Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Musings Upon Reading More About Reformation

As I am reading through McGrath’s book on the Reformation I noticed that prior to the Great Awakening there was this mentality in the Church that revolved around intellectually believing the right doctrines. If one accepted the right beliefs then they were considered among those who are Christian. It wasn’t until the Great Awakening, with a few exceptions, that the focus began to shift to whether or not one experienced conversion. During the Great Awakening people were having experience with God when they came to faith in Christ that was considered conversion experiences. From these people began to tell their testimony of when they met Jesus rather than the focus being on ascribing to certain intellectual propositions. The Moravians, a Christian group in Germany, had already had these type of experiences and already emphasized personal relationship with Jesus over doctrinal beliefs. Also there are many books written by individuals prior to the Reformation who spoke of such experiences and depth to their walk with Christ.


But it seemed in this age that there was a distinct shift from what one believed in their mind, to what one experienced in their heart. The faith from intellectual belief deepened to a faith which had personal experience.


Reading on, I read about Jonathan Edwards; a man who is often mischaracterized by most. Throughout my Christian school education and on into my college years at secular colleges I was taught this fiery man was one of those sorts of preachers that made Christianity look bad. The problem is most focus only on his most famous sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. There is a whole story surrounding that sermon that I won’t go into at present that makes sense of that sermon. However, there is so much more about this man. I recently read something by him regarding the manifestations people were experiencing in his day, akin to the Pentecostalism of today. He addressed every common argument I have heard against such a thing being God showing point by point how it very well can be God. I realized I want to study this man more as well as some of the other key people in those days. He is certainly a more interesting fellow than I once realized.


The last thing I wanted to address was the difference history reports between the ministry that came out of the groups of Christians who were all about knowing Christ experientially and those who were staunchly about what doctrines one maintained. The missions sent out from the experiential group were all about helping the people preserve their cultural identity and protecting them from the advances of colonialism. They would work to get to know the people, be helpful to them, learn their language, and transcribe their cultural stories so that they would be protected for future generations. The Moravians who settled in North Carolina befriended the Native Americans and lived amongst them. However, the missions that came from the more staunch groups were combined with financial prospects of commencing trade, converting the native people to the ways of the colonizers, and often they brought harm and trouble upon the people.


I am often met with the argument of the No True Scotsman. However, I think there is really a difference between those who follow a set of doctrine and moral laws and those who claim to know God experientially and have real relationship with them. These two groups had stark differences—one seemed to walk out the life of Christ with hearts full of compassion and love and the other trying to fulfill a mandate of reaching the world with the Gospel without knowing God’s love experientially. I am not sure that truth or love can be lived out with only intellectual understanding of it, I think it takes a transformation of the heart that has come into relationship with the living God.

9 comments:

GCT said...

"It wasn’t until the Great Awakening, with a few exceptions, that the focus began to shift to whether or not one experienced conversion."

Yay. That's when born again Xians hit the scene. Wonderful.

"He addressed every common argument I have heard against such a thing being God showing point by point how it very well can be God."

Anything and everything could be shown to be from god, meaning it's a useless hypothesis.

"I am often met with the argument of the No True Scotsman. However, I think there is really a difference between those who follow a set of doctrine and moral laws and those who claim to know God experientially and have real relationship with them."

And, they say the same thing. They claim that they are walking the right path and you are not. There's no way to tell the difference. That's why it's fallacious, even when you really believe that someone did what you think is Xian-like using your modern interpretations of the scriptures.

Karla said...

GCT "Anything and everything could be shown to be from god, meaning it's a useless hypothesis."

The point was that his writings a long time ago address issues many think are only modern concerns. I wasn't making an argument, just an observation.

GCT "And, they say the same thing. They claim that they are walking the right path and you are not. There's no way to tell the difference. That's why it's fallacious, even when you really believe that someone did what you think is Xian-like using your modern interpretations of the scriptures."

I'm trying to look past claims to the "fruits" or "results" of the respective streams of Christianity. I'm trying to point out that the different methods of evangelism that came forth from the two groups. There is an obvious difference regardless of whether one is more right than the other. Until reading this book I didn't know the history of missions of the Protestant church and the differences between them.

Sabio Lantz said...

In my last post I created an experiment to separate experiential knowledge of Jesus/God and doctrine.

GCT said...

"The point was that his writings a long time ago address issues many think are only modern concerns."

And, it sounds like his arguments were just as useless then as they are now.

"I'm trying to look past claims to the "fruits" or "results" of the respective streams of Christianity. I'm trying to point out that the different methods of evangelism that came forth from the two groups. There is an obvious difference regardless of whether one is more right than the other."

The point is that you can't tell which one is more right, so claiming that one is more right is a no true scotsman fallacy.

Karla said...

GCT "The point is that you can't tell which one is more right, so claiming that one is more right is a no true scotsman fallacy."

I don't think there was an argument between the two groups as to who was right, but rather an experiential change amongst some. I was merely pointing out the differences between the emerging group focused on experiencing God and the traditional focus on intellectual belief.

It isn't that the intellectual claims were wrong, but that something more was emerging that was restorative of something lost that had previously been experienced by Christians in the past. So it isn't an "us" "them" scenario really.

GCT said...

"I was merely pointing out the differences between the emerging group focused on experiencing God and the traditional focus on intellectual belief.

It isn't that the intellectual claims were wrong, but that something more was emerging that was restorative of something lost that had previously been experienced by Christians in the past."

Please please please continue to contradict yourself like this.

You were merely pointing out the differences, oh, and pointing out how the experiential (which you just so happen to believe is right) was a restoration of the natural order of things! I'm sure that all those supposed Xians that didn't experience this and don't believe the way you do are not Scottish either.

Another blogger I know recently mentioned that, "True Christianity is always the group or denomination the person debating me belongs to."

Karla said...

good grief. I'm not even a part of a denomination, and at the same time I don't reject any denomination. I see us all as one body and I embrace all denominations and streams. I aim to see the beauty in all of them. I welcome the diversity of perspectives. I am not making a "me versus others" argument at all.

GCT said...

"good grief. I'm not even a part of a denomination, and at the same time I don't reject any denomination. I see us all as one body and I embrace all denominations and streams."

"Us" meaning "True Xians," I suppose?

"I aim to see the beauty in all of them. I welcome the diversity of perspectives. I am not making a "me versus others" argument at all."

But, you have in the past and it looks like you've done it here as well.

Karla said...

GCT "Us" meaning "True Xians," I suppose?"

"us" meaning all Christians no matter what denomination or flavor, I count myself among the whole body of believers regardless of any differences in style or doctrine.


GCT "But, you have in the past and it looks like you've done it here as well."

It it possible to examine the differences amongst us Christians without being us versus them. I can disagree with a particular thing that is a part of Christianity and not be separating myself out from that part. That same part can have lots of valuable contributions to Christianity. That's just it, none of us in our parts are perfect and we all have things that aren't quiet like Jesus and that's okay. We are all growing and working towards that goal. So I have no grounds to be "versus" any other believer.