remembering), let me now return to the concern that underlies this essay. It is my contention that because of both Biblical and historical illiteracy, many under the current Evangelical umbrella have become untethered and are drifting. When one becomes untethered from the historical anchor of established, long standing Christian orthadoxy and is largely Biblically illerate, they have a very poor foundation and are open to being easily deceived. I believe this to be most unfortunate because it has resulted in all sorts of division and in some cases, strange and unbiblical doctrines.

In Matthew 7:26, Jesus spoke of the foolish man who built his house upon the sand and because of such a poor foundation, it fell with a great crash when sorely tested by the elements. (History and the previously known wisdom would have informed him this was a foolish place to build). While the story is about a wise man and a foolish man, I believe it can also be applied corporately to a group or church. Wisdom would suggest the importance of paying attention to the lessons, teachings and experiences of the past. With that thought in mind, my concern is that many in the churches today are in the same place (as the foolish man) and therefore can expect the same results.

There seems to be an attitude held by many in today's church, which interprets the norms of Christianity by what is going on in “our church” - after all we’re “normal.” A number of Evangelicals seem to have very little understanding or regard for the church throughout history and very little appreciation for the great music, or the struggles and theology of our past. The fact that Jesus, through His followers, established the church over two thousand years ago, should be more than just a fact to be remembered – I believe it should be something to be studied, celebrated, and remembered with the idea of zakar!

I believe there is a significantly large segment within the current evangelical congregations who would benefit from a study of the rich history of the church about which Jesus said even the gates of Hell would not withstand. Some evangelicals seem to operate as if the church didn’t actually begin in earnest until their own particular denomination or group came to be. Before there was a Methodist or Pentecostal or Adventist or Baptist or _______ (fill in the blank), there was the church of which Jesus spoke. No doubt some could use a gentle reminder that the church is over two thousand years old and not just a couple hundred (as their own particular brand might be).

The Bible we read, the doctrines we hold dear, the awe and reverence the church once had (as we were reminded about whose presence we were in) all have a history. The corporate worship, study and prayer all came from someplace. It seems a shame to think so many are becoming separated from so much of our history. In its place what is becoming more and more popular is something that is being held out as church but sometimes comes off as nothing more than shallow entertainment. Such gatherings seem to produce fruit the substance of which is about a mile wide and only about an inch deep.

To be clear, when I speak about the church in history, I am not simply referring to that box like structure that one could often find sitting on a street corner close to the centre of town. Also, I am not speaking about the gatherings which still occur within those buildings on a weekly basis. Activities which are practised or services and teachings which religious folk attend for an hour or two each week are only a small part of what I am talking about. I believe it can be shown that throughout history, since the time of Jesus, the church has had (and is meant to have) an influence on culture (for both truth and the good of all humanity).

From the time Jesus began his earthly ministry, he preached repentance and preparation, “for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” As he prepared his followers for their mission in the world, most of his teachings and parables were about the Kingdom of God. As he was looking forward to the end of his mission on earth, he gave his followers, what has come to be called, “The Great Commission.” This (Matthew 28:19 & 20) is where he directed his followers to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Clearly he was commanding them (us) to go into and engage the world. We are to be salt and light while spreading the good news of the Kingdom. He also made it very clear that ALL authority in Heaven and on Earth had been given to him, so that he could give such a command.

Further more, in his first reference to his church, while he was at Caesarea Philippi, in Matthew 16:18 Jesus said, “...on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Of this passage, Bible scholar Dr. Michael Heiser Ph.D. had this to say:

“We often presume that the phrase “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” describes a Church taking on the onslaught of evil. But the word “against” is not present in the Greek. Translating the phrase without it gives it a completely different connotation: “the gates of hell will not withstand it.”

It is the Church that Jesus sees as the aggressor. He was declaring war on evil and death. Jesus would build His Church atop the gates of hell—He would bury them.” (Taken from, “What Did Jesus Mean by “Gates of Hell”?” By Michael Heiser.

So when we take the declaration Jesus made as to his church overcoming the very “Gates of Hell,” and couple that with the “Great Commission” he gave his followers, it becomes very clear to me that the church was to engage the cultures of the world. It seems to me the church was called to be pushing back the darkness and deception while spreading the light and good news of the Kingdom. Nowhere in scripture could I find anything to suggest his church was to become an institution that would meet in little cloistered groups once a week. I could not find anything saying the church was to permit its reach and purpose to be limited by worldly powers. Nothing in Christ’s directive instructed the church to confine our focus only to matters considered spiritual and to stay out of the business of the state (politics). I believe that in all seven spheres of society (family, economy, government, religion, media, education, and celebration) there is not one where it can be said the church should stay uninvolved.

Indeed, anyone familiar with a little bit of history will know, when the church was most fully engaged within culture, civilizations made their greatest gains. The following list is used as an example and is taken from the article, “15 Ways Christianity Changed History and Society” by Jason Pierce. The rationale for each statement is in the article and will not be reproduced here in this essay:

“Here are 15 powerful (and surprising) ways Christianity changed world history and today’s society at large:

1. Christianity gave us the concept of holidays.

2. Christianity gave us hospitals as we know them today.

3. Christianity gave us adoption and foster care systems.

4. Christianity (effectively) gave us the middle-class workforce.

5. Christianity gave us a higher view of sexuality and marriage.

6. Christianity gave women greater dignity and freedom.

7. Christianity gave children a higher status and importance.

8. Christianity gave history its most significant artwork and artists.

9. Christianity gave history its most excellent music and musicians.

10. Christianity gave history its most excellent works of literature.

11. Christianity created the foundation for America.

12. Christianity created the foundation for our education systems.

13. Christianity created the foundation for science.

14. Christianity is the most powerful force in abolishing slavery.

15. Christianity is the most powerful force in charity work.

Jesus of Nazareth is the most influential person in the entire narrative of human history, regarded by Christians and non-Christians alike. Our systems of social organization, literature, the arts and music, architecture, education, and sciences, as well as the ceremonies of marriage and death, have all been shaped by Jesus.

No person before him and no one since has ever caused such a prodigious surge of influence, supremacy, authority, or mastery over his initiatives. The Jesus movement makes up over a third of the world’s population, rendering him the most significant influencer and leader ever to live.”

I strongly suspect that things began to turn around and began to grow darker as the church began to give up it’s influence in some of those seven spheres mentioned earlier. In some areas of culture, it’s almost as if the church retreated altogether from some areas and began turning more and more inward. Many Christians (fortunately not all) gave over the cultural roles of education, health care, economy, government, entertainment and media. They incorrectly assumed these were not places the church should be engaged in and were areas for state concern or political issues. Of course any Biblical world views that were initially present in these domains were gradually diminished generation after generation and a far more secular world view expanded to fill that void. Many within the church, because they accepted a false worldly gospel of a constitutional separation of church and state, gradually allowed the state to push them out of the public square and into those unique looking buildings called churches. The state has attempted to keep more and more of all those “religious” practices confined to those buildings and away from the rest of society using that “separation” concept. And now (since the days of Covid) the state has begun to demand access and control of the messaging and what goes on within those churches. If the last four years are any indication, it seems the majority capitulated with those demands as well. The state have been quite successful in replacing the idea of “freedom of religion” with “freedom from religion” and this is not because they are right or more brilliant with their argument but because the church failed to stand when it was called to do so.

There is a spiritual battle going on which has been in play since the first garden. Ever since the church came into existence, it has been in the cross-hairs of the enemy and is in the midst of this ongoing battle. It is my view that the history and identity of the church is under attack – and with the same goal in mind as that which is used to attack our culture and nation. The strategy is as has been noted by Milan Kundera:

“The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long that nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was… The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.”

The enemy Satan is waging this battle knowing that where history has been neglected (either never learned or forgotten) and when there is an accompanying Biblical illiteracy, his job is much easier. When there is such a poor foundation – or no foundation at all, deception is much easier. Substituting a carnal and material world view for a grounded Biblical world view becomes easier. Replacing scriptural morals and values with worldly values is the resulting outcome.

Finally, I’d like to end with two passages from scripture:

Ecclesiastes 1:9, “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.”

and Job 8:7-10, “And though your beginning was small, your latter days will be very great. “For inquire, please, of bygone ages, and consider what the fathers have searched out. For we are but of yesterday and know nothing, for our days on earth are a shadow. Will they not teach you and tell you and utter words out of their understanding?”