Category: History

A Review of Luke J. Wilson’s 40 Days With The Fathers

Hi readers, I’m taking a short break from my series on Pietism to share a review of a book I recently read. I will return to my series on Pietism next week. God Bless!

Luke J. Wilson’s 40 Days With The Fathers: A Journey Through Church History is an interesting work that connects modern readers with the Church Fathers in a creative way. A major goal of Wilson’s book is to introduce readers unfamiliar with the Patristic era to the writings of some of its most significant and influential figures. Wilson does this by carefully arranging excerpts of the Church Fathers’ writings into bite-sized readings that can be easily consumed over a forty-day period.

Wilson’s selections extend all the way from the earliest Patristic sources up to the ante-Nicene Fathers. Along with these excerpts of the Father’s writings, Wilson provides considerable background information as well as thoughtful commentary of his own. This helpful information allows readers unfamiliar with the Patristic era to situate the Church Fathers in their proper historical and cultural context, thus greatly increasing the reader’s understanding of these very important voices in church history.

Wilson writes passionately about the Church Fathers, and he has clearly invested a significant amount of time in reading and reflecting on their writings. He has also engaged in significant study of the relevant secondary literature. This project is obviously a labor of love and while Wilson is clearly appreciative of the Fathers and their tremendous impact on the church, this is not a work of hagiography. A few readers may find his writing style somewhat colloquial. However, most will probably find his conversational writing style refreshing. Readers who are unfamiliar with the Church Fathers, as well as theology and church history more generally, will find Wilson’s writing clear, approachable, informative, and often enjoyable.

While any survey of the Church Fathers’ writings will necessarily be somewhat piecemeal, all of Wilson’s selections are worthy of inclusion and they give the reader illuminating insight into the thought of the Patristic Church. After digging into Wilson’s book, readers will be introduced in an accessible way to the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Athanasius of Alexandria, Ambrose of Milan and many more besides. By making careful selections about which Patristic voices to include and providing helpful guidance along the way, Wilson has made it easier to digest the writings of the some of the greatest minds the church has ever produced.

I only have a few critiques of Wilson’s book. Occasionally, Wilson will appeal to church tradition somewhat uncritically. One example would be where he seemingly accepts the (likely legendary) account that the Didache was written by the twelve Apostles. This is remarkable as very few professional church historians would support such a view. Wilson also relies on Irenaeus of Lyons to provide historical insight into the writings of the Apostolic Fathers even while some scholars have seriously questioned how reliable of a source he is about this era. Furthermore, I think Wilson is sometimes more optimistic than I would be about the potential of Patristic exegesis to illuminate the New Testament when greater attention to the immediate historical, cultural, and linguistic background of the text would actually be more helpful.

Nevertheless, Wilson’s 40 Days With The Fathers: A Journey Through Church History is a good introduction to the writings and thought of the Patristic Church. Individuals and small groups will find the format of the book very helpful as it allows readers to absorb the writings of the Church Fathers over a longer period of time thus increasing reading comprehension. Accessible and clear, I will recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about the Church Fathers and is new to the study of church history. I look forward to revisiting 40 Days With The Fathers anytime I need to be reacquainted with the great and spiritually enriching voices of the Church Fathers.

The Pietist Story: Part Two

So just what is Pietism? Is it the fount of all heresy within Protestantism due to it’s overemphasis on individual connection with God rather than sound doctrine? Some Protestant theologians and historians certainly think so. Is it a spirituality type that produces Christians who are “so heavenly minded they are no earthly good.” Once more, some Protestant theologians and historians certainly think so. Are such characterizations really accurate?

In my judgement, they are not.

Indeed, if my study of Church History over the last five years has taught me anything it is that Pietism is often deeply misunderstood. Despite how important this movement is to the development of Protestantism, many Christians have little knowledge or understanding of it. Thus, it has often become the punching bag of heresy-hunters.

So once again, what is Pietism? I would suggest that this term can be understood in two distinct but intimately interrelated ways. First, Pietism is a historical movement that was born during the early 1600s. Beginning in the Netherlands and flourishing in Germany, the movement emphasized Bible study in private and in small groups, personal connection to God, a life of holiness, charity amongst Christians of different denominations, church renewal, and social concern for the poor.

Second, Pietism is a distinct ethos that lives on in Christianity to this day. While Pietism as a discernible historical movement has probably run its course, its ethos very much continues. Christians who embrace the Pietist ethos will value many of the same things that the Pietists of old did. Some prominent Christian theologians who I think are good representations of the Pietist ethos would be Stanley Grenz, Roger Olson, and Donald Bloesch. Billy Graham displayed many Pietist tendencies, though I doubt he ever called himself a Pietist. I think the founder of my denomination A.B. Simpson displayed some Pietist tendencies (this is not surprising as he voraciously read and appreciated many Pietist authors).

Now some scholars would argue that my definition of Pietism as a historical movement is too narrow. Indeed, scholars such as Justin A. Davis and F. Ernest Stoeffler (perhaps the most important 20th century historian of Pietism) use Pietism as an umbrella term that covers a whole host of European church renewal movements in the 1500s, 1600s, and 1700s. These scholars would see Jansenism, Quietism, Puritanism, Quakerism, and many smaller renewal movements as various “species” of Pietism. However, I wonder if using the term “Pietism” in this way is somewhat artificial and stretches the term to its very breaking point. However, I will grant that many of these movements display at least some aspects of the Pietist ethos (and perhaps that is what these scholars are really trying to say).

Thus, the story of Pietism that I will tell will primarily focus on Pietism as it developed in the Netherlands and Germany and how it eventually became a worldwide movement. I will also look at how its ethos continues to this day. God Bless!

Why Pietism?

Recently I published an article on my blog about the renewal movement called “Pietism” that grew out of German Lutheranism in the 1600s and 1700s. Lately I have been immersing myself in the writings of the great leaders of the Pietist movement such as Philipp Jakob Spener and August Herman Franke. Furthermore, I have been reading the work of modern scholars of the Pietist movement such as Roger Olson, Dale Brown, F. Ernest Stoeffler, and Christian Collins-Winn. With so much of my time being spent on this study, and with it being the subject of my doctoral dissertation, my wife understandably asked me “why are you so interested in studying Pietism?”

Pietism in not a well-known term amongst Evangelical Christians even though it might be the most influential renewal movement of the Protestant tradition. Pietism as a movement emphasized the necessity of conversion, the importance of individual as well as small group Bible Study, and that authentic, vibrant Christian faith was more than just mental assent to core Christian doctrines. The Pietists firmly believed that Christianity was a “heart” religion and not just a “head” religion. The Pietists were also people of great social concern. Something of a rallying cry of theirs was that they existed for “God’s glory and their neighbor’s good.”

Pietism as an ethos has influenced Lutheranism as well as the Anabaptist movement in Christianity. Indeed, the Church of the Brethren in the United States has been especially influenced by Pietism. The Evangelical Covenant Church (one of the fastest growing Protestant denominations in the United States) is a distinctly Pietistic denomination. John and Charles Wesley were profoundly influenced by the Moravians who were a Pietistic people. It is hard to find a Protestant tradition that has not been touched by the Pietist ethos. It is remarkable that it is so little known when it’s influence has been so wide.

“Why am I studying Pietism?” I study Pietism in part because it brought revival to German Lutheranism when it was desperately needed. Mainstream German Lutheranism in the 1600s and 1700s had become stale and arid. The Pietists did much to revive German Lutheranism. The Pietists cared for thousands of orphans, printed millions of Bibles, and sent out many effective missionaries all over the world. The idea that they lived for “God’s glory and their neighbor’s good” was more than just a slogan, it was a way of life.

I also study Pietism for greater self-understanding. Pietist emphases have deeply influenced Evangelicalism and I want to know more about this trans-denominational movement that has deeply shaped what I believe and how I live my life. Finally, I believe Pietism may contain valuable insights for renewal in Evangelicalism today. The Evangelical Church in the United States needs renewal. We need to mobilize for the 21st century and reach the one-third of the world that still has not heard the Gospel. Who better to draw inspiration from than the Pietists? Pietistic Lutherans were some of the first to send missionaries to the native peoples of Greenland and Canada. Pietists missionaries were the first people to translate the Bible into Tamil. A language spoken by many people in India.

In short, I believe that the Pietists can show Evangelicals what it truly means to live a life for “God’s glory and our neighbor’s good.” Is there a more authentically Christian way of life than this? Is any other kind of life even worth living?

The Christian as Historian

According to many historians of a secular bent, a Christian’s religious convictions should play little to no role in their work as a historian. In his book The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, George Marsden notes that the academy sees the “Christian historian” in much the same way they see the historian who happens to be a bridge player. It is just fine to be a Christian or a bridge player, but these “extracurricular” activities ought to have no role in your work as a historian.[1] Furthermore, historian Jay Green notes that within the academy there is a profound bent towards thoroughgoing “methodological naturalism” which tends to view religious phenomena skeptically, even dismissively.[2] Within such a thoroughly secularized milieu is there any “room” for the Christian historian to bring their faith convictions and their work together in a positive way? It is my contention that there is a way to accomplish this and I will attempt to sketch out very briefly what this might look like.

If we are to have an intellectually robust understanding of what it means to be both a Christian and a historian, a logical place to begin would be discussing the concept of historical study as a “vocation.” In his book, Christian Historiography: Five Rival Versions Jay Green notes that the term “vocation” comes from the Latin verb “vocare” which means “to call.”[3] Green suggests that the Christian historian can view their work in a spiritually richer way by realizing their work is not simply a means of providing for oneself, but rather a genuine, holy, and vital calling from God. Green further develops this line of thinking and suggests that perhaps one of the greatest blessings of the Reformation was the expansion of the concept of “vocation.” In the Medieval Catholic tradition, the concept of “vocation” or “calling” was closely tied to pursuing church related work while ordinary labor was often seen as morally neutral. The Reformers and their descendants eschewed this strong bifurcation between “holy” and merely “secular” work. To them, all work had “eternal and divinely appointed worth.”[4]

So, if all work (including historical work) has “worth” as 1 Corinthians 7:20 would seem to teach, what does it look like for a Christian historian to “live out” their “calling” in a way that brings God glory. Historian Douglas A. Sweeney sees the historian’s calling as essentially one of service to both their academic peers as well as their students.[5] Seeing their work in this light, the Christian historian should strive to be the best historian they can be. They should seek to serve their respective guilds by making healthy contributions to the field. They should do careful, balanced research that strives for objectivity, even if this is ultimately only an unattainable ideal.[6] The Christian historian must actively look for ways to serve their students, the church, and even the voices of the past. Christian historians should apply the golden rule to the historical sources they survey by interpreting them in the way we would want our words to be interpreted: In context and on their own terms.

Armed with a robust theology of vocation, the Christian historian can view their work in a more enriching and motivating light. They realize they there is a call on their lives to work for the betterment of society and to the glory of God. The Christian historian is uniquely motivated to search for the beautiful and true.[7] Can the historian working out of purely naturalistic and secular motivations boast of such an enriching and rewarding view of their work?

Now that we have established how the Christian historian’s motivations may differ from that of his more secularly inclined counterpart, we must explore whether the methodologies they espouse will look any different. On many points the Christian historian and their secularly inclined counterpart will probably espouse very similar methodologies. Both will display an appreciation for objectivity, careful and rigorous analysis of primary and relevant secondary sources, and (hopefully) modesty about their conclusions.[8]

However, the conclusion cannot be avoided that large swathes of the academy remain enamored with reductionist views of history that tend to rest on a deeply flawed “empiricist” epistemology.[9] This methodology insists that only things proven by observation can be considered factual. Historians of a Marxist bent have embraced such a method and have tended to boil down all religious phenomena to underlying issues of economics, class, and race.[10] Religion’s role in history has often been trivialized in modern historiography.

Within such a milieu, the Christian historian can offer a perspective that seeks to correct this “flattening” of the human experience. Fortunately, historians working in the recent past such as Kenneth Scott Latourette, Timothy L. Smith, George Marsden, and Mark Noll have offered such correctives in the largely secularized academy. These scholars, and many more, have sought to show that religion should be seen as the defining and vital force in people’s lives that it truly is. Quoting Catholic historian Philip Gleason, Jay Green suggests that religion has shaped history just as much and perhaps even more than “ethnicity, race, class, gender, or power.”[11] Thus, it could be argued that the Christian historian can take a broader, fuller, richer view of history that truly does justice to the complexity of the human experience. To ignore the effect religion has had on humanity in the past is to write truncated history.

Now, taking religion seriously in historical investigation is one thing, but can the Christian historian expand their method even further? Can the Christian historian posit divine causation or influence behind the events of history? Perhaps before we can answer such a question it would be wise to mark off what is almost certainly “out of bounds” methodologically for the serious Christian historian.

In his book Why Study History? Reflecting on the Importance of the Past, John Fea documents well the problems associated with writing so called “providential history.” This kind of history seeks to show definitively God’s “mind” and “will” behind history. This method has flourished amongst those who wish to prove that the United States was founded as a uniquely and explicitly Christian nation. Unfortunately, this methodology tends to distort the historical record in favor of its’ predetermined interpretive paradigm and presumes to know too much about the mind and will of God. Fea suggests that the Christian historian must practice restraint in their craft. When positing the divine will behind history they must season their conclusions with words such as “perhaps,” “maybe” or “might.”[12]

Nevertheless, many notable Christian academics believe that there is a responsible way to posit God’s “breaking into history” whilst avoiding the egregious errors of providential history. Historian Mark Noll has suggested enlisting the “missiologists” to help decipher God’s activity in the past.[13] Furthermore, C. Stephen Evans has convincingly argued that historical texts replete with miracle accounts should not a priori be dismissed as unreliable and without historical value.[14]

Christianity is fundamentally a historical religion. Thus, it is unsurprising that many Christian scholars have stepped up to defend its’ most central historical claims and the Resurrection of Jesus has received intense focus.[15] Can the Christian historian legitimately seek to demonstrate the historical veracity of miracles? I believe they can if they are willing to jump into discussions about metaphysics and show that belief in the possibility of miracles is more reasonable than the belief that miracles demonstrably cannot occur. To be sure, the Christian historian will need to be cautious when investigating the veracity of supernatural phenomena in history. Nevertheless, I believe that the Christian historian can investigate miracle claims responsibly. Furthermore, I believe we can affirm with Wolfhart Pannenberg that the Resurrection of Jesus, Christianity’s central miracle, has “good historical foundation.”[16]

In conclusion, the Christian historian can bring their faith convictions and their work together in a positive way. They may recognize that their work as historians is a “holy calling” imbued with eternal worth. Furthermore, they are uniquely positioned to take the phenomenon of religion in history seriously and thus achieve a broader and fuller understanding of the human experience. Finally, The Christian historian may be able to “glimpse” God’s working in history. However, exercising thoroughgoing caution in such investigations cannot be overstated.

Footnotes

[1] George M. Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998) 20.

[2] Jay D. Green, Christian Historiography: Five Rival Versions (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2015), 12-13.

[3] Ibid, 150.

[4] Ibid, 151-154.

[5] Douglas A. Sweeney, “On The Vocation Of Historians To The Priesthood of Believers: A Plea to Christians in the Academy,” in Confessing History: Explorations in Christian Faith and the Historian’s Vocation, ed. John Fea, Jay Green, and Eric Miller (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010), 300.

[6] James E. Bradley and Richard A. Muller, Church History: An Introduction to Research Methods and Resources (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016) 46-50.

[7] D.H. Williams, “Protestantism and the Vocation of Higher Education,” in Revisiting the Idea of Vocation: Theological Explorations, ed. John C. Haughey, S.J. (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012), 162.

[8] Bradley and Muller, Church History: An Introduction to Research Methods and Resources, 146-148.

[9] Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, 29-31.

[10] Green, Christian Historiography: Five Rival Versions, 12-17.

[11] Ibid, 33.

[12] John Fea, Why Study History? Reflecting on the Importance of the Past (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 64-84.

[13] Mark A. Noll, “The Potential of Missiology for the Crises of History,” in History and the Christian Historian, ed. Ronald A. Wells (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1998), 120-123.

[14] C. Stephen Evans, “Critical Historical Judgement and Biblical Faith,” in History and the Christian Historian, ed. Ronald A. Wells (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1998), 41-68.

[15] See Michael R. Licona’s The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach

[16] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977), 91.

Bibliography

Bradley, James E., and Richard A. Muller. Church History: An Introduction to Research Methods and Resources. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016.

Fea, John., Jay Green, and Eric Miller. Confessing History: Explorations in Christian Faith and the Historians Vocation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010.

Fea, John. Why Study History?: Reflecting on the Importance of the Past. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.

Green, Jay D. Christian Historiography – Five Rival Versions. Baylor University Press, 2015.

Haughey, John C. Revisiting the Idea of Vocation Theological Explorations. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2012.

Marsden, George M. The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus – God and Man. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977.

Wells, Ronald. History and the Christian Historian. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1998.