Dr. Steve Fortosis 2312 Sagebloom Terrace North Port, FL 34286 Sfort1222@msn.

com

A Hard Look Back

Crucial Lessons from Church History

Introduction: History: What's the Point?

"Is history meaningful or is it simply 'a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.' Is there an end or goal toward which history ultimately travels? Can we learn anything constructive from human history? Is there a personal, infinite God who will teach and guide us partly by that which has gone before? Will we someday see the giant mosaic and realize a thousand ways we could have learned from the past? As a Christian church, can we benefit from both positive and negative lessons illustrated by those who have gone before?"

Is Church History Important? History can utterly captivate the mind if one explores deeply the character and personalities of those who acted or spoke extraordinarily. One reason history can be vital for us is the fact that we can learn indispensable lessons about life from it. We will attempt in this book to prove that church history can be, not only engrossing, but crucial to our lives right now. The great majority of us Christians know just enough about the history of the faith to be dangerous. We may go around spouting the few facts we've picked up, and these only serve to confuse others with the "garbled" state of church history. Even those of us who are pastors or church leaders have often taken only one required course in church history and our memory of it may be sketchy. Some may say, "Didn't Paul say he purposely put the past behind him and strained for the prize? Why do we want to wallow in the cobwebs of the past when we should set our sights on the future?" Particular believers might also feel that the church of today has progressed so far that we can't really benefit from past history. Others may find aspects of our history humiliating and hesitate to dredge up the past for fear of uncovering embarrassing religious skeletons. Is history even designed so we can or should learn from it? The Bible teaches some clear and important facts about history, but have we unwittingly bought into certain secular perspectives on the subject? Bible-free Perspectives of History What do people believe about the meaning and value of history? John D. MacDonald expresses it hauntingly well in a novel, It is a temporizing world, fading into uncertain shades of grey, so full of complexities, hag-ridden by the apologistics of Freud, festering with so many billions of us that every dab of excellence has to be spread so thin it becomes a faint coat of grease In this toboggan ride into total, perfectly adjusted mediocrity, the great conundrum is what is worth living for and what is worth dying for.1 Some believe that there is no meaning at all, only blind chance resulting in empty chaos. Others hold that there is nothing truly new in history---that the things each of us are

experiencing today are only part of a deadening, endlessly repeating cycle. A modification of this view says that the endless cycle applies primarily to nations and civilizations, not necessarily individuals. Another theory espouses that history is repetitive but each cycle changes in important ways. In contrast to cyclical views of history, some hold that history is progressing forward in a straight line. This linear view presupposes that there must be some goal, however hazy, toward which humanity is moving. During the nineteenth century many historians believed that history was moving toward a sort of final utopia. Factors such the world wars, concentration camps, and mass starvations of the twentieth century irreparably damaged this theory. While admitting human folly, though, some still cling to the view that history illustrates a slow progressive development from barbarism and superstition to a state of reason. Third, there are philosophies of history that claim to be neither cyclical nor linear: A) One version holds that history is not a record of individual humans but of the evolving social units to which they belong. History is not a progress toward utopia but a movement which is largely unconscious and non-rational. B) Another theory is that history is the story of how World Spirit or "God" develops in humans. In zigzag fashion this World Spirit develops and attains self-realization as nature and humans evolve. The goal is for everything to reach final culmination in the Absolute Mind. C) A third theory is that economics is the only factor determining human life. In other words, the economic structure of society determines the life of any society in historic times. Thus, history simply tells the story of the constant struggle between classes in society. D) A fourth idea is that the basic units of history are cultures, and history is made up of a constant rise of cultures and their inevitable fall when they become decrepit civilizations. A modification of this view is that, though some cultures rise and fall, humans do possess the power to change the course of the future and prevent the impending destruction of a civilization.2 How God Views History The Christian philosophy is simple but paradoxically profound. It claims that history is the story of the redemption of sinful humanity through the incarnate Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible states that God loved humanity so deeply that he gave his one, unique Son that whoever will trust in him shall not die but have everlasting life. God didnt send this Son into the world simply to pass sentence on it but to save it through His Sons substitutionary death.3 If Jesus had died and stayed dead, his demise would have been meaningless. The fact that eyewitnesses record that he revived from death proves that he was not an imposter, a liar, or a madman, but Savior of the world. History will culminate with the return of this same Jesus Christ to earth, the rapture of the redeemed, and the judgment of humanity by a holy God. History is eternally significant. It has a distinct planned design and is being implemented in every detail according to what God purposed from the beginning. Even a glance at one book in the Bible indicates that this is abundantly self-evident. In the letter to the Ephesians, Paul declares in the first chapter that all Christians have been predestined according to the plan of God, who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will. Then he reiterates this with a real mouthful: God predestined us to be adopted into his family through Christ; and, in accordance with his pleasure and will, he made known to us the mystery of his plan which he purposed in Christ to be put into effect when history has reached the point of fulfillment---to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, Christ Jesus!4 But is history designed by God to teach us anything? Should we actually learn lessons from it? In the Apostle Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth he reaches far back in time to Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness. He describes their failings to the Corinthians. Then he writes something very significant. Twice in chapter ten, Paul states that those events in that God-forsaken wilderness were meant as examples of warning to the Corinthian Christians that

they would not duplicate similar failings.5 These warnings are invaluable, as well, for the millions of other believers winding down through the centuries. In a similar vein, Paul states in the letter to the Romans that every scripture that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.6 Does God want us to learn from history? Over and over in the Old Testament, leaders and prophets warn the Israelites not to be like their fathers, to avoid their forefathers evils, and to learn from the foolish trespasses of their ancestors..7 James declares that we should look to the prophets and to Job as examples of patience and perseverance in suffering.8 Peter claims that what happened to Sodom was meant as an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly if they don't change their ways.9 In another scripture, Peter says that Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow in his steps.10 Paul reminds us in his letter to the Colossians that because Christ forgave us in the past, we should also forgive one another in the present.11 Are we supposed to learn from history? Yes---from the failures, successes, teachings, warnings, righteous and unrighteous acts of human beings... In his great book about the history of Christian schooling, Kienel quotes John Robinson, pastor of the Pilgrims: There is no creature so perfect in wisdom and knowledge but may learn something for the time present---and to come---by times past.12 This book is about learning from our bittersweet history as a church of Jesus Christ. Sadly, we are still blundering into the same sins and mistakes that we should have learned to avoid centuries ago. Isn't it time to look at our history not as a tedious list of names, dates, and creeds but as a spiritual saga from which we can learn crucial lessons? There are thousands of lessons to be learned. We only have time and space for a few, but they are potent ones. Implications for Today's Church 1. It is obvious that the Bible announces a philosophy of history very clearly. History has a purpose and it is going somewhere. It is wrapped up in God's eternal plan of redemption for a fallen humanity through Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection. The history of this planet will reach a climax at Christ's Second Coming, His millenial reign, His judgment of the lost ones, and the Marriage Supper of the Lamb... Because of this plan, history is not chaos, it is not an endless series of hopeless repetitions, it is not the triumph of the all-powerful State over the individual, it is not a murderous struggle between haves and have-nots, it is not simply the inevitable rise and tragic fall of empty civilizations... History, God's story, becomes incredibly worthwhile to study and learn about; we can benefit greatly from those saints who have gone before. 2. In the 1996 book, Here We Stand, James M. Boice writes, "In the early seventeenth century, when Harvard University was founded, the Puritans were trying to carry on the Reformation. Today we barely have one to carry on, and many have even forgotten what that great spiritual revolution was all about. We need to go back and start again at the very beginning. We need another Reformation."13 I don't know if we need a brand new Reformation as much as to sincerely reaffirm and reinstitute those pillars that grew out of the first Protestant Reformation. Boice believes that the Western church has become worldly. That doesn't mean that evangelicals as a whole deny the Bible or have officially turned their backs on classic Christian doctrine. More often it involves sliding into a gospel embroidered with psychological catchwords, positive mental cure-alls, and worldly success. We must be careful to always preach and teach accurately and boldly about sin, judgment, the wrath and love of God, redemption, justification, and sanctification. Why are we sometimes so politically careful about what we present in our churches? Perhaps it's because we've bought into a deceptive idea George Barna seems to imply: "It is critical that we keep in mind a fundamental principle of Christian communication: the audience, not the message, is sovereign."14

3 The basic concept of sin is only one important biblical teaching we dare not minimize or ignore in our message. James Anthony Froude wrote that history is a voice sounding across the centuries the laws of right and wrong. And whenever in the history of the church we have pooh-poohed sin, we have suffered dearly for it. Even Newsweek saw this problem reflected in the U.S. church. A journalist writes, "They have developed a 'pick and choose' Christianity in which individuals take what they want...and pass over what does not fit their spiritual goals. What many have left behind is a pervasive sense of sin."15 We have this incessant desire to preach a painless gospel. We think it will bring more people "to Christ." Author, Ray Anderson, has hopped on this bandwagon: "If our sin is viewed as causing the death of Jesus on the cross," he writes, "then we ourselves become victims of a 'psychological battering' produced by the cross. When I am led to feel that the pain and torment of Jesus' death on the cross is due to my sin, I inflict upon myself spiritual and psychological torment."16 But a little psychological torment now is no price to pay for eternal forgiveness and freedom later. This is only one area of many about which we as Christians can learn from our past. This book is dedicated to the important mission of delving back a number of centuries and just picking out a few of the lessons crying out to be learned or relearned. See Appendix for more detail regarding theories of history. 1 MacDonald, John, D. A Deadly Shade of Gold, New York: Fawcett, 1965, pp.40-41. 2 Nash, Ronald, The Meaning of History, Nashville: Broadman, 1998. 3 John 3:16-17 4 Ephesians 1:4, 9-11 5 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 6 Romans 15:4 7 2 Chronicles 30:7, Ezekiel 20:18, Zechariah 1:4 8 James 5:10-11 9 2 Peter 2:6 10 1 Peter 2:21 11 Col. 3:18 12 Kienel, Paul, The History of Christian School Education, Colorado Springs: Association of Christian Schools International, 1998, xv. 13 Boice, James Montgomery, cited in Here We Stand, Boice, J.M., and Benjamin Sasse (eds) Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996. 14 Barna, George, Marketing the Church, Ventura, CA: Regal, 1992, pp. 41, 145. 15 Newsweek, September 17, 1984, p. 26. 16 Anderson, Ray, The Gospel According to Judas, Colorado Springs: Helmer and Howard, 1991, p. 99. Additional Sources Clark, Gordon, A Christian View of Men and Things, Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 1991. Hook, Sidney, Marx and the Marxists: The Ambiguous Legacy, Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1955. Nash, Ronald, The Meaning of History, Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998. Stewart, Jon, The Hegel Myths and Legends, Stewart (ed) Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1996.

A HARD LOOK BACK: Learning From Church Leaders Through The Centuries

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: A Church That Shook an Empire Chapter Two: The Good News That was Bad News Chapter Three: The Worship of the Ages Chapter Four: Great Leaders; Great Pitfalls Chapter Five: The Power of the Nucleus Chapter Six: Mix Revivalists; Stir Vigorously Chapter Seven: Debtor to Mercy Alone Chapter Eight: Passing the Baton Chapter Nine: The World Was Not Worthy

Chapter One: A Church That Shook an Empire

"Let me describe to you the business of the Christian factio. We are an association bound together by our religious profession, by the unity of our way of life, and the bond of our common hope. We meet together as an assembly and as a society. We pray for the emperors. We gather together to read our sacred writing. With the holy words we nourish our faith. After the gathering is over, the Christians go out as though they had come from a 'school of virtue.' " -Tertullian1

Is God Getting a Bum Rap? Years ago, journalist Cal Thomas made reference in an article to such episodes as a televangelist's dream of a 900-foot-tall Jesus and the mans declaration that if 4.5 million dollars wasn't raised by a certain deadline, God would strike him dead. Continuing, Thomas noted: A man named Paul wrote about some religious Pharisees who...misrepresented the heart and will of God by their behavior. Paul said of them, 'No wonder the world hates God because of you.' Is God getting a bum rap because of some who presume to speak for Him? If integrity is to be sacrificed upon the altar of expediency, perhaps it is better for those who speak in God's name to go back to the catacombs where the church seemed to thrive under persecution.2 What characterized the early church to which Thomas alludes? Some historic records remain that describe the character and behavior of the early Christians. Of these saints, the Athenian philosopher, Aristides wrote: They are eager to do good to their enemies...and from widows they do not turn away their esteem. And when they see a stranger, they take him into their homes and rejoice over him as a very brother. And if they hear that one of their number is imprisoned or afflicted on account of the name of their Messiah, all of them anxiously minister to his necessity, and if it is possible to redeem him they set him free. And if there is among them any that is poor and needy, and if they have no spare food, they fast two or three days in order to supply the needy their lack of food. 3 In contrast to this picture of ecclesiological health, in his book, The Frog in the Kettle, Barna describes the vast majority of American churches in our day as ingrown--either stagnant or declining in size. In Charles Colsons important book, Loving God, he accuses church leaders in the West of "evangelizing the same people over and over until [the church's] only mission is to entertain itself." He goes on to state that the church tends primarily to attract "neighbors who are bored with their old church or [attenders] looking for a group with a bit more status." 4 Believing Barna and Colson to be largely correct, even as we enter the 21st century, it seems worthwhile to take a close look at the church of the first and second centuries for transferable principles that might be of value to us now. Was the Early Church Worth Emulating? In studying the progress of the church during the first two centuries, it's possible to identify a number of qualities that appeared to contribute to her advance. Of course, underlying the churchs' successes was her dependence upon the Holy Spirit's presence and power. But built on this foundation, at least five factors stand out which seemed to contribute to her phenomenal growth. The early church was not perfect. Her leaders were bombarded with numerous heresies, plagued with extremes--from overblown asceticism to moral license-- and, sometimes justifiably, accused of hypocrisy. However, the church of the first few centuries was also

remarkably successful at evangelizing a large percentage of the then-known world. As early as A.D. 112, Pliny, the Roman historian, reported "large numbers of Christians of every age and rank and from both sexes. The contagion of this superstition," he wrote, "has permeated not only towns but also villages and country, so that temples are deserted, rites unobserved, victims unbought."5 Thus by the close of the second century, Tertullian wrote of the Roman Empire: "Though we are but of yesterday, we have filled all that is yours: cities, islands, fortified towns, country towns..., classes of public attendance, the palace, the Forum." 6 What makes this widespread evangelization even more astounding is that it occurred in spite of massive opposition from almost every quarter. A bitter diatribe from Roman historian, Minucius Felix, demonstrates the public sentiment: Their [Christians'] alliance consists in meetings at night with solemn rituals and inhuman revelries. They recognize each other by secret signs and signals. They love one another before being acquainted. Everywhere they practice a kind of religious cult of lust, calling one another brother and sister indiscriminately. [They] venerate an executed criminal and..., the wooden cross on which he was executed, [thus, erecting] altars which befit lost and depraved wretches. Their feastings are notorious. All single acts correspond to the will of all. Why do they have no altars, no temples, no images? Why do they not speak in public? Is it not simply because what they worship and conceal is criminal and shameful? 7 The five early church growth factors we will look at are: 1) the battle against false doctrine and paganism; 2) the emphasis upon Christian instruction and baptism; 3) the purifying effects of persecution; 4) the priesthood of the believer; and, 5) the compassion toward all peoples. Battling For The Truth Gross pagan distortions of Christian beliefs and lifestyle prompted Christian leaders to write extensive apologies that were sent to Roman officials or posted publicly. Bartlett writes, "Apologies of the second century became more elaborate, and great care was taken to refute scandals current about Christian life and worship, especially as regarding the Lord's Supper."8 In an apology presented to the Emperor Hadrian, Quadratus states: The deeds of our Saviour were always before you, for they were true miracles--those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, and were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but...remained living a long time and not only whilst our Lord was on earth..., some of them also lived to our own times.9 Leaders also defended the church against the accusation that they were subversives who lived secret lives of rebellion: We are no Brahmins..., or hermits who flee from life. We are well aware of the obligations we owe to God, our Creator and Lord. We do not live in this world without participating in your markets, your baths, your auctions.... We engage with you in navigation, in military service, in agriculture... How then we can seem unserviceable to your ordinary business in which and by which we live, I see not. If I frequent not your religious ceremonies, yet, in the day appointed for them, I am still a citizen, as on others. 10 Though much energy was exerted thus in the defense of the gospel, "the greatest amount of energy in the first few centuries of church history was directed not at pagans but at heretics" 11 This is evident in view of the many written arguments against heresies as found in letters and treatises of this period. In fact, John Drane believes that the necessity of a radical struggle for the true gospel and the legitimate Scriptures was the single most important factor that led to the development

of a well-organized and disciplined church during the second century.12 What the church believed in was considered critical to the orthodoxy and integrity of not only her own members but the unified message she then communicated to the world at large. Arguing through the issues became a way of life. The reality of widespread heresy also became a driving force behind the passion of leaders to thoroughly instruct new believers. Christian Instruction and Baptism Catechesis is the term used to describe religious instruction given to both literate and illiterate believers in the early church. Bartlet affirms that oral instruction or catechism was the normal method through which converts gained their whole conception of the Gospel. The role of the Bible in the early catechesis was very important, but not in the form we know today. Since there were no extant writings of the New Testament canon until later, these believers had to depend upon oral declaration of teachings and stories. These verbal presentations apparently held much authority and were viewed as "God's word" by the church. It was these that formed the basis for the catechumens. The Didache or the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," is an anonymous collection of instructions which contains the essence of Christian belief and behavior. It is very likely that new believers were taught the Didache by a mentor or teacher. The mentor was responsible for the ongoing nurture of the new convert. A survey of early church writers indicates that what was taught to the catechumen was important, but that content of instruction took on more importance as time passed. The earliest formulations of Christian belief could not stand the test of heretical teachings bombarding them, so the creeds had to become more complex and specific. Each new heresy forced the church to rethink and reformulate her teachings to clarify the view that became the orthodox one. This intense theological wrestling resulted in well-briefed believers. Their training also included personal instruction regarding spiritual character and the ethical and social commitments of the new way. Arnold writes: "With such thorough training, it was both expected and possible for the teacher, himself equipped with the Spirit, to answer for those then asking baptism with his personal authority."13 Along with the importance of intensive Scriptural instruction, we should be careful not to minimize the centrality of baptism in the early church. Baptism was a definitive symbol of one's commitment to Christ. Goguel writes that, in fact, the church can be defined as the society of the baptized at every moment of its history. In the early church, baptism was considered a physical representation of conversion, though not synonymous with it. Tertullian stated: "We are not washed in order that we may cease sinning, but because we have ceased, since in heart we have been bathed already."14 In concurrence, Justin said, "Only he who has truly ceased to sin shall receive baptism. Whoever is baptized must keep the seal pure and inviolate."15 Tertullian tells us that three godparents were required to sponsor baptismal candidates.16 The purpose for this may have been to testify to the integrity of new believers and insure their ongoing nurture. It is interesting that, in contrast to our day, the great emphasis was not upon method of baptism but its profound meaning as a total break with the Christless life. Concerning method, the Didache appears quite flexible: "...if you have not [a flowing body of water], baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm. If you have neither, pour water thrice on the head in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." The seriousness of its meaning is unmistakable in the following instructions from Tertullian: "Those who are to be baptized ought to pray with repeated prayers, fasts, bendings of the knee, vigils all the night through, and the confession of all bygone sins." 17 It is obvious that baptism was a deadly serious step, and only well-discipled believers were considered ready for it. In the figure of "warriors" or "soldiers" of the Spirit, early Christians were sworn to the oath of allegiance to Christ through the baptismal bath and the simultaneous

confession of the truth. In that water, believers realized they were burying their entire former life with all its ties and involvements. "Each one who made this break," Arnold tells us, "broke with the entire status quo and was thereby committed to live and to die for the cause he embraced in such a consecration unto death." 18 The enormous cost associated with commitment to Christ and to His baptism freighted it with profound meaning. Some believers went from the baptismal waters to an eventual death in Roman arenas. Also, the sharp break baptism symbolized sometimes resulted in such grave opposition from relatives that households were dissolved, whole families were split, engagements annulled, and marriages destroyed. Persecution and Purity The accusation has been made that the Roman persecution of early Christians was due to the fact that many saints were irrational fanatics with a fervent death wish. While it appears that a few Christians seemed to badger the Romans pathologically, most loved life and avoided persecution until they were hunted down. Drawing from two separate apologies by Tertullian, we can sense the intense sincerity in his argument: The Christian never has to suffer for any other affairs except those of his own sect, which during all this long time no one has ever proved guilty of incest or any cruel act. It is for our singular innocence, our great honesty, our justice, purity, and love of truth, yes, it is for the living God that we are burned to death. It becomes evident that the entire crime with which they charge us does not consist in any wicked acts, but in the bearing of a name... Again and again it is the name that must be punished by the sword, the gallows, the cross, or the wild beasts. 19 When forced to do so, most early Christians faced martyrdom with great courage. The author of the Letter of Diognetus wrote: How they are thrown to the wild beasts to make them deny the Lord! How unconquerable they are! Do you not see that the more of them are executed, the more do the others grow in number? That is clearly not the work of men. That is the power of God. That is proof of His presence.20 Some may reject the claim that church growth despite persecution was remarkable. History shows us, however, that many larger movements experiencing much less persecution were finally crushed, remaining only a blot on history's pages.21 While many examples of cruelty against early believers might be given, it is clear that persecution tended to weed out those who were not serious about their faith. Leaders in the church also realized that if believing in Christ could mean death or torture, then it was absolutely crucial that believers know exactly for what they were dying. Second, the intense danger worked toward fostering moral purity within church leadership. This is reflected in many writings of that day. An excerpt drawn from a letter by Polycarp in A.D. 115 provides an example. "See to it that the name of the Lord suffer not in men's esteem. I am much grieved about your presbyter, Valens and his wife. God grant them repentance, and do ye deal gently with them."22 Another example which suggests the importance of interpersonal accountability is found in the Letter of Barnabas. "Again and again I entreat you: Be good lawgivers one to another; continue faithful counselors to yourselves; take away from you all hypocrisy." However, if Christians were actually found guilty of crimes, they were usually willing to suffer the penalty for such. In "A Plea Regarding Christians," Athenagoras writes: If anyone can convict us of unjust acts, whether small or big, we are the last to beg off punishment; we would in fact demand the most severe and relentless punishment. But while others accused of transgressions are not punished before they are convicted,

in our case the judges do not inquire whether the defendant has committed any wrong, but are provoked about the name, as if that were in itself a crime. 24 The Priesthood of the Believer Wherever an efficient, unified group of people is found, it seems there is also effective leadership mobilizing them. From the beginning, the church sought to organize herself to some extent. This is evident in particular New Testament epistles. It can also be deduced in the following excerpt drawn from Clement of Rome's first letter to Corinth: And thus preaching through countries and cities, they [the apostles] appointed the firstfruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.25 Respect for church leaders was also enjoined: Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us; let us esteem those who have the rule over us; let us honor the aged [or presbyters] among us; let us train up young men in the fear of God; let us direct our wives to that which is good. 26 Well into the second century, along with exemplary church leadership, the priesthood of each believer appears also to have been strongly emphasized. Skinner states that Christians of the second century had a common bond through the exercise of their gifts in ministry and had a faith to share to a gradually declining Roman Empire. Each knew that he or she had a vital function within the body of believers and a responsibility to portray God's Kingdom. The church grew in spiritual and numerical strength because of the purpose and enthusiasm of their witness and a submission to that One whom God had appointed to redeem, edify, and guide. In the final decades of the second century, individual bishops were being widely appointed from among the ranks of fellow-presbyters within given churches. With time, the bishops grew in authority. As early as A.D. 112, Ignatius wrote, "Let no man perform anything pertaining to the church without the bishop. It is not permitted either to baptize or hold a love feast apart from the bishop."27 The original reason for this change appears to have been the perceived need for central leaders to deal with heresies and heretics. However, at the beginning of the [third] century, Williams reports, church leaders were still empowering the laity to take an individual part in services, to "prophesy," or sing something of one's composition. And we learn from Tertullian that the laity could also baptize during this period. Arguably, it appears that as the third century progressed, lay ministries in the church were steadily decreasing and becoming the exclusive domain of the clergy. The liturgy became more formal and the penitential system more exacting. By mid-century, in many regions, the celebration of the mysteries became the prerogative of priests alone. 28 Gradually the congregations became willing to relieve themselves of the responsibilities of maintaining a consecrated Christian lifestyle and serving as believer-priests. They transferred their spiritual concerns and duties to the care of the bishops and priests. In fostering this movement, church leadership made a fatal blunder. 29 Thus, at least in portions of the Roman empire during the third century, the church began to falter. 30 An Invincible Compassion The author of the Epistle of Diognetus seems to express the heartbeat of the early church as succinctly as anyone could. He writes, "...their existence is on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven; they love all, and are persecuted by all." In a writing of Dionysius of Corinth, we learn that, at least for a long period, the church in Rome was accustomed "to send contributions to many churches in every city; now relieving the poverty of the needy, now making provision for brethren in the mines."31 This relatively small church gave consistent support to fifteen hundred distressed persons in the year A.D. 250 alone. What struck and astounded the outside observer most was the extent to which poverty was overcome in the vicinity of the [Christian] communities. Even in the smallest community,

deacons and widows were responsible to see that no sick or needy person in the area was neglected. And no one in the church could evade the obligation to extend hospitality. This was one way individual church members reached out far beyond their own circle. Christian generosity was not limited to fellow-believers alone. Even the Romans rather incredulously acknowledged the all-inclusive love of these Christians. Julian writes, "No Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galileans [Christians] support not only their own poor but ours as well" 32 It is evident that many pagans were led to faith in Christ as they became recipients of this love they could not understand. In Justin's First Apology, he records: He [Jesus] challenged us to lead everyone away from shamefulness and pleasure in evil by patience and kindness. We can, in fact show that many have been transformed in this way who were once among you. They gave up their violent and domineering ways. Either they were conquered by the sight of their neighbors' patient life, or they were convinced by noticing the extraordinary kindness and patience of some defrauded traveling companions, or they were overcome by noting and testing this attitude in those with whom they had business dealings. 33 Implications for Today's Church Leaders: 1. At least in the West, today's church is not faced with the identical battles with which the early church contended. False teachers, however, still infiltrate the church, and non-believers still publicly distort who we are and what we stand for. It is vitally important that we attempt to correct false teaching wherever it is found, and that we work to publicly dispel distorted ideas of true Christianity. Skinner reports that the public apologies of the early church leaders appeared to have little positive effect. Christians continued to be objects of ridicule and torture. Nonetheless, the latent effect of these defenses seems to have been profound. As the decades passed, observation of these resolute saints in the worst possible conditions convinced many thousands of citizens and even Roman leaders that what they claimed about themselves in the apologies was absolutely true. Are we training our laypeople to be able to detect false teaching? Many Christians listen to various television and radio preachers week after week and accept everything they dish out without a question as to how it lines up with Scripture. Some dont even know clearly what they believe, so how can they wisely and intelligently sort out the teachings of others? In regard to our apologetic to outsiders, often only the ultra-fundamentalists seem to respond apologetically to the public regarding books, school practices, governmental measures, television programming or movies which distort or misrepresent conservative Christian beliefs or practice. We may disagree with fundamentalist extremism while refusing to lift our voices above a whisper within society concerning our own evangelical convictions. The typical preChristian is most likely significantly confused about what true Christians believe, and there are few clear voices rising above the crowd to clarify for them the truth. 2. What can we learn from the strong emphases upon teaching new converts and upon baptism? A George Barna survey in Los Angeles, California indicated that over 20 percent of those who attend church regularly claim no meaningful commitment to Christ. This figure is especially alarming if it reflects a growing pattern among American churches. It would seem far better for leaders to inquire too often concerning the souls of our parishioners than not at all. In some cases, we have been afraid to encourage true accountability among believers. Accountability is not a dirty word. It has to do with humbly caring enough to encourage, challenge or even reproach one another regarding various facets of our Christian living. In regard to baptism, the early church seems to have preceded this rite with extensive personal discipleship. In many churches today, we rush new converts into baptism before their faith has been tried and proven in the crucible of real life. Baptism is a plunge signifying

rebirth--a symbol of a commitment from which there is no turning back. The greater the significance church leaders place upon it as a spiritual milestone, the more meaning and value it will have to the new believer. 3. Is the suggestion being made that the church of the Western world should pray for hardships or persecution that she might become spiritually consecrated and pure? Not necessarily. Surely if we are willing, God is able to purify His bride without cataclysmic intervention. However, we must admit that a carnal and indiscriminate brand of Christianity seems to be considered the norm in many of our churches. The life of the carnal believer is a blasphemous distortion of who God is and what He represents. According to Chuck Smith, a church leader at a ministers' conference made the following declaration in a public address: "We need to motivate our people to serve. I realize that motivating people by competition is carnal, but we must face the fact that most of the people we minister to are carnal. Therefore, we must motivate them in carnal ways." 34 Our calling is to motivate believers to personal holiness, not cater to carnality. Holy living is neither pious jargon nor ethereal arrogance. It is living that reflects clear glimpses of Christ in the midst of the routine and the mundane. Schaller describes cataclysm or crisis also as a powerful unifying agent in the church. A great closeness often develops in congregations who have seen their members and/or meeting place destroyed by a tornado, attacked by persecutors or faced with interpersonal tragedy. But a problem tends to arise after the crisis has passed. New church attenders then find it very difficult to be accepted and assimilated into the tightly bonded group.35 So, though ongoing crisis was a unifying agent in the early church, perhaps it should be something that is accepted, if need be, but not sought. 3. Reaching the entire pagan world through a tiny band of people must have seemed an impassable barrier to early Christians. For thousands of years there was a physical barrier that seemed impossible for humans to overcome. Humans could not run faster than a four minute mile--all the coaches, and doctors, and experts said so. Our bone structure was all wrong. Human lung power was inadequate. Wind resistance was too great. Then one ordinary British runner named Roger Bannister proved the experts wrong, and within a year, thirty-seven other runners had broken that invisible barrier. The early church knew, that with God on their side, they could break spiritual barriers, and they could shake an empire. The effectiveness of the early church was much more a reflection of their faith than of their organizational expertise. In the beginning, a handful of virtually uneducated individuals, with no social or political connections, no hierarchical power structures, no systematic theology, no denominational budget, and no mass media promotion, transformed the thinking and living of much of the then-known world. The church was not run by professionals. There is probably no more destructive force upon the individual responsibility of the laity in ministry than centralized professionals who are considered the primary persons in a congregation who should engage in ministry.36 The greatest mission of church leaders is to equip and empower laypeople for ministries in line with their spiritual gifts. Christians give up their priestly responsibility and mandate when they relinquish ministry into the hands of a few leaders. Of course, some organizational administration is necessary in any collective venture to avoid chaos. However, there seems to be a human tendency to over-organize, perhaps for fear that if we don't, we may lose our present effectiveness. Over-politicized power structures inevitably corrupt, and the church must fight hard to make faithfulness and prudent decision-making, not corporate power and "success," its measuring stick. Even equipping and enabling the laity is sometimes abused because of our corporate structure. In many bodies, serving God is comprised of working on church grounds, serving on the flower committee, cooking church breakfasts, throwing church parties or planning church

socials. Of course, shared meals and social events are important in the building of relationships and unity. But is this the extent of our "service" to God? What about unbelievers? What about the troubled adolescent, the poor, the imprisoned, the elderly--the lonely, sick and sorrowing. If we so centralize and self-contain the church that we become arrogant isolationists, we end up excluding ministry in its most true and needed form. 5. Love which ultimately surrenders all was so much the hallmark by which early Christians were recognized that professed believers who lacked this brand of love were considered lacking the true Spirit of Christ. Urged by this love, some sold themselves into slavery or went to debtor's prison for the sake of others. Nothing was too costly for the Christians when the common interest of the fellow-saints was at stake. 37 It is by unconquerable compassion and generosity that the public should recognize us to be Christian. However, by most accounts, it appears that, whatever the Western unbeliever thinks of Christians, the word compassion does not typically come to mind. Why should worldlings turn to a religion that only claims God's love, when it is government programs, the Red Cross, professional counselors, and their unbelieving friends who are there to lift them up when they hit bottom? Final Thought The five basic factors outlined in this chapter can assist us toward the goal of reaching many more pre-Christians with a clear, powerful understanding of the gospel and making sure believers are well-discipled, compassionate reflectors of Christ. For this to happen in your church distinct changes may be required. Warren Wiersbe reminds us: Change for the sake of change is nothing but novelty. Change for the sake of better ministry and greater outreach is progress. You can build a crowd with novelty but you cant build a church.39 Are you prepared to be a catalyst for constructive change in your church? Footnotes
1 Tertullian, cited in Skinner, Arthur, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984, p. 46. 2 Thomas, Cal, "Can Oral Roberts top death threat from God?" L.A. Times: Los Angeles, Ca., 1990. 3 Roberts, A. and J. Donaldson (Eds. and Trans.) The Ante-nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Reprint 1971, ch. 15.. 4 Colson, Charles, Loving God, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983, pp. 191-192. 5 Arnold, Eberhard (1970). The Early Christians, Rifton, N.Y.: Plough Publishing House, p. 20. 6 Ibid, p. 4. 7 Minucius Felix, Octavius, Cited in Arnold, 1970, pp. 89-90. 8 Bartlet, Vernon, Early Church History, New York: Fleming Revell, n.d.,. 9 Eusebius, Cited in Skinner, Arthur, The Church of the Second Century: Organization and life, Unpublished masters thesis, La Mirada, Ca.: Talbot School of Theology, 1976, p. 118. 10 Epistle to Diognetus, Cited in Skinner, 1976, p. 40. 11 Gager, John, Kingdom and community, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975. 12 Drane, John, Early Christians, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982 (n.p.). 13 Arnold, Eberhard (1970). The Early Christians, Rifton, N.Y.: Plough Publishing House, 1970. 14 Clement of Rome, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (Eds. and Trans.), The Ante-nicene Fathers (Vol. 3). Buffalo, N.Y.: The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885, p. 662. 15 Arnold, The Early Christians, 1970. 16 Tertullian, Cited in "On Baptism," In A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (Eds. and Trans.), The Ante-nicene Fathers (Vol. 3). Buffalo, N.Y.: The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885. 17 Ibid, p. 678-679. 18 Arnold, The Early Christians, 1970, p 15. 19 Ibid, To Scapula 4.; To the heathen 1.3. 20 Ibid, p.123, 1970. 21 Skinner, The Church of the Second Century: Organization and Life, 1976 (n.p.). 22 Letters from Church Fathers, (n.d.) (n.p.) 23 Ibid. 24 Cited in Arnold, The Early Christians, 1970, p. 122. 25 The Ante-nicene Fathers (Vol. 1) 1885, p. 16.

26 The Ante-nicene Fathers (Vol. 3) 1885, p. 11. 27 Bettenson, H. (Ed.) 1943). Documents of the Christian Church, New York: Oxford University Press, 1943, p. 89. 28 Frend, W., The Rise of Christianity, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984, (n.p.). 29 Ibid. 30 Skinner, The Church of the Second Century: Organization and Life, 1976, p. 23. 31 Ibid, pp. 52-53. 32 Grant, Robert, Early Christianity and Society, San Francisco, Ca.: Harper & Row, 1977, p. 7. 33 Ibid, p. 125). 34 Cited in Arnold, The Early Christians, 1970, p. 98. 35 Chuck Smith, cited in "Those who stand for God," Steadfast: student journal of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, Ca., 1991, p.6. 36 Schaller, Lyle (1978). Assimilating New Members, Nashville: Abingdon. 37 Yaconelli, Michael, Tough faith, Elgin, Illinois: David C. Co., 1976, p. 37. 38Cited in Arnold, The Early Christians, 1970 (n.p.). 39Wiersbe, Warren & E.K. Bailey, Preaching in Black and White, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. (A form of this chapter originally appeared in the Christian Education Journal as a co-authored article by the author and Dr. Robert Radcliffe)

Chapter Two: The Good News that Became Bad News

"While Christianity converted the world, the world also converted Christianity. The natural impulses of pagan humanity were openly displayed among professing Christians. Doubtless, tens of thousands had followed their emperor into the fold of the church without ever experiencing the true regeneration or new birth. What had at first appeared to be the gift of an entire empire to the church became an albatross around the necks of spiritual Christians." -Bill Austin1

Fervent, But Wrong Scattered throughout church history are examples of leaders who were absolutely in earnest, but wrong. Some may question how many of those claiming the Christian faith really owned it. Also, we may ask, Is it possible for Christian leaders to intensely believe they are doing the will of God and furthering His kingdom when, at least in some aspects, they are doing their own will and furthering some other kingdom? In this chapter, we will examine the life of a man who changed the face of Christianity monumentally. Yet today it is questionable how many of those changes were lastingly constructive or truly honoring to God. A Sanctified Roman Empire? It was the best of Christian eras; it was also among the worst. The fourth century A.D. had brought an occurrence that even the most optimistic Christian would surely never have foreseen--Constantine, mighty emperor of Rome, was sending out pro-Christian signals. Most Christians probably thought they were hallucinating when they heard it. If you recall, this was not exactly an empire that had enveloped Christianity in loving embrace. In fact, thousands of individuals had been tortured and killed by Romans quite intent on wiping the followers of this strange cult off the planet. Now here was an emperor suddenly indicating a possible belief in the God of the Christians. According to historian, Lactantius, as Constantine journeyed to a battle in 313 A.D. he saw a vision of a cross and heard the words "In this sign, conquer." Later he had a dream in which he was instructed to draw the sublime sign of God on his soldiers' shields. The next morning Constantine had crosses painted on shields and he marched to the forefront of the battle behind a standard carrying the initials of Christ interwoven with a cross. In short, he eventually won the battle, and a Christianity he had only considered from afar became his faith.2 Constantine: Christian or Pagan? It should be stated from the outset that it's very difficult to pierce through the conventional descriptions of Constantine to any deep understanding of his mind and motives. Especially after he became emperor, a constant chorus of adulation for him filled the palace. All parts of his office were considered sacred, all acts praised as divine. He was expected to surround himself with a huge entourage of family, advisors, and staff. He himself said he wanted anyone anywhere to have access to him, but the reality is that, both then and now, it is difficult to break through the shell of insulation and discover the real person. His outward behaviors seem so mixed, so paradoxical, that even scholars sometimes end up making diametrically opposed judgments from the evidence. Constantine's beginnings were not promising. He was born to a barmaid named Helena and a Roman officer; the couple may not even have been married. However, Constantine showed flair and promise and eventually was sent to the court of the emperor, Diocletian, to be groomed for military leadership. One historian believes that, here, surrounded by jealous and hostile courtiers, Constantine mastered all the skills of deception and duplicity.3 Diocletian persecuted Christians with abandon, but Constantine's father, now appointed a caesar, felt sympathy for them; and Constantine was aware of this. Upon his father's death, he was appointed augustus in his place, and he officially ended the persecution of Christians in his

domain. At this point, however, Constantine seemed as brutal as any Roman in battle. Upon overthrowing the Franks and Alemanni, he slaughtered thousands and offered the adult males to wild beasts in the arenas.4 Yet his sympathy for Christians continued. In the year 313 Constantine joined with Licinius, another Roman leader, to sign what is now known as the Edict of Milan, decreeing not only toleration of religion, but a return of all that had been confiscated from the Christian church. Soon after, civil war broke out in a frenzied struggle for dominance over the Roman Empire. Constantine fought a leader named Maxentius and then his own brother-in-law, Licinius. In the end, Constantine's shrewd military strategy prevailed, and he became supreme emperor. In most cases during his reign, Constantine followed convention. He founded cities, submitted to ceremonies, patronized the arts, led armies in battle... However, occasionally he broke with the expected. On several trips to Rome, he refused homage to the god, Jupiter, and riot broke out in the streets. Also, as his reign became more secure, he showed additional favor toward Christians. He gave bishops more authority in their dioceses, he exempted church land from taxation, gave money to needy congregations, and built churches--- especially in Constantinople. In subtle ways, he tried to discourage paganism in the empire. He marked a day each week for Christian rest and worship, and Easter was celebrated publicly as Christ's resurrection day. Constantine even composed a prayer for citizens to recite on holy days: We know Thou art God alone; we recognize in Thee our king. We call on Thee for aid. From Thee we receive victory, through Thee we are made greater than our enemies. We recognize Thy grace in present blessings and hope on Thee for the future. We all beseech Thee, we implore Thee to preserve our king Constantine and his pious sons safe and victorious to the end of our days.5 In his biography of Constantine, Eusebius wrote that the emperor "governed his empire in a godly manner for over thirty years."6 However, the spiritual life of Constantine is as mystifying as it is heartening. It appears as if he did not pass instantaneously from paganism to the Christian faith but from the blurry edges of one to the edges of the other.7 Constantine spent many hours in theological study, but he was said to be at the mercy of almost any theologian who caught his ear. He never hesitated to tell even bishops what they should think on ethical questions, but some of his beliefs smacked of superstition or mysticism.8 He would gather crowds of palace staff and citizens to hear sermons he had labored over far into the night. What he lacked in theological knowledge he sought to make up for in sheer fervency. As early as 314 A.D. Constantine declared publicly: The inconceivable goodness of God forbids that mankind should continue to wander in the dark. There were things in my own nature which were devoid of righteousness. But Almighty God, who watches from the high tower of Heaven, has vouchsafed to me what I have not deserved. Verily past number are the blessings that He, in his heavenly goodness, has bestowed on me, his servant."9 As the early years of Constantine's reign progressed, in most areas of his life he seemed quite circumspect. In fact, biographer, MacMullen, states that his worst detractors had no criticism to make of his private life.10 He lived morally compared to most, he gave his own sons a Christian education, he enacted legislation which aided the poor and disadvantaged, and he supported his mother, Helena's, many benevolences. Some consider one of Constantine's wisest traits his patience. Knowing he could not coerce his subjects to accept Christianity, he moved very gradually to institute this faith across the empire.11 It had become obvious, even during the persecutions, that the Christians were the

most charitable and cohesive community in the Roman empire. Constantine, as well as many others, had come to admire Christian unity and now wished to harness that unity for the empire.12 Before his claimed conversion, Constantine had worshipped the Sun god, among others. Afterward, he still allowed this god some prominence in official art and communications. The new Christian sabbath he named Sun-day, and Christian records of that period refer at times to Christ as the "Sun of Righteousness." For at least several years following his conversion, Constantine, perhaps out of naivete, continued permitting even notorious pagan temples to function and allowed pagan magic formulas meant to protect crops. He also permitted both pagan and Christian rites in dedicating Constantinople, the city he founded. To the day of his death, he never renounced his title as the head of the established state cults, Pontifex Maximus, though he did not hide his disapproval of such cults. Some have claimed that Christianity was not so much a way of living with him as a way of winning Before each battle, he would retire to a portable chapel just outside of camp where he prayed for victory. His religious views seemed to rest on these deep but simple feelings, at times somewhat independent of theology. Did Christ stand as a true hero to Constantine? The typical Roman would be tempted to view Christ's crucifixion as conspicuous weakness, which was not acceptable to a Roman. However, he did abolish crucifixion as a punishment, he was said to deplore those who rejected the sufferings of Jesus, and, as we've noted, he considered the emblem of Christ's cross as sacred.13 Surely the greatest blot on the emperor's professed Christian character is the fact that he executed some of those closest to him. He was extremely fearful of possible plots against him, and during his years as emperor, the Empire increasingly came to resemble a police state. He covertly killed his father-in-law Maximian in 310, his brother-in-law Bassianus in 316, his other brother-in-law Licinius in 324, his eldest son and wife in 326, as well as several friends and courtiers.14 Some of these were executed for fear of political plots, but the exact reasons for other killings were never specified by Constantine, perhaps because it was considered a private and shameful family matter. Historians speculate that family jealousy and lies were used to manipulate Constantine. In his son's case, Constantine apparently mourned the possibility that he had executed him without sufficient proof and he erected a golden statue to "the son whom I unjustly condemned."15 Constantine appointed many Christians to his court and they experienced both his benevolence and his dominance. Constantine's power over church bishops is embodied in his statement "my will must be considered binding."16 Intent on church unity, Constantine intervened in two theological debates. In A.D. 313 when the emperor first inserted himself directly into Christian controversy he unknowingly set a dangerous precedent. The issue termed Donatism referred to professing Christians who had handed over sacred Scriptures to the Romans during persecution. Should these "traitors" be allowed to take communion and hold holy office? It would take many pages to adequately describe the case in which Constantine became embroiled. Initially, Constantine ruled against the Donatists and allowed some to be persecuted. Fortunately he saw the error of the violence and put an end to it.17 But what was most significant about this entire event was that, for the first time, secular government usurped the right to in some way define orthodoxy and to punish those considered to be dividing the church. It was a fateful step. Several years later Constantine inserted himself into another violent controversy now known as Arianism. The subject was being debated vigorously on every side. Constantine summoned church leaders from all over the empire in an effort to hammer out a comprehensive church doctrine regarding essentially whether Jesus was fully deity or simply a created and

changeable being. The emperor had such personal investment in the proceedings that he attended most of the two-month-long debate and bore the chief burden of controlling it. Over and over again in his addresses to the church he urged fellowship, fraternity, harmony, and peace. Yet he also minimized the aforementioned theological controversies of the church as "trifling, extremely minor, and inconsequential." He was beyond his depth. His heart may have been right when he told gathered church leaders that "division in the church is worse than war."18 However, unlearned in Scripture, unbaptized, without any legitimate claim to church office, he embodied the secular power that had shown gross brutality to the church for centuries. Some resented his attempt to moderate doctrinal issues among fellow-Christians. Near life's end, the enigmatic emperor was finally baptized so that the baptism would be near enough to death to cleanse all the sins of his fascinating and enigmatic reign. At about this time, Constantine declared, "I am absolutely persuaded that I owe my whole life, my every breath, and in a word my secret thoughts, to the supreme God."19 But the question remains for us: Why was Constantine's reign so paradoxical and so pivotal to the future of the Christian church? Why the Good News was Bad News Surely Constantine must have meant well. He gave no signs of harboring diabolical hidden motives against the Christian church. However, if he was indeed a converted Christian, he was also a worshipped emperor immersed in all that is secular, powerful, and pragmatic-seeking to interact with a new religious faith he knew only from the theological and experiential fringes. He had no idea he was unleashing what would become a vain religious elite and would, in turn, evolve into centuries of widespread corruption and heresy. The emperor believed he was doing right when he endowed the pope with valuable imperial landholdings as well as over a ton of gold and nearly ten tons of silver.20 It was also decreed that all confiscated church holdings must be returned to her immediately. Small church bodies convening in fear suddenly found themselves ushered into magnificent basilicas which were being constructed by the emperor's authorization. It was not so very long before the officers of the church recognized the "necessity" of donning rich robes to fit the stately basilicas. Then, of course, they were "compelled" to model their secular counterparts by displaying their religious finery in processions and public addresses. Even Christian art began borrowing from the lavish ceremony of imperial scenes. Christians could hardly believe their good fortune. The church was affluent and bishops were elevated to the level of senators. Almost overnight a church had been created "whose bishops and clergy now had their social horizons blown wide open by finding the open-handed Constantine in their midst."21 However, as Ramsay MacMullen comments, they did not recognize the serious danger of a friend becoming a master. It seems as if Constantine saw himself more and more as indispensable to the church. This is no wonder, in view of the fact that his admirers began saying things like "Christ combats spiritual evils, you have conquered the terrestial," or "He [Constantine], like his Savior, knowing only how to save, has saved the very godless themselves."22 After Constantine began flexing his political muscle within the church and her leadership---it was no great stretch to begin describing himself as Bishop, appointed by God over those outside the church. Meanwhile, holy orders was becoming an increasingly attractive vocation. As additional imperial measures favored Christians financially, church positions became a refuge from burdensome taxes and municipal duties. More and more people began pretending conversion in order to cash in on the benefits. There were recurrent charges of bribery for appointment to the priesthood and to higher church offices such as bishoprics.23 Vettius Praetextatus, a pagan militant, stated cynically, "Make me bishop of Rome, and I'll become a Christian tomorrow."24 Constantine backtracked, creating legislation to discourage the wealthy from becoming clerics for unworthy reasons; but it appeared to be too little, too late. Even some already serving in the church developed contaminated motives. Alexander, a

bishop, wrote that "love of office and love of money are forever leading certain rogues to plot and plan for more glorious-seeming dioceses."25 Others offered their allegiance to church leaders for room and board or fawned over those with the power of appointment to church positions. The church was gradually being absorbed into the ways of secular politics. With less biblical thinking came less biblical action. Within a few decades after Constantine, historian Marcellinus records that violence exploded when Damascus struggled for the papacy over Ursinus. In a single day, in one Christian basilica, one hundred and thirtyseven corpses were found.26 Tragic Long-term Results Scholars of the Waldenses, early dissenters against the Roman church, trace wholesale church corruption generally to the papacy of Sylvester, who served as vicar from A.D. 314-335 and baptized Constantine immediately before the king's death. The forged Donation of Constantine gave Sylvester great wealth through land grants to spend as he saw fit, and the pope began developing broad political rights over the church.27 As the decades passed, the legacy of Constantine became frighteningly more evident. From this point, it is not so difficult to trace, generally and briefly, the moral and doctrinal decay of the Roman church. Damascus, the pope from A.D. 366-384, was the first to staunchly establish the Petrine passage in Matthew's gospel as a biblical basis for the pope being the foremost leader of all Christians. Innocent I (402-417) claimed that the Roman church had sole custody of apostolic tradition and power over all bishops. Leo I (440-461) established that anyone who didn't acknowledge the Roman pope as head of the church was not of the church. During this general era, "barbarians" from the north began invading the Roman empire. Just as Roman mass conversions resulted in relatively few truly committed Christians, so it was with the northern tribes. The people integrated their pagan beliefs and mores with Christianity. Jesus became a tribal war god, who was revered more as a heavenly potentate than a suffering redeemer. Apparently, the popes did little to protect orthodoxy from these distortions. Pope Gregory the Great (546-604) increased papal authority until the church was the largest, wealthiest, and most powerful institution in Italy. This pope established the mass as a repetition of the sacrifice of Christ that would benefit the living or the dead. He also formulated the doctrine of purgatory, which further added to a growing body of extra-biblical ideas. Worship was developing more and more into an elaborate, showy art rather than simple, heartfelt service to God. Sacrament rather than teaching or preaching became central. Baptism was universally conferred upon infants for their supposed salvation. Fasting (at least in token form) before communion was now required, and people became entranced with seeing, handling, and kissing relics and icons. Eventually, Pope Sixtus IV made the availability of indulgences for souls in purgatory an article of faith and furthered the belief that the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God and should be a recipient of Christian prayers. The popes continued to work toward the end that the papacy would be unassailable and popes would be unaccountable to any person or body. From the sixth century on, it was established that the Apostolic See had the right to judge everyone but could itself be judged by no one. Down through the centuries there also grew a bitter and brutal power struggle between the papacy and political rulers. Neither side was willing to practice appropriate separation of church and state, though it was obviously wrong for either the church to rule nations or for national governments to rule the church. Though the early church fathers had generally disapproved of physical punishment for those considered heretics, secular princes went along with the idea that heresy was a crime against the state, and began sentencing offenders to inhuman tortures or to the death penalty. Popes as well as princes began persecuting or even exterminating opposition. More blood was shed during Innocent III's reign (1198-1216) than at any time in papal history. Dissenters simply would not be tolerated.28

In A.D. 1224 the Synod of Toulouse formally instituted the holy office of the Inquisition, thus fully legitimizing torture and the murder of all considered heretics. This synod also denounced all vernacular translations of the Bible and forbade the laity to even possess the Scriptures. Is this chapter simply about Catholic-bashing? In other parts of this volume weaknesses of Protestants and their leaders are exposed; and, inversely, constructive lessons are also drawn from various Catholic practices. So the objective of the writer is not to attack any particular denomination, but to bring out positive and negative lessons that can be learned from a diverse array of church individuals and events regardless of group or denomination. A Small Chorus of Dissent An apparent minority within the church reacted against her increasing pomposity and unbiblical ideas. The honorific titles, the endowments, the lavish gold and marble, the false traditions. It all seemed quite prideful and obscene. Even Catholic Bishop, William Durand, saw the travesty and wrote, The whole church might be reformed if the Church of Rome would begin by removing evil examples by which men are scandalized and the whole people, as it were, infected. For in all landsthe Church of Rome is in ill repute, from the greatest even unto the least.29 Greed, gluttony, and covetousness had spread like a flesh-eating disease. Caring for their poor had formerly been a trademark of the church. Now apparently that practice was ebbing. Jerome wrote, "Our walls glitter with gold...yet Christ is dying at our doors in the person of the poor.30 We are richer in possessions and power but poorer by far in virtue"31 Many of the opposing minority believed the only solution was in abandoning the established church and retreating into solitude. They began spending their lives in seclusion, claiming to concentrate only on God and the Scriptures. However, especially in the beginning, this unproductive hermit-like existence appeared to do little to spread the gospel and make disciples in all nations, let alone within the empire. These individuals, who became known as monks, even at times became competitive against each other, vying for who could stand the longest on one foot without food or water or who could remain the longest on the highest pillar. It was only as monastic orders began integrating work and ministry with spiritual contemplation that this lifestyle became more biblical and balanced. Implications for Today's Church Leaders 1.The emperor had a problem with duplicity. A part of him seemed to devoutly desire Gods will and His favor. Another part of him appeared secular, selfishly ambitious, and phobic at times in a manner that translated into cruelty. John Maxwell writes that we are all faced with conflicting impulses. No one, no matter how spiritual can avoid this battle. Integrity is the factor that determines which one will prevail. Integrity welds what we say, think, and do into a whole so that permission is never granted for one of those to be out of sync. Whether in times of smooth sailing or adversity, there should be no discrepancy between what we appear to be and what our family and friends know us to be.32 Only God knows the true heart of Constantine; in the end, we will not answer for him but for ourselves and our own personal integrity. 2. In Constantine's day, the church became recipient of a windfall of, not only government protection, but popularity and wealth. Many in the church couldn't handle these wisely and humbly and were by no means ready to deal with the lavish attentions of an empire. Along with the fact that many professing believers in the fourth century took dishonest advantage of the new affluence of the church, many outsiders were drawn into the church, not through the Spirit of God or the love they observed in Christians, but because they saw a way they could use the involvement to line their pocketbooks and gain the adoration or subservience of the masses.

Some people still rise to leadership in Christian ministries for the tacit purpose of financial gain, power, or human prestige. Speaking of money and the church, it is also true that much in which the Christian church is involved today requires vast amounts of money and affords prestigious opportunities for big talent. Just think of the towering church buildings and cathedrals, the widespread television and radio broadcasting, the massive book and music industries, the flashy Christmas and Easter extravaganzas, amazing in their special effects, choreography, and professional acting. Is this simply a grating tirade against Christian expertise in any field in which the secular world excels? No, that would be far too easy, and it would also be wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with massive and expensive projects, and Christians should be known for excellence, not shoddiness. However, as leaders, we must ask an honest why before any church undertaking. What are our real motives? What will it accomplish of an eternal nature? How does it line up with biblical principles? Are there more cost-effective programs that would yield greater spiritual fruit? Does it hide spiritual realities behind its lavish or self-exalting exterior? Is there a better, more biblical way to achieve the same goals? The problem in many cases is that we do not ask these questions with full, unbiased openness. In our minds, we have already decided what we want to do in the church, so we stack the deck. We rack our brains for real or imagined reasons why the desired activity or project is biblical enough or at least permissible to implement. One thing that is very difficult to do is to 1) excel in "amoral" achievements, 2) with eternal objectives, 3) wise use of finances, 4) and without becoming conceited, greedy, competitive or just plain secularized. When a Christian looks at a cathedral "he built," or wins a Christian music award, sells more of her books than the next author, or achieves high television ratings, or gets a newspaper write-up about a sensational Easter pageant, that individual must at all costs avoid letting wrong attitudes and motives creep in. We must be transparently honest with ourselves, and that is something none of us enjoys doing. We must regularly examine our attitudes for slippage from Christlikeness. We must make sure that the humble simplicity of the gospel and the power of God's truth is not being garbled, sensationalized, or distorted by the ways we present it. It is imperative that selfishness or greed doesn't subtly become even a part of our motivation for a church program or ministry. 2. In the crusade for or against political issues it is vital that we, as leaders, don't move in the direction of church control over the government. On the other side of the coin, we must be very careful not to open the door for governmental interference or control over church denominations, church schools, or, God forbid, church belief and practice. When Constantine joined the church and the state, even in the seemingly harmless ways we have discussed, it opened a Pandora's box of state involvement which grew devastating to the church for many centuries to come. Of course, it is not necessarily wrong for the church to seek legislation against immoral or damaging governmental policies. But it should be remembered that the primary Christian mission is not to reform secular society from the outside in, but from the inside out. Colson writes: If we set out to recapture culture, seeing the church as God's [political] instrument to save the world, we will fail, just as the conservative Christian political movement has failed; just as liberal Christian social movements have failed. The church is not simply a tool to rebuild society. Our goal is to be faithful to the holy God who calls us to be the church... 33 As leaders, we cannot lastingly transform society by using government to force society to line up her policies with biblical principles. Unless people commit their lives to Christ, they will only cover up wrong behaviors, resent Christians for their political "victories," and often retaliate by rejecting Christianity itself. Our vital and singular mission is to evangelize and make

disciples in all nations, including our own. 3. Heresies almost always originate within Christian leadership. The overarching fallacy that developed in the Roman Catholic church from which numbers of other heresies seemed to grow involved the church's definition of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The purity of the gospel is not a new topic, but it bears consistent reinforcement. The fact that this fallacy has wreaked such destruction in the universal church makes it always relevant. Of course, the Roman church did not originate the idea of a faith plus works gospel. From the inception of the church the apostles fought the battle for a gospel of pure grace, and their opposition came primarily from the Judaizers, who wished to add the Old Testament system to the gospel message. Of course, the Old Testament covenant had focused on the Law of God. People reflected their faith in God by seeking to obey a lengthy and rigid list of civil, ceremonial, and moral laws. When Christ died and rose, He became the sole object of our faith. It was not a matter of achieving God's favor through moral efforts. According to the Bible, it was placing our faith completely in One who lived the Law in our place and thus fulfilled all righteousness. One may think that evangelical leaders do not need to be reminded of these basic truths, but Charles Spurgeon wrote, "There is no point on which men make greater mistakes than on the relation which exists between the Law and the Gospel."34 Theodore Beza echoed Spurgeon when he wrote, "Ignorance of the distinction between the Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity."35 A false mixing of the Law with the gospel had horrendous implications for the church, and the resulting problems continue over 2000 years later. This truth that Patrick Hamilton wrote of in the 1500s has been notoriously difficult for the church universal to accept: The Law saith, Pay thy debt; the Gospel saith, Christ hath paid it. The Law saith, Thou art a sinner---despair, thou shalt be damned; the Gospel saith, Thy sins are forgiven thee, be of good comfort, thou shalt be saved. The Law saith, Make amends for thy sins; the Gospel saith, Christ hath made it for thee. The Law saith, Where is thy righteousness, goodness, and satisfaction? The Gospel saith, Christ is thy righteousness, thy goodness, and satisfaction. The Law saith, Thou art bound and obliged to me, to the devil, and to hell; the Gospel saith, Christ hath delivered thee from them all.36 Hamilton paid for such teachings as these with his life. He was burned to death in Scotland in 1528. Roman church leaders often claimed that their church beliefs and traditions were based upon the writings of the apostles and church fathers. However, it is obvious to any alert reader by the preponderance of evidence that the apostles and primary church fathers never espoused a salvation that replaced the Gospel with the Law, that affirmed the Gospel but rejected the Law, or that tried to mix the two as requirements for salvation. In no case did the apostles advocate a gospel even slightly based on anything but faith in Christ's substitutionary death for sin and His bodily resurrection. Jesus had said that anyone who simply believed on Him would not perish but have everlasting life. In the book of Acts, Luke recorded that there was no other name [except Christ] under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved. John wrote, "Herein is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins."37 Neither did Peter imply a salvation by works. He wrote, "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God..." (1 Pt. 3:18) And how could Paul have been misunderstood when he wrote to the Ephesian church, "It is by grace you have been saved, through faith---and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God---not by works, so that no one can boast."38 In fact, Paul's entire letter to the Galatian believers was a tortured plea that they would add nothing else to the free gift of salvation through faith in Christ alone. He claimed that

anyone espousing a gospel based on anything but grace through Christ should be eternally condemned. You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the Law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing--if it really was for nothing? Does God give you His Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the Law, or because you believe what you heard? 39 The revered church fathers also taught a gospel of grace through faith. Clement of Rome wrote, "We, being called by the same will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, neither by our own wisdom, nor knowledge, nor piety, nor the works which we have done, but by the faith by which God Almighty has justified men from the beginning..."40 Ignatius claimed that the objects dearest to him were Jesus Christ, His cross, His death, His resurrection, and the faith in Him which provides justification.41 Irenaeus added that "the Lord redeemed us with His own blood and gave His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh, and so effected our salvation."42 Clement of Alexandria reminded the church that unless they became children by a new birth that the Scripture plainly testified that they would never be able to recover their true Father or enter His heavenly kingdom.43 Bernard of Clairvaux, a revered monastic of the eleventh century, added: "To have Him [Christ] propitious to me, against whom alone I have sinned, suffices for all my righteousness. If my iniquity is great, Thy grace is much greater...for the grace of Jesus exceeds the number of all crimes."44 Jacobi De Valentia, a fifteenth century commentator, summarized these church scholars well when he wrote, "The faith of the church, under both testaments, is the same. The faith which saves us is the same that saved the ancient fathers...it is the same Christ, it is the same faith...,as we believe that no one can be delivered from sin save by the blood and passion of Christ, so did the fathers believe."45 There appears to be something within us humans that incessantly wrestles against a pure gospel of grace. We may accept Christ's sacrifice for our sins, but deep in our hearts there is a whisper we would never verbalize that says we can gain a portion of God's favor through our spirituality or unselfish service. Giants of Christian leadership have experienced the seduction of performing for God's nod. Even Martin Luther, the great messenger of grace, wrestled with this tendency: he shall at length find how grievous and hard a thing it is for a man that hath been occupied all his lifetime in the works of his own holiness to escape out of it and with all his heart by faith cleave to this one Mediator. I myself have preached the gospel almost twenty years and have been exercised in the same daily, by reading and writing, so that I may well seem to be rid of this wicked opinion; notwithstanding I yet now and then feel the same old filth cleave to my heart. ...I wish to bring something with myself, because of which He should for my holiness' sake give me His grace. And I can scarcely be brought to commit myself with all confidence to mere grace... for we ought to fly only to the mercy seat, forasmuch as God hath set it before us as a sanctuary, which must be the refuge of all them that shall be saved.46 Though it may not seem so, this heresy represents the worst sort of mockery against God. It says that Christ's ultimate sacrifice cannot save a human fully or transform a human sufficiently. It reflects the belief that what Jesus did through His death for us must be added to by us before it can possibly be acceptable to the Father. There is this fear among some that if we teach a gospel solely of grace that many will then take advantage, claiming salvation but living like the devil. Is God so small, so weak that He can't by grace enact sanctification by His Spirit in human beings who, in their depravity, have accepted by faith God's forgiveness and new birth in Christ?

4. We evangelicals, both lay leaders and professional, can in no way count ourselves immune from the downward slide of the Roman church. It did not occur in a decade or even a century. Though it seems to have generally begun about the time of Constantine's reign, the decay spread in degrees over a span of many centuries. Constantine was the political leader of an empire and also the self-proclaimed leader of the Roman church. Abraham Lincoln held that most people can stand some form and level of adversity, but if you want to test a mans character, give him power. In the end, Constantine abused that power. One reason he abused it was that his opinions and decisions were not open to question or subject to criticism. Hubert H. Humphrey said, There is no party, no Chief Executive, no Cabinet, no legislature in this or any other nation, wise enough to govern without constant exposure to informed criticism. Never be afraid of honest criticism, A.W. Tozer adds, If the critic is right, hes helped you. If the critic is wrong, you can help him. The evangelical church has many faults and weaknesses. The most dangerous mistake leaders could make is to arrogantly judge others and assume we don't need to reform some areas of faith and practice in our own house. Biblical doctrines are stretched every day by leaders from pulpits and through television and radio. We are in no way superior to non-evangelicals. Some of us don't take even as strong a stand as the Roman Catholic church regarding such issues as abortion and divorce among Christians. We reflect the sad paradox of, in some cases, hardly differing from the Christless in our lifestyle, yet perhaps in antithesis we are so harshly judgmental of pre-Christians that we drive them away from us instead of drawing them toward the Light--that all-encompassing love of Christ. As leaders, what sort of a spiritual legacy will we leave behind? Surely Constantine died believing that he was leaving behind a massive and God-honoring legacy. Let us examine ourselves as objectively as possible in the light of all that the Holy Spirit can reveal of how we are to live, believe, and lead as Christians. The humility to admit where we are wrong and to change those areas is indispensable if we are to be a bride in which Christ can take pleasure.

Footnotes
1 Austin, Bill, Austin's Topical History of Christianity, Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1983, p. 90. 2 Ibid, p. 86. 3 Grant, Michael, Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1993, p. 20. 4 Grabsky, Phil, I, Caesar: Ruling the Roman Empire, London: BBC Books, 1997, p. 187. 5 MacMullen, Ramsay, Constantine, New York: Dial Press, 1969, p. 164 6 Austin, Bill, Austin's Topical History of Christianity, Wheaton,IL: Tyndale House, 1983, p. 89. 7 MacMullen, Ramsay, Constantine, New York: Dial Press, 1969, p.111. 8 Grant, Michael, Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times, p. 151. 9 Ibid, p. 145. 10 MacMullen, Ramsay, Constantine, New York: Dial, 1969, p. 216. 11 Grant, Michael, Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times,, p. 106. 12 Ibid, p. 150-151. 13 Grant, Michael, Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times, p. 149. 14 Grabsky, Phil, I, Caesar: Ruling the Roman Empire, 198. 15 Grant, Michael, Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times, p. 113. 16 Grabsky, Phil, I, Caesar: Ruling the Roman Empire, pp. 195-196. 17 Ibid, p. 166. 18 Collins, Michael and Matthew Price, The Story of Christianity, New York: DK Publishing, p. 60. 19 Grant, Michael, Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times, p. 145. 20 MacMullen, Ramsay, Constantine, NY: Dial, 1969, p. 118. 21 Brown, P., Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity, Berkeley, 1982, p. 98. 22 MacMullen, Ramsay, Constantine, New York: Dial Press, 1969, p. 177. 23 MacMullen, Ramsay, Christianizing the Roman Empire, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, p. 115. 24 Grabsky, Phil, I, Caesar: Ruling the Roman Empire, p. 199. 25 MacMullen, Ramsay, Constantine, New York: Dial Press, 1969 p. 173. Collins, Michael and Matthew Price, The Story of Christianity, New York: DK Publishing, p. 65. 26 Van Braght, Thieleman, The Martyrs Mirror, Scottdale, Pa: Mennonite Publishing House, 1837, p. 283. 27 Austin, Bill, Austins Topical History of Christianity, Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1983, p. 110. 28 Ibid, pp. 126, 128, 136,144, 192, 194. 29 Coulton, Life in the Middle Ages, vol. 1, p. 205, quoted in Durant, The Reformation, p. 7. 30 Collins, Michael and Matthew Price, The Story of Christianity, New York: DK Publishing, p. 64. 31 Grabsky, Phil, I, Caesar: Ruling the Roman Empire, p. 198. 32 Maxwell, John, The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999, p. 36. 33 Colson, Charles, Against the Night: Living in the New Dark Ages, Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 1989, p. 135. 34 Boice, James Montgomery and Benjamin Sasse (eds) Here We Stand: A Call from Confessing Evangelicals, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996, p.110. 35 Ibid, p. 108. 36 Bonar, Horatius (ed) Words Old and New, Edinburgh, Scotland: Banner of Truth Trust, 1994, p. 82. 37 1 John 4:10 38 Ephesians 2:8-9 39 Galatians 3:15. 40 Bonar, Horatius (ed) Words Old and New, p. 2. 41 Ibid, p. 4. 42 Ibid, p. 6. 43 Ibid, p. 8. 44 Ibid, p. 42. 45 Ibid, p. 63. 46 Ibid, p. 69.

Chapter Three: The Worship of the Ages

They that be fully stablished and confirmed in God may in no wise be lifted up into pride. And they that ascribe all goodness to God seek no vain glory or vain praisings in the world, but they desire only to joy and to be glorified in God, and desire in heart that He may be honored, lauded, and praised above all things, both in Himself and in all saints; and that is always the thing that perfect men most covet, and most desire to bring about. Thomas a Kempis1

Worship: Eccentric or Ecstatic? When Theodore of Sikyon stumbled out of his cave of contemplation after two years, he stank, his hair was a matted mess, his body a horrid mass of sores and worms. Another worshipper spent years in supposed obedience to Psalm 49, moving about on all fours, grazing like a sheep. Hilarion lived in a cell, four feet by five, and Symeon Stylites spent his life in prayer atop a tall pillar in Antioch. One mystic, whose worship took the form of unceasingly comforting slaves as they docked in America was said to have raised a dog to life. At least he had a sense of humor.2 For good cause, Christians of today tend to shrink away from believers such as these. They seem psychologically and spiritually freakish. Did worship in the early centuries of the church tend to be eccentric or outlandish? What were the traditional facets of worship in the church from its inception, and what can we learn from these? What can church leaders learn from those who fled an increasingly worldly church in a quest for purer worship? How many of the activities practiced in evangelical churches can truthfully be called worship? These are some of the questions this chapter will seek to answer. Worship in the Apostolic Church Of course, Christianity has an inseparable connection to Judaism. A great struggle developed early on as Jewish believers sorted out what worship practices from Judaism should be retained and what new forms of worship should be instituted. The issue became significantly more complicated as God opened the way of salvation to the Gentile world. Official separation between Judaism and Christianity did not take place until the close of the first century.3 Even at that point, the Old Testament was the "Bible" of the early church, and the influences of Judaism were numerous. The earliest description of church worship is found in Acts 2:29 where Luke tells us that the believers devoted themselves to learning from the apostle's instruction, to deep fellowship with one another, to the breaking of bread, and to joint prayer. The apostles undoubtedly taught an oral remembrance of the deeds and teachings of Jesus. In addition, it must be assumed that they were teaching the Old Testament Scriptures, especially those that Jesus had pointed out as prophesying of Him.4 Fellowship was that koinonia in which free sharing resulted in spiritual brother- and sisterhood that was often more intimate than the tie between blood relatives. The breaking of bread may have included both the Lord's Supper and common meals which some called Love Feasts. Prayers were those spontaneous words of thanksgiving to God, confession, petition, and intercession carried on in small or large groups. Of course, there was no such thing at this point as liturgy, prescribed prayers, recitation of creeds, or even universal hymns native to the church. It is apparent in the epistles that it didn't take long for church worship to become even more participatory as believers began discovering and developing their spiritual gifts. Perhaps the most basic summarizing scripture regarding earliest forms of worship in the apostolic church would be 1 Corinthians 14:26, where Paul writes, "What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification..." Ephesians 5:18-20 may also be relevant here. Paul challenges the church to "...be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;

always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father." It does not seem necessary to describe at length the Scriptures that outline New Testament worship. This has been done in many other works. In summary, it can be said that in the biblical epistles to churches, gifts of the Spirit are most definitely emphasized. Thus, worship apparently was quite participatory. Teaching was probably a universal as based on the Old Testament and oral recollections of Christ. The gift of prophecy was commonly encouraged. Church giving was often sacrificial. Free prayer was practiced, as opposed to formulaic prayer. The Lord's Supper was celebrated often, with both penitence and eschatological rejoicing regarding the possible soon return of Christ. Baptism was enacted as a permanent break with heathenism---as a sign of death to the old life and resurrection to new life in Christ. Proclamation of the message of salvation took place not only in missionary preaching but in the worship services of the community.5 Surely there was great range of variation in church worship even from one city to the next, and only in the following few centuries did worship become more uniform and traditionalized. Vital in any description of early church worship is the fact that there seemed no distinction between assembly for worship and the service of worship in the world. Christian devotion did not take place in only one defined place, but was to be immersed in the full daily life lived by Christians.6 In the first chapter we read of the church as those who sought to live as exemplary citizens in a secular world, who cared for their own needy as well as the pagan poor, who showed extraordinary hospitality to travelers, who joyfully explained the gospel to pagan acquaintances, and who willingly offered up their lives when persecuted as an ultimate sacrifice of worship. Though the apostle Paul encouraged church leaders to avoid disruptive or chaotic worship, as we have said, much latitude appears to have been allowed in relation to manifestation of spiritual gifts and variety of worship. Hahn states that there appeared to be no official liturgical order that could suppress the free expression of the Holy Spirit.7 However, gradually, almost imperceptibly, during the post-apostolic period, the living charisma of participatory worship became increasingly repressed by a self-conscious adherence to liturgical formulas and a stifling institutionalism that dictated uniformity. Hahn concludes his in-depth study of early church worship by emphasizing that church worship must, as much as possible, be kept free of rigid prescribed order and legalism so that the manifold gifts of the Spirit may have freer rein.8 In Quest of Pure Worship As we know, the Roman Empire eventually accepted Christianity. Some true believers remained in the church, even as many church bodies became increasingly worldly. However, others fled the organized church. They could not tolerate the distortion of doctrine and worship by greedy, apostate church leaders and spiritually ignorant, nominal Christians. Initially, it was only a few retreating into deserts and other areas of solitude. They were called hermits, which is the Greek word meaning "desert." As more left the church in following decades and formed the first monasteries, these were called monks, from the Greek word meaning "alone."9 In a sense, monasteries comprised an artificial world within which one could practice poverty and humility (though the monasteries themselves were sometimes quite affluent).10 The deep desire to retreat to a life of contemplation was very personal. At least in the beginning it reflected a longing for an unadulterated worship of God and the need for silence, adoration, and prayer. Some saw this retreat as an abdication of leadership in the church by those who might have been most qualified. Others believed that these monks still occupied a form of leadership in the church since many believers looked to them as examples to respect and models to emulate. Those who entered the life sometimes saw themselves as self-made "eunuchs" for the sake of the kingdom---they would not or could not marry.11 Others were very bookish or timid

souls, uncomfortable in a world of spiritual aggressiveness and ambition. Of course, as in every vocation, there have been worthless or immoral contemplatives just as there have been those who truly made of their lives a constant aroma of praise and adoration toward God. A certain degree of asceticism lies at the root of the monastic movement. For some, the life involved self-punishment in vain hopes of gaining greater favor with God. For others, it involved the effort of focusing entirely on God without the distractions and requirements of worldly life or the falsities of an apostate church. Forms of Contemplative Life One of the earliest orders was founded by Benedict of Nursia, who based his rule of life roughly upon a document entitled Rule of the Master.12 Benedict emerges in the treatise as practical, tranquil of spirit, and kindly. His system lies squarely in the tradition of monks, that is, those whose emphasis was on prayer and contemplation, some manual labor, but, usually little warm fellowship. However, unlike the grim Carthusian Order, Benedict discouraged penance, self-mutilation, or self-flagellation. Trappist monks followed the Benedictine system but lived their lives in complete silence. The Cistercian Order was also Benedictine but was completely shut in and selfsufficient, unwilling to even communicate with those outside the cloister. These extremes would not necessarily have been smiled upon by Benedict. The other primary monastic following was the Rule of St. Augustine. This rule was more general and thus left a bit more room for practical ministries to develop. Devotees were called canons or, in some cases, friars instead of monks. Of course, they practiced contemplative worship, but they also ministered as leaders in numerous ways to outsiders. They considered their rule of life to be more similar to that of the apostles, and it does seem as if their lifestyle displayed a more scriptural balance between solitary/corporate worship, fellowship, and service.13 Then in the early 1200s Francis of Assisi, that pure but eccentric breath of fresh air, blew clean upon the church. From the very moment Francis was faced with the glorious humiliation of his vision of dependence upon God's love, he left everything behind and plunged after poverty as men have dug for gold. G.K. Chesterton describes Francis as, a man who, once he knew he could not pay back his debt to Christ, "always was throwing things away into a pit of unfathomable thanks."14 Unlike the Benedictines or even the Augustinians, Francis fostered the idea that monks should become migratory and almost nomadic instead of stationary. He left behind all material possessions and simply went from town to town preaching the gospel and doing good. And the interesting thing was, more and more people began dropping everything and joining him. In fact, practically a whole town was once said to have wanted to follow his lead. However, he was wise enough to know this calling wasn't for everyone. He appointed them as his "third order" and sent them back to town. Someone has said that the spiritual riches St. Benedict had stored, St. Francis scattered. The servants of God who had been a besieged garrison became a marching army. And what was it that drew people to the lively fool for Christ? It was the fact that whenever anyone looked into Francis' eyes, they were certain that he was interested in them. He treated a whole mob of dirty peasants as if they were a hundred kings, and it was only the love of God that could do such a thing.15 Francis wanted the gospel to be displayed so simply that even the village idiot could understand it. He flung open the gates of the Dark Ages and cried out that there was light in place of all the black abuses, pagan rites, and bloody cruelties of those days. For many of that time, it was a wonder to behold. It would be unfair to give the impression that the Franciscans were the only movement that worshipped through godly service. Charles Colson reminds us that, instead of conforming to the barbarism of those medieval times, hundreds of monasteries of varied orders spread

across Europe, characterized by discipline and moral order.16 Many monks and nuns took a leadership role in Christendom. Early on, monasticism concerned itself deeply with Christian education and orders nurtured young men planning to enter the priesthood.17 They preserved copies of the Scriptures, helped harvest crops, taught literacy and morals, sheltered widows, orphans and the poor, opened hospitals, and were generally respected by a population staggering under the greed and ruthlessness of corrupt political leaders.18 The Darker Side of Monasticism There are almost always two sides to a story, and this is true of the religious orders. Despite the enormous good some did, as time progressed others wreaked destruction in the name of God. What Francis proclaimed, many embraced slavishly. In fact, some wanted to impose his house of innocent poverty and reckless service on the entire world. But in the Church of God there are "many mansions." The way of St. Francis was a definite calling for him and certain others, but it was not the whole mind of God or even of man. As uninhibited as was Francis' worship and service, he never lost his sense of humor and he always retained his sanity. This kept balance in the movement. After his death, however, for some the order became a monomania that turned ferocious. Claiming to be true to the letter of Francis, these launched violent vetoes against the spirit of Francis and declared spiritual war on humanity. Thus, they became tragically unproductive and many eventually turned away. Another movement came to be known as the Dominican Order. A prior named Dominic Guzman was shocked upon encountering his first heretics on a journey to Denmark. He reacted by developing a series of convents and monasteries intended to convert French heretics, initially by apologetic preaching and silent example. These Dominican monks were quite mobile as leaders. They combined monastic serenity with intellectual authority and were dedicated to the deep study of philosophy and theology. They contributed important theological writings and served as effective missionaries on several continents. But the Dominican order eventually turned violent; it was primarily Dominicans who tried to suppress "heretics" by use of that insidious apologetic machine we now know as the Inquisition.19 Besides this, there were other orders that began slipping down a dark and winding slope. Thus some monastic orders or segments of orders veered from their original purpose and intent and became corrupt, cruel, or simply useless. But are there some truths we can glean from monasticism at its best? Many of these men and women forsook all in the sincere yearning that their lives would be a lifelong hymn of praise raised toward God. It seems we would be very foolish to reject it all because of the failure of some. Surely throughout the centuries monks, friars, and nuns have learned some ways of worship from which we as evangelicals could learn. Can We Learn from Contemplatives? St. Augustine was not a monk, but he considered contemplation the highest act of the soul. He praised spiritual hermits who "enjoy conversation with God and are most blessed in the contemplation of His beauty." At the same time, however, Augustine believed this contemplation was also open to simple, lay Christians.20 Meditation and contemplation are not practices to be avoided by believers as too strange or mystical. Thomas A Kempis wrote, "Blessed are they that enter far into things within, and endeavor to prepare themselves more and more, by daily exercise, for the receiving of heavenly secrets."21 The matins and other daily meetings took up a great deal of time in monasteries. The offices consisted of groups of psalms, antiphons, hymns, prayers, and the public readings of scripture, lessons, and Christian classics. Generally, monks or nuns might rise between two and three in the morning. Monks had to be in choir before the bell stopped tolling. First came preliminary prayers. The first office was matins, which had nine nocturnes, consisting of chanted psalms, responses, lessons and collects. This lasted until dawn. The rest of the day was occupied with private prayer, manual

work, and perhaps some personal reading and meditation.22 Levi writes that, even today, the chanted office wonderfully concentrates thoughts and feelings. There is no doubt that, for sincere, experienced monks, the set forms of the office and the liturgy do not constrain, but liberate. They form their own brand of contemplative prayer, and music is essential to them.23 The liturgy is solemn and profoundly peaceful. It is the center of contemplatives' lives and self-expression... It is real, it is not play-acting.24 Many serious contemplatives also develop the ability of keeping some crucial area of their minds gazing at God even while they carry on business. This is classicly evident in the book by Brother Lawrence, Practicing the Presence of God. This constant fellowship enabled Lawrence to write, "I know not what I shall become: it seems to me that peace of soul and repose of spirit descend on me, even in sleep....I am in a calm so great that I fear naught. To be without this peace would be affliction indeed."25 Lessons in Prayer There is prayer in solitude and prayer in community. Solitude should not alienate us from our fellow human beings but, instead, make real fellowship possible.25 In solitude we can gradually become constructively aware of the presence of Him who embraces friends and fellow pilgrims and offers us the freedom to love each other, because He loved us first.26 It is also true that a real spiritual life should not cause us to isolate ourselves from life but make us even more alert and aware of the world around us so that all that is and all that occurs becomes part of our prayers and invites us to a free and fearless response.27 Just the same, there is such a thing as worshipping Christ's' journey in place of living His journey through the Spirit. The first feels very religious; the second just feels human and not glorious at all.28 One lesson that some Christians never learn is that we must both worship Christ Himself and live out His journey through the Holy Spirit on a daily basis. There are important things we can glean from those leaders who concentrated their lives chiefly upon the inner life and the vertical relationship with God. One type of prayer practiced by contemplatives is called the prayer of aspiration. This is a brief focused prayer prayed with feeling and fervency which enables a person to express contrition, love, and sensible devotion. It removes something of the rust of sin and gradually cleanses the soul by enlightening the eye of the mind and exciting the will to the love of God.29 Christians often breathe a prayer to God during a day, but the prayer of aspiration is not a petition, a complaint, or an intercession. It is a blessing, and it enables a loving contact with the Lord frequently throughout the day. It is an instinctive reaction in the presence of Infinite Love that can become normal as breathing. Francis de Sales expressed it thus: "Make frequent aspirations to God by short but ardent movements of your heart; admire His beauty, implore His assistance, cast yourself at the foot of the cross, adore His goodness, converse with Him a thousand times a day; fix your interior eyes on His sweetness; stretch out your hand to Him as a little child to its big Father, that He may lead you."30 Poslusney reminds us that our daily life must continue in keeping with our claims of love. If we express these prayers of devotion insincerely we will find ourselves in increasing dryness and darkness.31 However, those who allow this worship to become the habit of their lives can always retreat to God despite the great variety of the day's work and occupations. Prayer becomes like their very breath.32 St. Teresa wrote that this prayer makes us realize even more God's special care for us and his yearning to commune with us. "I believe that all trials would be well endured," she wrote, "if they led to the enjoyment of these gentle yet penetrating touches of His love."33 Specific examples of these aspirational prayers may be helpful, though with time, prayers like these should flow spontaneously out of the longing or overflowing of the heart: "O my Father, throw your lovingkindness about me like a shield." "Gladly I take shelter under Your wings, cling close to You, borne up by Your

protecting hand." "To do your will alone is my heart's desire now and forever." "It is so sweet to praise you, O Lord, to sing, most high God, in honor of Your name; to proclaim Your mercy and faithfulness." "How I have loved to do Your bidding, O Lord; my thoughts return to it all the day long." "O my Beloved, my heart is in dryness and feels no loving response from You. But I will love You unceasingly and will accept all as from Your loving hand." "Lord, when I wake up, I shall be content with Your likeness."34 Another form of contemplative prayer is called, by some, centering prayer. This refers in a general sense to any method by which the pray-er seeks to bring his or her scattered thoughts together to allow for a deepening concentration on God.35 This is not done in a spiritual vacuum. Father Pennington writes of the crucial importance of God's Word: Sacred reading creates a desire for deeper experience and...contemplative prayer creates a thirst for more knowledge of the Beloved to be found in his revelation. This seems to be a hallmark of true Christian experience: it always creates a greater desire to search the Scriptures, and at the same time it finds in that conceptual knowledge, with its affective response, the means of expressing itself on other levels of the Christian's life.36 Contemplative or centering prayer is not a type of prayer couched in great human effort. In fact, that is one reason why the Western mindset may be tempted to rebel against such an idea. We in the West 1) must feel productive---we think in terms of action and pragmatic benefits for ourselves. Thus external activity is often what we seek. Even our recreation and vacations are sometimes done with a certain deadly earnestness. 2) We also tend to think of God as one who constantly needs placating by what we are outwardly. 3) And, third, our overarching concern is often about what rewards we might reap in heaven, rather than on simply strengthening our inner self to love God and neighbor, leaving all results to Him. Centering prayer is resting and trusting as we increasingly sense God's presence in our lives. It is not a mantra and does not consist of blanking out the mind. It is a peaceful rest in God that grows deeper as our trust in Him grows.37 It is a waiting before God without feeling the need to continue our incessant chattering. As mutual love deepens between friends or spouses, they can sit in silence without embarrassment or the sense that every moment must be filled with activity or conversation. When my older brother was about five years old, he entered our fathers office. Busy with work, Dad said impatiently, David, what do you want? David looked up at him and said, Dad, I dont want anything. I just want to be with you. Part of the fulfillment in our relationship with God is simply being in the presence of the one we love and enjoying Him. Some suggest that during centering prayer one word should be used in order to keep the mind focused. Even though the word is to be used only when the mind wanders, we evangelicals may instinctively react against this idea because to us the word may seem to imply a vain repetition. So an alternative would be to quietly concentrate on God and periodically breathe out a response to God in accord with what we sense of His presence within. This would most likely take the form of a simple thought such as, "God, you are perfect love," "Your purity is beyond perfection," "I sense your always-gentle spirit," "My heart is completely yours," etc. There is no compulsion to think of things to say to God; simply whisper a prayer if you are moved to it by a sense of God's presence. Basil Pennington, who writes about contemplative prayer, states that he'd like to underline this idea eighteen times.38 Don't wonder about whether you're doing everything right or getting the right effect. Remember, we are seeking God, not peace, enlightenment, answers to prayer, or anything else---we are only seeking Him. He is our prayer.

Thomas Merton writes, "...our meditation should begin with the realization of our nothingness and helplessness in the presence of God. This need not be a mournful and discouraging experience...it can be deeply tranquil and joyful, since it brings us into direct contact with the source of all joy and all life.39 As believers continue to experience contemplative prayer as a long term habit, they may find that feelings of divine consolation, inner sweetness, or waves of God's love may grow less frequent, not more. The hunger for God will not lessen, but it will be realized that the solid food of the spiritual journey is pure faith rather than emotional sensings of God's presence. Faith without sight or feelings indicates increasing maturity in our walk with God.40 No prayer is worthwhile unless the fruits of prayer are manifested in daily life. Prayer is not a high-class tranquilizer, leaving us still depressingly attached to the same self-centered goals, preoccupations, and insensitivity to others' needs. In partnership with God's Word, centering prayer should gradually empty us of our selfish agendas so we can replace them with Christ's agenda.41 It should also be mentioned that there may well be dry times in our prayer life---periods of powerlessness or the sense of being abandoned by God. One form of this is called the dark night of the soul. We should avoid concentrating too much upon our feelings; they should not be central. We naturally have faith in God when He is smiling on us, but when things turn dark we begin to wonder if God still loves us.42 After a while, we may even cut down on our time alone with Him. But that is the time to be most determined. We must keep on praying. We must tell God we are clinging in faith to Him even though we dont feel like it. Trust involves asking Him to carry out His complete will in our lives. The dark night will eventually pass. Implications for Today's Church Leaders Both Martin Luther and John Calvin saw three factors as crucial in church life: 1) doctrine, 2) worship, and, 3) discipline or manner of life.43 In this chapter the focus has been particularly on the subject of worship, and we have had to be selective. In the brief review of the worship practices of the early church we looked at what lessons might be learned from worship and prayer, from the early contemplatives up to the present. In regard to assemblies in the apostolic church era, it appears that elders attempted to set a balance--encouraging the singing of psalms and perhaps hymns, prayers, teachings, readings of Scripture, prophesying, the Lord's Supper, and baptism. It may be that some churches can still claim that, at one time or another, they do most of those things. One problem, however, is that dull routine can kill spiritual freshness--a few hymns, a pastoral prayer, the collection, a sermon, and perhaps an invitation--these are carried out with no change or variety in many churches every Sunday of the year. Another problem is that in many churches these segments of worship are carried out almost wholly by professional salaried staff. Of course, pastoral staff should lead parts of worship services, but shouldn't lay believers be encouraged in more ways to use their spiritual gifts in these assemblies? From her experience of participation for a time in a Benedictine monastery, Kathleen Norris found that listening to the Bible read aloud was a fresh and invaluable immersion in Gods words as an oral tradition. In fact, she reminds us that Paul's epistles were letters meant from the beginning to be read aloud in a church body.43 As leaders, why should we not have lay people read the relevant Scriptures each Sunday? And why not allow church members to use their gifts of evangelism and exhortation by giving brief testimonies in church services? Gifts of mercy and service can be emphasized by allowing church members who exercise those gifts to report, now and then, the practical ways they are using their abilities to edify the body. Baptism, the Lord's Supper, a wide use of spiritual gifts in worship, reciting of creeds and liturgy, the singing of hymns, psalms, and scripture songs---all these things can be done faithfully, yet lifelessly. Creativity is a much-abused word. For the Christian, it is the freshness

of God's love spread abroad by the Holy Spirit that infuses life into these biblical means. This is the secret. Agape gives living meaning to the words we thread through our lips. It makes us care deeply about the people sitting around us in worship. It enables us to take the truth we hear in worship assemblies and to illustrate it beautifully in our words and actions out in ordinary life. Without God's love, all these forms of worship become the most deadening rituals and we can actually grow to dread them. Friar Pedro Arrupe challenges us to fall in love with God because the one we are in love with, the one who seizes our imagination, will affect everything: It will decide what will get you out of bed in the morning, what you will do with your evening, how you spend your weekends, what you read, whom you know, what breaks your heart, and what amazes you with joy and gratitude. Fall in love, stay in love, and it will decide everything.44 2) We evangelical leaders tend to decry mystics and spiritual hermits as eccentric, even socially dysfunctional. Many who live the solitary lifestyle dont fit this stereotype. Just the same, we evangelicals often have the opposite problem. We are almost never alone. When we are alone, we must have some distraction--television, radio, stereo. We are thus constantly bombarded with mass communication of one kind or another. Superficial messages and undigested cultural elements, hundreds of choices and alternatives, inane conversation from advertisements, television, radio, our collection of acquaintances---all these things addict and overwhelm us to a point in which if we stop to pray, we often don't know what to say or we mumble a few words that sound unsurprisingly similar to those we prayed the day before. And to sit in periods of silence before God is unthinkable. Somehow we've forgotten the vital truth that prayer is not just about talking; it is about listening and waiting and worshipping God. Perhaps as a reaction to the excesses of medieval Catholicism or the fear of embracing Eastern mystical methods, we tend to substitute cognitive thought and doctrinal teaching--both important facets of spiritual formation--for the practice of developing spiritual interiority. We fear that if we spend too much time alone we may be considered anti-social or we will waste too much valuable time. While Kathleen Norris is not a celibate member of an abbey, her experiences have left her with a great respect for monks and nuns who have incorporated into their lives "the values of stability, silence, and humility that modern society so desperately needs and yet seeks so relentlessly to avoid."45 We can learn from their lives. Remember, time in contemplative prayer is not designed to exclude or alienate ourselves from others but to strengthen and refresh ourselves for service. "...a rich interiority is important to Christian character, though spirituality is, of course, more than interiority. ...Much modern spirituality encourages privatism. Privatism excludes; interiority includes. Privatism means keeping everything to oneself; interiority means preparing oneself to share."46 The devotional masters were fully convinced that time alone with God was necessary for any hope of effectiveness out in public ministry. Friedrich Von Heugel wrote, "An interior man will make more impressions on hearts by a single word animated by the Spirit of God than another by a whole discourse which has cost him much labor and in which he has exhausted all his power of reasoning."47 Given our time constraints, this quietness before God may seem like an extravagance, but Martin Thornton states, "Far from being a self-centered, inwardlooking luxury, the development of individual spirituality is the true source of Christian influence and mission."48 Prayers of aspiration and centering prayer are two ways of relating to God. Maybe you are already enjoying them without having placed a label on them. Prayer is one of the top subjects Christians struggle with and indicate a desire to learn more about. It could be that most

of us don't need to read lots of new books on prayer but to begin practicing the forms of prayer we know about. Prayer could change our lives and could turn the church of God upside down, realigning it systematically with the design God intended from the beginning. Footnotes
1 A' Kempis, Thomas, The Imitation of Christ, New York: Pocket Books, 1954, p. 91. 2 Levi, Peter, The Frontiers of Paradise: A Study of Monks and Monasteries, New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1987, p. 48, 65, 44, 71. 3 Hahn, Ferdinand, The Worship of the Early Church, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973, p. p. 33. 4 Luke 24:13-ff 5 Hahn, Ferdinand, The Worship of the Early Church, pp. 46-49. 6 Ibid, p. 39. 7 Ibid, p. 71. 8 Ibid, p. 107. 9 Austin, Bill, Austin's Topical History of Christianity, Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1983, p. 90. 10 Levi, Peter, The Frontiers of Paradise: A Study of Monks and Monasteries, p. 50. 11 Matthew 19:12. 12 Brooke, Christopher, The Monastic World, New York: Random House, 1974, p. 33. 13 Ibid, p. 126. 14 Chesterton, G.K., St. Francis of Assisi, New York: Image Books, 1957, p. 80. 15 Ibid, p. 97. 16 Gangel, Kenn and Warren Benson, Christian Education: Its History and Philosophy, Chicago: Moody Press, 1983, 108. 17 Colson, Charles, Against the Night: Living in the New Dark Ages, Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 1989, pp. 132-133. 18 Levi, Peter, The Frontiers of Paradise: A Study of Monks and Monasteries, pp. 67-69, 189. 19 A Kempis, Thomas, The Imitation of Christ, p. 95. 20 Ibid, pp. 176-177. 21 Ibid, p. 182. 22 Ibid, p. 200. 23 Lawrence of the Resurrection, Brother Lawrence, Practise of the Presence of God, Uhrichsville, OH: Barbour Publishing, 1999. 24 Nouwen, Henri, Reaching Out: The Three Movements of the Spiritual Life, Garden City: New York, 1966, p. 28. 25 Ibid, p. 30. 26 Ibid, p. 35. 27 Rohr, Richard, Everything Belongs: The Gift of Contemplative Prayer, New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1999, p. 20. 28 Poslusney, Venard, The Prayer of Love; the Art of Aspiration, Locust Valley, N.Y.: Living Flame Press, 1975, p. 17. 29 De Sales, Francis, Introduction to the Devout Life, New York: Doubleday, Image Books, cf., p. 94. 30 Poslusney, Venard, The Prayer of Love; the Art of Aspiration, p. 51. 31 Marmion, Dom Columba, Christ, the Life of the Soul, p. 314. 32 St. Teresa of Avila, Complete Works, Interior Castle, Peers, vol. II, p. 341. 33 Poslusney, Venard, The Prayer of Love; the Art of Aspiration, pp. 97-99, 102. 34 Pennington, Basil, Centering Prayer: Renewing an Ancient Christian Prayer Form, Garden City: New York, 1980, p. 41. 35 Ibid, p. 169. 36 Keating, Thomas, Intimacy with God, New York: Crossroad, 1994, p. 40. 37 Pennington, Basil, Centering Prayer: Renewing an Ancient Christian Prayer Form, p. 107. 38 Merton, Thomas, The Climate of Monastic Prayer, Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1969, n.p.) 39 Keating, Thomas, Intimacy with God, New York: Crossroad, 1994, pp. 95-97. 40 Lloyd-Jones, Martyn, Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Cure, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965, p. 114. 41 Boice, James Montgomery (ed) Here We Stand: A Call from Confessing Evangelicals, Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker Books, 1996, pp. 158-159. 42 Norris, Kathleen, The Cloister Walk, New York: Riverhead, 1996, pp. 32-33. 43 Ibid, p. 311. 44 Arrupe, Pedro, cited in Richard Rohr, Everything Belongs: The Gift of Contemplative Prayer, p. 105. 45 Norris, Kathleen, The Cloister Walk, p. 311. 46 Sudbrack, Spiritual Guidance, New York: Paulist Press, 1983, pp. 8. 47 Friedrich Von Heugel, The Life of Prayer, London: J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1930, p. 39. 48 Thornton, Martin, Spiritual Direction, London: Cowley Publications, 1984, p. 9.

Chapter Three: Great Leaders; Great Pitfalls

"Luther would allow whatever the Bible did not prohibit, whereas Zwingli would reject whatever the Bible did not enjoin. This meant a much more drastic stripping away of all the remnants of Romanism. Luther would reject only that which conflicted directly or by implication with the gospel of Paul. Zwingli, even more than Erasmus, desired to restore the pattern and even the constitution of the primitive Church. [Anabaptists] believed that the Church is a voluntary society of convinced believers, that it should be separate from the state, and that where religion is concerned no man's assent should be won by force...1 But fear can lead to repressive retaliation. Great Christian leaders became pitted against one another, at times resorting to self-centered efforts and harsh means to achieve their will and their place in history. Roland Bainton

The Roots of Reformation The year was 1519. Tension sizzled in the city of Leipzig. People gathered in clumps on street corners and arguments bubbled and burst into strife. A great debate was to be held between two theologians, John Eck and Martin Luther. Luther was a peoples priest, a doctor of theology, and an esteemed professor at the University of Wittenburg, but this did not make him immune to fierce attack. Driven by a vision of pure, unexploited Christianity, this brilliant, pious, intolerantly willful man had done something considered the zenith of reckless audacity--he had defied the Roman Catholic behemoth. Two years before, when Luther had posted his 95 theses of church reform on the door of the castle church, a disturbed Eck had immediately written a pamphlet meant to discredit him. Luther and a fellow professor at Wittenberg University, both wrote counter pamphlets in answer to Eck's attacks, and, enraged, Eck had challenged Luther to a public debate. In this year, Erasmus of Rotterdam's writings also continued to influence many of Europe's openminded, including a Swiss preacher, Ulrich Zwingli. Erasmus had criticized the church with witty sophistication, pointing out with embarrassing frankness the great gap between the Holy Scriptures and a church which claimed to be based on them. He poked fun at the pilgrimages to shrines, mocked the worship of sacred relics and images, questioned the belief in a purgatory, argued that unbaptized infants were not damned, and found the idea of Christians going to war with each other outlandish. After Zwingli met Erasmus in 1515 he gushed, "It was an extraordinary proof of your kindness that you were not ashamed of a man so small and so unskilled in letters." 2 Early on, radical Luther wrote Erasmus a letter, humbly soliciting his support. Erasmus advised, it might be wiser of you to denounce those who misuse the Popes authority than to censure the Pope himself. Old institutions cannot be uprooted in an instant. Quiet argument may do more than wholesale condemnation. Avoid all appearance of sedition. Keep cool. Do not get angry. Manchester believes Erasmus reply was probably not only wasted on Luther, but was incomprehensible. The monk of Wittenberg was all that the scholar in Louvain asked him not to be: inflammatory, passionate, seditious, furious. That was his magic, and it was also part of his genius.3 Meanwhile, in late 1519, Ulrich Zwingli of Zurich, the new People's Priest, lit a reformation flame in his hometown. He announced in his inaugural address that the following day he would begin preaching through the Gospel of Matthew, verse by verse directly from the Greek text. This was unprecedented in a Catholic church in which priests enjoyed sole access to the Scriptures and only read aloud carefully limited canonical readings. In Paris a bright student named Conrad Grebel wrote to a friend, "I congratulate my friend Ulrich Zwingli that he has been appointed to my native city. I congratulate my city for finding such a pastor." 4 These words seem strange coming from a young man who had recently been expelled from his quarters for noise and revelry. Only weeks before, Conrad and some fellow students

had invited some members of King Francis' Royal Guard to a luncheon. Conrad became drunk and began joking and swearing blasphemously. As his friends carried him out, he had vomited his wine all over himself. Besides that, he was known for his bold liaisons with Paris prostitutes. And also in 1519, a young boy in Noyon, France named John Calvin turned ten years old. Only the following year his father would see to it that John was appointed to a chaplaincy. And at age thirteen he would be sent to Paris for further education. There Calvin would eventually be powerfully influenced by ideas of church reform. Fires of Change Heat Up The debate between Eck and Luther was considered by many as a draw. However Eck managed to force Luther to admit that some of the teachings of martyr, John Huss, were legitimate. Thus Luther was taking a courageous stand on issues the church offically condemned as heretical. After the debate Luther skewered his opponent as "that man of lies, dissimulation, errors, and heresy--that monster John Eck."5 Eck raced to Rome to secure a bull from the pope excommunicating Luther. This was gladly granted and issued in June, 1520. Its words began: "Arise, O Lord, plead thine own cause! Remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee daily. The foxes are wasting thy vineyard which thou hast given to thy vicar Peter. The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it."6 At this time, the pope also ordered Luther's writings burned, and Kienel states that now Luther found himself on Catholicisms most wanted list. He was to be treated as a fugitive and any community that protected him was to be deprived of all Catholic religious and civil services.7 Soon after, Luther gathered a crowd of his followers outside the walls of Wittenberg. He laid the pope's writings on a wood fire. Then he placed the papal bull in the flames declaring, "As thou hast wasted the Holy One of God, so may the eternal flames waste thee."8 The Reformation saying, "Erasmus laid the egg, Luther hatched it," was coming true with a vengeance. When confronted with this statement, Erasmus insisted wryly, Yes, but the egg I laid was a hen, whereas Luther has hatched a gamecock. I had expected, he said, quite another bird. Erasmus had the faulty conviction that logic triumphs over all, that intelligent men are rational enough to be convinced by logic, and courageous enough to overturn the false. What Erasmus didnt seem to realize became his fatal flaw. While accurately criticizing glaring faults in the church, he failed to rightly judge the devious cowardice of his friends and failed to advocate any tangible method of applying his reformative ideas to the existing church system. In Switzerland, Zwingli's criticisms of the church continued. He called monks disguised hogs who fatten themselves on other people's food. Church officials he called wolves. With brazen boldness, Zwingli attacked the churches' expensive properties for which they collected unjust rents. He declared that icons and images sometimes replaced the spiritual realities they symbolized. The buying of indulgences he dismissed as nonsense. He even questioned the meaning of the mass itself. Though there was significant skepticism, townspeople flocked to hear the salty-tongued preacher. When the dreaded plague struck the city, instead of fleeing, Zwingli stayed and tenderly ministered to the sick and dying. He was struck with the disease himself and almost died. His loyalty to his countrymen helped convince them of his compassion and sincerity. In 1520, a penniless Conrad Grebel finally returned from Paris to his family in Zurich. During those idle days, he read some writings of Erasmus and Luther and he heard Zwingli preach. Intrigued, Grebel began meeting with a small group of men who were learning Greek and Hebrew from Zwingli in the evenings. This group would eventually become Zwinglis Prophezei or theological institute--a school that would train scores of ministers and lay the groundwork for Calvins reforms in Geneva.9 Obviously, Zwingli was very well versed in Erasmus' writings. Some of Zwingli's ideas

also smacked of Luther, though he claimed his ideas were not Lutheran, but biblical. As Zwingli's young proteges learned from him month by month, their enthusiasm mounted. They became increasingly eager to see the hardened crust of ceremony and tradition peeled from the church. Their older teacher urged patience and restraint, however, afraid of causing spiritual paranoia and thus losing the minor reforms they had gained. Meanwhile at Oxford and Cambridge, a newly ordained priest named William Tyndale had begun work on an English translation of the New Testament. A Catholic acquaintance rebuked him: It would be better to be without Gods Law than the popes. Tyndale answered with the well known words, If God spare me, ere many years I will cause the boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture than you do.10 Tyndale was hounded by Catholics in England, so in 1524 he fled to Hamburg, Germany. A great admirer of Luther, Tyndale was gratified when the reformer reached out and befriended him. When Tyndale finally found a publisher in Cologne and the text was set on stone, a local dean heard of it and persuaded authorities to wreck the type Tyndale and his amanuensis escaped with only scattered pages of printed manuscript. Meanwhile, in England Tyndale was declared a felon and sentries were posted at all English ports to seize him. At this point, Luther may have intervened on Tyndales behalf because when next we hear of him he is under protection in the castle of Philip of Hesse. Having exhausted ecclesiastical means to bring Luther to his knees, Pope Leo convinced the new emperor, Charles V, to summon the professor before a council of German leaders in Worms, Germany in 1521. Though Luther was promised safe-conduct, he knew he may be traveling to his death. To Melanchthon, a university colleague, he said, "My dear brother, if I do not come back, if my enemies put me to death, you will go on teaching and standing fast in the truth; if you live, my death will matter little."11 When Luther appeared before the Diet, he was asked if certain writings were his and whether he was willing to retract them. He acknowledged that they were his but asked for time to think before he either stood by them or retracted. The papal nuncio, Aleander, had tried desperately to deny Luther a chance to speak to the council. Pope Leo wanted the secular ruler to immediately condemn and punish Luther as a heretic. When Charles granted Luther a chance to defend himself the following day, it not only assisted the radical monk but it showed the pope that secular rulers were beginning to reject the idea of being church puppets. After Luther's address the next day, he was pressed for a clear answer of whether he would recant or not. "If the emperor desires a plain answer, I will give it to him," Luther said emotionally. "It is impossible for me to recant unless I am proved to be wrong by the testimony of Scripture. My conscience is bound to the Word of God. It is neither safe nor honest to act against one's conscience. Here I stand, God help me. I cannot do otherwise."12 Charles V gave a signal. The meeting was over. German nobles and delegates quickly formed a protective circle around Luther and escorted him back to his lodgings. It was, Thomas Carlyle would later claim, the greatest moment in the modern history of man.13 The Reformers Interact 1522 and 1523 were years of progress in the midst of conflict as the chief reformers consolidated gains. Luther spent a restless ten months in hiding during which he labored to translate the Bible into the German of the common citizen. Luther had hoped that Melanchthon, a fellow university professor, would continue to spread the reforms, but Melanchthon was more the brilliant writer than the strong leader. Another colleague named Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt took charge. He quickly simplified mass---translating it into German. Then he led assaults on local churches destroying altars and removing images; he banned church music, and he encouraged priests and monks to marry by wedding a fifteen-year-old girl on his fortieth birthday.14 Luther recoiled at his foolish license,

and came out of hiding in an effort to stabilize the movement. Undoubtedly feeling betrayed, Karlstadt forsook Wittenburg and was warmly received by Zwingli in Zurich. The resultant link between Karlstadt and Zwingli irked Luther and probably made it more difficult for him to later evaluate Zwinglis theology objectively. In 1523, John Calvin went to Paris to study at the College de La Marche. It may be an overstatement to claim that the university was consumed at this time with controversy regarding Luther and his reforms. However, suffice it to say that during this year the faculty of theology met 101 times in place of the usual 30, partly to discuss Luther's new views. It is not exactly certain when Calvin began accepting Luther's convictions, but surely he was thinking about them from the time they became public . Indeed he would later come out with his own reformed views on the church. In 1523, a German preacher named Thomas Munzer, entered a pastorate at St. Johns church in Allstodt after being expelled from both Zwickau and Prague for his radical message and volatile nature. Indeed, his streak of vindictiveness aroused the hostility of Luther, in retaliation for which Munzer denounced Luthers Wittenberg teachings. After fomenting an uproar in Allstodt, Munzer bungled his way into Muhlhausen where a man named Heinrich Pfeiffer was already preaching doctrines somewhat like his own. Munzer, however, was becoming more radical by the month. Soon he was denouncing established governments and advocating common Christian ownership of all. His words appealed to the poor, and the powder keg of peasant unrest began moving toward flashpoint. In Zurich, Conrad Grebel was now one of Zwingli's most ardent admirers. He sensed the excitement of the gospel of Christ filling his own life and spreading across his hometown. His feet and hands ached constantly from a degenerative disease, but his heart soared. During this period, Zwingli admitted and weathered a scandal. Apparently, years before, when pastoring in Einsiedeln he had carried on a sexual affair. Nothing cowed the man, however, and soon he was writing up 67 theses to be debated with priests before the Zurich city council. He covered issues like faith, mass, saints, good works, fasting, pilgrimages, images, purgatory, and the church as secular power. Individuals could publicly criticize these points but only on the basis of scripture, not church tradition. The Catholic bishop frostily sent word that such a judgment was beyond the power of a city council. He refused to attend and sent an aide named Dr. Faber. After reading the theses, Faber was very reluctant to argue them but was eventually sucked into debate. By halfway into the second day, it was obvious that Zwingli was winning points. Faber protested that he hadn't been given enough time to prepare. The council deliberated and resolved that until Zwingli was scripturally refuted, he could proceed with his reforms. Zwingli, along with Conrad Grebel and his other supporters were ecstatic. Another victory! Aspects of the Catholic mass were under fire by Zwingli and his followers. Zwingli condemned icons and images as being idolatrous. He also claimed that the Lord's Supper should scripturally be seen not as a bodily sacrifice to be endlessly repeated, but as a memorial---a reminder. When Zwingli and his followers stood before the town council, the reformer seemed to convince most listeners that the mass should be stopped. However, the council moved on to deal with the issue of purgatory without making a ruling. Zwingli accepted their delay at this point because he felt that reform would take place more peacefully and more universally if he made certain that supporters and city leaders were ready for new steps. Conrad Grebel stood to request a policy whereby the saying of the mass should be outlawed. Zwingli turned to him and insisted that the leaders would make the decision in due time. Grebel sat back down in frustration. As Grebel talked to a friend after the meeting, he realized he was beginning to view Zwingli in a somewhat different light. Zwingli had said that the divine Word is as unstoppable as the Rhine, yet he was handling the city council with kid gloves. Why must he wait until

political powers legislated church reforms? Was the church always to be dominated and legislated by secular government? Doctrinal Friction Crackles Luther faced problems of his own in Germany. Erasmus had constantly sought to mediate between the Catholic church and reformation beliefs. He seemed more concerned for unity, Luther for bald-faced truth. Luther disagreed with Erasmus quixotic spirit of skepticism, levity, and impiety which held that all can be accomplished with civility and benevolence. Nevertheless, Erasmus defended Luther for a time, declaring his observation that the better the man, the less vindictive he was toward Luther and that men who loved the gospel were least resentful of the monk. Then Luther published a pamphlet in which he claimed that, though Christ is actually present in communion, the communion bread and wine do not physically become the body and blood of Christ. Luther also espoused the belief that the cup should be given not only to the clergy but to the laity. When Erasmus read this tract, he blurted despairingly that the breach with the Catholic church was now irreparable. "While I was fighting a fairly equal battle," he said, "Lo! suddenly Luther arose and threw the apple of discord into the world."15 One of the primary doctrines about which Erasmus and Luther locked horns was that of salvation. Erasmus believed that salvation was almost wholly by grace but that humanity can cooperate with God in achieving personal salvation. Luther taught that humans can contribute absolutely nothing toward their own salvation---in faith alone could mankind find salvation. Erasmus' stand infuriated Luther, He retorted, "Erasmus, who does not go beyond the light of nature, may like Moses die in the plains of Moab without entering into the promised land of those higher studies which pertain to piety."16 Stung badly, Erasmus retorted, "I am Moses? Well, who does Luther think he is, Jesus?"17 Meanwhile, Zwingli continued his ministry in Zurich. Grebel and other young men believed that government-collected church tithes gave politicians unfair power over the church. They began to press Zwingli to support church rejection of forced political tithes, adopting instead a mutually supportive brotherhood. They even offered to pay Zwingli's salary themselves. But the reformer considered their ideas immature, divisive, and unrealistic. Months passed with no government action regarding the banning of the Catholic mass in Zurich. An impatient Conrad Grebel now found himself turning against his mentor. Where was the Zwingli, he wondered, who had thundered that if the city council did not follow the Word it would be brushed aside by the irresistible tide of truth? Now Grebel rashly wrote a friend, "The cause of the gospel is in a very bad way here... Whoever thinks or believes or says that Zwingli acts like a true Christian pastor thinks and believes and speaks wickedly. I'll stand by that." 18 It had been wonderful to see the first stages of reformation in Zurich. Zwingli's sermons had skillfully exposed the pagan rites and beliefs just beneath the surface of Christianity in Europe. But now it seemed he was backing down and allowing secular authority to dictate when and how church reformation would occur. Conrad and about a dozen others began engaging in their own Bible study. They began asking hard questions: When will the church be freed from a public tithing tax levied by the government? Who will proclaim to the public that Christ calls followers to lay aside violence, even that of "holy wars"? What keeps us from giving up the baptism of infants who can't possibly repent and believe the gospel? When will the rule of Christ take precedence in the church instead of political dominance? Grebel wrote a letter to Martin Luther expressing his beliefs and grievances regarding Zwingli. Luther could think of no appropriate reply but sent word through a friend of a sympathetic interest in the Bible-searching brothers in Switzerland.

By early 1525 Tyndale had finally found a publisher for his English New Testament in Worms. A Peter Schoffer published an octavo edition and six thousand copies were sent to England in 1526. Now Tyndale was even more the fugitive, and for the next four years he was constantly on the run. Meanwhile, Thomas Munzer and his sidekick, Andreas Karlstadt, were stirring up peasants with their radical brand of the kingdom message. In a comprehensive 10-page letter using Scripture to undergird everything, Grebel wrote to Munzer---agreeing with him on some issues and politely disagreeing on others. But before he could mail the letter, he heard that Munzer had been preaching that where leaders didn't yield to biblical reformation, Christians may violently overthrow them. In an anxious postscript, he questioned this extreme view and advocated pacifism. Munzer never read the letter. Much more maddening to Luther than individuals such as Erasmus were those within the reformation who developed viewpoints more radical than his own. Along with his gospel of violence, Thomas Munzer was also teaching that the Holy Spirit speaks directly to each generation of saints just as he did to biblical writers. Luther viewed this as destroying the uniqueness of past Christian revelation because of the elevation of new present "revelation." In any case, Munzer took his message to the streets, declaring to the German peasants that it was God's will that they erect God's kingdom by slaughtering the ungodly. The poor swallowed the lie and began gathering in ugly packs. Though Luther had spoken out before, decrying the abuse of peasants, he was against violent means. He believed the sword is given by God to the magistrate, not to the minister, let alone the saints. Now as the stirred up poorer classes began killing and pillaging, Luther hurried out into the countryside, trying to remonstrate. They only hurled stones and pasted him with mud. In retaliation he wrote a pamphlet which he entitled, Against the Murderous and Thieving Hordes of Peasants: "If a peasant is in open rebellion, then he is outside the law of God, for rebellion is not simply murder, but it is like a great fire which attacks and lays waste a whole land... Therefore, let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly and openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel."19 Angrily, Thomas Munzer then distributed a pamphlet in which he called Luther, Dr. Liar, a shameless monk who spends his time whoring and drinking.20 On May 15, 1525, Munzer was captured by nobleman, Philip Landgrave of Hesse, and two days later he was executed. However the brutal conflict didnt end until close to 100,000 peasants were butchered. Luther tried to counteract the effect by writing a tract urging mercy to captives. All the devils, he declared, instead of leaving the peasants and returning to hell, had now entered the victors, who were exacting a terrible vengeance. When Andreas Karlstadt was threatened with prosecution he promptly placed his tail between his legs and fled back to Luther, begging for protection. Luther granted him refuge and Karlstadt returned to teaching and theological obscurity.21 Some peasants and Catholic princes held Luther responsible for the outbreak. The reformer was learning both the positive and devastating results of broad influence and power. Throughout his life he would battle an impulsive anger that sometimes resulted in rash words and actions. A Tragic Competition In Zurich, Conrad Grebel's wife bore her second child, a daughter they named Rachel. Seeking to make a statement, Grebel refused to have her baptized. The city council immediately passed a ruling that all infants in the town must have their babies baptized within a week or they would be expelled. A further statement read that Grebel and his friends could not hold any more gatherings and could not discuss infant baptism openly. Grebel's party met covertly in a home. They felt they must make a decisive step. A converted priest in the group turned to Grebel and begged him, for God's sake, to give him true

Christian baptism. In a momentous act, Grebel reached for water and poured it over the man's bowed head. In this act, they were declaring that infant baptism in no way provides salvation for an individual, but baptism must follow a conscious act of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Pressure grew as days passed. By refusing to baptize his daughter, Grebel knew he must flee or be arrested. He ran, stopping in various cities, preaching and making personal contacts as he went. Periodically he stole back home for a day or two to see his wife and children. Zwingli and his followers began derisively to call Grebel and his party by the old title, Rebaptizers or Anabaptists. Grebel challenged Zwingli to publicly debate the question of baptism using only the Scripture as a reference. If Zwingli proved him wrong, Grebel agreed to be burned as a heretic. If he proved Zwingli wrong, he would demand no such punishment for him. But the challenge fell on deaf ears. Tense months wore on. Then in October of 1525, Grebel was arrested as he arrived at an open air gospel meeting. He finally got his wish. Zwingli debated with him for three full days. However, following the debate, predictably, the city council declared Anabaptist teachings heretical and the prisoners were immediately subjected to a trial and found guilty. Jacob Grebel, Conrad's father, was a member of the city council. Understandably, he urged leniency while Zwingli fumed. After two days of deliberation, the council sentenced Grebel and eight others to be bedded in straw and fed only bread and water until death. Several weeks later, a prisoner noticed that a window shutter in their dungeon cell was open. Breaking through the heavy shutters, the party hoisted each other up and out of the cell. Then they slid down the tower wall with a rope and ratchet. Each of the prisoners fled separately. Grebel went north and began preaching in distant townships, but only months later his fragile body succumbed to the plague. Though Anabaptism would spread in pockets throughout Europe in the decades to follow, Grebel would not be there to witness it. Back in Zurich, Zwingli convinced the town council to issue an edict authorizing the execution of Anabaptists. Because of their emphasis on baptism, it was determined that condemned Anabaptists would be executed by drowning. Luther disagreed with the policy. As much as he opposed those he called extremist fanatics, he did not agree that offshoot groups should be put to death. He considered banishment a sufficient punishment. Secretly, Zwingli pieced together a case against Jacob Grebel, Conrad's father. Grebel was accused of having accepted foreign pensions contrary to the laws of the canton. When he claimed innocence, they tortured him on the rack in an effort to force confession. On October 30, 1526, Jacob Grebel was judged guilty and immediately taken to the Zurich fish market where he was beheaded. Despite interruptions, church reform continued to spread through Germany, Switzerland, and beyond. In 1527 Zwingli wrote a letter to Martin Luther in an effort to dispute Luther's claim to be the sole reformer and first re-discoverer of the gospel. Luther bristled. He began to call Zwingli the Giant of Zurich because he believed Zwingli had too high an opinion of himself. When Zwingli displayed his knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, and the classics, Luther viewed this as a conceited display. Zwingli apparently did not share like feelings toward Luther. In tribute, he called Luther "that one Hercules...who slew the Roman boar."...the only faithful David anointed by the Lord."22 Philip of Hesse recognized the crucial importance of a united Protestant front to stand against the awesome power of the Holy Roman emperor. After trying for many months, he finally managed to convince Luther and Zwingli to meet in Marburg in 1529 for a colloquy. Many Protestant leaders met with the two to discuss their similarities and differences. It is said that when Zwingli met Luther and his partners, tears sprang to his eyes and he stated that there were none with whom he would more happily be in accord. During the four days of talks, the parties agreed on most topics. In fact, it was only the matter of holy

communion in which they largely differed. Zwingli contested the idea that Christ is in the communion bread. He advocated that the Lord's Supper is a sacred memorial for believers. Luther held that Jesus was present in the bread in some sense. At one point, Zwingli used Christ's words, "the flesh profits nothing" to support his claim. "This passage breaks your neck," he said to Luther. "Don't be too proud," Luther snapped back. "German necks don't break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland."23 Less than two years later, Zwingli joined Protestant forces against Catholics in a tragically violent episode that is known as the Battle of Kappel. There he was mortally wounded. After his death, angry enemies quartered the dead body and burnt the pieces atop a pile of dried excrement. Then they spread pig's entrails over the ashes. When Luther was told of Zwingli's death, he said tersely, "All who take the sword will die by the sword." 24 Believing himself finally to be in a safe haven, William Tyndale had settled in Antwerp. However, he was betrayed by a supposed friend, and British agents found him there and arrested him in 1529. For the next sixteen months he was imprisoned in the castle of Vilvorde, near Brussels. Finally he was tried for heresy, convicted, and publicly garroted, after which his corpse was burned at the stake.25 As for Erasmus, years after his death he was formally denounced by the Catholic church, he was excommunicated and branded a heretic, and his writings were consigned to the Index Expurgatorius In the end, Luther had split from both Erasmus and Zwingli because they could not agree regarding particular issues. However, long after the public break between Luther and Erasmus, the two exhibited mutual respect and continued to correspond.26 Luther seemed to have little use for Zwingli, and it is not certain what Luther thought about John Calvin. The reformer from France was still a young man when Luther's ministry was in its twilight. However, in 1535, Calvin took a firm stand on the side of Nicholas Cop, rector of University of Paris, when Cop came out in support of Martin Luther. Calvin and Cop were on the run for the next two years. Thus, we know that Calvin acknowledged Luther as the father of the movement, and always preferred him to Zwingli. Regarding Luther, Calvin declared, "I have often said that even though he were to call me a devil, I would nevertheless hold him in such honor that I would acknowledge him to be a distinguished servant of God." But, like Zwingli, he did not consider Luther the only early reformer, nor the only one in the church of God to be granted special respect. Calvin recoiled from what he described as Luther's "insolent fury," his craving for victories, and his haughty manner and abusive language."27 However, he also mimicked the harsher language of the day when he called his detractors asses, riffraff, and stinking beasts.28 On Luther's side, one might speculate that he would have been against Calvin's Genevan concept of a fully Christianized city. Luther had written, "...a man who would venture to govern an entire community or the world with the gospel would be like a shepherd who should place in one fold wolves, lions, eagles, and sheep. The sheep would keep the peace, but they would not last long." 29 As writers, the reformers displayed varied ability and success. History has proven Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin and Tyndale undoubtedly the most talented and prolific. Tyndale, expert in eight languages, translated the New Testament brilliantly into English; Luther translated the entire Bible into German. He also penned many treatises, as well as major commentaries on Genesis and Galatians. Melanchthon, Luthers ingenious partner, skillfully articulated many of the tenets of the reformation. As for Calvin, it shouldnt be surprising that

Melanchthon called him simply The Theologian.30 Calvin is famous for his Institutes, which masterfully constitute within a thousand pages, a catechetical handbook, Protestant apologia, Reformation manifesto, hammer of heresies, and guide to Christian practice.31 Zwinglis basic theological beliefs were well thought out, but unfortunately were the writings of a hurried, harried leader. Thus, they betrayed some weaknesses.32 In regard to the Reformation, Desiderius Erasmus is best known for his work, The Praise of Folly, a light but barbed satire of Roman Catholic abuses. Munzer was executed in mid-life and Grebel died as a rather young man; though they did write, they are not known for their writings. Peace, Peace When There is no Peace? In any review of the sometimes ugly competition between reformers, the culture of the time must be acknowledged. Even in "enlightened" Europe, life could be vulgar and brutal. It was often cut short by disease, violence, or accident, and a stoic acceptance of this inevitability made life seem cheaper. Conversation, at least among the general population, was frequently coarse and earthy. Display of crass emotion was sometimes even admired. In view of Romes harsh, violent defense of their superstitutions, reformers thought it a shame for Christs magistrates to show themselves less ardent in defense of the sure truth. However, can the reformers be excused for exhibiting these traits as they pushed for a purer, more biblical church? Though we may soften our judgment based on the times and our knowledge of human weakness, we must not simply overlook or minimize these failings. These individuals were very fallible. But the church reformers mentioned here were, in many senses, truly great men. God used their lives to purify a church into which heresy and corruption had spread like a cancer. Individuals such as Wycliffe and Hus prepared the way for them; then these men powerfully and courageously stood their ground and saw the great mission through. Still, we can learn some valuable lessons from their personal conflicts. Implications for Today's Church Leaders 1.It is evident that there was, at times, a lack of self-control in these leaders. Luther frequently lost his temper and the words that flowed then could be both vulgar and hateful. Zwingli approved of the death sentence for Christian Anabaptists, and his railroading of Conrad Grebel's father to execution reflected a spirit of vengeance against Conrad. Muntzer, a conservative in many ways, adopted a policy of violence and murder and, through that violence, over 100,000 German peasants were slaughtered. Grebel, in the immaturity of youth, was not willing to wait for various reforms to be adopted. He did not work gently and wisely to wrest control of the church out of the hands of the state; instead he tried to force immediate action and suffered for it. Even Calvin, in Geneva, could be cantankerous and agreed to forms of church discipline which included the death penalty. Christian leaders should be messengers of grace, not harbingers of dissension. Even secular leaders know the value of being approachable and able to handle conflict. John D. Rockefeller stated that hed pay more for the ability to deal with people than any other ability under the sun. Teddy Roosevelt said, The most important single ingredient to the formula of success is knowing how to get along with people. And, when asked what one characteristic is most needed by those in leadership positions, a majority of chief executives responded that it was the ability to work successfully with others. In their book Communication and Conflict Management, Gangel and Canine state common myths about conflict. Many believe conflict is abnormal, but, in fact, it is a normal part of daily life with other humans. Some say conflict and disagreement are synonymous, but while people can agree to disagree, conflict is a clash of wills on an issue. Some feel conflict is pathological or reflects a personality problem. This is occasionally the case, but teaching that conflict is always dysfunctional short-circuits a process that can lead to mutual understanding. Some claim that it must always be avoided, but peace at all costs can result in deep long-term resentments.

Though conflict is sometimes linked with anger, if handled with discretion and levelheadedness, it can be worked through peaceably. Many believe that conflict is an admission of failure, but only if it is handled unscripturally can it result in moral failure.33 Principles from Kenn Gangel on conflict management are invaluable. Conflict must be dealt with in its earliest stages. If Luther or even Grebel had talked through the issues with Munzer early on, perhaps they could have softened his position regarding violence and religious rights, and thousands of lives might have been spared. Parties must remain focused on the conflict issue instead of drifting into peripheral differences and waging personal attacks. Though Luther and Zwingli never became friends, they did agree to an open forum and, through this, learned that they only disagreed substantively on one or two issues. The conflict process must be monitored to make sure all parties are allowed to disagree without feeling guilty, to state their position with energy and precision, to be protected from attack, and to realize it when even small progress is made. In the conflict between Zwingli and Grebel, there seems to have been the dangerous combination of Zwinglis greater biblical knowledge and desire for unquestioned preeminence and Grebels youthful idealism and rash impatience. In combination, the resultant disagreements escalated into anger, verbal attack, and finally physical violence. Parties must realize that their conflict represents a problem to be solved instead of a fight to be waged or a position to be stubbornly defended. They must gather all the information possible, verify that it is true and relevant, then work to find creative options for solution or compromise.34 None of the reformers seem to have tried very hard to study issues in-depth in an unbiased, unmanipulative manner and hammer out positions upon which they could each agree. Christian leaders today must also show wisdom and patience as they push to reach goals which may be, in themselves, important and justifiable. There is a place for anger, but to use anger as a club because others disagree or in order to intimidate them is plainly wrong. A portion of an open letter from a present day Anabaptist to Ulrich Zwingli expresses poignantly the heartache that remains even now in regard to the violent disunity between Zwingli and Anabaptists: How the passions of the moment reveal the weaknesses of our human frames. We were all caught up in a rising tide of history and we were both fully committed to Christ and the Word of God, but how obvious it is now that our commitments are always expressed through our natures that have so much to learn of the love of Christ and the unity of the Spirit. You insisted on reforming the existing church. We demanded a return to the New Testament. You didn't fully reform and we didn't fully return. As we look back now, we can both see the issues in a new light and how they could have been handled differently. The enemies as well as the issues have taken new form in my generation these four centuries later. Can we learn from the mistakes of Zurich? Both the times and the gospel require our answer! May we begin with forgiveness. Affectionately, Anna Stumpf 35 2. Some biographies, textbooks, and articles make the reformers out to be faultless spiritual giants. In our society, Christians often set charismatic pastors, scholars, or radio/television preachers on a high pedestal. Their mass following is not surprising, in view of the fact that some of these leaders have the financial empires to churn out advertising copy, books, videos, and cassette series ad infinitum. The naive imagine these leaders can do no wrong. They may also assume that everything these men and women teach is accurate. But the myth that a leader is an answer mancreates an impossible burden that God neither intends nor supports. Arrogance says, I like people needing my strength (or wisdom, etc) but I dont like needing someone elses strength. This is arrogance, not leadership.36

One glance at the list of Christian leaders who have fallen in recent decades to such wrongs as financial scandal, sexual immorality, and heretical teaching should convince us that every leader has faults. It is also true that in matters of faith and practice a leader may preach one lifestyle while he or she is living another. Leaders should be respected but never idolized. Great disillusionment and bitterness have resulted when an idolized leader falls. And, like the Berean saints, we should diligently search the Scriptures ourselves to confirm that preachers and teachers we hear are rightly interpreting the Word. 1.Personal accountability should be indispensably sought by Christian leaders. And those looked to for accountability should not simply be Yes people who rubber stamp everything a leader says, plans, or does. They should ideally be friends who hone their brother or sister as iron sharpens iron. Errant leaders are not victims of social circumstance and should not be granted that excuse. You buy that, states Tom Robbins, and you pay with your soul. What limits people is lack of character. This means that when a leader is sliding into sin, or is treating others wrongly, or is ignoring the important issues, or is not searching out the will of God, his or her accountability partner(s) must be willing to confront gently and firmly. They also must be willing to follow through in helping an individual change, repent, or make restitution when a serious mistake or transgression has been committed. 4. Doing the work of God in the world is not a harsh competition. It is evident among the reformers mentioned that they sometimes viewed one another not as beloved Christian brothers but as competitors for the ears of the public, for the prestige of their ministries, and for their place in history. Because strong administrators are often powerful, driven personalities, it is easy for them to grow competitive with others and view fellow leaders as enemies or at least opponents. They feel they must have a larger audience, a higher salary, greater fame, or more respect than others. This can be a subtle pitfall. Leaders may not recognize it in themselves until another leader is chosen above them, is drawing away radio listeners or church parishioners, expresses a conviction different from theirs. Then jealousy, that old green-eyed monster, rears her head and unleashes a spawn of pride, covetousness, slander, greed, anger, and bitterness. 5. It is evident that in some cases the reformers held tenaciously to points of doctrine (especially in relation to other reformers) about which they could have legitimately negotiated. The Protestant reformation would have been a much less violent and vitriolic process if leaders had compromised graciously in cases where the scripture allows for it. By all means, Christians should hold firmly to our most fundamental doctrines of faith. However, we should reach out in love toward those saints who believe differently and should not let differences in peripheral doctrines cause us to stubbornly isolate ourselves from them. Also, there are aspects of doctrine about which the scriptures are not adamant or specific; on these there may be opportunities for compromise. Footnotes
1 Bainton, Roland, Christianity, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1992, pp. 260,263, 265. 2 Christian History, Volume III, No. 1, 1984, p. 13. 3 Manchester, William, A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1993, 181. 4 Grebel, Conrad, cited in Ruth, John L., Conrad Grebel, Son of Zurich, Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1975, p. 37. 5 Luther, Martin, cited in Bainton, Roland, Here I Stand, New York: Abingdon Press, 1950, p. 161. 6 Pope Leo X, cited in Here I Stand, 1950, p. 147. 7 Kienel, Paul, A History of Christian School Education, Colorado Springs: Association of Christian Schools International, p. 160. 8 Luther, Martin, cited in Kuiper, B.K., The Church in History, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991, p. 176. 9 Gangel, Kenn and Warren Benson, Christian Education: Its History and Philosophy, Chicago: Moody Press, 1983, p.144. 10 William Tyndale, cited in Manchester, William, A World Lit Only by Fire, p. 203.

11 Luther, Martin, cited in Kuiper, B.K., The Church in History, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991, p. 177. 12 Luther, Martin, cited in Here I Stand, 1950, p. 185. 13 Thomas Carlyle, cited in Manchester, William, A World Lit Only by Fire, 173. 14 Manchester, William, A World Lit Only by Fire, 178-179. 15 Erasmus, Desiderius, cited in Austin, Bill, Austin's Topical History of Christianity, Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1983, p. 215. 16 Luther, Martin, cited in Here I Stand, 1950, p. 255. 17 Erasmus, Desiderius, cited in , Oberman, Heiko, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, New York: Doubleday, 1982, p. 300. 18 Grebel, Conrad, cited in Conrad Grebel, Son of Zurich, 1975, p. 83. 19 Luther, Martin, cited in Here I Stand, 1950, p. 280. 20 Manchester, William, A World Lit Only by Fire, p. 179. 21 Ibid, 179-180. 22 Zwingli, Ulrich, cited in Christian History, Volume III, No. 1, 1984, p.9) 23 Luther, Martin, cited in Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, 1982, p. 237. 24 Luther, Martin, cited in Church History, Volume III, No. 1, 1984, p. 10. 25 Manchester, William, A World Lit Only by Fire, p. 204. 26 Gangel, Kenn and Warren Benson, Christian Education: Its History and Philosophy, Chicago: Moody Press, 1983, 142. 27 John Calvin, cited in Bouwsma, William, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 18. 28 Manchester, William, A World Lit Only by Fire, p. 190. 29 Martin Luther, cited in Here I Stand, 1950, p. 238. 30 James I. Packer, cited in Woodbridge, John, Great Leaders of the Christian Church, Chicago: Moody Press, 1988, p. 213. 31 James I. Packer, cited in Woodbridge, John, Great Leaders of the Christian Church, Chicago: Moody Press, 1988, p. 215. 32 Geoffrey Bromiley, cited in Woodbridge, John, Great Leaders of the Christian Church, Chicago: Moody Press, 1988, p. 200 33 Gangel, Kenneth, and Samuel Canine, Communication and Conflict Management, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992, pp. 129-131, 34 Ibid, 260-263. 35 Stumpf, Anna, cited in Christian History, Volume III, No. 1, 1984, p. 28. 36 Susek, Ron, Firestorm: Preventing and Overcoming Church Conflicts, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999, p. 168. Additional Sources Shelley, Bruce, Church History in Plain Language, Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1982. Marty, Martin E., A Short History of Christianity, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959.

Chapter Four: The Power of the Nucleus

"Let true Christians, then, with becoming earnestness, strive in all things to recommend their profession, and to put to silence the vain scoffs of ignorant objectors. Let them boldly assert the cause of Christ in an age when so many who bear the name of Christians are ashamed of Him. And let them consider as devolved on them the important duty of suspending for a while the fall of their country, and perhaps of performing a still more extensive service to society at large, not by busy interference in politics, in which it cannot but be confessed there is much uncertainty, but rather by that sure and radical benefit of restoring the influence of religion and of raising the standard of morality." William Wilberforce1

Flashy Beginnings There are very few human beings who can be said to have radically affected the course of history. There are fewer still who have affected it positively, and only a handful who have changed the world through Christ. William Wilberforce is one of a select group, but he did not start out that way. In his early years, Wilberforce gave scant evidence of such a destiny. Born into a prosperous family in Hull, England in 1759, Wilberforce eventually graduated from Cambridge with a reputation as a clever, brash elitist. Immediately after graduation, at the age of twentyone, he ran for a seat in Parliament and won. Euphorically arriving in London, Wilberforce became a quick favorite at banquets, private clubs, and society functions. He lived for debating, drinking, dancing, gambling--wrapped up in whatever relationships might advance his political goals. An outgoing conversationalist, Wilberforce was infatuated with the sound of his own voice. But unlike some talkers, he was so witty and entertaining, most people liked the sound of it too. This resulted in a politician who was vain, narcissistic, and selfishly ambitious. In 1784, his best friend from Cambridge, William Pitt was elected prime minister. Already a member of Parliament, Wilberforce decided to run for election in Yorkshire, the largest and most influential constituency in Britain. The campaign was grueling and the outcome was uncertain until Wilberforce addressed a large crowd in a miserable rain. One prominent onlooker stated that at first the five-foot politician looked like a shrimp; but as he spoke, he grew in listeners' eyes until the shrimp became a whale.2 He won the election. The Shaping of a Christian Dynamo Following his victory, Wilberforce joined his mother and several family members for a tour of the continent. Impulsively, he invited his old schoolmaster, Isaac Milner, to join them. The vacation was a pivotal point in Wilberforce's life. He and Milner began debating religion, and Milner challenged him to begin reading his Bible. This Wilberforce did until the next year when he again invited Milner on a tour. During this vacation, to the irritation of others in their party, the two studied a Greek New Testament voraciously. Wilberforce's life was never the same after that. He handed over his achievements, ambitions, friendships, future--everything became the property of Jesus Christ. He wrestled with the decision of whether he should now leave politics for some more spiritual profession, but John Newton, the old slave trader turned preacher, encouraged him to follow Christ but not to abandon public office. "The Lord has raised you up," wrote Newton, "to the good of His church and for the good of the nation."3 Newton also helped convince Wilberforce to fight the slave trade, in which Newton was now so ashamed of participating.4 Wilberforce had received a letter at some point from John Wesley in which he called slavery that execrable villainy, which is the scandal of religion, of England, and of human nature.5 Soon after this, the young politician wrote in his journal that Almighty God had set before him two great life objectives--the abolition of the slave trade in Britain and the reformation of morals.

Nicolo Machiavelli stated, There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. In the years to come, Wilberforce was to find out how achingly true were these words. The politician married late and his wife was more the doting mother than a skilled hostess or great conversationalist. Some said he should have married a more suitable partner-one who could have complemented him as statesman and politician. But he always loved his wife and accepted her for who she was. Using bits of known fact, ones imagination can piece together a snapshot of the Wilberforce family on a typical morning: Breakfast is often mass confusion as the children scurry about, grabbing what food they can. A number of guests show up on this morning, and Wilberforce welcomes each warmly. They are all attempting to carry on a conversation, voices raised almost to a shout. In the middle of the ruckus sits Mrs. Wilberforce, appearing upset but trying valiantly to retain her composure. A servant rushes about, but seems uncertain and disoriented. Another jokes with the children, happily oblivious to the guests' needs. One attendant is very old and can hardly drag herself around. She is a family acquaintance whose only income is derived from her attempts at working for the Wilberforces. A poorly dressed, sloppily groomed man stands patiently at the door, waiting in case his master needs a carriage ride after breakfast. (Wilberforce paid the man's way out of debtor's prison). Thus, it is obvious why this ungainly staff is so fiercely loyal to their master. Though observers have advised Wilberforce to fire the whole bunch and hire a group of efficient staff, this would be alien to his nature. As the lively breakfast conversation settles to a dull roar, several of the children grab Wilberforce and immediately he is out on the expansive lawn running foot races with them. It is difficult to understand how he manages it; underneath his clothing he wears a heavy metal brace to support a weak, twisted back. Wilberforce is learning to live the Christian life hilariously. But underneath the hilarity is a whirlwind of spiritual motivation that will sweep up a nation in its enthusiasm. All around him, Wilberforce saw a British people who were known for their rudeness, coarseness, brutality, and ever-expanding greed. The British empire stretched far and wide, but her wealth and power came at a great moral price. Abuses such as the slave trade and the bloody subduing of uprisings marked England's foreign policy. At home, ridiculously brutal judicial penalties, crushing child labor laws, and a murderous penal system reflected the hardened lifestyles of the nation's leaders. Wilberforce began writing down his deepening convictions about holy living. During a six-week recess from politics in 1797 he completed a book with the concise title: A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes in this Country Contrasted with Real Christianity. The publisher was quite skeptical about the sales potential of such a book. To humor Wilberforce he agreed on a first print run of 500 copies. In a few days it was sold out. By 1826 fifteen editions had been published in England and twenty-five in America. Foreign editions in French, Italian, Spanish, Dutch and German hit the streets. Thousands claimed their lives were changed as they read a message as old as time and heard a powerful politician espouse a humble, holy lifestyle that was rare in "Christian" Britain. Gathering a Godly Nucleus Throughout his career, Wilberforce sought after projects that would have the most permanent and far-reaching results for the kingdom of God. However, it can never be said that Wilberforce was a lone ranger.

William Wilberforce achieved much, but it was almost always in concert with others. He and his partners were called the Saints--first in derision, eventually in praise. Henry Thornton, a wealthy banker, bought a large home in Clapham called the Battersea Rise house. Clapham was a small quiet village near London--an ideal location. In 1792, he suggested that Wilberforce, a close friend, come to live there and Wilberforce moved into the large estate. A multi-talented group of friends gradually joined them in Clapham. Granville Sharp, who won in court a case to free slaves within Britain, lived in the neighborhood. Zachary Macauley, a slave-overseer and estate manager before his conversion, settled close by. John Shore, later Lord Teignmouth, joined them after his retirement from the Governorship of India. And James Stephen, a skilled lawyer and eventually Wilberforce's brother-in-law, lived across the green. Several others were included in the intimate fellowship who did not actually live in Clapham. These included Thomas Babington, Zachary Macauley's brother-in-law, and Hannah More, well-known poet and playwright. These friends were welcome to show up at one another's homes uninvited. They enjoyed meals together and constant chatter late into the night. Thornton's library became the comfortable site of countless planning sessions, both for personal matters and for public causes. The meetings became known as cabinet councils, and amazing things were accomplished for the kingdom of God as a result of these times. The group did not always agree on matters even of biblical doctrine, but they were able to look past their differences to the decisions of the majority or what would be best for others. Most members were somewhat affluent and held influential positions. However, they were not pretentious and their personal weaknesses weren't hidden---they sometimes even gently opposed one another's habits or policies. Following one such rebuke, Wilberforce said, "Go on, dear sir, and welcome. I wish not to abate anything of the force or frankness of your [criticisms]. Openness is the only foundation and preservative of friendship." 6 These men and their families learned how to get along with one another as well as with individuals of many backgrounds and dispositions. Getting to know people and influencing them toward right thinking was their business, and they brought formidable skills to the table. Between them, they possessed encyclopedic knowledge, a capacity for research, literary style and ability, business know-how, legal experience, oratory and parliamentary skill, and firsthand awareness of happenings in the British empire. Unleashing the Clapham Saints As stated earlier, one of the great life goals of Wilberforce was the abolishment of the slave trade. He had been outraged by pamphlets revealing the capture and treatment of slaves as written by clergyman, Thomas Clarkson. But the trade was an enormous money-maker for the British empire. Beginning in about 1713, British ships had transported blacks as slaves across the Atlantic. In 1771 alone it was reckoned that 50,000 slaves were carried in British ships alone. As many as 40% of the slaves died in passage. Beginning in 1787, Wilberforce and company began building their case against slavery. Granville Sharp devoted his tenacious legal mind to the problem. Reverend Thomas Clarkson conducted several exhausting and dangerous treks to the African coast to gather first-hand evidence about the slave trade. Zachary Macaulay searched through mounds of evidence, organizing the facts which would indict the traders. He, in fact, became such a walking encyclopedia that when his friends needed information they'd jokingly tell each other to "look it up in Macaulay."7 James Stephen, the fiery West Indian who had seen slavery first-hand, also added his passion to the battle. In 1788, while Wilberforce was seriously ill, his friend Prime Minister Pitt introduced a resolution to discuss abolition in Parliament. The paltry result of this was a bill passed to regulate the number of slaves that could be transported per ship.

In 1789 and 1790 Wilberforce and his friends spent up to ten hours per day working on their case. In 1791 they presented a bill in Parliament against the trade. It was a bitter two-day fight. Members shouted each other down mercilessly and when the vote was cast, commerce won the day. Britain retained the lucrative slave trade. At this point, others joined Wilberforce, including Henry Thornton, Thomas Babington, writer Hannah More, and a gifted orator named Thomas Gisborne. Realizing they were highly opposed by "special interest" parliamentarians, the group decided to take their argument to the British people. The abolitionists handed out thousands of leaflets describing the evils of slavery, they spoke at public meetings, circulated petitions, wrote letters, and organized a boycott of slave-harvested sugar. In 1792 a bill for the curtailment of slavery was passed, but the motion was qualified by the word "gradually", thus postponing indefinitely any clear action. The opposition had won again. At this point, Britain was distracted by the French Revolution, then a war with France. Almost every year Wilberforce introduced motions for abolition and every year Parliament threw them out. In the meantime, the little group founded a colony called Sierra Leone where freed slaves could live and work. Though the colony struggled, the Clapham group made every effort to help it succeed. Zachary Macauley brought several sons of Sierra Leone chiefs home to visit England, and the children of the Saints played freely with them in a day when black children were not permitted to mix with white. Prime Minister Pitt died in 1805. William Grenville, his successor, was a strong abolitionist. After discussing the issue with Wilberforce, Grenville reversed the usual pattern and introduced the abolition bill in the House of Lords first. After a month of bitter, emotional wrangling, the bill passed at 4 A.M. on the morning of February 4, 1807. It then went on to the House of Commons. On February 23, the night of its second reading, politicians were unusually stirred. Individuals began rising to their feet, praising the decades-long struggle against the slave trade. Then the entire House stood, roaring their applause for Wilberforce. Realizing the long battle was finally over, Wilberforce bent over in his chair, his head cradled in his hands, the tears coming so fast he couldn't even acknowledge the cheers. In the Thornton's library, the Saints celebrated together far into the night. The thousands of hours of crushing labor had paid off. Working together, they had been able to overcome one of the most powerful special interest groups in Britain. But their work wasn't over. Next came an eighteen-year battle for the total emancipation of slaves. Every year the bill was brought up for a vote and every year it was defeated. The great leader was worn out. Though the ailing Wilberforce didnt resign his office until 1825, in 1823 he brought in a fine politician named Thomas Buxton as his assistant and successor. The bill finally passed in 1833, and four days later, Wilberforce passed away. A Litany of Lifesaving Reforms During Wilberforce's lifetime, the abolition issue was only one of many he and the Clapham Saints joined together to accomplish. He was involved in over sixty societies at home and abroad.8 At this time, India was a British province with a culture that was quite cruel in some ways. Indian widows were burned on their husband's funeral pyres, unwanted daughters were objects of brutality, and the caste system resulted in human horror stories. Many British leaders in India lived without integrity and profited at the expense of the nationals. One elderly Englishman kept sixteen Indian mistresses simultaneously. In light of such circumstances, it is not surprising that parliamentary opposition to the introduction of Christian missionaries was fierce. Wilberforce was appalled at the exclusion of missionaries by the East India Company. He stated that, next to the slave trade, this was the foulest blot on the moral character of

Britishers, and he and his friends were determined to open the nation of India to Christian missionaries. Charles Grant, one of Wilberforce's Saints, accepted an appointment as Director of the East India Company. He had worked there before as immorally as many other British leaders of the time. However, after losing his two sons within nine days from fever, he had been converted. John Shore was also persuaded to return to India as Governor-General. Though both set an example of moral integrity, neither was able to accomplish much regarding Britain's closed door policy regarding missionaries. With an eighteen-month deadline, the Saints in England decided that they would fight to change national policy from the inside. Immediately they kicked into active mode. Macaulay began drafting a series of leaflets to publicize the situation. Babington organized hundreds of petitions. Grant prepared what were called Observations to be presented to Parliament. Shore returned from India to furnish evidence to the Lords of the need for missionary work. Wilberforce interviewed Perceval, the evangelically minded Prime Minister, and engaged in a series of political breakfasts and a letter-writing campaign. Then disaster hit; Prime Minister Perceval was assassinated. Without his support, the cause went down to defeat in 1813. Never willing to acquiesce, the men of Clapham pushed the petitions with such fervency that soon 1,837 petitions bearing over half a million signatures were ready. In the Parliamentary debate to follow, ten of Wilberforce's allies spoke. Then Wilberforce rose to speak---for three full hours. But instead of being put to sleep, the House members were awakened, then enthralled and finally convinced. They voted to guarantee the liberty of the propagation of the Christian faith in India. The group also intervened on behalf of the victims of the Napoleonic Wars, the Greeks then fighting for freedom, the North American Indians, the Haitians, and the Hottentots. On the home front, they campaigned against the work hazards of chimney sweeps, investigated conditions in the coal mines, and emphasized the need to improve the condition and shorten the hours of children laboring in the cotton mills. They organized the Society for the Education of Africans, the Society for Bettering the Condition of the Poor, the Society for the Relief of Debtors, and they contributed much strategically placed money toward these causes. They participated in prison reform; and, during the war with France, they assisted war widows and needy sailors. Besides these things, they founded both the Church Missionary Society and the British and Foreign Bible Society. The British Bible Society was founded in 1804. In 1802 a great need had developed for Welsh Bibles in Wales. The Society for Promoting Bible Knowledge and the Religious Tract Society were both more than willing to help, but their fund-raising ability was far too low. Joseph Hughes, the secretary of the Tract Society, suggested that an organization be formed for the purpose of distributing Bibles, not only for the people of Wales but for those of other areas. The wheels churned slowly as the idea took hold. Early in 1803, the Tract Society decided to seek the interest and support of Wilberforce and his friends regarding their idea. Later on that year, Wilberforce and Charles Grant breakfasted with Hughes, and they promised to talk to the other Clapham members about the possibility of a Bible Society. Finally on March 7, 1804, with Wilberforce's group solidly behind the project, the British and Foreign Bible Society was born. Lord Teignmouth (John Shore) agreed to become the first president, Granville Sharp the chairman of the committee, and Henry Thornton the treasurer. Zachary Macauley, James Stephen, Thomas Babington, and Charles Grant were founding members and joined other men selected for the committee. Wilberforce took a back seat in this venture, though he supported it in many ways. As these men worked together, relying completely on God for success, remarkable things began to happen. Only eighteen years later 3,500,000 Bibles had been circulated to various countries. Less than forty years after this, the Bible budget of the Society was a whopping

167,000 pounds, and by 1945, Bibles had been printed into more than 760 languages and dialects. John Patten summarized well the legacy of Wilberforce and his Saints. "Are we then to say that the Clapham community is merely a relic of the past, the lovely memory of a vanished day? Even if it were only that, it would become us to salute it for its splendid faith and its gallant onslaught upon evil. But it is more than a memory--it is inspiration. Everything authentic is timeless, and the genuineness of that community keeps it fresh and stimulating. As we consider that company of men, the spirit in which they worked and what they achieved, we may stumble upon the secret of their power."9 Implications for Today's Church Leaders 1.What was the secret of the Clapham leaders success? Some might say they were master propagandists--just political showmen who learned the best ways to intimidate or manipulate. But Kenn Gangel clarifies how different propagandizing is from public relations. Propaganda promotes a vested interest with predetermined ends and engages in manipulative methods; public relations respects truth and goes about its task with dignity and good manners, recognizing its responsibility to the various publics and always desiring the greater good.10 2. A core secret of the Clapham influence was divine power. It was the power the Apostle Paul spoke of when he explained that Christ's grace was more than sufficient because it shows its powerful perfection in our weakness. The great apostle went on to claim that he was well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when he was humanly weak, he depended on Gods power that much more. 11 Wilberforce lived in poor health throughout most of his career. Besides a digestive system a doctor described as weak as calico, he also suffered with a spinal deformation which required the constant wearing of a heavy metal brace. Yet he wouldn't allow these things to cripple his ministry. Every one of Wilberforce's group suffered from weaknesses or struggles of one type or another. Besides this, there was the enormous emotional stress of fighting year after year, decade after decade, for causes that appeared utterly hopeless. John Maxwell writes, A good idea becomes great when the people are ready. The individual who is impatient with people will be defective in leadership. The evidence of strength lies not in streaking ahead, but in adapting your stride to the slower pace of others while not forfeiting your lead. If we run too far ahead, we lose our power to influence.12 Wilberforces complete dependence upon God was remarkable, and God responded by enabling his group to change the course of history. 2. Throughout history, it is true that God has accomplished things through individuals, but in many cases even the individuals were a part of a small core of people who either worked with them, prayed for them, supported them, or held them accountable. It is often when people feel completely alone that discouragement set in or they fail morally. We recall Job and his accusing friends; David by himself on the rooftop, Samson and the Philistines, Elijah fleeing from Jezebel, Jeremiah facing violent government officials, Jonah in Nineveh---all went through times of depression or failed during times of being or feeling alone. On the other hand, Moses had Aaron, Joshua, Miriam, and others; Elisha had his small school of prophets; Daniel had his three friends; David had Jonathan, Nathan and his close advisers, Paul had Barnabas, Timothy, Silas, Luke and other partners; even Jesus had the Twelve. Considering more recent eras, the Cambridge Seven were young British university students who built each other up for great effectiveness as missionaries throughout the world. During a rainstorm in 1806 a small group of young men in Massachusetts met under a haystack for a prayer meeting. This resulted in a commitment to foreign missions that eventually led all of them to India as missionaries.

The Auca Five gave up their lives trying to spread the gospel to the Auca tribe in South America. C.S. Lewis and several other Christian writers formed a potent group [the Inklings] whose writings are still considered spiritual classics. There have been numerous evangelistic teams through the decades including Moody/Sankey, Chapman/Bilhorn, Graham/Barrows/Wilson, and many others. Today, pastoral inner circles, contemporary bands, theater groups, and small house groups are only a few additional manifestations of the power of the few. In their different forms these are leaders who join together for effectiveness. 3.Why can a small group of Christians be so effective? Its because leadership is not the private domain of the few elite. Many acts of superb leadership have occurred with small groups or in obscure settings and can involve people who exercise little power and few resources. And just as in the Clapham group, leadership acts are not always performed by one great individual; members of a group often take command and work collaboratively to produce astonishing effects.13 A) Sometimes it takes too much time and effort for leaders to mobilize a large group or a whole church body and, if there are disgruntled or procrastinating members, progress can easily grind to a halt. Small groups can gather individuals whose character and capabilities are known. They can also tailor a group whose ministry passion and goals are similar. Wilberforce's group was incredibly effective because each one complemented the others and they were mutually devoted to pouring themselves into the vital missions they were called to accomplish. The group members also genuinely appreciated one another. Though the importance of group affection is often minimized, Arlo Grenz urges Christian leaders to encourage mutual prayer, the demonstration of appreciation, encouragement, and interest among group members, the sharing of mutual assistance and personal time together...14 One could hardly imagine a group that showed more consistent affectionand mutual respect than those at Clapham. B) We are almost overrun with small groups in many churches today. There seems to be a group for every personal need in existence. Many of these fulfill a necessary function in lives. However, most tend to turn inward; they do not look outside themselves. How many of these groups have been formed for the sole purpose of doing as much good for others as possible within a particular field of endeavor? There is nothing wrong with seeking our own benefit through a small group, but in our rush to do this have we overlooked the many ways we could plan to love outsiders through a cadre of close friends? C) A lone individual burdened about a great cause can easily become discouraged by the looming problems or the enormity of the task, but a group can keep each other motivated during the hard times or the times when tedium inexorably sets in. God uses intriguing math when he states to His people that one of them would chase a thousand and two could put ten thousand to flight (Deut. 32:30). Verses like this one seem to indicate that, when there is a challenge, there is much greater strength and capability in several persons working in tandem than in one. D) Multiplied hours of deliberating and planning went into the projects of Wilberforce and his fellow-leaders. Group planning helped to avoid the oversights and imbalance that may occur when a person is working alone. The Saints were constantly picking one another's brains for insights and strategies. They also applied the brakes on each other when a member proposed a move in a direction that could be rash or unwise. Though members were experts in their own fields, usually they were humble enough to be teachable and to accept the advice and cautions of the group. E) A small group dedicated to building the kingdom of God shouldn't ride off in all directions. The group should form with the idea of accomplishing a particular mission, though this may encompass a faceted field. John Maxwell writes that too many people are placed in leadership positions without a vision for where they need to go. All great leaders possess two

things: they know where they are going and they are able to persuade others to follow. Leadership is influence--nothing more, nothing less, continues Maxwell.My favorite leadership proverb is: He who thinketh he leadeth and hath no one following is only taking a walk.15 Hybels agrees that vision is at the very core of leadership: Take vision away from a leader and you cut out his or her heart. Vision is the fuel leaders run on--the fire that ignites the passion of followers. Its the clear call that sustains focused effort year after year, decade after decade, as people offer consistent and sacrificial service to God.16 Wilberforce and his little group had a vision that encompassed two clear, overarching goals: the abolition of the slave trade and the improving of Christian morals in Britain. It sometimes took decades, but he and his friends developed powerful influence and accomplished a massive number of objectives related to the original goals. We hear a lot in our society about empowerment. The term appears to mean giving people the authority, the encouragement, and the motivation to achieve. Christian leaders and writers such as Ken Blanchard, Bill Easum, and Gene Wilkes insist that Christian hierarchy must be replaced by self-directed teams.17 And self-directed teams are not motivated for long by Rah! Rah! external methods. Kenn Gangel reminds us that perhaps the most crucial concept of motivation is that it germinates from the inside. Wise leaders must facilitate their groups own inner drive by putting them in touch with things that capture their attention and interest.18 Wilberforce and his team realized Christ had given them the ultimate mission and had empowered them with his own authority and anointing to accomplish things that seemed impossible. Are you willing to begin asking God if he has a small group for you through which He could accomplish great things? Footnotes
1 William Wilberforce, cited in A Practical View of Christianity, Kevin Belmonte (ed) Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996, pp. 250-251. 2 James Boswell, cited in These Remarkable Men, John Patten, London: Lutterworth Press, 1945, p. 32. 3 John Newton, cited in Chosen Vessels, Charles Turner (ed) by Charles Colson, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Publications, 1986, p. 48. 4 John Pollock, cited in Woodbridge, John (ed) Great Leaders of the Christian Church, Chicago: Moody Press, 1988, p. 302. 5 John Wesley, cited in Ibid, pp. 293-294. 6 William Wilberforce, cited in God's Politician: William Wilberforce's Struggle, Leon Garth, Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard, 1987, p. 106. 7 William Wilberforce, cited in Chosen Vessels, Charles Turner (ed) by Charles Colson, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Publications, 1986, p. 50. 8 John Patten, cited in These Remarkable Men, London: Lutterworth Press, 1945, pp. 142-143. 9 John Pollock, cited in Great Leaders of the Christian Church, Chicago: Moody Press, p. 305. 10 Gangel, Kenn, Team Leadership in Christian Ministry, Chicago: Moody, 1997, 228 11 2 Corinthians 12:10, New American Standard Bible. 12 Maxwell, John, Developing the Leader Within You, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993, p. 147. 13 Clark, Kenneth and Miriam Clark, Choosing to Lead, Charlotte: Iron Gate, 1994, 20-22. 14 Grenz, Arlo, The Confident Leader, Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994, pp. 147,59. 15 Hybels, Bill, Courageous Leadership, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002, p. 31. 16 Maxwell, John, Developing the Leader Within You, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993, 1, 140 17 Wilkes, Gene, Jesus On Leadership, Wheaton: Tyndale, 1998, p. 225. 18 Gangel, Kenn, Team Leadership in Christian Ministry, Chicago: Moody Press, 1997, 224. Note: Though there are numerous books detailing Wilberforces political accomplishments, there are few primary sources tracing the Christian faith of William Wilberforce. Much of the content of this chapter was gleaned from the book These Remarkable Men and from the more recent volume, by Leon Garth, which condenses from the sources available about Wilberforces daily life of faith. Charles Colsons material was interesting and served as a minor source, along with Seventy Great Christians Changing Their World. Colsons chapter on Wilberforce from Great Leaders of the Christian Church was unfootnoted, possibly because he also chose to attempt, as this writer did, to write the particular material more in the form of biographical storytelling.

Additional Sources Colson, Charles, "William Wilberforce, " Great Leaders of the Christian Church, John Woodbridge (ed) Chicago: Moody Press, 1988. Hanks, Geoffrey, 70 Great Christians Changing the World, Edinburgh, Scotland, Christian Focus Publications, 1992.

Chapter 5: Mix Revivalists; Stir Vigorously

"The lives [of revivalists] in all seasons speak to us of the high privileges to which Christians can rise in the world. Their testimony and the fragrance of their lives comes down to this day. Their pulpit oratory came from their hearts, and from the reality of living near to God. They themselves loved the Savior whom they preached and hated the sin against which they warned." -Iain H. Murray1

Four Great Preachers

George Whitefield, son of a tavern keeper, was reared by a widowed mother among worldly excesses. John Wesley grew up in a strict Christian environment, the fifteenth of nineteen children. Jonathan Edwards was an only son, with ten sisters, and parents who encouraged him to incessant reading and writing. The outspoken, athletic Charles Finney grew up in a non-religious family and was an agnostic for the first 29 years of his life, viewing church and the Bible as dull and boring. Three of these men eventually had a powerful spiritual influence upon thousands during the First Great Awakening in America; and one during the Second Awakening. What were the factors that motivated these individuals as preachers? Why were they used so powerfully by the Spirit of God while hundreds of other orthodox preachers of that period led obscure ministries or pastored unremarkable churches? Were they useful to God simply because of their theology and methods? Was their theology and methodology similar? What were their major weaknesses and strengths? Did they build one another up in ministry or did they compete and denigrate each other's ministries? What can we learn from their lives and are there transferable concepts we can apply to our ministries with people today? These are all issues we will explore in this chapter. John Wesley: The Great Organizer While John and his brother, Charles, attended Oxford University, Charles began a small club dedicated to mutual aid in studies, the reading of helpful books, and fellowship as Christian brothers. John eventually assumed leadership of the grim morality club and it became derisively known as the Holy Club or the Bible Moths. A young man named George Whitefield eventually joined the club and became close friends with the Wesley brothers. There was little evidence at this time of the great spiritual callings each would later fulfill. One of the primary books the group studied was William Law's Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life. John and Charles even traveled across England to visit Law. When they shared with him the work of the Holy Club and its negative notoriety, Law told them they were trying to make something complicated and burdensome out of Christianity. "Religion is the plainest and simplest thing in the world," he told them. "It is just this: We love, because He first loved us."2 In 1735, the young Whitefield accompanied the Wesleys on a mission trip to the colony of Georgia. Charles soon became ill and had to return to England. John continued a ministry among the colonists but was tactless and unpopular. At one point he became romantically attracted to a young girl named Sophie Hopkey. As they spent time together, instead of proposing marriage, John often proposed they sing psalms. She eventually rebuffed him and married someone else, after which John bitterly refused even to serve her holy communion. These and other events did nothing to endear Wesley to the colonists. Finally, depressed by the hostility, Wesley prepared to return to England. As he

departed, he cast a lot which indicated that Whitefield should also return to England. Unimpressed, Whitefield stated that he could not do so but must stay and preach. By his own admission, Wesley had come to America with the chief hope "of saving my soul," but sailed away still empty.3 It was not until 1738 that, under the influence of a Moravian named Peter Boehler, both Charles and John found salvation.4 While Charles read Luthers commentary on Galatians and, later, while John listened to a reading of Luther's preface to the Commentary of Romans, they each experienced a sudden illumination of the doctrine of justification by faith.5 John wrote later, "About a quarter before nine, while he [Luther] was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone..."6 He had finally laid aside his pretentious cloak of self-righteousness in order to "follow naked the naked Jesus."7 Meanwhile, George Whitefield had returned to England and was reaching many miners in Bristol with the gospel through outdoor preaching. When crowds swelled to 10,000, he sent for Wesley to assist him. Reluctantly, John tried open air evangelism and was astounded at the response of the crowds. So enthusiastic did Wesley become that he eventually coined the phrase, "The world is my parish." When Wesley preached, he was described as apostolic in appearance---solemn, venerable, with quiet charisma. In regard to natural oratorical ability, some believe he could not compete with George Whitefield, Charles Finney, or even Jonathan Edwards, but his sermons inevitably provoked a response in listeners. Sir Walter Scott reported that Wesley told many excellent stories, but surely that wasn't his secret to response.8 On one occasion he preached motionlessly, reading so rapidly one could hardly follow his bare logic. Yet, even then, people were struck with overwhelming conviction.9 Over and over as he criss-crossed England with his preaching, Wesley would say, I offered Christ to the people. A Swedish professor who heard Wesley preach reiterated in his journal that the true reason why Wesley had such an impact through his sermons was "because he spoke of a crucified Savior and faith in his merits---such the people never had heard..." The professor continued with the opinion that educated people pronounced this doctrine enthusiastic [fanatical], even heretical, as if the greatest heresy was not to forget Christ.10 Indeed, after Wesley preached at a university, the scholarly dean of Christ-Church remarked only, "John Wesley will always be thought a man of sound sense, though an enthusiast."11 As to his theology, Wesley was influenced by High Church, Puritan, and mystical writings, but in the end he was to develop strong Arminian tendencies. He did not believe that the eternal destiny of all humanity is predetermined by God. He did not believe that the righteousness of Christ is imputed toward the redeemed. He believed that believers could lose the benefit of salvation if they apostasized. And he believed that Christians could reach a point of complete sanctification or total perfection in this life. We can only touch briefly on these tenets in this chapter. After caricaturing a picture of hyper-Calvinism, Wesley destroyed his straw man mercilessly: It [predestination] is a doctrine full of blasphemy...I will mention a few of the horrible blasphemies contained in this horrible doctrine. This doctrine represents our blessed Lord, Jesus Christ the righteous, as an hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity. This is the blasphemy

clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination! And here I fix my foot. On this I join issue with every assertor of it. You represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust."12 In regard to imputed righteousness, Wesley wrote, "...this imputed righteousness hath done immense hurt. I have had abundant proof that the frequent use of this unnecessary phrase, instead of furthering men's progress in vital holiness, has made them satisfied without any holiness at all, yea, and encouraged them to work all uncleanness with greediness... The one thing we lack is not the imputed righteousness of Christ, it is the love of God we want..."13 Wesley's repudiation of the doctrine of eternal security is summarized succinctly by Iain Murray: "If a person who has assurance of salvation later loses it, and abandons the Christian practice which he once followed, he is plainly a case of a person losing his salvationso Wesley thought."14 When a professing believer turned back "as a dog to its vomit," Wesley claimed that the consequent shipwreck of his faith proved he had forfeited his salvation.15 Regarding spiritual perfection, he resorted to such verses as Matthew 5:48, "Be ye perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect." Of this verse, he admitted that "there is scarce any expression in holy writ which has given more offense than this."16 However, in 1756 he wrote a friend: "When I began to make the Scriptures my study, I began to see that Christians are called to love God with all their heart and to serve Him with all their strength; which is precisely what I apprehended to be meant by the scriptural term perfection."17 He went on to say, "The experiences that I have recorded could be summarized thus: Constant communion with God the Father and the Son fills their [adherents'] hearts with humble love, that is to say, they feel no inward sin and to the best of their knowledge commit no outward sin. They see and love God every moment..."18 As we shall see, these evolving theological viewpoints were to have sometimes explosive repercussions throughout Wesley's career. As to Wesley's life outside of the ministry, it was to grow worse in some ways before it grew better. Over ten years after the unfortunate Sophie Hopkey incident, another opportunity presented itself. John Bennet, a young protege of Wesley, fell in love and became engaged to an attractive young widow named Grace Murray. But while under her care for sickness, Wesley also became enamored with her. Murray's affection wavered between the two men. Believing that John was using his prestige to take Murray away from Bennet, John's brother intervened. Impetuously, Charles brought Bennet and Murray together and saw that they were immediately married. John was heartbroken and a deep rift formed between the brothers. George Whitefield and a Wesley associate interceded with tact and tenderness. As John Wesley tells it, "Poor Mr. Whitefield and John Nelson burst into tears. They prayed, cried, and entreated till the storm passed away."19 The brothers reconciled. But a year and a half later, when Wesley married Molly Vazeille, wealthy widow of a London merchant, he did not tell Charles her name nor did Charles attend the wedding.20 George Whitefield: Powerful Dramatist Strangely enough, George Whitefield was nudged toward salvation through Christ by John Wesley, who was not to be converted for another three years. Exhausted

by extreme asceticism in quest of salvation, Whitefield had withdrawn from Oxford University for six months. Then, at Wesley's encouragement, he began reading the devotional works of the Puritans. One of the ironies of his conversion is that a man who became known as one of the most gifted mass evangelists in history found his own salvation not through the preached but the printed word. It was while reading Scougal's The Life of God Within the Soul of Man in March, 1735, that Whitefield realized true religion was not in the doing of great works but in the union of the soul with God and Christ formed within. He later wrote that "a ray of Divine light...instantaneously darted upon my soul, and from that moment, but not till then, did I know that I must be a new creature."21 He never turned again to asceticism, legalism, or unusual views of Christian perfection.22 In fact, he felt strangely burdened to begin praying for the Wesley brothers' salvation.23 Earlier in the chapter, the Wesleys' futile mission trip to Georgia was described and it was mentioned that George Whitefield stayed on after their departure. When Whitefield returned to England in 1738, John and Charles Wesley reunited with him joyfully, having both experienced conversion earlier that year. The three spent hours in prayer together and John recorded that "God gave us once more to take sweet counsel together."24 It was also during this period in England that Whitefield developed a friendship with a young lady named Elizabeth Delamotte. He apparently grew to love her deeply. After he left England to return to America in 1740, he continued to write to her. At some point, he finally proposed marriage via the mails. However, his letter outlined the bleak expectations the wife of a traveling evangelist might have. It is not clear why he described so vividly all the hardships and lonely periods; but, in any case, he closed the letter with a proposal for marriage. It seems to have been Ms. Delamotte's parents and perhaps her brother who then wrote to say that they did not think her a sufficiently mature Christian to endure all the trials he had listed. Though the impression is left that Elizabeth herself may still have been willing, Whitefield tearfully gave up his first love. A young man named William Seward had been converted, and at that point had turned over his fortune and his abilities to Whitefield's ministry. His job became staying one step ahead of Whitefield, getting out the word that a preacher was coming to town. When Seward arrived in a city, he announced Whitefield's coming to townspeople and groups of clergy and he placed articles in newspapers and other publications. Some days he never left his lodgings, churning out a hundred letters a day... This public relations strategy was criticized by some, yet Whitefield obviously did not consider it human technique at the expense of spiritual dependence. Seward also occasionally did some preaching of his own. In September of 1740, Seward was temporarily blinded by stones from an angry mob. In October, he preached outdoors again in a little town called Hay. A heavy stone, hurled at close range, knocked him unconscious. Thirteen days later he died from complications at the age of only thirty-eight.25 This death and Whitefield's rejection as suitor came as extreme double losses for the young evangelist at this crucial point. However, in 1741 when Whitefield returned to England, he had bounced back, and was again in search of a wife. In a letter he stated, "I want a gracious woman who is dead to everything but Jesus."26 While visiting Jonathan Edwards, Whitefield had been impressed by Edward's wife, Sarah, who he claimed was "adorned with a meek and quiet spirit, talked of the things of God, and seemed to be such a helpmeet to her

husband..."27 Whitefield asked a friend named Howell Harris to assist him in finding a wife. Harris found a widow named Elizabeth James who was ten years Whitefield's senior. The rather plain Mrs. James felt drawn to Harris, not Whitefield. But both Whitefield and Harris feared that romantic passion would weaken their ministries, so to Whitefield, this seemed a perfect match. He wanted a spiritual wife who could look after his household and support the Bethesda orphan house he had founded. He announced his marriage with little passion and, following the wedding, immediately left her to preach for three weeks in Wales. In the ensuing years, Whitefield's wife had four miscarriages and bore one son who lived four months. Though Whitefield admired his wife and treated her with faithfulness and decency, their relationship was never romantically close. In fact, Whitefield's letters to both his wife and his mother reflected a rather cool tone with more concern about their spiritual state than their temporal and emotional needs. Above all things, George Whitefield lived to preach. Sir James Stephen said that Whitefield's entire life was "consumed in the delivery of one continuous, scarcely interrupted sermon" in a ministry which undoubtedly consisted of over 30,000 sermons.28 His very first sermon as a young man was delivered so fervently that a report was made to the bishop that he had driven fifteen people insane.29 So strong and clear was his voice, that he could be heard by great crowds. An Ohio woman named her baby after Whitefield and claimed that at six months and only twenty pounds, young George can scream so loud that no one can think."30 An onlooker would never have detected that the powerful preacher was increasingly ill as the years passed, and sermons were often delivered between bouts of exhaustion and vomiting. When Whitefield was not preaching in churches, he often preached in the open air. His assistants would gather Methodists, who would form a circle around a predetermined spot. They'd begin singing and soon Whitefield would arrive in a coach and join them in prayer and song. While crowds gathered, excitement would escalate. At just the right moment, Whitefield would signal that a particular hymn be sung by the entire multitude. Then he would pray and begin preaching, both in extemporaneous style. In a day when most prayers and sermons were read, this added to the captivation of onlookers. If God hadnt called him to preach, Whitefield could probably have been a fine actor. When he preached of Bible characters, he was the character. A minister named Pemberton described Whitefield's "clear, musical voice" and his body language: "He uses much gestures such that every accent of his voice and every motion of his body speaks, and both are natural and unaffected. If it is the product of art, it is entirely concealed."31 Huge audiences became intensely silent as they watched Whitefield, for he was most complete in the pulpit. The educated as well as common folk understood his messages. He was also effective with children and showed obvious pleasure when preaching to them. A Whitefield staff member tells of going "to hear Brother Whitefield preach to little children---many hundreds of them, in their own infant language."32 When one sees Whitefield's sermons in print, they may appear a bit melodramatic; but, with his delivery, the lines receded into his passion and hearers were locked into a dramatic world which held them speechless.33 When he wept during a sermon, as he did in the following excerpt, he was not playacting and somehow the

people knew it: Look up by faith, behold the blessed Jesus, our all-glorious Immanuel, not bound, but nailed on an accursed tree; see how he hangs crowned with thorns and had in derision of all that are round about him. See how the thorns pierce him, and how the blood in purple streams trickles down his sacred temple! Shall I refrain your voice from weeping? No, rather let me exhort you to look to him whom you have pierced and mourn."34 All listeners did not praise Whitefield. One official criticized him as one, "who always prays and preaches extempore...and has managed to get justification by faith and the new birth into every sermon."35 Some thought that Whitefield's ministry was simply a form of entertainment and condemned Whitefield's "peculiarities" with the claim that they too would be followed by crowds were they to "wear a nightcap in the pulpit or...preach from a tree."36 We must remember that this was a day in which forms of entertainment were quite rare. Though perhaps any truly gifted speaker could have drawn crowds, when accused, Whitefield could point to his prime objective, which was always singlemindedly the salvation of souls. Benjamin Franklin apparently rejected Christ's claims on his life, but he developed a great appreciation for Whitefield and was invariably moved during his sermons. Franklin records one instance in which, having disagreed with Whitefield about where the preacher's orphanage would be built, he decided to stop contributing to his causes. But when he next heard the evangelist preach, Franklin writes: "As he proceeded I began to soften and concluded to give him my coppers. Another stroke of his oratory made me ashamed of that and determined me to give the silver, and he finished so admirably that I emptyed [sic] my pocket wholly into the collector's dish, gold and all."37 Whitefield tried not to denigrate various Christian denominations. And though he considered himself a loyal Anglican, he never labeled himself as preaching under the auspices of any group, nor did he accept State support. He said, "What is Calvin or what is Luther? Let us look above the names and parties; let Jesus be our all in all... I care not who is uppermost; I know my place...even to be the servant of all..."38 Just the same, his non-denominational bent resulted in many pastors refusing to support his work. Reports of long-term results of his ministry are confusingly mixed. Though Whitefields preaching sometimes came across as adversarial in relation to church abuses he believed were rampant, he generally encouraged attenders to support their own churches. Some described wrenching church divisions in Whitefield's wake, pitting clergy against clergy and people against their ministers.* Others, such as a Boston minister reported that "upon Mr. Whitefield's leaving us, great numbers were so happily concerned about their souls...that our assemblies both on Lectures and Sabbaths were surprisingly increased."39 Dallimore states that through Whitefields preaching the Methodist church in the American colonies became well established, the Presbyterian church made striking growth, and the Baptists were inspired to labor with new fervor, especially in the South. Jonathan Edwards: Theologian Evangelizer Though converted young, from childhood Jonathan Edwards reports that he

struggled mightily against the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, especially in relation to God's choosing of only some to eternal life. It appeared to him like a "horrible doctrine," and his heart rebelled against it. Two primary experiences in Edward's early life seem to have sealed in him a desire to follow Christ and to place his faith totally in a sovereign God. As a boy, there was a time of widespread spiritual awakening in the church in which his father labored, and it stirred Edward's sensitive heart deeply. Then during his college days he became extremely ill and in his own words, "God brought me nigh to the grave and shook me over the pit of hell." Following his illness, Edwards began noticeably advancing in his spiritual life. The struggles to reach that point seem somewhat reminiscent to those of Augustine or Pascal.40 Edwards differs from many evangelizers in that he was a great theologian. He was also a pastor for many years, a missionary to the Indians, and, for a brief moment, the president of a college. It was during his years as a pastor that he was used so remarkably in what is known as the Great Awakening. Edwards married young to a woman named Sarah Edwards. Varied accounts of the marriage appear paradoxical. Whitefield said of the Edwards' marriage, "a sweeter couple I have not yet seen."41 Others reported that Edwards openly considered his wife a delight and enjoyed her company. Yet in Dodd's book, Marriage to a Difficult Man, a period is described in Sarah Edward's life, marked by "such unrest and confusion that it could only be called psychotic."42 Though she seemed to emerge with a strength and peace previously unknown, one wonders what pushed her to such a point. It appears from some records that Sarah typically handled the marriage by demonstrating a steady love for her husband which often was reflected in allowing him great chunks of time alone, while attempting to cope with multitudinous household needs and childrearing problems by herself.43 Edwards started out as a Congregationalist pastor and remained a pastor for the greater part of his ministry. Though he did preach the gospel in various parishes, he was no traveling Whitefield or Wesley. He was a settled pastor who did the work of an evangelist.44 Yet it is a common saying in regard to the Great Awakening that "Edwards put the match to the fuse, and Whitefield blew it into flame."45 Edwards was not known for sheer dynamism. His voice was distinct and clear but not strong. He read most of his sermons from manuscripts with little or no gestures because he despised sloppy ramblings. Perhaps the fervency of his heart was communicated in spite of his subdued delivery. In any case, he was convinced that he was a voice for God and people responded to this voice with spiritual longing. The preacher is probably best recognized for his sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." This "hell fire" message was unusual for Edwards, whose primary objective was to explain how "to be full of Christ alone, to love him with a holy and true love, to trust in him, to live upon him."46 It is interesting to note that before the occasion in which the message had such astounding effect, it had been preached several times in different settings without such results.47 The sermon pictures God as holding the sinner over the pit of hell much as one would hold a spider or some loathsome insect over a fire, abhorring us and dreadfully provoked, with nothing but his hand preventing us from falling into the fire at any moment.48 Why did a congregation in a town named Enfield respond with such screaming

terror upon the fourth preaching of the sermon? It appears that they needed to hear it, that they were in a mood of expectation, and that the Spirit of God chose to fall upon them that night with particular power... There seems to be no other explanation. How else can any of the great force of Edward's ongoing evangelizing be explained? After a number of years as pastor in a town called Northampton, Edwards began to experience opposition from his own congregation. He had never been one for small talk, and "he was not able to enter into a free conversation...in an easy manner."49 Some people were alienated by his stiff personality and the fact that he rarely visited their homes. Edwards was also a theologian at heart and some of his weekly sermons flew over the heads of less educated parishioners. He could also be quite blunt. Youth who had giggled over a midwives' book were rebuked publicly. He condemned church members who visited one another's homes because he felt much conversation was unprofitable. He pressed for an increase in salary.50 Issues like these were a cause for growing criticism. At the same time, some area clergymen were sowing slander out of jealousy for Edward's stern work ethic and his profound mind.51 The Edwards finally had to leave the church in which they had labored so long and hard. Looking back later, Edwards admitted to a friend that his youth, lack of judgment, and a juxtaposed mixture of over-confidence and lack of assertiveness contributed to his demise.52 Eventually Edwards accepted an opportunity to serve as pastor-missionary to the Indians on a frontier outpost. He was not well suited to the work and did not master the Indian language. He was content teaching through an interpreter and giving catechetical instruction. Always the solitary thinker, Edwards sometimes spent thirteen hours each day in study or writing. For six lonely years he wrote and systematized the results of almost forty years of ministry and study.53 Christendom would likely not now have access to the theology of this man of God had he not been given these six years in obscurity. One of Edward's strengths is that he built his thought on existing foundations. Warfield writes: "He strove for no show of originality. He enters into the great tradition which had come down to him and infuses it with his personality and makes it live."54 Edwards pored deeply over the Bible for a lifetime; he treasured it and consumed it more than his necessary food. In the end, the key to an understanding of Jonathan Edwards is the realization that he was a man who put faithfulness to the Word of God before every other consideration.55 Charles Finney: Innovative Revivalist Finney started out as a country schoolteacher, only later to become attracted to the law profession. He was a fine lawyer, but was neither a reverent or an unassuming person---village skeptics guffawed that if Finney were ever converted, they too would believe.56 And conversion is exactly what Finney experienced, though he tells of his conversion in a rather drawn out fashion. First he bought a Bible because he enjoyed reading Scriptures about legal topics. Then during a community-wide revival he went forward for counsel and blurted, "I am willing now to be a Christian." The vain, self-assured lawyer later claimed to be trembling violently as he "saw the reality and fulness of the atonement of Christ..." and realized that "instead of having or needing any righteousness of my own to recommend

me to God, I had only to submit myself to the righteousness of God through Christ..."57 The next day he walked into a forest and like a drowning man cried out, "Lord, I take thee at thy Word!" He promised that if God truly converted him he would leave his law practice and become a preacher of the gospel. Back in his office, Finney began to weep uncontrollably and at that time "received a mighty baptism of the Holy Ghost." It was soon no secret in town that Charles Finney had been saved and was not ashamed to tell anyone about it. As to pastoral preparation, what formal training Finney had was provided under the apprenticeship of a Reverend George Gale, with whom he often heartily disagreed. Finney claims he refused to attend seminary because, in his view, graduates "had all been wrongly educated and they turned out so badly.58 Though Finney eventually taught theology and served as president of Oberlin College, he always seemed to hold a certain bias against theological schools. He wrote that "the schools are to a great extent spoiling the ministers. I think that in certain respects they are greatly mistaken in their modes of training." He claimed that students played at preaching and wrote sermons as literary essays instead of messages aimed at the salvation of hearers.59 Finney's critical attitude may be partly due to the fact that when he first began to preach in the early 1820s, many veteran ministers condemned him because: "I was so undignified in the pulpit, used common language, addressed the people with such directness, and because I aimed not at all at ornament..." Finney defended himself by claiming, "I was bred a lawyer. I came right forth from a law office to a pulpit, and talked to the people as I would have talked to a jury."60 This moves us to Finney's preaching style. His appearance cannot be separated from his style. He was tall and lank, with black hair and black eyes. The eyes were deep set and his face was pale and cadaverous. Hard labor, nervous concern, and feeble health resulted in an expression that was increasingly grave, even sad. His eyes often streamed with tears and his powerful, piercing voice reminded one of an old prophet of Israel risen from the dead. It was impossible to hear him, writes one observer, without being struck with his intense fervency and honesty. One might think that the rambling nature of his preaching would decrease its effectiveness, but some persons always seemed convicted by what he said.61 To Finney, preaching the gospel was an urgent thing. He wrote, "...when a city is on fire, the [captain] does not read the firemen an essay, or exhibit a fine specimen of rhetoric when he shouts to them and directs their movements. It is a question of urgency and he intends that every word shall be understood..."62 "Great sermons," he claimed, "lead the people to praise the preacher. Good preaching leads the people to praise the Savior."63 Finney spent much of his time ruminating on the truths of the Gospel and the best ways of communicating them. He purposely spent significant time among common people to learn more about their spiritual needs. Usually, he received a sermon subject while on his knees. Then he considered it, prayed much over it, filled his mind full of it, then poured it out to the people. Finney never wrote out his messages, only jotting down the order of his main points and the scriptural positions he would take. One fault Finney could never be accused of is laziness. During one twelve-week stretch, he preached 77 sermons, attended 36 prayer and 13 conference meetings, and made 469 home visits. Early on, this pace made him ill and he was known even to cough up blood, but with the years his endurance increased.64

Somehow he made time in his schedule to marry a young woman named Lydia Andrews. Immediately after the wedding, Finney went to Jefferson County with the intention of returning with a wagon the following week, but he got caught up spontaneously in a revival in a small village called Perch River. When the revival spread to Brownville he wrote to his bride explaining that he could not come to her until God "opened the way." Six months later, when spring arrived, he set out again for home. However, when he stopped to get his horse shod, the villagers in a town named LeRaysville apparently invited him to hold a preaching service. One meeting led to another until, finally, Finney sent someone else to retrieve his wife and bring her to him. Lydia must have been an exceedingly patient partner because it appears that the two were quite content together and Lydia eventually bore him six children. The attempt to fully understand the entire sweep of Finney's theology can be confusing. There were times when the correct end result seemed to be in Finney's mind, but his method of getting there appears biblically skewed. Regarding the doctrine of sin, Finney never seems to have doubted that everyone is a sinner. He wrote that sinners must not be made to feel simply 'unfortunate' but to feel their true guilt, and he declared that it "is not true that sinners are almost Christians." "The truth is," he said, "the most moral impenitent sinner in the world is much nearer a devil than a Christian."65 However, he reacted against preachers who espoused that because of original, imputed sin and the sin nature, humans do not have the ability to choose to repent and be saved. According to Finney, these preachers would tell people to go home and read their Bibles, pray for repentance, to pray for a new heart, to continue hoping that God would move in their hearts. But Finney claimed that, biblically, the Spirit of God constantly was convicting people to lead them to a point of repentance and that preachers should proclaim that God commands people to repent now, to believe now, to receive a new heart now...66 Thus, Finney's solution was to claim that humans have a part with God in their own regeneration. Their will was somehow involved with God's will. He held that in regeneration God had a vital part, the subject had a part, scriptural truth was the instrument, the Holy Spirit taught and persuaded, and the preacher or witness cooperated in the work.67 He sought to illustrate this process by describing a terminal patient who has been cured. He may naturally say that the doctor saved his life, but he knows that nothing at all could have occurred without God, for God created the doctor and the medication. And it is also true that the medication saved the man's life, but the patient had to take the medicine by an act of the will. So God, the doctor, the patient, and the medication were all involved in the cure, though God was the originator and the true lifesaver.68 The doctrine of justification by faith in Christ's substitutionary death for sinners seems muddled and paradoxical in Finney's mind. He wrote, "There can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law... The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption."69 Yet seemingly Finney preached the doctrine he rejected: Sinner, you need not go home from this meeting under the wrath of Almighty God. You may be justified here, on the spot, now, if you will only believe in Christ. Your pardon is ready, made out and sealed with the broad seal of heaven;

and the blank will be filled up, and the gracious pardon delivered as soon as, by one act of faith, you receive Jesus Christ as he is offered in the gospel.70 Perhaps the greatest object of attack on Finney has been his statement that revival, the corporate conversion of sinners "is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means."71 Finney defined miracle as a suspension of all laws of nature and of mind. He admitted there may be a miracle among a revival's antecedent causes---for example, the apostles employed miracles to arrest the attention and establish the divine authority, but the miracle was not the revival. Finney hastened to add that without the blessing of God, no revival could ever take place, and in practice, Finney seemed to go against his claim that revival was not a suspension of natural law. He placed preeminent emphasis on concerted prayer before every revival. His first act when he entered a town was to ask if any praying women lived there, and he would depend on their prayers as the spiritual powerhouse of the revival. He also visited hundreds of homes, challenging people to pray for their neighbors. Finney's conviction was that prevailing, agonizing prayer caused God to bestow his grace most fully.72 It seems as if there were issues about which Finney fought a legitimate battle, but he sacrificed a measure of theological credibility in the process. He had met laypeople and clergymen who did everything they could to block revival because they felt it was interfering with God's sovereign will. And he believed that it pleased Satan when ministers preached up the sovereignty of God as a reason why it wasn't time for a revival. "This is just such preaching that the devil wants," declared Finney.73 Some believed that when he said such things, he was rejecting the doctrine of Gods sovereignty. In 1839, Finney looked back on his ministry and had to admit to himself that he had "overlooked in a great measure the fact that converts would not make one step of progress without being guided into sanctification and growth in grace." He realized that if new believers didn't become deeply involved in the nurture of the church they would often "fall back from a revival state." He wrote that his mind was satisfied "that an altogether higher and more stable form of Christian life was attainable and was the privilege of all Christians."74 "The Holy Spirit is engaged in a great work within the soul," he declared. "It is nothing less than to renovate the whole character of life and this renovation manifests itself in personal experience."75 He began emphasizing the local church and the personal devotional life much more prominently. Finney had read some perfectionist literature during this period and now became exposed to the charge of Wesleyan perfectionism. He seemed to jockey with words at this point. "People should not equate Christian perfection," he wrote, "with perfect knowledge, freedom from temptation or mistakes, or exemption from the Christian warfare. Nor should they equate it with the infinite moral perfection which God has..." Yet, at the same time, Finney stated, "God has created us moral beings...capable of conforming to the same rule with himself, to love as impartially with as perfect love... this, and nothing less than this is Christian perfection."76 The Revivalists Mix and Match Edwards, Whitefield, and Wesley were all familiar with one another. Finney

came a generation later, but each of these leaders had a definite influence upon Finney and his ministry. How did the leaders interact with one another, and what can we learn from these interactions? On what level did they fellowship together; how did they relate theologically; how did their methods affect their ministries; how did each respond to the public-at-large; and how can knowing these things benefit our Christian lives and ministries? As has been said, George Whitefield became acquainted with the Wesley brothers as a young adult when he joined the Holy Club they had founded at Oxford. At this point, all three were as yet unconverted, enthusiastically seeking their salvation through rigid asceticism and good deeds. Whitefield was the first to be converted, but it was not long afterwards that the Wesleys followed. In 1738, when Whitefield began preaching outdoors to British miners, the crowds eventually snowballed, and he called for John Wesley's assistance.77 After an initial hesitance, Wesley complied, and soon became an open air evangelist. In the decades following, Whitefield would do a significant amount of preaching in England and especially Scotland, but his primary focus would move to America. Wesley would concentrate on England, though he would spread organizationally to the American states. While Whitefield and Wesley were beginning to see growing crowds flocking to hear the gospel in England, in America Jonathan Edwards had already seen the beginning of the Great Awakening as hundreds of people in and surrounding his parish in Massachusetts were finding salvation in Christ. By 1740 when he invited George Whitefield to preach in his church, the Awakening had been gaining momentum for about six years. When Whitefield arrived in Northampton, he was welcomed warmly by Edwards and his family. He spent time privately with the Edwards children and seemed impressed that they were not dressed in "silks and satins, but plain." Whitefield appreciated Mrs. Edwards so much that she became the model of the godly wife he himself sought. Whitefield observed that Edwards himself was "weak in body," but did not mention his own poor health, which plagued him throughout his ministry. Later Whitefield wrote in praise of Edwards, "I think I may say that I have not seen his fellow in all New England."78 There did not seem to be a competitive spirit between the two preachers. In fact, Edwards wept unashamedly as Whitefield preached. After Whitefield departed, Edwards said the town was again revived and "in about a month there was a great alteration in the town."79 As for Whitefield, though he never rejected his Anglican roots, he is actually considered by many the leader and founder of Methodism. He largely planned the form and structure on which the body was built, and when, eighteen months afterward, Wesley organized his work, he adopted generally the plan Whitefield had laid out.80 When theological differences arose between Whitefield and the Wesleys, Whitefield humbly declined to build an opposing denomination. His ministry became more clearly ecumenical and his theology leaned more and more toward Calvinism.81 Though he was developing a huge following, he would not pit them against his theological detractors. Back in England, Wesley had read Edwards' Truly Surprising Narrative of the Conversions Lately Wrought in and about the Town of Northampton,

in New England. He recorded his thoughts: "A revival in North America? If God is one God then surely He will bless this people as well. I began that moment to expect it. Jonathan Edwards was one against many, but God had prevailed. England could supply such a man as well. Little did I know I was that man."82 Soon it became obvious that Whitefield and Wesleys converts had formed into a movement and that the movement was evolving into a distinct denomination which people were calling Methodism. Wesley clearly had great ability in administration. Lord Macauley claimed that "Wesley's genius for government was not inferior to that of Richelieu."83 It is interesting to note that at least three of the revivalists cared not only for spiritual needs, but also for the physical needs of people. Though Whitefield's ministry encompassed the wealthy class, he longed to reach those common multitudes who would not attend church and he was developing a growing concern for orphans and slaves.84 He founded an orphanage in Georgia, as well as a school to educate blacks. Wesley showed an ongoing concern for the poor, often visiting and relieving the prisoners and the sick and giving away Bibles and Common-Prayer books...85 As for Finney, in some circles, attitudes toward his ministry mellowed with the years, partly because he poured significant energy into the temperance and abolition movements. Though Finney lived a generation later, he was well acquainted with the writings and beliefs of Wesley, Whitefield, and Edwards. He spoke highly of Wesley's book, Plain Account of Christian Perfection. He was also a great admirer of Jonathan Edwards and avidly read at least two of his works: Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of Religion and Treatise Concerning Religious Affections.86 He sincerely believed he was carrying on the spirit of Edward's example, as lengthy quotations from Edwards suggests.87 In regard to George Whitefield, there is clear evidence that Finney considered him a mighty preacher and that he used Whitefield's methods to publicize his many revival meetings.88 The Titans Clash As Whitefield became more outspoken about his Calvinistic beliefs, in 1741 Wesley prepared a sermon against predestination. As he had done regarding other decisions, he drew lots to determine whether God wished him to make it public. The lot indicated "Preach and Print," and when he did so, he launched a divisive controversy that created damage for years to come.89 Apparently, though, Wesley would feel for many years that Whitefield made the first breach among the Methodists, and that he should have healed it.90 Whitefield was extremely upset by Wesley's act. He wrote that some were so prejudiced by the Wesley brothers' "dressing up the doctrine of election in such horrible colors, that they will neither hear, see, nor give me the least assistance. Yes, some of them send threatening letters that God will speedily destroy me."91 Aboard a ship to England, he wrote to the Wesleys: Dear, dear Brethren, Why did you throw out that bone of contention? Do you not think. I must be as much concerned for truth as you? I hope you may be preferred before me, but I must preach the gospel of Christ, and this I cannot do without speaking about election. Methinks I would be willing to tarry here on the waters forever, rather than come to England to oppose you.92 Whitefield's wife was a staunch friend to Wesley, and Whitefield was sensitive to

that. However, after the Wesleys had circulated the sermon for nineteen months, Whitefield felt he had no choice but to publish a defense because "numbers have been misled...and a greater number are still calling upon me to show also my opinion."93 The reply was clear and firm but written with respect and without harsh words. During this period, Wesley began to declare the doctrine which he called Christian perfection. He didn't clearly define the concept; it was presented as either a high state of Christian maturity or entire sinlessness. Whitefield heard various followers of Wesley claim that they were perfect---that they had not sinned in so many weeks or months.94 When Wesley challenged Whitefield regarding his stand on the doctrine, Whitefield replied, "I am sorry, honored sir, to hear by many letters that you seem to own a sinless perfection in this life attainable. I do not expect to say indwelling sin is destroyed in me till I bow my head and give up the ghost."95 Wesley possessed inherited traits that made it natural for him to desire the prime position. Though this reflected skills God used in making him the administrator he became, in relation to Whitefield it only heightened Wesley's animosity. He seized several buildings in Bristol for which Whitefield had raised almost all the money and refused to give them up.96 Surprisingly, after Whitefield returned to England, Charles Wesley invited him to preach at a foundry in Moorfield. Whitefield used the opportunity to warn Methodists of the perceived errors in the Wesleys' teachings. When John Wesley heard about it, he condemned Whitefield's "unkind behavior since his return from Georgia."97 Meanwhile, in words some may see as pontificating, Whitefield wrote, "It is good for me that I have been despised, censured, maligned...by my nearest dearest friends. By this I have found the faithfulness of Him who is the friend of friends..."98 There was a partial reconciliation between Whitefield and the Wesleys in 1742, though an attitude of rivalry continued.99 Initially, Whitefield objected to Wesley's monopolizing of the name Methodist; but, in the end, he decided to step aside and allow John Wesley the sole headship of Methodism. Some of Whitefield's allies encouraged him to found an opposing denomination but he firmly refused. When followers warned that his fame would be forgotten by future generations, he declared, "Let my name die everywhere, let even my friends forget me, if by that means the cause of the blessed Jesus may be promoted."100 In 1749 Wesley suggested meeting Whitefield in London, this time to hammer out a form of union between their followers. Whitefield stated that he doubted there could be a firm union because they differed in biblical principles more than he'd ever thought. In the end, Wesley and Whitefield agreed, while retaining their theological positions, not to preach controversially for or against absolute election, irresistible grace, or eternal security...and continually to preach that humanity's whole salvation is of God and their whole damnation, of themselves.101 Regarding the subject of eternal security, Wesley and Edwards clashed. When some who professed salvation under Edward's preaching turned back to their former life, Edwards stated that they had never been true believers at all. Believing they had actually lost their salvation, Wesley declared that Edwards "heaped together so many curious, subtle metaphysical distinctions as are sufficient to puzzle the brains...of all plain men and women in the universe and to make them doubt, if not wholly deny, all the work God had wrought in their souls."102 Theologically, Finney could not avoid the powerful influences of Wesley,

Whitefield and Edwards. There were points upon which all four were in agreement or in distinct disagreement. There were also instances in which Finney thought he was in agreement with the others but was mistaken. Though some view him as a thorough Arminian, he claimed to travel a middle ground between hyper-Calvinism and extreme Arminianism.104 This route has drawn criticism from both camps. Garth Rosell describes Finney as a New School Calvinistor an arminianized Calvinist. His preaching emphasized the moral government of God, the ability of people to repent and take on a new heart, the perfectability of human nature and society, and the need to apply the Christian faith in daily living.103 Turnbull believes that Edwards was a "staunch Calvinist on his knees, but like an Arminian on his feet."104 Edwards seemed to struggle with a divine paradox---he held strongly that man was unable to approach God on one hand, yet had a moral responsibility to act and come to God on the other. He used elements of fear and selfinterest to urge individuals to press into the kingdom, while acknowledging privately that they could not come unless the Father drew them.105 Finney seemed to espouse Edward's Calvinism in some points but the greatest parting of the ways came in two areas. First, Finney argued against original sin, that is, the inheritance of sin from Adam, because he thought it negated personal responsibility for sin. Second, in regard to the doctrine of limited atonement, Finney disagreed regarding the issue of the sinner's inability to turn to God and be converted. Edwards believed generally that only God could make it possible for a human being to want to turn to Christ and to be regenerated; Finney believed any human could choose Christ at any moment.106 Finney's eventual underscoring of post-conversion holiness was based both on Wesley and Edwards. Edward's reflections on revival in the Great Awakening had led him to place more emphasis on the ongoing effect of salvation in the human heart and on human behavior. As has been mentioned, Wesley took Christian holiness one step farther and taught possible perfection. Finney himself seemed to waver on this doctrine. Finney disagreed with Wesley's teaching that "the privileges of Christians are in no wise to be measured by what the Old Testament records." He also criticized Wesleyan doctrine for its over-emphasis on purification of inner corruption and for relating almost altogether to states of emotion rather than to moral responsibility.107 Ministry Comparisons Organizationally, Wesley was the most gifted of the four. He built Methodism into a massive denomination with a strong core of leaders. Whitefield had advance teams and a huge following but did not seek to mobilize them into a movement. He had some administrative ability, but, sadly, the orphanage and the school for blacks Whitefield founded in America both eventually faded out of existence. Edwards was much more of a pastor and theologian than a great administrator. He was eventually forced out of his pastorate in Massachusetts, and did not exhibit particular organizational skills during his years as a missionary. With time, Finney improved administratively as reflected in his publicity, convert follow-up, successful pastorates between 1832-1872, and the eventual call to the presidency of Oberlin College. How did the preachers think of one another in the pulpit? Wesley and Edwards both considered Whitefield a dynamic and gifted speaker, but apparently they believed he erred in small ways in his preaching. In 1750 Wesley wrote mildly that "even the

little inproprieties both of his language and manner were a means of profiting many who would not have been touched by a more correct discourse or a more calm and regular manner of speaking."108 And Jonathan Edward's wife wrote of Whitefield, "Mr. Edwards and some others think him in error on a few practical points; but his influence on the whole is so good we ought to bear with little mistakes."109 Whitefield and Wesley apparently never witnessed Edwards in the pulpit. There is little evidence of what Whitefield thought of Wesley's abilities, except that he begged Wesley to come assist him in preaching when the outdoor crowds in England became too great a load. Finney considered the late Whitefield a master preacher and fancied himself as an aspiring successor.110 Each of the four evangelists in this chapter recognized that emotions played a definite role in ministry. Under Wesley's preaching, people at times went into fits, writhing about on the ground. Wesley thought these were supernatural signs of his effectiveness. Whitefield's preaching style was far more dynamic, and according to Pollock he "measured his own success by the number of outcries and groans from the audience."111 However there is also confusing evidence that Whitefield discouraged hysteria. To Wesley, he wrote: "I cannot think it right of you, honored Sir, to give so much encouragement to those convulsions which people have been thrown into under your ministry."112 In spite of the wild emotion displayed by the audience in Enfield when Edwards preached his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" sermon, these outbursts were apparently a rarity. "It was Edwards more than any other, who took a critical view of the physical and emotional phenomena, being inclined to interpret them as occasioned by the weakness of man rather than the...power of God."113 Finney believed all preaching should be doctrinal as well as practical. He also stated that if preaching was "loose, indefinite, and highly impassioned" there was a danger of the audience "being swept away by a tempest of feeling where there is not sufficient knowledge."114 On the other hand, it was also Finney who wrote that "God has found it necessary to take advantage of the excitability there is in mankind...before he can lead them to obey. And it must be sufficient excitement to wake up the dormant moral powers and roll back the tide of degradation and sin."115 When it came to generating crowds, it does not appear that either Edwards or Wesley developed an organized array of mass publicity techniques, though publicity by word of mouth was a great boon to both ministries. Whitefield was one of the first great innovators in this area, and Finney later emulated and furthered this public relations mindset. Whitefield developed the idea of sending advance teams with Seward, his assistant, to cities where he would soon preach. The teams would spread the word by alerting pastors, merchants, town leaders, and citizen groups of the evangelist's arrival through the written and spoken word. Initially, Whitefield advocated publicity through secular publications, but as people reacted with antirevivalist articles, he tried to confine his publicity to Christian periodicals and a vast letter-writing network.116 Decades later, Finney followed the lead in advocating the promotion of revival meetings by use of any method that seemed practical. He depended on traveling supporters as publicists, he challenged church groups to pray in advance, and he recruited laypeople to spread the word to neighbors.117 Whether it is merely semantics or not, Lambert states a clear difference between

Whitefield and Finney in regard to promotion. He believes that in the First Awakening, Calvinist, George Whitefield, viewed himself as a passive instrument who proclaimed what God was doing, leaving room for human agency. Articles, letters, debates, and outdoor sermons constituted vehicles by which God could mediate his grace to the elect. In the Second Awakening, Lambert continues, men and women became the main actors, themselves shaping the revivals through publicity and persuasion.118 With Finney, supporters believed that the converted would be in direct proportion to the number contacted. To some, a crucial legacy of Whitefield is the idea that Christians can bend the same powerful market forces we criticize to accomplish righteous purposes. Thus, Finney, as well as the later Moody, Sunday, and Graham built on the model of preparing areas in advance for evangelistic meetings. Obviously, all four of the preachers we are considering were used of God to bring thousands to a saving faith. Edwards was hesitant to speak of the number of conversions under his ministry, claiming it was not the lack of numbers that hindered the advance of the church, but the lack of holiness.119 Wesley was aware of numbers but did not appear to gloat over them. Most likely he welcomed true converts as those he could nurture into leaders of his increasingly massive organization. It has been alleged that Whitefield exaggerated the number of attendees at his meetings. One writer claims that Whitefield and Seward fabricated crowd estimates by double or triple to demonstrate the revival as a second reformation. It is true that when Whitefield revised his Journals in 1756, he changed estimates of fifty to sixty thousand to "so many thousand that many went away because they could not hear."120 However, realizing how many "stony-ground hearers" there were, Whitefield never claimed to know even roughly how many people were converted in his meetings. He would simply say, "I shall wait until we see how the 'physic' works."121 Finney wrote excitedly of revivals he led, such as one in Rochester, New York in the 1830s: The greatness of the work at Rochester attracted so much attention...that the very fame of it was an efficient instrument in the hands of the Spirit of God... That was the greatest work of God, and the greatest revival of religion, that the world has ever seen in so short a time. One hundred thousand were reported as having connected themselves with churches...122 Though he wildly exaggerates the historical significance of this revival, at least he attributes the effects to the Spirit of God and seems to be concerned that converts actually joined churches where they, hopefully, could grow spiritually. As to ministry opposition, while Jonathan Edwards did experience verbal attacks, each of the other preachers experienced both verbal opposition and varying levels of physical persecution. Charles Wesley wrote briefly about a riot in 1743 during which his brother was attacked: "My brother's...clothes were torn to tatters... Followers kept near him all the time, striving to intercept the blows...one blow was so violent as to make his nose and mouth gush out with blood."123 There were times when Whitefield was pelted with stones, rotten eggs, pieces of dead cat, and rotting offal.124 In another case, a naval officer, posing as a religious seeker entered Whitefield's room and began beating him brutally with a gold-headed cane. Soon a second attacker appeared. Whitefield began screaming "murder" in his

powerful voice and several came to his rescue. However, it was six weeks before he was recovered well enough to travel.125 Finney often endured threats of tar and feathering, and one enraged husband of a converted wife went to a revival service with a loaded pistol. Part way through the service the man came under such conviction that he fell from his seat, crying that he was sinking down to hell. The following day the man found forgiveness and new life in Christ.126 Ola Winslow believes that the most controversial, sometimes disruptive, result of revivals was the abuse of lay ministry. Both Whitefield and Wesley encouraged lay preachers or lay "exhorters" to go out preaching and testifying. More organized than Whitefield, Wesley set up qualifications and sought to assign specific duties to lay preachers. However, when churches were slow to incorporate the lay ministries, even some of Wesley's appointed took matters into their own hands. In certain cases, uninvited and unannounced, they would enter churches during services and begin to preach or testify. If denounced, they would only raise their voices higher.127 Some whose zeal was greater than their knowledge, seemed to feel that the greater the clamor they stirred up, the more the Spirit of God was at work. In one extreme case, a man cried out "Come to Christ" non-stop for half an hour and in another case, an elderly woman denounced lawyers for an equal period.128 Thus, a ministry that could have been extremely effective as properly channeled became largely opposed by many American ministers. Of course, it is at least as important how servants of God end their ministries as it is how they begin. Each of these four evangelists finished the race well and remained faithful to the end. Edwards died prematurely in 1758 from a defective smallpox vaccination directly after he accepted the presidency of Princeton. In 1765, Wesley breakfasted with Whitefield and reported that he "seemed to be an old, old man, being fairly worn out in his Master's service..." Five years later, when the ailing Whitefield died, Wesley was asked to preach his funeral sermon. "In every place," Wesley wrote, "I wish to show all possible respect to the memory of that great and good man."129 Wesley was to live and serve for about twenty-five more years. He died in early 1791, and Charles Finney was born the following year. Finney eventually ministered for over fifty years and passed away in 1875.130
Implications for Today's Christian Leaders There are strong feelings among some leaders in our day either for or against the particular revivalists in this chapter. Some will object that the writer was too positive about one character or too negative about another. There are many whole books written about each of these men and none of them are exhaustive. So it is hoped that readers will be able to appreciate this brief focused comparison of these preachers and gain insight in the areas the chapter seeks to emphasize. 1) These men concentrated their careers upon the one thing they did best--preaching the gospel It appears obvious that the prime factor motivating these revivalists to preach was the deepest, most intense conviction that people needed to hear the gospel message in order to be converted. It also appears that this inner burden was so strong that, following their sense of calling, they never considered doing anything else. William Gladstone said, He is a wise man who wastes no energy on pursuits for which he is not fitted, and he is still wiser who, from among the things he can do well, chooses and resolutely follows the best. Why were these used instead of others? They were not necessarily the holiest men

available. Surely there were many righteous men of God living at that time, and this chapter alone has demonstrated these four as definitely imperfect. A. God didn't set family background as a criterion. Edwards and Wesley came from godly homes, but Whitefield's father was a bartender and Finney, the agnostic lawyer, led his own pagan parents to salvation shortly after his own conversion. B.God did not select on the basis of dynamic personality or on speaking skills. Two of the four evangelists were reserved and quiet by nature and they usually read their sermons verbatim, did not use gestures, and did not have overpowering voices. Yet God used their preaching as effectively as the other two. Preaching style and delivery skills matter, but the most important consideration is that one's style never detracts or distracts from the message of the Word of God. In his book The 12 Essential Skills for Great Preaching, McDill states, Great delivery without effective content is often only sound and fury, signifying nothing. On the other hand, striking content is of real interest to the hearer, even if the delivery is weak.131 This is not to say that delivery is unimportant, only that it is not the most important factor. C. Identical theology wasn't the basis of God's choice. The four differed quite widely on a number of different beliefs. However, there is evidence that each believed all human beings are sinners and that the individual can only be forgiven and saved through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. They did not weaken or water down this core message. Though some may disagree, it seems that all four believed in the most essential doctrines by which we call ourselves Christians. D. It is evident that these men weren't chosen because of their promotional aptitude or their advertising methods. Finney and Whitefield used a detailed promotional strategy to attract crowds in each town; but Wesley and Edwards are not known for this. Yet all four were effective in reaching many people. We may just as well ask why God used a man such as Moses. Why was a stuttering, reluctant eighty-year-old shepherd in an obscure wilderness chosen to lead over a million of his people out of Egyptian slavery and to direct them Godward? All we know is that Moses saw the face of God and heard his call and, from that day on, became utterly committed to trust Him, do whatever He said, and go wherever He instructed. Richard Baxter also knew what it was like to look into the face of God. He wrote, The preacher that speaks as if he saw the face of God affects my heart more, though with common words, than the one with the most exquisite preparations.132 For this reason, Phil Banister states that the preachers number one gift to his congregation is his own spiritual life.133 The fact is, we can preach on worship without doing it. We can preach on heaven and not long for it. We can preach on hell and not be in terror. We can preach on the love of God and not know what it is to experience it. Nothing can be more devastating to a pastor than doing without being.134 And one quality these revivalists can never be accused of is religious pretense. Yes, they were sinners in a tainted world, but when they preached they were oozing the transparent reality of their own divine relationship, borne of countless hours spent prostrate in the presence of a God they both feared and loved. 2) Were Finney and Whitefield wrong for depending on "secular" means of publicity to draw crowds? There are several angles from which to judge the issue. It is certainly not wrong to invite people en masse to hear the gospel of Christ. Obviously, we're challenged many times in Scripture to spread the word of salvation. And it doesn't seem as if the two were depending on human means instead of the Holy Spirit to draw crowds. A few of Finney's statements would appear to negate that, but in practice he always sought out godly individuals in each town to pray earnestly for revival, he constantly encouraged Christians to pray for their neighbors' salvation, and when revival came he attributed it to the moving of God. The way we use promotional strategies seems at least as important as whether we use them at all. Does the promotion demean the gospel or God's reputation? Does it glorify

ourselves instead of Christ? Does it use carnal means to lure the public? Does it misrepresent what will really happen at a gospel event? Some of the promotional ploys used by professing Christians today should probably embarrass us. It seems to cheapen the gospel when prizes are offered to those who will attend. It also seems wrong when people are lured only by the presence of a celebrity or some sort of an entertaining performance as part of an evangelistic service. It's fine for a Christian magician or comedian to share their testimony as they perform their vocation, but is it right to say only "Come hear a great comedian," when we're really inviting the public to a preaching of the gospel? Some promotions praise the musicians or the speaker to the heavens--a band has won so many awards, a healer has done phenomenal miracles, or a speaker is a hilarious comic.... We must be careful in the way we publicize; God will hold us responsible even for this. 3) It should be acknowledged that it is extremely difficult to properly represent the doctrinal beliefs of Christian leaders in a way that is acceptable to all. Even in this chapter, seemingly contradictory quotes were presented by the same preacher, or a practice of a preacher seemed to negate his stated convictions. Biblical beliefs sometimes evolve throughout a leader's ministry, or a leader overemphasizes a conviction to prove a point. For example, John Fletcher, Wesley's designated successor, admitted that, at times, Wesley, "unhappily wounded the truth in attempting to give a wolf in sheep's clothing a killing strike."135 In spite of possible misunderstanding by this writer, disagreement in doctrine and practice was undeniable between the preachers represented in this chapter. It is certainly not wrong for leaders to disagree in particular areas, including biblical doctrine. However, there were situations in which those we reviewed let their own pride, stubbornness, and anger get the best of them; and it wreaked damage, not only in their lives but in the lives of many of their converts. When it comes to doctrine, leaders should keep personal disagreements private, and should never allow disagreement to evolve into rude anger, rivalry, or slander. There are cases in which Christians must agree to disagree. Some doctrines are indispensable for true Christian belief, but we can have sweet fellowship with believers who don't interpret peripheral points of doctrine in exactly the same way we do. 4) The personal lives of pastors and Christian leaders are at least as important as their public lives. Whitefield didn't marry for love, and, though he was always civil, it is documented that he spent little time with his wife and nurtured little intimacy. Edward's wife and children were godly, but there is evidence that he may have spent so much time in solitary study that he left many home and childrearing duties to his wife. Wesley's married life was a disaster. He and his wife had no children. In fact, as time passed, Wesley's wife became increasingly jealous of his female acquaintances. She was once observed hysterically tearing at her husband's hair in a jealous rage. She finally deserted him in 1771. In 1781, she died, and Wesley wasn't even informed until several days later.136 Finney had all eight of his children by his first wife and apparently genuinely enjoyed being a husband and father. Through the decades, he lost two wives and was still married to the third at his death.137 His family life was positive, but his almost constant travel had to make it difficult at times. Certainly there is no dearth of information today about the importance, for all married Christians, including leaders, of giving their spouses and children a high priority. In view of this, Whitefield was wrong when he declared, "I hope God will never suffer me to say, 'I have married a wife, therefore I cannot come [to preach].' "138 Even those believers called to a traveling ministry must work out a way to spend needed time helping at home and nurturing close relationships with spouse and children. 5) Christian leaders should also make time for periodic rest and refreshment. Whitefield and Finney both experienced severe health problems because they drove themselves too hard. Finneys health was such that he had to quit the revival circuit at age forty. Though Whitefield

kept preaching, he was a physical wreck at age forty-five and, as was mentioned, when Wesley visited Whitefield when he was about fifty, Wesley marveled that he appeared so weak and aged. He died relatively young. 139 The ministry longevity of many Christian leaders can be attributed partly to the numerous things they do not do. Hybels states that those leaders are some of the wisest he knows because they know the key to leadership survival is staying focused and being able to say no.140 Hybels lists three life changes he made that, hes thoroughly convinced, combined to save his ministry. After his first frenetic seven years at Willow Creek Community Church he was almost at a point of physical collapse. He finally asked for several weeks off to be alone with his family. Hesitatingly the elders granted the leave. Those three weeks revitalized him like nothing else could. Years later, Hybels was again so drained emotionally and spiritually that he went to a professional Christian counselor. After several sessions, the counselor asked what Hybels did for relaxation. When he said he did nothing, the counselor was shocked. He said Hybels desperately needed a diversion, some sort of tension reliever. He took up sailing with his wife and, again, it enabled him to rejuvenate. In the early nineties, after several decades in the pastorate, Hybels was still preaching at four weekend services and teaching at two midweek services. Besides that, he was speaking at holiday services, staff meetings, leadership retreats, and church leadership conferences. He began to feel like a wind-up speaking machine cranking out non-stop gibberish. He still had the same vision and enormous passion for the local church; he just needed some help. Then he had a brainstorm. Why not train a team of individuals with the spiritual gift of teaching to take some of his speaking opportunities? At first, the elders wouldnt hear of it---after all, people came to services, retreats, and conferences to hear Bill Hybels. But as well-trained teachers began to evolve into dynamic, Spirit-controlled speakers, people came to hear them as readily as they came to hear Hybels.141 How many more years could Whitefield and Finney have preached revivals if they had taken time to relax and restore their health and had perhaps trained several others to take some of their preaching engagements? 6) The importance of strong follow-up of new converts was something that several of the four learned with time. Whitefield was probably the weakest in this area. Preaching without a strong denominational bias, he often did not have specific church support in assimilation of new converts and he "developed no follow-up machinery."142 After some years of ministry, Finney realized he had largely neglected follow-up, and he began seeking to plug new converts into local churches. Wesley's vast network made it possible for him, not only to provide follow-up but even to train converts to be leaders. Indeed, Wesley stated his determination not to strike one stroke in any place where I cannot follow the blow. Much of Edward's preaching was in his home church and in other churches in New England, so spiritual nurture was readily available. Evangelism in our day reflects a wide variance in regard to the existence, quality, and length of time devoted to convert nurture and training. Of course, there is always space for improvement. 7) Lay testifying and preaching became a great topic of controversy, especially during the First Great Awakening. Most pastors apparently turned against it, partly because of its abuse. Especially in some denominations in our day, there seems to be a much greater openness to lay ministries. There is definite potential in the training of laypeople to initiate ministries of various types. The Lay Renewal movement of a few decades past proved to be quite effective, at least in some regions of the country. Some churches saw renewed commitment on the part of many church members as a result of meetings and retreats led by laypeople from other local bodies. As long as they are adequately informed, most pastors no longer seem overly threatened by laypeople who initiate ministries in the church or outside the church in prisons, rest homes, etc. If lay preachers began requesting pulpit time, it may well elicit a different pastoral reaction.

However, at the author's home church, laymen who enjoy preaching gather each Saturday morning and take turns preaching to fellow believers. The pastor has occasionally given one of them opportunity to preach in his absence. Of course, it should never be forgotten that the primary commission of the pastor is not to do all the teaching and Christian service himself, but to equip members of the body to do it. Footnotes
1 Murray, Iain, H., Revival and Revivalism, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1994, pp. 385-386. 2 Austin, Bill, Austin's Topical History of Christianity, Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1983, p. 334. 3 Dallimore, A., George Whitefield: God's Anointed Servant, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1990, p. 33. 4 Austin, Bill, Austin's Topical History of Christianity, p. 336. 5 A. Skevington Wood, cited in Woodbridge, John (ed) Great Leaders of the Christian Church, Chicago: Moody Press, p. 291. 6 Tuttle, R., John Wesley: His Life and Theology, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978, p. 77. 7 Heitzenrater, Richard, The Elusive Mr. Wesley, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984, p. 84. 8 Tuttle, R., John Wesley: His Life and Theology, p. 11. 9 Heitzenrater, Richard, The Elusive Mr. Wesley, p. 89. 10 Ibid, p. 87. 11 Dallimore, A., George Whitefield: God's Anointed Servant, p. 63. 12 Heitzenrater, Richard, The Elusive Mr. Wesley, pp. 98-99. 13 Murray, Iain, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography, Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987, pp. 257-258. 14 Ibid, p. 257. 15 Hambrick-Stowe, Charles, Charles Finney and the Spirit of American Evangelicalism, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996, p. 184. 16 Tuttle, R., John Wesley: His Life and Theology, p. 299. 17 Ibid, p. 300. 18 Dallimore, A., George Whitefield: God's Anointed Servant, p. 168. 19 Tuttle, R., John Wesley: His Life and Theology, p. 293. 20 Lambert, F., Pedlar in Divinity, Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1994, p. 11. 21 Dallimore, A., George Whitefield: God's Anointed Servant, p. 199. 22 Pollock, J., George Whitefield and the Great Awakening, Sydney, Australia: Lion Publishing, 1972, p. 50. 23 Dallimore, A., George Whitefield: God's Anointed Servant, p. 41. 24 Ibid, p. 96. 25 Stout, Harry, The Divine Dramatist, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991, p. 168. 26 Ibid, p. 168. 27 Dallimore, A., George Whitefield: God's Anointed Servant, p. 198. 28 Arnold Dallimore, cited in Woodbridge, John, Great Leaders of the Christian Church, Chicago: Moody Press, 1988, 300. 29 Hambrick-Stowe, Charles, Charles Finney and the Spirit of American Evangelicalism, p. 243. 30 Stout, Harry, The Divine Dramatist, p. 95. 31 Dallimore, A., George Whitefield: God's Anointed Servant, p. 199. 32 Stout, Harry, The Divine Dramatist, p. p. 94. 33 Ibid, p. 94. 34 Pollock, J., George Whitefield and the Great Awakening, p. 154. 35 Lambert, F., Pedlar in Divinity, p. 65. 36 Franklin, Benjamin, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, New York: Buccaneer Books, 1984, p. 131 37 .Stout, Harry, The Divine Dramatist, p. 203. 38 Ibid, The Divine Dramatist, p. 132. 39 Dallimore, A., George Whitefield: God's Anointed Servant, p. 88. 40 Turnbull, R., Jonathan Edwards, The Preacher, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958, pp. 15-16. 41 Stout, Harry, The Divine Dramatist, p. 168. 42 Dodds, Elizabeth, Marriage to a Difficult Man, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971, p. 8. 43 Ibid, p. 66. 44 Turnbull, R., Jonathan Edwards, The Preacher, p. 143. 45 Pollock, J., George Whitefield and the Great Awakening, p. 158. 46 Dodds, Elizabeth, Marriage to a Difficult Man, p. 71. 47 Winslow, Ola, Jonathan Edwards: 1703-1758, New York: Collier, 1940, p. 179. 48 Turnbull, R., Jonathan Edwards, The Preacher, p. 101. 49 Dodds, Elizabeth, Marriage to a Difficult Man, p. 71. 50 Turnbull, R., Jonathan Edwards, The Preacher, p. 150.

51 Dodds, Elizabeth, Marriage to a Difficult Man, p. 140-141. 52 Turnbull, R., Jonathan Edwards, The Preacher, p. 28. 53 Ibid, p. 29. 54 Murray, Iain, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography, p. 469. 55 Ibid, p. 471. 56 Hambrick-Stowe, Charles, Charles Finney and the Spirit of American Evangelicalism, p. 19. 57 Ibid, p. 12. 58 Ibid, p. 24. 59 Finney, Charles, An Autobiography, Westwood, N.J.: Revell, 1876, pp. 88, 90. 60 Ibid, p. 89. 61 Rosell, G. and R. Dupois (eds) The Memoirs of Charles Finney, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989, p. 262. 62 Finney, Charles, An Autobiography, p. 91. 63 Hambrick-Stowe, Charles, Charles Finney and the Spirit of American Evangelicalism, p. 40. 64 Ibid, p. 20. 65 Finney, Charles, An Autobiography, p. 256-258. 66 Rosell, G. and R. Dupois (eds) The Memoirs of Charles Finney, p. 351. 67 Edman, R., Finney Lives On, Minneapolis, MN: Bethany, 1951, pp. 96-97. 68 Boice, M. and B. Sasse, Here We Stand: A Call for Confessing Evangelicals, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996, p. 124. 69 Hambrick-Stowe, Charles, Charles Finney and the Spirit of American Evangelicalism, p. 184. 70 Boice, M. and B. Sasse, Here We Stand: A Call for Confessing Evangelicals, p. 119. 71 Hambrick-Stowe, Charles, Charles Finney and the Spirit of American Evangelicalism, pp. 43, 157. 72 Edman, R., Finney Lives On, pp. 88-89. 73 Hambrick-Stowe, Charles, Charles Finney and the Spirit of American Evangelicalism, p. 180-182. 74 Ibid, p. 21. 75 Ibid, p. 185. 76 Snyder, Howard, The Radical Wesley, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publications, 1996, p. 31. 77 Dodds, Elizabeth, Marriage to a Difficult Man, p. 87. 78 Stout, Harry, The Divine Dramatist, p. 126. 79 Tuttle, R., John Wesley: His Life and Theology, p. 214. 80 Arnold Dallimore, cited in Woodbridge, John, Great Leaders of the Christian Church, Chicago: Moody Press, p. 298. 81 Pollock, J., George Whitefield and the Great Awakening, p. 238. 82 Dallimore, Arnold., George Whitefield: God's Anointed Servant, p. 60. 83 Stout, Harry, The Divine Dramatist, p. 95. 84 Lambert, F., Pedlar in Divinity, p. 143-144. 85 Finney, Revivals of Religion, Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, n.d., pp. 2,4. 86 Ibid, p. 157. 87 Lambert, F., Pedlar in Divinity, p. 226. 88 Dallimore, A., George Whitefield: God's Anointed Servant, p. 62. 89 Idle, Christopher, (abridger) Journal of John Wesley, Sydney, Australia: Lion Publications, 1986, p. 173. 90 Dallimore, A., George Whitefield: God's Anointed Servant, p. 96. 91 Ibid, p. 94. 92 Ibid, p. 97. 93 Ibid, p. 64. 94 Ibid, p. 91. 95 Ibid, p. 62. 96 Ibid, p. 98. 97 Pollock, J., George Whitefield and the Great Awakening, p. 174-175. 98 Dallimore, A., George Whitefield: God's Anointed Servant, p. 99. 99 Ibid, p. 152. 100 Dallimore, A., George Whitefield: God's Anointed Servant, p. 154. 101 Hildebrandt, F., Christianity According to the Wesleys, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996, p. 61. 102 Murray, Iain, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography, p. 257. 103 Hambrick-Stowe, Charles, Charles Finney and the Spirit of American Evangelicalism, p. 247. 104 Turnbull, R., Jonathan Edwards, The Preacher, p. 143. 105 Ibid, p. 144. 106 Hambrick-Stowe, Charles, Charles Finney and the Spirit of American Evangelicalism, p. pp. 29-30. 107 Ibid, p. 182, 186. 108 Idle, Christopher, (abridger) Journal of John Wesley, p. 115. 109 Murray, Iain, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography, p. 152. 110 Hambrick-Stowe, Charles, Charles Finney and the Spirit of American Evangelicalism, p. 244. 111 Winslow, Ola, Jonathan Edwards: 1703-1758, p. 182. 112 Lambert, F., Pedlar in Divinity, p. 19.

113 Turnbull, R., Jonathan Edwards, The Preacher, p. 123. 114 Edman, R., Finney Lives On, p. 101. 115 Finney, Revivals of Religion, pp. 2,4. 116 Lambert, F., Pedlar in Divinity, p. 230-231. 117 Ibid, p. 226. 118 Ibid, p. 227. 119 Murray, Iain, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography, p. 471. 120 Lambert, F., Pedlar in Divinity, p. 63. 121 Philip, Robert, The Life and Times of George Whitefield, 1838, p. 398. 122 Edman, R., Finney Lives On, p. 69. 123 Heitzenrater, Richard, The Elusive Mr. Wesley, p. 72-73. 124 Pollock, J., George Whitefield and the Great Awakening, p. 196, 199. 125 Stout, Harry, The Divine Dramatist, p. 182. 126 Edman, R., Finney Lives On, p. 49. 127 Winslow, Ola, Jonathan Edwards: 1703-1758, p. 184. 128 Ibid, p. 185. 129 Idle, Christopher, (abridger) Journal of John Wesley, p. 189. 130 Walton, R.C., Chronological and Background Charts of Church History, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986, 59. 131 McDill, Wayne, The 12 Essential Skills for Great Preaching, Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994, p. 10. 132 Baxter, Richard, The Reformed Pastor, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974, p.119. 133 Phil Banister, cited in Great Preaching: Loveland, CO: Group Publications, 2003, p. 104. 134 Glenn Wagner, Ibid, p. 142) 135 Heitzenrater, Richard, The Elusive Mr. Wesley, p. 126. 136 Haddal, Ingvar, John Wesley, New York: Abingdon Press, 1961, pp. 146-147. 137 Arnold Dallimore, cited in Woodbridge, John, Great Leaders of the Christian Church, Chicago: Moody Press. 138 Stout, Harry, The Divine Dramatist, p. 170. 139 Idle, Christopher, (abridger) Journal of John Wesley, p. 172. 140 Hybels, Bill, Courageous Leadership, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002, pp. 234-235. 141 Ibid, pp. 239-244. 142 Lambert, F., Peddlar in Divinity, p. 63.

Chapter Six: A Debtor to Mercy Alone

He [David Martyn Lloyd-Jones] was a preacher. He believed in preaching which was unadorned, unstudied but alive, a union of truth and fire, and both humbling and uplifting to the sublime in its effects. With John Knox and his successors, he knew that the "tongue and lively voice" are the chief means to which God has promised His power in the recovery of lost mankind... Certainly for those who knew Martyn Lloyd-Jones as a pastor, when all has been said of what he was in other aspects of his life, the final memory will remain that of the slight yet commanding figure behind the pulpit, his face shining with light and his words summoning us to Christ and to heaven. 1 Iain Murray

From Medicine to Ministry He was on the threshold of a brilliant career. At least that's what people in the medical field were saying. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones had studied under some of the greatest doctors in Britain. Even as an intern, he had shown flashes of diagnostic perception that grabbed the attention of his instructors. At about this time, however, Lloyd-Jones became a Christian. By God's providence, it was a mixed culmination of life experiences that brought him to this point. Martyn's home as a child was a happy place, always full of visitors. The boy was fascinated with people, and he loved to listen to stories from the Bible or stories brimming from the imaginative minds of household guests. He came to enjoy books, and even as a child he demonstrated curious insight into Scripture. Once when someone asked why Jesus said, "Lazarus, come forth?" Martyn answered, "In case they all came forth!"2 Then everything changed on a night in 1910 when the Lloyd-Jones' house burned to the ground. Almost all their possessions were lost in the fire. The family was uprooted, and they moved to London where his father struggled hard to find work. But from that time on, Martyn's family was rarely free of financial problems, and this disturbed the boy significantly.3 World War I began and Martyn hated everything about it. As a young medical student he was spared fighting because of England's great need for doctors. He claimed he was eternally grateful for this because, in his words, he was almost totally devoid of physical courage.4 The death of hundreds of thousands of Britons in that war was depressing, and, at this time, Martyn also had to face the horror of seeing his own brother die of the influenza epidemic. Then several years later, in 1922, Martyn's father died.5 Apparently it was crises such as these that impressed on him the changeability and uncertainty of this life. As Martyn learned more about the Bible, he became convinced that there is such a thing as the sovereignty of God, and he realized that his service in church and his numerous hours of religious discussion and debate up until this time had basically been for his own benefit and his own ego alone.6 His Christian awakening was a gradual one---but in 1923 the conversion occurring in Martyn's soul would prompt him to say: I am a Christian solely and entirely because of the grace of God... He brought me to know that I was dead in trespasses and sins... and that I was under the wrath of God... He brought me to see that the real cause of all my troubles and ills...was an evil and fallen nature which hated God and loved sin... that I myself was wrong at the very centre of my being.7 In the hospital, Martyn continued to excel in his treatment of patients, but he was beginning to realize that though people be healed physically, their deepest needs may remain unfilled. He began seeing medicine as merely rendering people fit to go back to a godless existence.8 A pull more powerful than medicine had entered his life. The idea occurred to him of leaving his medical work and going into some type of ministry but he doubted the credibility of the idea. After all, he had devoted such time and money to medical training. For over a year he struggled with the decision, losing twenty pounds in the

process. Then one day as he left a theater in a posh district of London, Martyn saw a humble rag-tag Salvation Army band playing on a street corner and immediately he knew, "These are my people, these are the people I belong to."9 By June, 1926, the struggle was over. Lloyd-Jones knew he must leave medicine and preach. Also in June he became engaged to Bethan Phillips, a young woman who, as his wife, would support and encourage him throughout his future ministry. From the beginning, Lloyd-Jones reacted against those ministers for whom education had replaced genuine Christianity, and he disdained preachers who treated the Bible like a volume of Shakespeare--who could spout cold theological facts, loved wealth and power, and sang hymns only sentimentally.10 In regard to theological training, Lloyd-Jones decided not to follow his denomination's typical course of using seminary as a vault into the pulpit of some prestigious, well-to-do congregation. He saw a need for evangelistic work among the poorer, working-class people of Wales, and, with no formal training, he began searching in that direction immediately. There was a ministry called the Forward Movement which originally had been founded as an evangelistic arm of the church in Wales. R.J. Rees, the superintendent, was surprised when a doctor with four academic degrees approached him, interested in serving. Usually it was men who had failed to find pastorates who came begging. But when Lloyd-Jones insisted he was interested, Rees mentioned a pulpit vacancy in a town called Aberavon, in the Sandfields area. Sandfields was basically a slum district where approximately 5,000 blue collar workers ground out an existence every day. When Lloyd-Jones preached there he had to know that if he stayed, his salary would be very low. Sandfields was a wasted, desolate place---a dead end for a pastor. However, after the first meeting, he was so certain this was God's place for him that he asked the church if they would bring him on. The people agreed and began preparing the parsonage.11 When word got out that a promising young London doctor was forsaking medicine for a small pastorate in a poverty-stricken district, reporters smelled a good story and began hounding him. Private and reserved by nature, Lloyd-Jones disliked the publicity and used every means to avoid it. Lloyd-Jones' 1927 baptism into the ministry was sudden. However, God did not choose to take Sandfields by storm. In fact, it was six months before the first conversion took place. And it was eighteen months before there were enough attendees to require that the church balcony be opened.12 Having not attended seminary, the new pastor had no instruction or experience in leading a church. A fellow pastor in the area familiarized him with many details of church order. But Lloyd-Jones immediately cut out many standing church programs at Sandfields. The only church activities became the two services on Sundays, a prayer meeting on Monday evenings, a mid-week Bible discussion group on Wednesday evenings, and an occasional Brotherhood meeting.13 On Sunday mornings, Lloyd-Jones preached for Christian growth, and Sunday evenings were evangelistic. This new young minister stuck tenaciously to the Bible.14 He preached a biblical commitment that pictured Christians as radically different from outsiders, but he wouldnt be pushed into the typical methods churches were using to legislate morality. For example, he refused the custom of making new church members sign an alcoholic abstinence pledge. Instead, he half-jokingly said he wished members could sign a political abstinence pledge, since politics was so often preached instead of Scripture.15 Seriously, it was his conviction that if individuals were truly converted, they could be trusted to live soberly and justly without all sorts of pledges.16 The Monday evening prayer times were consumed with prayer, not music, devotionals, or endless request-sharing. At these meetings, Lloyd-Jones did not pray at all except for a brief prayer closing the evening.17

Early on, Lloyd-Jones urged a daily Bible-reading plan upon the people, eventually adopting McCheyne's plan. Wednesday evenings became an open participation forum in which church members posed a question each week regarding Christian living, and the pastor led in a biblical discussion.18 With time, attenders relaxed with their pastor and questions, debates, and explanations flew back and forth, stimulating minds that had long been dormant. The discussions were hard-hitting and intense, but also practical and down-to-earth. The chief goal was to help the people themselves begin to think through relevant biblical principles and applications of Scripture to life issues.19 Lloyd-Jones had said that one of his goals was that no church member would be totally dependent for spiritual growth on what he said from the pulpit.20 As weeks became months, Sandfield church members began sprouting spiritual roots and learning for themselves what authentic Christianity was about. Concerned for his own holiness and that of fellow ministers, in 1930, Lloyd-Jones initiated a small band of like-minded church leaders in an accountability group somewhat reminiscent of the Wesley's Holy Club of the 1700s or Wilberforce's Clapham group of the 1800s. They pledged to one another the practice of regular personal devotions, a moral lifestyle, and an emphasis among their congregations on decision, conversion, full assurance, and sanctification by the Holy Spirit. The group never received any public recognition, but it provided strength and encouragement that some of the leaders urgently needed.21 By 1931, the Sandfield church attendance had swelled remarkably. Monday night prayer meetings were pushing the two-hour allotted time because so many were coming to pray and give thanks. Sundays and Wednesdays became meetings people didn't want to miss. Shopkeepers would arrive straight from work without dinner. Night-shift workers came in their work clothes so they could stay at church until the last minute. There was no organized personal evangelism training or visiting. People going about their daily duties of school, shopping, work, etc., simply told others what was going on up at the church, and it made people want this for themselves.22 One Sunday evening a spiritist saw the crowds passing her home on their way to the church. She decided to go see what it was like. Immediately upon entering the church, she felt a supernatural power among the congregation. Later, she reported that it was a similar power as she was accustomed to at spiritist meetings except that it was a clean power.23 If Calvin ruled with an iron rod at Geneva, Lloyd Jones ruled at least with a wooden one. He rebuked offenders "so that others would see the offender in a hateful light." Yet, at other times, he was tender as a father to a child.24 Frequently after evening meetings or services he would stay behind to meet with church members in his study until very late. Lloyd-Jones ministry was multi-faceted. Besides preaching and teaching, he helped and advised members regarding everything from family conflicts to financial problems. Many also came to him regarding physical illnesses doctors couldn't pinpoint---thus, some members began affectionately calling him simply The Doctor. Though he wasn't always correct, his diagnoses were uncannily accurate. In one case, a girl was suspended from a nursing school for having boys in her dorm room. Afraid of admitting this to her parents, she returned home claiming sickness. The doctors were baffled because the girl claimed a high temperature at night but she showed normal temperature during the day. Lloyd-Jones examined her, found no identifiable symptoms and noticed that she seemed alert and was even wearing make-up carefully applied. He sent everyone out of the room and politely asked her why she'd really left nursing school. Finally she admitted the truth, and Lloyd-Jones agreed not to expose her if she would begin to show signs of "recovery" and would resume a normal lifestyle.25 Thus, behind the normal sternness, there was a sense of mercy in the man. The Doctor also took a strong interest in depression and other mental/emotional problems. Unlike some Christians of his day, he did admit the value and need for psychiatric

help or medication in some instances. But, at the same time, he believed that many cases tagged as emotional dysfunctions actually reflected spiritual problems that required spiritual remedies.26 Out of his sermons on this subject there eventually came a book entitled Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Cure. The spiritual awakening at Sandfields peaked by 1931, but spiritual interest within the church remained vibrant.27 Throughout Lloyd-Jone's years there, he also accepted many speaking engagements throughout Wales in both small churches and large. His reputation as a powerful preacher of Scripture began to spread. In one case people stood in the rain for two hours in hopes of hearing him, and in another case a crowd asked permission to break a window so they could hear, promising to pay for the damage.28 In 1938, Lloyd-Jones accepted an invitation to preach at a pastorless Presbyterian church in London. When this church issued a call, he initially viewed this as God's guidance and announced his resignation at Sandfields. Shortly thereafter six leaders in his denomination met with him, asking if he would consider a position training men for ministry at a college in Bala. Simultaneously, the great preacher, Campbell Morgan, of Westminster Chapel wrote LloydJones from London, urging him to postpone a final decision for a bit. Soon Morgan wrote again, this time asking clearly if the preacher would consider serving with him as interim pastor at Westminster Chapel. In the end, Lloyd-Jones chose the Westminster opportunity.29 The Second World War began on the day before Lloyd-Jones was formally inducted as co-pastor of Westminster Chapel.30 As we shall see, the war was to have grave affects on the Westminster congregation, and, early on, Lloyd-Jones presented a series entitled Why Does God Allow War? Out of this series came his first book of the same title. In a word, he claimed that war shows the utter failure of human systems to deal with the problems of mankind. And war constitutes divine judgment upon the very lives which humans pursue and is permitted in order that people would clearly see what sin is and thus be led back to God.31, 32 In July, 1943, Dr. Campbell Morgan, the co-pastor who had invited Lloyd-Jones to Westminster, resigned. The transition to Lloyd-Jones as sole minister was not entirely smooth. Some members preferred Morgan both as a pastor and as a person. Apparently even the deacon board was not completely reassuring about whether Lloyd-Jones should remain as pastor, but, in the end, he was confirmed.33 As the World War escalated, Londoners had to endure countless German bombing raids, and the Westminster attendance lagged. In 1944, the Germans launched the V-1s, their first pilotless bombs. Eight thousand struck London within only three months. One Sunday morning the congregation heard the familiar rumbling of a V-1 approaching. Lloyd-Jones was praying at the time and did not stop until the noise became too great. The bomb's engine cut out almost directly above the church. When it exploded the chapel structure cracked and bits of plaster fell from the ceiling. The bomb had fallen only one hundred yards away, injuring 300. After the explosion, the doctor calmly finished his prayer and the service continued. However, only the next month, the Chapel was bombed to the extent that the church had to move to another location.34 Soon after coming to Westminster, Lloyd-Jones began a weekly prayer meeting and a weekly Bible discussion, just as he had instituted at Sandfields. After Morgan retired and a certain amount of post-war normality returned, church members realized that almost none of the former church activities were ever resumed. There was no youth ministry, no Boys Brigade/Girl Crusaders, no sports opportunities, no church choir or Women's League...the Doctor obviously had his own ideas about what church activities were appropriate or needed.35 Lloyd-Jones felt that the church was not of one mind, and he believed that cutting past programs and instituting his own would encourage more unity. In addition to his weekly meetings, he scheduled a once-per-year meeting in which members could meet him and his wife casually in their home. He also sent out an annual letter in which he spoke personally of the

work at the Chapel.36 Unlike some pastors, the Doctor did nothing to uproot church officers who had little sympathy for his ministry or methods. He preferred to try winning them over in the process of time.37 Of course, he had to know this was risky policy. In fact, he even joked at one church gathering, "I always remember that if [Jonathan] Edwards could be ejected by his congregation, anyone can."38 By the end of the war, Lloyd-Jones was forty-five years old and had seen Westminster Chapel through seven of its most difficult years.39 One of the most remarkable things about his ongoing ministry in London is that his reputation was becoming international. In the congregation at Westminster, people passed through on their way to many different countries. Those who were impressed with the Doctor's preaching spread the word, and this was eventually to result in many speaking opportunities for him around the world.40 During this period, Lloyd-Jones became involved in a number of Christian organizations besides Westminster. He served as president of Inter-Varsity Fellowship, worked with students, and also helped to guide London Bible College and the Evangelical Library.41 It is uncertain how he managed all this. Hed been so exhausted after leaving the relatively small Sandfields church that hed had to take several months off. During the 1950s Lloyd-Jones' reputation continued to spread and, to his heavy responsibilities, he added periodic speaking engagements in the United States and other places. The '60s blew in with a rush and heart-wrenching controversy followed. Ecumenism was on the rise and there were calls for self-proclaimed Christians of every persuasion to join together in a show of unity and brotherhood. Lloyd-Jones was torn as he faced the battle between his desire to foster unity and his conviction against watering down biblical essentials of the faith. He characterized several tumultuous months in 1965 as the most unhappy in his entire ministry.42 These conflicts will be explored in greater detail later in the chapter. Meanwhile, the Doctor was growing older and he was not able to carry his former load. Through the years, he had gradually backed off from some of his many involvements, but his schedule was still grueling. Then, in 1968, colon cancer struck hard and shortly thereafter Lloyd-Jones resigned as pastor of Westminster.43 He ended his 30-year ministry at Westminster quietly--wishing no effusive farewells, no flowery speeches, no presentations.44 When the Doctor recovered from the surgery, it was his intention to accept more speaking engagements around the world---some opportunities of which he had been forced to decline in past years. Also he said he wished to give in to public pressure and seek to publish his messages in books which would be coherent and helpful to others.45 From the last Sunday Lloyd-Jones preached at Westminster he was to live exactly thirteen more years.46 True to his projections, Lloyd-Jones traveled many thousands of miles during the final phase of his ministry, speaking in churches, conferences, Christian colleges and seminaries... Occasionally he was able to hear others preach, and it is a testimony to his humility that he loved it.47 Especially during this period, when his stamina declined, Bethan, his wife, was of indispensable assistance. He could not have been what he was were it not for her..."48 What was Lloyd-Jones legacy? His most obvious legacy was the many new Christians and solidly mature Christians who benefited from his preaching. However he also accomplished many things he never expected to. He had not intended to preach throughout the world, or to teach students, or to publish books, or to mentor young ministers, yet he did all of these.49 The ever-popular books, a godly family, and thousands of changed lives remained for him an eternal legacy. J.I Packer wrote that it was not given to many to change the course of things in the Christian world to the extent that Lloyd-Jones changed it.50 However, he did not do this by producing great new truth or ideas. He put new clothes on old truths at a time when many of the old truths had fallen into utter disregard and were remembered only by handfuls of

people.51 Yet in all that the preacher accomplished, he always acknowledged it was solely by the grace of God. Speaking to Iain Murray shortly before his death, Lloyd-Jones said, "I am more aware of the goodness of God than ever before and that I am a debtor to mercy alone."52 Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Person As a scientist-become-preacher, Martyn Lloyd-Jones was part of a rare breed.53 As a preacher, he continued to think as a scientist. Spiritually, he first presented God's diagnosis of his listeners. Then he sought to apply the Scriptures to the true cause of their problems rather than the outward symptoms. He had the gift of bypassing all the smoke screens and side issues so as to focus in on the core issue that would produce Scriptural change in human lives.54 Like William Wilberforce, Lloyd-Jones was a small man, and for this reason he reminded some of the politician in his power as a speaker.55 Unlike Wilberforce, though, he was not outspoken or flamboyant. He was soft-spoken, and he dressed plainly, in dark greys, with ties to match and a stiff collar. Immediately after he preached, he always donned his trademark heavy dark overcoat and mackintosh which he wore both in cool weather and in air conditioned buildings.56 Lloyd-Jones health was surprisingly good throughout most of his ministry, though he did little to encourage this. For many years he was a smoker, though most likely he didn't know it was debilitating. Besides a rare game of golf, the Doctor had little interest in exercise.57 By 1942, he was to actually conclude that he was not meant to engage in physical exercise. He did consider himself to be blessed with plentiful amounts of nervous energy, and he claimed this enabled him to endure his grueling preaching schedule better than some.58 The Doctor's marriage was exceptionally happy.59 Like her husband, Bethan LloydJones, was an M.D. If she had insisted on carrying on in medical practice this would surely have placed significant strain on the marriage. But she was content devoting her life and strength to serving her husband and making his life easier.60 Though Lloyd-Jones was extremely busy, he did make time to nurture both his daughters and his grandchildren.61 In one case, a daughter wrote home from Oxford, sharply criticizing their chapel services. Her father replied, gently urging her to avoid being critical regarding matters that are relatively minor, lest she be perceived as an intolerant "heresy hunter."62 As a grandfather the Doctor catered to his grandchildren, whether that meant watching TV with them, playing croquet, or even explaining why transcendental meditation doesn't line up with Scripture.63 Lloyd-Jones had particular views regarding "secular" entertainment or amusements. He submitted that Christians can enjoy such but that there should always be an element of detachment in their enjoyment...and that they must certainly never become overly excited about them.64 He was a voracious reader of religious works; and even great chunks of his vacations were spent in reading. Yet he did have other interests. He loved horses and enjoyed classical music, and he kept up somewhat with national soccer and cricket teams.65 Very occasionally the stiff Doctor could be drawn into games. One friend tells of a memorable time when LloydJones was lured into a game in which he had to transfer a book of matches from his nose to that of another without hands.66 At least in the American mind, Lloyd-Jones' balance between ministry and rest would probably appear unwise. When he worked, his exhausting schedule was packed with reading and sermon preparation, his pastoral responsibilities at Westminster, many outside speaking engagements, correspondence, office appointments, and leadership obligations in other organizations. For his annual vacations, however, the Doctor often took about three months off.67 Perhaps it would have been easier on him physically if he had taken briefer breaks several times a year. Portions of this chapter will introduce seemingly paradoxical aspects of Lloyd-Jones' theology, his ministry conflicts, and his pastoring and preaching. These seeming contradictions are no less evident in his person.

One difficult area to understand in Lloyd-Jones' character is his sense of humor juxtaposed against his personal severity. Once, Lloyd-Jones was quoted as stating: "The lack of sobriety in Christians today, the readiness to joke and laugh so often, shows that something is wrong somewhere in us." And when J.I. Packer first met him, he reported: "He struck me as grim and austere, but vastly impressive..." However, when Packer next saw the Doctor, he was presenting an address to pastors about the absurdity of treating post-Freudian psychology as a sacred cow. Packer was shocked when he found the 80-minute talk liberally sprinkled with funny stories.68 Geoffrey Williams wrote: "The Doctor could be ruthless and the effect of his treatment of those he loved could be crushing and at times cruel. Only afterwards could one perceive God's wisdom in bringing about a measure of needful sanctification through the seemingly unkind and strangely rough handling..."69 On the other hand, he was careful to avoid condemning those who came to him agitated, sick, or struggling morally. And once when a Christian couple shared their sorrow about their unbelieving children, Lloyd-Jones listened and wept.70 People were important to the Doctor. At times he remembered, years afterward, individuals that he had only seen a few times.71 The Doctor's acquaintances were multitudinous; his close friendships, very few. Though his busyness hardly allowed for prolonged time with anyone, Lloyd-Jones knew and admired A.W. Tozer, spent time with Francis and Edith Schaeffer at L'Abri, and encouraged C.S. Lewis regarding his writings.72 In spite of theological disagreements, he also had cordial relations with Billy Graham, J.I. Packer, and John R. Stott.73 Even the liberal theologian, Emil Brunner, recognized Lloyd-Jones warmly as "the greatest preacher in Christendom today."74 Some years after beginning his ministry at Westminster Chapel, Lloyd-Jones slogged through a lonely period of physical and emotional exhaustion. He became deeply depressed, and even thirty years later, he could only hint of this period painfully. He said that Satan attacked him mercilessly, and the black despair revealed to him, as nothing else, the carnal pride in his heart.75 The Doctor checked himself into a nursing home near Bristol and stayed there for two weeks. Though he read his Bible and some writings by A.W. Pink, for days nothing seemed to shake his agony of soul. Then, finally, the love of God surrounded him and blazed through his heart, and the nearness of heaven and his place in it became overwhelming certainties. The event was deeply personal; Lloyd-Jones never wrote of it and rarely alluded to it at all.76 Even in the months following this experience, Lloyd-Jones still struggled periodically. During a holiday, his wife said he was so low he could not read, and she lazed the days away with him, doing nothing but resting.77 Upon returning to his pulpit, he felt deeply apprehensive about preaching and couldn't even prepare a sermon that week. Finally at the last moment, God gave him a message based on Titus 1:2: "The God who cannot lie." He carried only a small scrap of paper to the pulpit that Sunday morning with rough outlined headings, but the message was delivered with power and clarity.78 In the years following, Lloyd-Jones was to state that he believed God allowed Satan to attack him at that time in order to do something new in his life.79 The humbling of those days prompted him to admit that he was "such a sinner that God has always had to compel me to do things."80 At other times in his ministry he felt dull and listless and feared he made his listeners feel the same.81 Once he told his wife that he was never going to preach again; and, in his despondency, he spoke to a deacon half-seriously of tendering his resignation from ministry.82 From these pits of discouragement, the Doctor went on to help many who were depressed for various reasons, including Satanic attack. In fact, in regard to the devil, he was to state that "one of the main causes of the ill state of the Church today is the fact that the devil is being forgotten. All is attributed to us;" he continued. We have become so psychological in our attitude and

thinking..."83 As Lloyd-Jones aged, remarks people made about him seemed to take on greater significance. One wrote that the Doctor's life "was of a nature which quietly and spontaneously impressed a sense of God upon us." Foundational to the preacher's view of Christian living was taking time alone each day for the reading of Scripture and for prayer.84 He came to believe more and more that the Christian worker's relationship to God should be the supreme cause of joy. Too many depend, he said, upon spiritual activity, their preaching, and testimonies from others. "The ultimate test of a preacher," he stated, "is what he feels like when he cannot preach."85 To Lloyd-Jones, prayer was primarily close fellowship with God; he despised any attitude which tended to represent it as a means of simply getting 'results.'86 This fellowship was based on love. He saw our fundamental difficulty and deficiency as humans to be a lack of love for God. "It is not our knowledge so much that is defective," he said, "...our greatest object and endeavor should be to know Him better and to love Him more truly." Thus, the ultimate purpose of his preaching, he said, had been to persuade non-Christians to believe in this love of God to sinners, and to bring Christians to love God with all their hearts.87 In fact, he defined preaching as theology coming through a man who is on fire with God-given love.88 As he himself drew nearer to his reward, the Doctor wondered why he had not preached more on the subject of death.89 On Thursday of his last week, he wrote in a shaky hand, "Do not pray for healing. Do not hold me back from the glory."90 He departed softly two days later. Martyn Lloyd Jones: The Preacher and Pastor Martyn Lloyd-Jones preached thousands of times in situations more numerous than can be told. Some of his experiences are both humorous and hard to believe. Once, while he preached, a box of matches in his pocket burst into flame.90 Another time, as he preached in a barn, a swallow deposited a splash on his hand that missed his head by inches.92 Lloyd-Jones preached while bombs fell on London, and, once, when there was an electricity failure, he continued preaching in the darkness for some minutes without the slightest pause.93 LloydJones claimed that the most extraordinary and moving service he ever preached was a message to the mourning relatives of eighty-eight children and twenty-eight adults killed by a coal heap landslide in South Wales.94 But, beyond the unusual, what characterized Lloyd-Jones as a preacher and pastor? Throughout the doctor's 50+ years of ministry, what factors shaped his pastoring? What practices did he oppose and what did he support? Why was he such a powerful and effective preacher? As a pastor, Lloyd-Jones developed somewhat narrow ideas of what he believed the church should offer. In both churches he pastored, he revealed little ability in the area of administration.95 He suspended almost all the existing church programs, and instituted in their place a simple schedule which consisted chiefly of two Sunday preaching services, a weeknight prayer meeting, and a weeknight dialogue period on Christian living.96 Lloyd-Jones believed that a pastor should not be "nice, popular, or chatty" because this would cost him his dignity as a man of God.97 No formal welcome was given at his church services because it was thought to spoil the grandeur of worship.98 There was no liturgy because prayer must be "led by God at the moment of prayer."99 Though limited hymns and psalms were sung, there were no musical specials or choir because they were considered distracting.100 He viewed lightheartedness and the singing of choruses as carnal.101 Methods such as drama, mime, and interpretive dance were nothing more than means of entertainment and violations of Scripture.102 There were no public invitations in his services, though sometimes the Doctor stated that he would be available after a service to speak with any facing spiritual trouble.103 He gave relatively few illustrations in his sermons because he believed they pandered to the carnality of listeners.104 Lloyd-Jones claimed churches need not advertise evangelistic meetings or any other programs.105 And he also rejected witness training ideas

such as Dr. Kennedy's Evangelistic Explosion, believing that people would know how to represent Christ if they were spiritually awakened.106 Besides preaching, all other methods of evangelism were considered spurious and ineffective.107 In the end, Lloyd-Jones also spoke out against evangelistic campaigns and Bible conferences because he believed they masqueraded as true revival.108 In view of his many taboos, one may wonder how this preacher from Wales was used so effectively as a pastor. First, though he took little vocal part in weekly prayer meetings, these meetings were used of God to accomplish great things in and through the body of believers.109 As has been stated, sometimes even two hours was not long enough to allow everyone to pray who desired to do so.110 Another important feature contributing to Lloyd-Jone's success was the Bible discussions he led each week. He opened the floor to any question that concerned a practical area of Christian living and he allowed much give-and-take.111 After witnessing the Doctor's skill in leading discussions, an Inter-Varsity leader underlined the fact that this level of discussion and dialectic was unequalled as a teaching method.112 It is surprising that a gifted preacher such as Lloyd-Jones made a participatory meeting such as this a priority each week in place of simply another preaching service.113 But he was troubled by a Christianity in which the faith seemed a minor appendix to the rest of life instead of the main theme and moving force of existence.114 It also disturbed him that some pastors tried to dictate spirituality and to become the conscience for their people. Lloyd-Jones believed that biblical dialogue helps people to integrate God's design for life into their daily experience. He said that when a person has to struggle to think through spiritual convictions for him- or herself it makes the person much stronger in Christ.115 Both at Sandfields and at Westminster Chapel, Lloyd-Jones sought to make himself available to people on a one-to-one basis. At Westminster, individuals lined up outside his office after worship services, and he spoke to each in turn. Though the Doctor's austere pulpit appearance may have discouraged some from seeking him out, many were helped through personal contact with him.116 Though he could certainly be severe at times, in many cases he came across to individuals as sympathetic, humble, calm, and sincere.117 He listened carefully, asked concise questions, and endeavored to discern whether the person was truly a Christian and could be counseled as a Christian. Though people were not typically led to conversion in the Doctor's vestry, many were helped immeasurably with problems.118 One major objective Lloyd-Jones adopted in assisting individuals was to help them learn to preach the truth to themselves---to translate doctrine into life. "The whole art of Christian living," he said, "is to know how to talk to yourself."119 Though such ministries as prayer meetings, Bible discussions, and personal counseling were effective features of Lloyd-Jones' pastorates, it was in his preaching that he demonstrated the greatest gifting. Early in his preaching ministry, Lloyd-Jones learned at least two important lessons. Two men, an elderly pastor and a friend, told him essentially the same thing: He was expecting too much of the people. He was pouring out too much truth at one time and was making it too difficult to understand. Eventually he came to believe that the greater the preaching, the easier it will be to comprehend.120 Another early criticism of his preaching was that, though he preached sin and the necessity of the rebirth, he rarely said much about the cross and the work of Christ. One may wonder how this is possible. In any case, Lloyd-Jones began reading theology more deeply and he realized and corrected this omission.121 There were other acknowledged weaknesses in Lloyd-Jones as a pastor and as a preacher. No record was kept of the weekly church Bible discussions, so in the course of years there was much repetition of the same subjects, and nothing existed to inform those who had missed earlier discussions. Unlike ministers such as Spurgeon, the Doctor appointed no technical or literary assistants, so key addresses and messages in various places went

unrecorded and were never published. He introduced no suitable list of church attenders, so many were never visited or even welcomed. Deacons were never trained in leadership because Lloyd-Jones thought it was "quicker to do things myself."122 What the Doctor did toward the wider work of the gospel was generally due to labors of others into which he entered.123 Unlike most ministers, from the beginning of his pastoral ministry, Lloyd-Jones was to insist upon spending the greater part of each day in prayer, study, and sermon preparation. Later he was to state his belief that the pastors God has used most noticeably have been those who studied most, knew their Scriptures best, and gave time to preparation.124 Though Martyn Lloyd-Jones preached numerous sermons through the Bible and back again, it may be said that the one theme woven through them all was the sinfulness of humanity and the greatness of God's love through Christ to forgive those sins. Lloyd-Jones viewed modern Christians as much too healthy---that is, taking their sins too lightly and "healing themselves" too easily.125 Like Spurgeon, he believed the preacher's initial business is not to convert people, but to make them see their moral poverty---their urgent need for forgiveness and life.126 Some did not appreciate Lloyd-Jones' "born again" message. In conversation with a newly converted individual, one cultured gentleman said that "the word conversion was not a nice word and that he was surprised that a man like Dr. Lloyd-Jones, who ought to know better, should allow himself to be carried away by fanaticism."127 Someone else from the same school called the Doctor's preaching "hell and damnation tub-thumping."128 Lloyd-Jones answered such accusations boldly: I am not afraid of being charged, as I frequently am, of trying to frighten you, for I am definitely trying to do so. If the wondrous love of God in Christ...is not sufficient to attract you, such is the value...of your soul, that I will do my utmost to alarm you with a sight of the terrors of Hell."129 Yet if one thought that he used pure emotionalism to convince hearers, he claimed this was not his objective. He criticized meetings in which music, excitement, or moving stories were used to urge conversion. "To aim at emotion," the Doctor claimed, "is the surest way to produce counterfeit Christians."130 Though he saw a danger in` emotionalism, Lloyd-Jones knew that effective preachers must have a consuming passion for the unbeliever. He reminded people that preachers such as the apostle Paul and George Whitefield used to preach with tears. The Doctor asked, "What do we know, to use the phrase of Whitefield, about preaching a 'felt Christ?' "131 Lloyd-Jones believed in expository preaching, but by this he did not simply mean biblical word studies and running commentary on long passages of scripture. He believed that preaching should not consist of relaying one's studies but confidently delivering a message of God to people, using deduction, argument, and appeal.132 More and more, as his pastorate continued at Westminster, the Doctor preached expository series.133 In Lloyd-Jones' mind, pulpit style and power in preaching were two separate things---a dynamic, stirring orator may not actually be anointed with power from the Spirit of God, while a soft-spoken preacher may draw hearts toward God wherever he speaks. In line with this, the Doctor advocated that preachers try not to adopt a "powerful" style but use a style that comes naturally.134 A most vital feature of Lloyd-Jone's style was the note of authority that characterized his sermons. There was great certainty in his conviction that what he preached was, without doubt, a message from God. He used no worn out phrases, no pious platitudes, no theological jargon--the young, the old, the white collar professionals as well as the blue collar laborers---all understood the Doctor's words.135 In fact, after hearing one of his sermons, a London child was overheard to say, "This old boy has got it!"136 As decades passed, Lloyd-Jones became more popular as a preacher, not less. 137 But fame didnt fuel arrogance; Lloyd-Jones admitted that reading of George Whitefield and others helped keep his feet on the ground. In comparison with them, he felt he had hardly started and

had never truly preached in his life.138 Many leaders praised him. J.I. Packer stated, "The Doctor's magnetic blend of clarity, certainty, common sense, and confidence in God make him a marvelous encourager, as well as a great molder of minds." Another church leader euphorically called Lloyd-Jones the "modern Moody," (though it is unknown whether the Doctor viewed such a statement as complimentary).139 He did speak to individuals after services about their spiritual need, but he did not have salvation altar calls as one would see at a Moody or Graham crusade.140 He also never tried to keep track of who may have been converted under his ministry, and he stated that the great evangelists of the Bible never concerned themselves with results.141 It is uncertain what he thought of the fact that Whitefield, one of his heroes, kept running counts of even how many attended his meetings---counts that some considered exaggerated. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Theologian It is very likely that Lloyd-Jones did not consider himself a theologian in any strict sense of the term. He never received any formal theological training. However, he studied theology incessantly and, of course, reflected deep theological convictions in every sermon he preached. It is these we will attempt to delve into. At the core of Lloyd-Jones' belief system was Calvinism and the writings of the Puritans and early revivalists. This in itself tells us much about his theological convictions. His introduction to the Puritans was through Powicke's Life of Richard Baxter which impressed him so much that he soon read Pilgrim's Progress, the Life of George Fox, and besieged bookstores for more.142 One family vacation was consumed in the sheer enjoyment of reading Tyerman's two-volume Life and Times of George Whitefield. However, next to the Bible itself, Jonathan Edward's works provided him the greatest help as a preacher.143 Looking back on his ministry, the Doctor was later to admit that love for Puritan authors had governed his entire ministry.144 He became a great advocate for the value of knowing church history. In fact, in Preaching and Preachers, the Doctor stated that "there is nothing more important for preaching than the reading of church history and biographies."145 And he bore this out by speaking of church history's highlights at every opportunity.146 However, he did clarify that looking to the past was different from living in the past. The justification for looking to the past, he emphasized, is that we may learn crucial lessons from it.147 Being a Calvinist, it is surprising that Lloyd-Jones would show special interest in Methodism, but he stated that Southey's biography of the Arminian, John Wesley, was one of the best things he had read in his life. And he claimed that Wesley's Journals helped him much in the first years of his ministry.148 Beginning in those early years, the Doctor also added B.B. Warfield, J.C. Ryle, Charles Hodge, and the Anglican, E.A. Litton to his primary reading list.149 Throughout his ministry, he often read major theological volumes forgotten by many. He believed that a fresh relevant ministry has to be maintained by constant reading, and he stated that "most of the great men of God have been great readers."150 Everywhere Lloyd-Jones went he preached a simple yet profound biblical message. The religious intellectual, D.R. Davies, believed that humanists and socialists must be met on their own turf and essentially be proven wrong. Lloyd-Jones believed that discrediting them would just cause resentment. Instead, they must be brought to a point of spiritual surrender and emotional abandonment to Christ. Though Davies retained his opinion, he admitted the influence Lloyd-Jones had on him defied analysis: "He [Lloyd-Jones] was not a thinker; he had no background of theological culture; he had no literary gift. Yet he held me. Something in the man spoke to the deeps in me."151 Indeed, after Lloyd-Jones presented a sermon at Oxford University a bright student rose and said that though he'd enjoyed the message, he thought it could have equally been delivered to a congregation of farm laborers. The Doctor replied that he

considered the intellectuals there as miserable sinners, just like everybody else, and that their needs were precisely the same as those of the agricultural laborer. This reply evoked a roar of laughter and a cheer.152 One journalist wrote, "The essence of Lloyd-Jones' message to our time is vivid and unmistakable---the only hope for man in this world or in the world to come is to abandon his illusions and come as a helpless child to God."153 Lloyd-Jones sought theological balance and spoke out strongly against hyper-Calvinists. He was speaking of those who claim the offer of salvation is only to the redeemed, who claim that no gospel preacher should preach Christ and offer salvation to all, and that anyone who does so is dangerous. The Doctor was embarrassed and pained at times by the unwise zeal and excesses of some of the young men whom he had initially influenced Calvinistically. He wished to restrain them, yet he did not wish to disown or discourage them.154 The Doctor reinforced his stand against hyper-Calvinism with the conviction that Arminians would be in heaven and often pointed to Whitefield's brotherly attitude toward Wesley.155 However, when asked why then it is so important to debate the tenets of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, he emphasized the tremendous importance of understanding Bible doctrine and comprehending the vital mechanism of salvation.156 What were some of the theological emphases in Lloyd-Jones preaching? He always sought to show mankind small and God great.157 Humans were not only in indispensable need of forgiveness for sin, they were utterly helpless to stop sinning without regeneration and a new nature by God's Spirit.158 In preaching the gospel, the Doctor believed it was more important to emphasize the majesty and glory of God rather than what God could give to the sinner as a Friend or Helper.159 He did not believe that simply by persuasive reasoning people could be brought to salvation. But, at the same time, he knew that particular Scriptures were more effective evangelistically than others. He believed that only God could choose to use a Scripture by His Spirit to bring saving faith, and that the only solid evidence that belief is genuine is a changed life.160 In regard to sanctification, Lloyd-Jones rejected the "pernicious doctrine that we can receive Christ as Savior without receiving Him as Lord. You cannot receive Him," said the Doctor, "in bits and pieces."161 Neither could sanctification begin at a haphazard point later than the time of conversion and justification. Lloyd-Jones took issue with evangelism which ignores the need for humans to realize their sinfulness and their hopelessness before God. This evangelism, he stated, tells people to simply decide for Christ, get their names on a list, and thus accept all the happiness, peace, and rewards that God can offer. But here is where many evangelicals may feel that Lloyd-Jones overstepped---he supported the Puritan revivalists, who led people to be terrified of God's judgment and in anguish of soul sometimes for "days, weeks, and months" before salvation. As an example, the Doctor referred to Bunyan, who was in the agony of repentance for eighteen months.162 It is uncertain what biblical evidence he could muster for this necessarily prolonged agony of repentance before conversion could follow. It is important to understand Lloyd-Jones belief regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He did believe that the Holy Spirit is united to every believer at the time of regeneration. However, he also held that believers could be given a baptism---that is, more of the Spirit and His manifestations at particular times.163 As examples he used passages in Acts and he referred to Knox's statement regarding the Scottish Reformation: "God gave his Holy Spirit to simple men in great abundance," and Edward's reference to "remarkable effusions of the Spirit at special seasons of mercy."164 Yet, at the same time, the Doctor criticized people who constantly pine for revival as if anything else is worthless. He said people like this are in love with the exceptional or sensational and tend to make light of the normal manner of the Spirit's work in the Church.165 He also disagreed that the gift of tongues must accompany revival. With writer, Philip Hughes, he was appalled that people were inducing glossolalia in a California revival by telling

individuals to speak gibberish and even by placing an ear on the candidate's throat to encourage it.166 Lloyd-Jones seemed to think often about spiritual revival and developed very strong, almost conflicting, feelings about it. He had no use for people who constantly harped on revival---who seemed to think one could produce it as an enthusiast works at a hobby.167 He believed that churches which pray for continual revival are wrong. "The church is not meant always to be in a state of revival," he said, "but is also to do ordinary, every-day work."168 Prayer for Holy Spirit power was never simply to be made so that church attendance will grow, or believers can revel in experiences, or that they can be happy or prosperous. Biblically, LloydJones believed that the primary motive should always be that God and His glory would be made known.169 When, near the close of his pastoral ministry, the Doctor was asked about the fact that revival had not occurred under his watch, he emphasized that his ministry was just preparatory and people should not "despise the day of small things." He lamented that his destiny had been to remain "for 40 years in the wilderness," but said he placed this entirely in the hands of God.170 Theologically, Lloyd-Jones knew what he believed and communicated this clearly most of the time. Occasional exceptions do exist. For example, at one point he claimed that the words from Romans 7:24 (...who shall deliver me from the power of this death?) could not be the words of a Christian. Yet he often used those very words as a testimony of Christian experience.171 He also struggled with a constant longing for the felt presence of Christ while insisting that feelings play no part in Christian experience.172 A question some may have regarding his Bible interpretation was his occasional early tendency toward allegorizing. When he preached about Peter's raising of Tabitha from the dead, (Acts 9:36-43) he claimed that Tabitha's dead body symbolized the lack of revival facing the church, the weeping women fussing over garments symbolized the shallow, inadequate faith unable to initiate revival, and Peter's raising of Tabitha showed the infinite power of God to bring true revival. When Lloyd-Jones preached about Isaac's opening up of the rubbishfilled wells of his father, (Gen. 26:17-18) his appeal was to the church to not seek "new wells" but to go back to the wells of the church fathers who drew from Living Water.173 Yet when a lecturer claimed that Gideon's request for dew on the wool was really a request for God to fill barren people with his Spirit, Lloyd-Jones took him to task for allegorizing.174 Much like Jonathan Edwards, Lloyd-Jones devoted extensive time in his later years to putting his sermons into publishable form. Years before, he'd been urged to begin this process, but had been unwilling to trust any editors except those in his own family.175 Editing was a much more difficult and time-consuming task than he envisioned. In fact, he found it far more tiring than sermon preparation had ever been.176 Some of the Doctor's books did not receive the most glowing reviews by the liberal press. His early book, Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Cure, was described as a hefty book containing "nothing intellectually adventurous, no theoretical ranging into new worlds...a rather dreary volume."177 His book Preaching and Preachers, published a few years later, was also blasted. One editor described the Doctor as self-opinionated and arrogant throughout and another condemned his silly strictures on ministers and his lust for dabbling in ecclesiastical politics.178 He received a backhanded compliment from one bishop: "However repellent his [Lloyd-Jones'] narrow-mindedness, however ponderous his touches of humor, however antique his preaching heroes, this survivor from eighteenth-century revivalist evangelicalism has much to say that we sophisticated twentieth-century radicals and moderates need to hear."179 Despite reviews such as these, Lloyd-Jones books were welcomed by many as volumes of immense help both for in-depth Bible study and for pastoral ministry. In fact, in their first decade of publication, sales of his series on Romans and on Ephesians alone exceeded one million copies.180 Iain Murray acknowledges that the Doctor's books will continue being

consulted down through the decades, but he urges that they not be used in place of commentaries and theological works. "Precise erudition and exact exegesis," states Murray, "were not his forte."181 Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Warrior Though Lloyd-Jones once stated that he would have literally been content as a solitary mountain shepherd, he did play the warrior at times throughout his ministry.182 It could be said that he fulfilled the old-time test John Wesley set for effective gospel preaching: He won followers and provoked enmity."183 We see in him an unpredictable nature that was at times almost contradictory. He could be coolly logical yet surprisingly influenced by emotions.184 He was of an aggressive choleric temperament yet was aware that this type can be too impatient, too vigorous, too prone to crack a nut with a sledgehammer... At times, the Doctor was resolute to principles, at others, pragmatic and accommodating--- how he distinguished between issues could not be exactly anticipated.185 On one hand, he had a political kind of "prudence" which could mislead people as to the real state of his own mind on an issue. On the other hand, he loved debates and could hold tenaciously to an opinion even when he might be wrong. He was not likely to concede any weakness in his own position, and to carry a point he could, at times, be guilty of exaggeration and even misrepresentation. However, he was never angry at criticism and did not seek to crush arguments which were conscientiously given.186 From the outset, it should be established that Lloyd-Jone's battles were fought primarily against the ecumenical movement, not against Christian denominations who disagreed with his doctrinal beliefs. One person stated that while the Doctor stood immovably against theological liberalism and heresy, he also delivered people from the tendency to suspect the salvation of Christians from other denominations.187 He didn't have the slightest sympathy for an orthodoxy which prided itself simply on its exclusivity.188 He did not believe it right to make direct attacks on fellow believers, and he believed that individuals such as A.W. Pink were erroneous for doing so.189 In fact, Lloyd-Jones was known to develop warm friendships with those he disagreed with theologically.190 Though he took issue partially with the Keswick message, he invited Keswick speakers to his pulpit at Westminster.191 He read a good deal by Roman Catholic authors and never would deny that some Catholics are born again Christians.192 While disagreeing with some charismatic teachings, he commended their spiritual hunger and zeal.193 The Doctor said, "I do not care whether a man is a Presbyterian or a Baptist, an Independent or Episcopalian or Methodist, as long as he is agreed about the essentials of the faith."194 Why did Lloyd-Jones demonstrate this tolerance? It was because he placed an important distinction between heresy and error, between false teaching and mistaken belief, and between doctrines which were indispensable and those which were peripheral.195 He also knew the agonizing struggle of seeking to discern and oppose heresy without becoming known as a divisive schism-monger.196 As a rule, he seemed to exhibit the wisdom to choose his battles wisely, to mix a bit of tenderness with his boldness, and to beware the relishing of controversy.197 A prime reason for Lloyd-Jone's opposition to the ecumenical movement was that they placed fellowship before doctrine, and he believed that if he joined such a fellowship with those who deny the truth, he would imply that the truth does not matter.198 He also believed that though the ecumenical slogan "cooperation without compromise," sounded worthy, it would be impossible for a committed Christian in the movement to actually practice such a slogan in the long run.199 "The burial of many bodies in the same cemetery," claimed the Doctor, "does not lead to resurrection. Life is more important than unity."200 Lloyd-Jones was proven true to a large extent. As time passed, some evangelicals within the ecumenical movement began to lose their doctrinal identity. One of these individuals was

quoted in the Church of England Newspaper as saying, "How can we know where we are going if we do not know what we are? What is an evangelical? Tell us, somebody, please."201 When Lloyd-Jones came out advocating publicly that evangelicals join the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches rather than the ecumenical movement, he drew fire from many quarters. The principal of Mansfield College in Oxford stated that though Lloyd-Jones wrote of his theological position with sincerity and charity, those following his lead were divisive, schismatic, obscurantist and quite un-Biblical. John R. Stott criticized Lloyd-Jone's inflexibility and took a position opposite Lloyd-Jones. He condemned the "pietistic" attitude which meant withdrawal from the church-at-large, exaggerated religious individualism, and what Stott viewed as retirement into a tight-closed ecclesiastical in-group.202 J.I. Packer condemned the separatist drum-beating as reflecting a theological "scorched earth" policy and accused the Doctor of founding an "undenominational denomination" which was decidedly sectarian.203 Some viewed his staunchness as a stand for the full inspiration of Scripture; others believed it just demonstrated a stubborn dogmatism that his interpretations of the Scriptures were the only correct ones.204 What the Doctor's critics did not know was that before he came out publicly against ecumenism, he had spent five years personally debating biblical doctrine with liberals in an attempt to reach points of commonality regarding what he called the bare essentials or the "irreducible minimum" that one must believe to call oneself a Christian (the Trinity, Satan and evil powers, the person/work of Christ, spiritual deadness/sin, the plan of redemption, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, justification and sanctification.)205 [See Note] Earlier in the chapter Lloyd-Jone's opposition to organized personal and mass evangelism is mentioned. His theology dictated that conversion not be equated with human decision but, rather, God-initiated regeneration.206 Such practices as planned "door-to-door" evangelism and "altar call" evangelism were viewed as human attempts to reap eternal results---results only God could provide. The Doctor attended a Billy Graham crusade incognito, and he came away dismayed. He didn't doubt that individuals were being converted, but he struggled with the implication that all those who walked forward were experiencing saving faith.207 Lloyd-Jones differentiated between evangelists such as Graham and the old Wesleyan-Arminian ones. He believed that the Wesleyans, while calling people to faith and repentance, acknowledged clearly that assurance was something only God could give, and give according to His own timing. However, LloydJones saw Graham and others as sometimes falsely assuring people that if they walked forward, said a prescribed prayer, and made a "decision for Christ," their salvation was guaranteed. It was Lloyd-Jone's conviction that such a guarantee was not based on how accurately a person understood the gospel, whether the person was genuinely repentant, or whether God's calling was actually upon the individual's life.208 The Doctor also found fault with those who positively emphasized that it was not Graham's whipping up of emotion that caused people to surge forward to the platform. Paradoxically, the austere Lloyd-Jones took the position that he knew of no moment in church history when the Holy Spirit moved and people were not stimulated to action by emotion. His question was, "Can a man see himself as a damned sinner without emotion...? Or conversely, can a man really contemplate the love of God in Christ Jesus and feel no emotion?"209 Another complaint Lloyd-Jones had against evangelists like Graham was their inclusion of theological liberals and Roman Catholics on the platform. He believed that by including them, such evangelists were endorsing their beliefs. In a private meeting with Graham, the Doctor told him that he would wholeheartedly support his evangelistic campaigns if Graham would drop the public invitation and bar liberals from his platform. After a cordial three-hour

discussion, Graham ended up rejecting the conditions.210

Note: It would be unfair to imply that all those disagreeing with Lloyd-Jones were vindictive. Lloyd-Jones withdrew his support from certain aspects of the work of Packer and F.F. Bruce, but good relations still continued between the men. (Vol.2, 657, 443) J.I. Packer remained very loyal in his friendship with Lloyd-Jones in spite of the fact that many of his peers considered the preacher "scarcely more than an extremely able freak."(Vol.2, 448) Stott described the Doctor as sometimes dogmatic yet always humble; and on a visit shortly before the Doctor's death he spoke of his great admiration and respect for him.(Vol.2, 623, 768)

A fourth Lloyd-Jones criticism of mass evangelism was that some evangelists such as D.L. Moody had encouraged laymen to begin preaching the gospel in whatever settings they could find. In view of the fact that Lloyd-Jones was essentially a "layperson" who had become a pastor, it seems strange that he would condemn so wholeheartedly what he called Moodyism, that is, preaching by laymen who were considered expert evangelizers and exercised occasional leadership within denominations.211 The Bottom Line Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones once stated, To me there is nothing more terrible for a preacher than to be in a pulpit alone, without the conscious smile of God. Lloyd-Jones was fallible, he was a sinner like all humans, but whether in his beliefs, his counseling, his relationships,or most of all, his preaching, the smile of God inspired him to act boldly upon the authority of Christ and of the Scriptures. Over and over, people noted this spiritual authority: "His own faith is so compelling and domineering," stated one newspaper writer, "as to be irresistible."212 A magazine editor commented, "After hearing him preach, many people go to him for help and get it. Whether it's what he says or how he says it, something is terribly convincing."213 Regarding his counsel, someone added, He gave the advice with an authority that made one immediately feel it to be right. More than this, the force of authority gave one the courage to act upon it."214 In the end, it was this authority in the name of his God that was likely the Doctor's most outstanding attribute. Implications for Today's Church Leaders 1) God called Martyn Lloyd-Jones into the ministry shortly after he had spent a number of years and much money in preparation for a career in medicine. This doesn't seem logical, but sometimes God's ways do not correspond with our logic. However, God must be allowed to be God and we must trust that his plan is forever founded in wisdom. Lloyd-Jones did not consider his medical study as worthless. In fact, he preached and counseled using the same model he had learned in medicine-- incisively diagnosing spiritual needs in people and then cutting to the core of the biblical cure. It was evident in his life that God is able to use past experiences in amazingly creative ways even when he calls us to a seemingly unrelated field. Another way God's plan for the Doctor was unique can be seen in His on-the-job training of the man. Lloyd-Jones did not receive any formal theological or ministerial training, yet he succeeded both as a pastor and a preacher. Of course, especially in our day, it is quite rare for God to thrust a person into full-time ministry without Bible school or seminary training. But, again, God has never been one to employ the cookie-cutter method for producing his servants. Lloyd-Jones was one of those rare self-taught individuals who was such a sponge for knowledge that he probably learned as much in a year or two as some might gain in the earning of a ministry degree. Along with the wide array of great theological works Lloyd-Jones read, it is interesting that he also placed great importance upon church history. In fact, he claimed there is nothing more important for preaching than the reading of church histories and biographies. That is a basic premise for this book. We're discovering that there are numerous crucial lessons which should be learned from the Church past.

Most Christian workers and pastors seriously consider the economic conditions of the area and of the church or organization for which they're candidating. Regrettably, there's such a thing as upward mobility even in ministry, and candidates want what they call a competitive salary and many don't want to minister in small congregations or to the down-and-outers. But, when Lloyd-Jones went into ministry, he was willing to go to any church where there was a crying spiritual need. His first pastorate was in a dirt-poor, dead end area that offered no real potential for ever being a bridge to a bigger or more affluent pastorate. Another important criterion to most as they develop a ministry is how many people they can attract, whether they can spearhead a building program, how many conversions and church memberships they can catalog, how well-known they can become in ministerial circles. But even Christ himself was not a household name outside of Galilee and he only grew a congregation of 120 by the end of his earthly ministry. Jesus would never have been invited to speak at a church-growth conference, yet he built that small group of servants into a movement that encompassed the world.215 Lloyd-Jones goal was never notoriety or mass audiences. In his first pastorate it took six months before the first conversion and eighteen months before there was any significant numerical growth. Numbers was not the Doctor's passion, individuals were. 2) This brings us to the primary emphases in Lloyd-Jone's pastorates. Generally speaking, his ministry was four-pronged---consisting of preaching, counseling, a weekly prayer meeting, and a weekly Bible discussion meeting. In both pastorates, the doctor suspended almost every other church program. Of course, this is an extremely radical step, and it is probably true that few pastors in our day would be permitted by deacon or elder board to do such a thing. However, examining the root reasons why Lloyd-Jones instituted these four facets of ministry can be instructive. As we observe the ministries of Peter, Paul, and the other apostles, we find 1) prayer prominent and we note that 2) preaching and reasoning with people from the Scriptures constituted the primary methods of communicating God's truth. These could, of course, correspond roughly with the Doctor's prayer meetings, preaching services, and his weeknight Bible discussion meetings. Since the first century, preaching God's Word has been arguably the one most obvious ministry commonality between Christian churches. In fact, the Doctor stated in Preaching and Preachers that most decadent periods in church history have always been those periods when preaching has declined. Many would take issue, however, with Lloyd-Jone's belief that all other methods of evangelism besides preaching are spurious and ineffective.216 It is uncertain whether later in his ministry he modified this opinion. Just the same, many things Lloyd-Jones believed about preaching are of great benefit: Preaching a) He believed a church must give a pastor sufficient time for balanced reading, study, and preparation. It was his observation that most of the great men of God have been great readers. And unlike many pastors, he was permitted to spend a large majority of his time in reading and sermon preparation. Pastors rarely seem to have enough time to devote to these things. It would probably not hurt for more pastors to request added time for such crucial purposes. b) Expository sermons derive their content from Scripture itself, writes Stedman. What other modes of preaching often lack is biblical content, causing those in the pews to drown in words while thirsting for knowledge.217 Lloyd-Jones held that preaching should unfailingly be expository. However, by this he did not mean simply the regurgitation of Christian classics or the unloading of sterile biblical word studies with running commentary on extended passages of Scripture. He defined preaching as theology coursing through a man on fire with God-given love who authoritatively in the Spirit delivers that message to people, using compassionate deduction, argument, and appeal.218

c) Mcdill states that a great fault of preaching is fuzzy thinking.219 Some sermons, he states, have about as much focus as this essay on pigs by a grade schooler: A pig is a funny animal, but it has some uses. Our dog dont like pigs-our dogs name is Nero. Our teacher read a piece one day about a wicked man called Nero. My Daddy is a good man. Men are very useful. Men are different than women and my Mom aint like my dad. My Mom says that a ring around the sun means a storm is coming. And that is all I know about pigs.220 The Doctor believed that sermons should be characterized by clarity and should not overload the listener with too much content to assimilate. And he believed that a primary focus in one's ministry should be the cross and the work of Christ. d) One reason Lloyd Jones sermons lent themselves so well to written adaptation was his incredible attention to key biblical detail. William Wirt wrote, Perhaps there is no property in which men are more distinguished from each other than in the various degrees in which they possess the faculty of observation. The great herd of mankind pass their lives in listless inattention and indifference to what is going on around them.while those who are destined to distinction have a lynx-eyed vigilance that nothing can escape. The Doctor possessed this vigilance. Some of Lloyd-Jone's ideas about the mechanics of the sermon seemed to evolve. Early in his ministry he believed that illustrations and other embellishments should rarely be used in sermons because they "pandered to listener carnality." Later he wrote that besides being bathed in prayer, joy, and power, sermons should contain anecdotes, historical lessons, the best language, and doctrine made attractive. 221 . These components resulted in fresh, jargon-free sermons that all could understand, from the brilliant intellectual to the easily distracted child. The Doctor used what Ron Martoia describes as Lion King language. In the Lion King film, writers layered scenes with sound bytes which various age groups would find entertaining or interesting. The five-year-old gravitated to some segments while the adult gravitated to others, yet the attention of the entire audience was engaged throughout.222 Bible Discussion It seems as if very few pastors plan open-Bible discussion times with the church body. Each of Lloyd-Jone's Bible discussion meetings consisted of an open forum on one practical question regarding Christian living. He had several rationales for this activity. First, he wanted to catch the heartbeat of his people and identify their needs. He realized the truth that listening is as crucial for a preacher as speaking. Through listening, the pastor learns who people are in real life, how they interact about their faith, what they long for behind the masked ecclesiastical faade. A second reason for the discussion meetings was Jones belief that biblical dialogue helps people to integrate God's design for life into their daily experience. He valued the spiritual growth and strength that would result from the tough thinking-through of Christian life issues. He did not mind watching believers struggle with incorrect applications of Bible knowledge. His ultimate goal was to help them learn to preach the truth to themselves. "The whole art of Christian living," he once remarked, "is to know how to talk to yourself."223 After watching the Doctor's use of this method, one leader pronounced this type of discussion dialectic as unequalled in the teaching process.224 Prayer Lloyd-Jone's prayer meetings appeared to be joint sessions in which anyone who desired could voice aloud a prayer of thanksgiving to God, or a prayer of petition for a church need or for the salvation of an individual. People could quietly come and go during the meeting, and apparently there was such an open, accepting spirit in the gatherings that even two hours was sometimes not enough time. One of the Doctor's deepest convictions was that prayer should never be used simply as a means of getting results. The foundational purpose of prayer was fellowship with God based upon a preeminent love for Him and out of which issued Gods all-

encompassing blessing. As this concept was applied in the church body, it changed the whole attitude toward prayer. It seems as if all the truly great preachers have realized that prayer is the secret to a potent ministry. Once Charles Spurgeon asked a visitor if hed like to see the churchs furnace. He led him down a flight of stairs to a room situated just beneath his pulpit. Opening the door, Spurgeon revealed several dozen individuals huddled together, interceding for the sermon Spurgeon was about to preach. Prayer was Spurgeons furnace.

Counseling In regard to counseling, Lloyd-Jone's practice does seem unique. Much of it appears to have taken place immediately after the worship services. People lined up outside his office and were allowed in by an appointed deacon one by one. We can see the diagnosis/cure approach in his counseling just as in his sermon structure. As a doctor, he had learned to ask certain key questions that would move him expeditiously to a diagnosis and treatment, and he wisely applied this to spiritual problems. If people felt as if they were on a counseling assembly line, one would think the lines would have shrunk and disappeared. But every week numerous people waited patiently to speak with their pastor. Just as some doctors have a good "bedside manner," when Lloyd-Jones counseled, people sensed "God's bedside manner" beneath his sometimes grim exterior. 2) Lloyd-Jones did have clear weaknesses, and, to some extent, he seemed aware of them. He was not a gifted administrator or organizer, and certainly individuals who could assist in this area would have been of invaluable help. The churches in which he worked either did not adequately realize the need or perhaps did not believe they had the money to hire assistant pastors. Gangel writes: On the firing line, delegation comes as close to being indispensable as any [leadership] characteristic we could name. Yet the Doctor did not even train his deacons in facets of leadership; he made the classic mistake of thinking delegation and training was too time-consuming. Another weakness of Lloyd-Jones was his over-severe manner with people at times, and his extreme dogmatism regarding what was proper in worship services and what was not. Contrary to the Doctor's opinion, surely a pastor can be "nice or chatty" without losing his dignity, and surely people can be welcomed to a church service without worship's grandeur being irretrievably lost. It is true that some choruses and Scripture songs can be lighthearted, but is this sort of joy necessarily carnal? Sometimes choirs or soloists also sing for their own glory, but many do not. Are all uses of the performing arts to be considered fleshly? Surely musical giftings and talents such as drama, music, and interpretive dance should be regulated but not outlawed in the local church. An important point, however, can be learned from the Doctor's convictions: A pastor's chattiness can be self-centered, gossipy, hurtful, manipulative, or otherwise inappropriate. Lengthy announcements, welcomes, and other tacked-on items in worship services can distract and detract from the worship experience. One solution some churches implement is to make announcements in the moments before worship formally begins. To enhance worship, those with talents in music, drama, dance, etc. should be screened. Perceptive, Spirit-controlled staff can often discern the faithful, and identify those who concentrate their talent toward the glory of God as opposed to those who don't. 4) The Wesleys had their Holy Club, Wilberforce had his Clapham group, and Lloyd-Jones instituted his revival band. This was a group of about a dozen Christian leaders who pledged

themselves to mutual fellowship, moral uprightness, church purity, and thirty minutes of prayer a day for one another and for revival. This group never gained public attention, but they were of significant help and encouragement to one another. Many pastors and other Christian leaders feel stranded and alone. They're not able to benefit from an intimate group of this sort in home churches for fear of appearing to play favorites among parishioners, etc. It is vital that leaders develop a small, close network of fellow-leaders. This is not only indispensable for fellowship but also for spiritual accountability. Too many Christian leaders are drifting spiritually or even stumbling into serious immorality. Leaders need what Bill Hybels calls safe people. These are people with whom leaders can share deeply without suspicion and through whom they can receive encouragement. Hybels writes, I am afraid that a steady stream of church leaders are going to disappear--tragically-from the rosters of kingdom leadership unless they commit themselves to discovering safe people and leaning into those relationships. Our hearts were not meant to handle the hardships and heartbreaks of ministry alone. We need to link up with a few folks who can help us bear the heavy burdens of our lives.225 5) It may seem surprising that Lloyd-Jones became discouraged at times about his own preaching. He had listened to other preachers who talked about fire as if they were sitting on an iceberg, and he feared this in his own speaking.226 Once, after delivering a disappointing message, he actually claimed he would never preach again. In regard to his morale, it might be questioned whether the Doctor's personal plan for leisure was the wisest. He worked an absolutely horrendous schedule for about nine months of the year, then took three full months off. It may have been wiser for him, as for today's Christian leader, to take time off in smaller segments, so as not to overtax himself. Lloyd-Jone's discouragements were quite manageable in contrast to his dark night of the soul. He no longer had his revival band to rely on when he slid into a period of deep depression midway through his ministry. The depression was so devastating that he secluded himself for several weeks. Despite an eventual wonderful revelation of God's love, he still struggled with the recurring depression over a span of months. As has been stated, during a holiday with his wife he couldn't even enjoy his beloved reading, but spent the time largely in dazed silence. We rarely hear about depression among pastors and other Christian leaders. Many consider it too personal or decidedly unspiritual. However, pastoral ministries and certain other Christian vocations have to rank among the most stressful of callings. With hindsight, LloydJones believed that his depression was caused by a God-permitted attack by Satan in order for Him to do a new work in the Doctor's life. However, there are many other causes of depression. It can be caused by burnout, by relational conflict, by family crisis, by spiritual oppression, and many other sources. A few face chronic, genetic depression and, unless God intervenes, they must take ongoing medication to correct the body's chemical imbalance. Most likely, if you face depression, it is temporary. Reading Lloyd-Jones book Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Cure can help you isolate the cause or causes. Praying through, as Lloyd-Jones did, may be God's desire in your case. Taking some time off may help. Also, don't be afraid to speak to a counselor if necessary. 6) In many areas, Lloyd-Jones seemed to seek and find theological balance. One extremely wise aspect of the Doctor's thinking was his differentiation between mistaken belief and false teaching. He refused to label as unChristian those who simply disagreed with him doctrinally. He stood strongly against hyper-Calvinism and accepted Arminians as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. He believed there were Roman Catholic believers, as well as Protestant believers from many denominations. On peripheral doctrines Lloyd-Jones saw no need to be adamant. He believed some Christians to be in error but did not condemn them as heretical. It is wise for us to do as the

Doctor did---to wrestle through to what he called the doctrinal irreducible minimum which one must believe to call him- or herself a Christian. Based on this irreducible minimum, the Doctor opposed any movement which sought to merge the theological beliefs of many groups into one because he believed this implied that truth really does not matter. One of Lloyd-Jone's biblical emphases was that people must be thoroughly convinced of their complete depravity before they can see their need for forgiveness and new life in Christ. Some Christian leaders in our day are so afraid lest a listener be offended, they speak little of the sinful nature and our total hopelessness as humans without redemption. But while sorrow for sin and true repentance are imperative in salvation, when LloydJones writings cite examples such as Bunyan's eighteen-month period of repentance it almost sounds as if he is advocating a sort of penance period before one can truly be converted. Others call this Puritan teaching "preparationism"---that individuals must go through a long period of awakening to their great sinfulness and guilt before they can see their need of faith in Christ.227 Lloyd-Jones seems to double-talk a little on this issue. While defending the need for what can be long-term spiritual awakening, he also admits the possibility of instantaneous conversion and states that there is great variation in how long the conversion process may take for different individuals.228 7) It is to be hoped that at some point in his ministry, Lloyd-Jones backed off from the idea that preaching was the only legitimate means of evangelism. It is not completely certain why he took a stand against planned evangelistic training. He only stated that a Christian will naturally learn how to say what needs to be said to non-Christians without any specified instruction. Lloyd-Jones also had great reservations regarding mass evangelism in general and Graham crusades in particular. He opposed Graham's eventual decision to allow theological liberals to sit with him on the platform during crusades. Graham probably saw this as a way to draw people from a myriad of denominations to hear the gospel message. However, it appeared to many that he was making a silent statement that those joining him on stage were born again Christians just as he was. It seems as if Graham could have eliminated the controversy by simply not having anyone on the platform except his staff and those having a specific role in the evening's program. However, once the practice began, it was a difficult one to cut out. Lloyd-Jones also struggled with the practice of a public invitation. He disagreed with the emphasis upon people's decisions for Christ because he felt that this removed the impetus from God and His predestination of individuals to salvation. However, preachers such as Graham were not saying that those who volitionally repent and believe are not first called to inherit salvation through the Spirit. God doesn't spell out the entire redemption process to us. We see one side of the redemptive fabric, He sees the other. The doctor believed very strongly that people must be prepared for salvation, that there should be a profound sense of sin and the desperate need for repentance, and that only God can provide assurance of salvation in His peculiar timing. He felt that it was presumptive to imply to people that if they walked forward and prayed a prayer, their salvation was assured. Surely Graham would agree that conviction of sin must precede salvation, that only the Holy Spirit can draw a person to Christ, and that God saves individuals on his own timetable. Perhaps Lloyd-Jones makes an important point, though, when he states that many have gone away from evangelistic crusades such as Graham's believing that they are Christians when they have not fulfilled the biblical requirements for salvation. And how many of those pseudobelievers pose as poor examples of Christianity to the world, or later claim that salvation doesn't "work," because they actually haven't experienced the new birth? Another argument Lloyd-Jones makes is that, in evangelism, emotions of unbelievers should be stirred up regarding human sinfulness and the love of God in Christ. They should be stimulated to action by that emotion. It seems in this instance that the Doctor was beating a straw man---hed undoubtedly heard that Graham did not whip up fevers of emotion in his meetings in order to manipulate listeners, and Lloyd-Jones latched onto this statement and

tried to use it as a criticism against him. Surely Graham would agree that emotions are engaged when an individual is convicted of sin and moved by the love of God, but his concern was to avoid the abuse of listener emotions. Lloyd-Jones opposed those who kept records of conversions because he believed it to be unscriptural and he also held that it presumed true conversions instead of leaving that conclusion to God. He stated, "As I read of the work of the great evangelists in the Bible I find they were not first and foremost concerned about results; they were concerned about proclaiming the truth."229 While it doesnt appear that the apostles were evangelistic numbercrunchers, there is clear evidence that they sought to identify converts for purposes of discipleship and occasionally numbers are used, as in Acts chapter 1-2. What can we learn regarding the identification of converts? a) We need to make sure that non-Christians understand adequately the scriptural basis for salvation, that their hearts are truly convicted of sin by the Spirit, that they are ready to repent and believe, that they are responding of their own accord and not for any ulterior motives... b) When preaching or sharing the gospel message, we should not appeal to people's emotions through such methods as tear-jerking stories, psychological ploys, or peer pressure. Emotion and volition are important aspects of the salvation process, but the appeal to both feelings and will should be based on scripture and the moving of the Spirit of God. c) In regard to recording conversions, of course it is wrong to claim one hundred percent surety as to whether given individuals have exercised saving faith or not. It is also wrong to glory in conversions as if they were our doing. However, there is merit in identifying those who have professed to repent and believe so that we can encourage them spiritually and assist in their Christian growth and maturity.

Footnotes
1 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Volume Two, Edinburgh, England: Banner of Truth Trust, 1990, p. 777. 2 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Volume One, Edinburgh, England: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982, p. 5. 3 Ibid, p. 17. 4 Ibid, p. 37. 5 Ibid, p. 59. 6 Ibid, p. 63. 7 Ibid, p. 64. 8 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, Excerpt from sermon (Matt. 22:20-21) April, 1929. 9 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Volume One, p. 93. 10 Ibid, p. 68. 11 Rees, E.T., Excerpt taken from a report of the Sandfields area in the interest of a ministry there by the Forward Movement, 1926. 12 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Volume One, p. 162, 166. 13 Ibid, p. 135. 14 Ibid, p. 139. 15 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, Excerpt from a sermon preached in Sandfields on June 12, 1927. 16 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, A statement recorded during a ministers' association meeting following a lengthy report by the Temperance Committee, 1929. 17 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 105. 18 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol. One, p. 159. 19 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 168. 20 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol. One, p. 231. 21 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, Information acquired from a statement formulated at the founding of Lloyd-Jone's small Revival Band of Christian leaders, December 30, 1930. 22 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol. One, p. 246. 23 Ibid, p. 221. 24 Ibid, p. 234. 25 Ibid, p. 260-261. 26 Ibid, p. 265. 27 Ibid, p. 287. 28 Howells, Eliseus, Y Goleuad publication, February 1, 1933.. 29 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol. One, p. 333, 335, 337-338. 30 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. xv. 31 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, Statement made in a letter sent out by Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1940. 32 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 2, 24. 33 Ibid, p. 100-101. 34 Ibid, p. 114-115. 35 Ibid, p. 105-106. 36 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, Ephesians, Vol. 5, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982, p. 19-22. 37 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 165. 38 Ibid, p. 575-576. 39 Ibid, p. 161. 40 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 33. 41 Ibid, p. 94. 42 Ibid, p. 506. 43 Ibid, p. 583. 44 Ibid, p. 587. 45 Ibid, p. 588. 46 Ibid, p. 599. 47 Ibid, p. 53. 48 Ibid, p. 762. 49 Ibid, p. 773. 50 Ibid, p. 740. 51 Ibid, p. 776. 52 Ibid, p. 775. 53 Ibid p. 737. 54 Ibid, p. 58. 55 Ibid, p. 760-761. 56 Ibid, p. 198. 57 Ibid, p. 50.

58 Ibid, p. 47, 375. 59 Ibid, p. 47. 60 Ibid, p. 41. 61 Ibid, p. 762. 62 Ibid, p. 49. 63 Ibid, p. 176. 64 Martyn Lloyd Jones: Chosen by God, p. 150. 65 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two , p. 172. 66 Ibid, p. 54, 456, 613. 67 Ibid, p. 35. 68 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 275. 69 Ibid, p. 187. 70 Ibid, p. 413. 71 Ibid, p. 412, 420. 72 Ibid, p. 215. 73 Ibid, p. 285-86, 52. 74 Ibid, p. 440-441, 696, 768. 75 Smith, Wilbur, Preliminary Thoughts on Contemporary Preaching in London, Moody Monthly, 1955. 76 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 208. 77 Ibid, p. 208-209. 78 Lloyd-Jones, Bethan, Excerpt from a letter she wrote, August, 1949. 79 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 213-214. 80 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 214. 81 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 741. 82 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, Excerpts from letters written to his wife, January 20 and May 30, 1948. 83 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 379-380. (Also see p. 263 of Lloyd-Jone's Knowing the Times, Banner of Truth Trust, 1989. 84 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, Ephesians, Vol. 7, Banner of Truth Trust, 1982, p. 292. 85 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 763. 86 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 738. 87 Stevenson, H.F., Life of Faith, July 29, 1965. 88 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, Excerpt from sermon in First John, October 9, 1949. 89 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, Preaching and Preachers, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972, p. 97. 90 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 730-731. 91 Ibid, p. 747. 92 Ibid, p. 59. 93 Ibid, p. 376. 94 Ibid, p. 612. 95 Ibid, p. 571-572. 96 Ibid, p. 505. 97 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol. One, p. 135; Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 105. 98 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol. One, p. 288. 99 Lloyd Jones, David Martyn, Preaching and Preachers, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972, p. 263. 100 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 256. 101 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 269. 102 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, excerpt from letter written to Philip Hughes, April 17, 1946. 103 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. Two, p. 734. 104 Ibid, p. 267. 105 Ibid, p. 265. 106 Ibid, p. 284. 107 Ibid, p. 706-707. 108 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol.1, p. 198. 109 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 386. 110 Ibid, p. 105. 111 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol.1, p. 220. 112 Ibid, p. 159. 113 Ibid, p. 125. 114 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 105. 115 Lloyd Jones, David Martyn, excerpt from sermon (Hebrews 13:14), March 20, 1928. 116 Howard, Kenneth, excerpt from sermon notes taken from a Lloyd-Jones sermon, March 12, 1948. 117 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 405. 118 David Martyn, Lloyd-Jones, Healing and Medicine, London: Kingsway Publishing, 1987, p. 137 ff.

119 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 408. 120 Lloyd Jones, David Martyn, Ephesians, Banner of Truth Trust, 1982, Vol. 3, p. 102, 269; Vol. 5, p. 145. 121 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol.1, p. 183. 122 Ibid, p. 191. 123 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 758. 124 Ibid, p. 757. 125 Ibid, p. 154. 126 Lloyd Jones, David Martyn, Faith on Trial, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1965, p. 67-68. 127 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol.1, p. 206. 128 Ibid, p. 188. 129 No author given, excerpt from article in Observer magazine, March 19, 1967. 130 Lloyd Jones, David Martyn, excerpt from sermon on Mark 6:20, March 5, 1933. 131 Ibid, p. 216. 132 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 694. 133 Lloyd Jones, David Martyn, Faith on Trial, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1965, p. 88. 134 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 166. 135 Ibid, p. 263. 136 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol.1, p. 310-311. 137 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 631. 138 Packer, J.I., Chosen Vessels: Portraits of Ten Outstanding Christian Men, p. 110. 139 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol.1, p. 283; Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 130. 140 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, Puritans: Their Origins and Successors, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1987, p. 19. 141 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol.1, p. 365. 142 Ibid, p. 302. 143 Ibid, p. 97-98. 144 Ibid, p. 253-254. 145 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, excerpt from a Westminster conference address entitled, Puritanism and Its Origins, 1971. 146 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, Preaching and Preachers, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972, p. 317. 147 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 242, 356. 148 Excerpt from Lloyd-Jones sermon recorded in The Derry Standard newspaper, April 7, 1959. 149 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 60, Also partial excerpt from Lloyd-Jones letter to E.T. Rees, December, 29, 1926. 150 Ibid, p. 53. 151 Ibid, p. 710. 152 Davies, D.R., In Search of Myself, London, 1961, p. 194. 153 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, Preaching and Preachers, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972, p. 129-130. 154 No author given, Excerpt from Evening Citizen newspaper, Nov. 18, 1961. 155 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 364-365. 156 Ibid. 157 Ibid, p. 233-234. 158 Ibid, p. 325. 159 Fant, Clyde, and Pinson, Jr., W.M., Twenty Centuries of Great Preaching, Vol. 11, 1971, p. 269-271. 160 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 732. 161 Ibid, p. 324, 327. 162 Ibid, p. 470. 163 Ibid, p. 722-723. 164 Ibid, p. 488. 165 Knox's Works, 1846, Vol. 1, p. 101; Edward's Works, Vol. 1, p. 539. 166 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, Puritans: Their Origins and Successors, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1987, p. 15. 167 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 478. 168 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol.1, p. 129. 169 Ibid, p. 204. 170 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 388. 171 Ibid, p. 687, 773. 172 Ibid, p. 771. 173 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol.1, p. 252. 174 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p Ibid, p. 230-231. 175 Ibid, p. 497. 176 Ibid, p. 636. 177 No author given, The Methodist Recorder periodical, "American Bishop of Woolwich," June 10, 1965. 178 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 622-623.

179 Tytler, Donald, in Theology, November, 1976, pp. 375-376. 180 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 651. 181 Ibid, p. 776. 182 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol.1, p. 352. 183 Ibid, p. 328. 184 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 755. 185 Ibid, p. 756. 186 Ibid, p. 770-771. 187 Williams, Geoffrey, from an unpublished "tribute to my greatest living friend on earth" essay. 188 Ibid, p. 194. 189 Ibid, p. 232. 190 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol.1, p. 279. 191 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 195. 192 Ibid, p. 446. 193 Ibid, p. 689. 194 Lloyd-Jones, Martyn, excerpt from sermon on "Division---True and False," July, 1963. 195 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 458, 688. 196 Lloyd-Jones, Martyn, excerpt from sermon on "Schism" (Eph. 6:10-13), February 5, 1961. 197 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 682. 198 Ibid, p. 546. 199 Ibid, p. 305. 200 Lloyd-Jones, Martyn, "Religion Today and Tomorrow," from an address on BBC Wales, 1945. 201 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 659. 202 Ibid, p. 437, 555. 203 Ibid, p. 557, 708. 204 Catherwood, Christopher, Five Evangelical Leaders, Hodder & Stoughton, 1984, p. 89. 205 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 320, 429, 546. 206 Ibid, p. 632. 207 Ibid, p. 338. 208 Ibid, p. 339-340. 209 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn, Preaching and Preachers, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972, p. 95. 210 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 440. 211 Ibid, p. 73. 212 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol.1, p. 312. 213 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 574. 214 Ibid, p. 422. 215 Slaughter, Michael, cited in Great Preaching: Practical Advice from Powerful Preachers, Loveland, CO: Group Publications, 2003, 175. 216 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol.1, p. 198. 217 Ray Stedman, cited in A Passion for Preaching: Reflections on the Art of Preaching, Olford, David (ed) Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989, p. 16. 218 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 766. 219 McDill, Wayne, The 12 Essential Skills for Great Preaching, Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994, p. 94. 220 DeHaan, M.R., in Daily Bread, quoted by J. Daniel Baumann, An Introduction to Contemporary Preaching, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972, p. 149. 221 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 604. 222 Martoia, Ron, cited in Great Preaching: Practical Advice from Powerful Preachers, p. 125. 223 Lloyd-Jones, Martyn, Ephesians, Vol. 3, p. 102, p. 269. . 224 Excerpt from letter written to Lloyd-Jones by Douglas Johnson on January 13, 1944. 225 Hybels, Bill, Courageous Leadership, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002, p. 248 226 Lloyd-Jones, Martyn, Preaching and Preachers, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1971, pp. 87-88. 227 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith, Vol. 2, p. 722-723 228 Ibid, p. 723. 229 Murray, Iain, D.M. Lloyd Jones: The First Forty Years, Vol.1, p. 302.

Chapter Eight: Passing the Baton

"Unlike Buddhism or Hinduism, biblical faith takes history very seriously because God takes it very seriously. He took it seriously enough to begin it and to enter it and to promise that one day He will bring it to a serious close. The biblical view is that history is not an absurdity to be endured or an illusion to be dispelled or an endlessly repeating cycle to be escaped. Instead it is for each of us a series of crucial, precious, and unrepeatable moments that are seeking to lead us somewhere. True history has to do with the saving and losing of souls."1 -Frederick Buechner

Tracing the Gospel Thread Winding its way through history is a thread--the thread of the gospel of Jesus Christ, passed from the heart of one Christian into the heart of an individual who does not believe. If conversion results, the new believer is gradually nurtured toward maturity in Christ and eventually leads someone else to salvation and on it goes. Someday, when we're with God, perhaps He'll reveal to us the sustained gospel thread stretching all the way from Calvary to the Second Coming. But, for now, we must be content to know only segments. In this chapter, we will examine a short fragment that is amazing in the huge spiritual harvest that resulted. From this thread came five world evangelists who have been used of God to lead many millions into a saving relationship with Christ. It will become evident as the evangelists and their ministries are described that they had many similarities as well as many differences. We will seek to understand why God used these individuals, how their zeal to learn and to be mentored contributed to their growing effectiveness in ministry, what weaknesses and strengths resulted, and what sort of spiritual legacy they left behind. The thread begins with a middle-aged Sunday school teacher in Boston named Edward Kimball. He taught a young men's class at the Mount Vernon Congregational Church. In 1855, an eighteen-year-old shoe sales clerk began attending the class. His name was Dwight Moody, and he knew very little about God or the Bible. On April twenty-first of that year, as Kimball was preparing his Sunday school lesson, God seemed to speak to him about explaining the gospel to Moody. He went to the shoe store and nervously paced the sidewalk until he worked up enough courage to go in and speak to the young man. He found Moody shelving shoes in the back. Laying his hand on the young man's shoulder, he told him about Christ's love and what Christ had done for him. Moody was shocked to learn he had a soul and that anyone would shed tears over the state of that soul. It was not long after this that he became a Christian.2 Dwight L. Moody: Most Unlikely to Succeed Throughout the months immediately following his conversion, Moody had to learn even the most elemental Bible knowledge. When first asked by church elders what Christ had done for him and for us all, the young man answered that he thought Christ had done a great deal for us, but he didn't know of anything in particular. God also had to begin His sanctifying work on Moody's strong will--a stubbornness which resulted, quite often, in opinionated outbursts and heated conflicts with others.3 After Dwights repeated stumbling attempts at expressing his faith publicly, church members complained that he should "hold his peace until he should become more able to edify the meetings."4 Finally, his pastor at Mt. Vernon Congregational Church suggested that he could probably better serve the Lord in silence.5 One quality that Moody did not lack was enthusiasm and God brought spiritual mentors into his life to harness and direct that enthusiasm. Ms. Phillips, his boardinghouse "mother," taught him how to pray effectively and encouraged his interest in poor children. As time passed, J.B. Stillson, an evangelizer among sailors, taught him to witness and to study the Bible carefully and systematically. John Farwell, a Christian businessman, inspired him and helped provide his temporal needs and, eventually, ministry expenses.6

In 1858 Moody began venturing into the worst slum of Chicago and inviting children to come to an abandoned saloon where Sunday school classes were offered. As the Sunday school grew, Moody recruited teachers from churches. By 1861, about 1,500 children attended his Sunday school.7 For quite a long time, Moody would not attempt to teach the children himself. Then, occasionally when teachers failed to show up, he began telling brief Bible stories. To his surprise, he found that he enjoyed it and children listened. And, once he broke his silence, the dam burst, and he couldn't stop talking about his faith. However, he was still mortified about speaking to groups of adults.8 A pivotal incident occurred at this point in Moody's life. One of his Sunday school teachers told him that he was terminally ill. The teacher mourned the fact that none of the twelve- to sixteen-year-old girls in his class were Christians. Moody was taken aback. His intent had been to educate children biblically but he had somehow not imagined that "the little savages" could undergo the deep personal experience of salvation. He offered to accompany the teacher to each class members home. At each place, the teacher said, "I have come just to ask you to come to the Savior." As he explained the gospel, each of the girls was greatly moved and each put her trust in Christ. The girls met with their teacher for a last time and prayed stumbling prayers of dedication to God. Moody's heart flared with excitement. He knew from that moment that this was his life's work. This was crucial Christianity.9 Moody began accosting even strangers with the question, "Are you a Christian?" He demonstrated little tact and much impatience and some didn't appreciate his brash bluntness. One observer writes, "He was often most brutally ridiculed and persecuted. His language, his looks, his methods of work were made objects of ridicule and burlesque and the most cruel remarks were passed from person to person about him."10 Moody learned to control his temper and veil his sensitivity when attacked. But a friend reported that, when alone, the abuse heaped upon Moody had brought tears more than once.11 From one-to-one witnessing, Moody's speaking evolved from Bible stories with children, to informal comments in praise and prayer meetings, and gradually, to sharing with small groups of adults. As his confidence grew, he tried street preaching, preaching to soldiers, preaching in his church, and finally preaching to large Sunday school conventions.12 How did this progression occur? Though Moody was prospering greatly in the shoe business, in the early 1860s he decided to resign and devote himself full-time to gospel ministry. Moody connected himself to the Chicago YMCA and devoted many hours each day to helping the poor and evangelizing, always refusing formal remuneration.13 For a time, he existed on his substantial savings and occasional contributions by wealthy friends. After the Civil War started, Moody also began ministering to Union soldiers at Camp Douglas. Then as Cairo, Illinois became a vital U.S. army hub, he made many trips there to pass out Bibles and hold gospel services. When Camp Douglas became a Union prison camp, he and others initiated a one-to-one prayer and counseling ministry to Confederate prisoners. In addition, he made nine trips to Union battle lines as a chaplain.14 Edward Kirk, Moody's pastor, had become, in his eyes, very eloquent. Many of Moody's early sermon titles, outlines, and quotations were taken from Kirk's books, and even his delivery resembled the pastor's evangelistic preaching.15 Moody also made constant use of Cruden's Concordance, a topical Bible, and Joseph Parker's commentaries, but especially in the early days, he learned in other ways. He carried a notebook everywhere in which he jotted down information that he could include in sermons, and he took scribbled notes from sermons or Bible studies he attended. In addition, Moody constantly asked questions, whether from individuals or in casual discussions he set up wherever there was opportunity. He would ask, "Give me something out of your heart. Tell me something about Christ."16 With small groups of ministers, the entire conversation would consist of Moody's rapid fire questions about various

scriptures and doctrines. He would acknowledge freely that hed never been through a college or a theological seminary, and that he'd invited them to the huddle in order to draw out of them all the valuable insights possible to use in his work.17 Moody's Sunday school for children eventually became the Illinois Street Church and, though he held the reins, he appointed as the pastor a man named Wheeler. Moody was also elected president of the Chicago YMCA. He continued spreading the Good News while raising the funds for a magnificent multipurpose building for the YMCA.18 During this period, Moody met and eventually married a young woman named Emma Revell. She was a great strength to Moody in many ways. His formal education had ended when he was thirteen, so Emma taught her nearly illiterate husband to read and to improve his writing.19 Though his punctuation and spelling were never very impressive, he was able to function respectably. She also helped him learn social skills and manners. Moody always marveled that he had won the love of a woman he considered his complete superior.20 When Emma developed asthma in the mid-1860s, Moody took her with him by ship to England, believing the sea air would help. In England, Moody eagerly sought out George Muller, the great man of prayer. As he toured Muller's orphanage and conversed with him, Moody learned more about prayer and its importance. Recognizing Moody's frenetic intensity, Muller told him, "It's not so much what Moody can do for God; it's more what God can do--for and with Dwight Moody."21 In London, Moody went out of his way to meet Charles Spurgeon and to hear him preach. He longed to be able to reach crowds with the gospel the way Spurgeon did. Also, before he left England, Moody met an intense minister named Henry Varley. At a prayer meeting Moody attended, Varley said, "We try hard. We fail. We are sure we can succeed if we try harder tomorrow. We fail again. And if we succeed, it is only half success, half of what it would have been with God. We are all guilty. For I tell you tonight, the world has yet to see what God can do with one man wholly committed to Him." These words captivated Moody. He wanted to be that sort of man---totally committed to God. This became one of the great goals of his life.22 While in Ireland, Moody met an ex-prizefighter--Plymouth Brethren preacher, Henry Moorehouse. This young man was to have a profound effect on Moody. He challenged Moody: "Stop preaching your own words and preach God's Word. He will make you a great power for good." If Moody was anything, he was eminently teachable, and he paid heed to Moorehouse. Simple, dogged focus on the overarching truth of Scripture became the greatest source of Moody's pulpit excellence.23 To this point in his ministry, Moody had appealed to sinners to repent out of fear of God's judgment. Moorehouse explained that God hates sin, but He loved sinners enough to sacrifice His Son. He told Moody that sinners should be drawn to God more by love than terror. "God wants sons," said Moorehouse, "not slaves." From that point, Moody's preaching included the dual focus of the love and the justice of God.24 Two rather eccentric women in Chicago still sensed a lack in Moody's preaching. They thought that his speaking ability seemed human, the natural force and energy of a man, instead of the spiritual might of God. They told him they were praying that he'd receive the power of the Spirit. In 1871, while preaching a series in a Brooklyn church, Moody reported an anointing of the Spirit and such an overwhelming sense of God's love that he had to ask God to stay his hand. Moody never interpreted this experience as a second work of grace required in addition to salvation, and he never promoted speaking in tongues or prophesying. He only said that he was anointed with God's fire when he was spiritually cold. He was preaching the same messages, but there was now a new tenderness and dynamism in his preaching. He was no longer Moody, the fund-raiser, or Moody, the salvation salesman--he was Moody, God's channel, completely dependent upon God for spiritual results.25 After several trips to England through the years, in 1872 Moody took an IRS collector named Ira Sankey as musician on an evangelistic campaign to England. Despite British

skepticism and outright opposition at first, God began to move powerfully and crowds grew gradually larger. Eventually the two accepted invitations to both Scotland and Ireland and enjoyed the same response.26 When Moody and Sankey returned to America in 1874, they had ministered to over two million. They returned as well-publicized evangelists.27 Invitations to lead meetings began coming in from all directions. One of the greatest opportunities Moody organized was an evangelistic emphasis at the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago. For this cause, he recruited hundreds of preachers and singers from all over the world. He made it possible for people to hear the gospel in German, Polish, Russian, French. Literally millions heard the gospel during this six-month ministry.28 Moody continued preaching widely until his death in 1899. It is claimed that throughout his ministry he addressed more than a hundred million people with the gospel, and that, by some rough estimates, "he reduced the population of hell by a million souls."29 (Moody's legacy also includes several institutions of which Moody Church and Chicago Bible Institute (now Moody Bible Institute) have remained the most evangelical and spiritually effective. Wilbur Chapman: Distinguished Preacher In 1877, a young man named Wilbur Chapman attended one of Moody's meetings. Though reared in a Christian home in which belief in Christ was assumed, he had been experiencing some doubts. After Moody's sermon, Chapman went to one of the prayer rooms and explained this to Moody. Moody quoted John 5:24 and asked if Chapman believed it. Chapman said yes, and Moody asked if he was saved. When the boy answered that sometimes he thought he was, the evangelist laid a hand on his shoulder and said, "Young man, whom are you doubting?" Chapman realized instantly that he was doubting Christ Himself, and from that moment never doubted again.30 Chapman was only eighteen years old when he felt clearly called to serve God in the ministry. Two years later he enrolled at Lane Seminary in Ohio, and from there he entered pastoral work in 1882.31 He developed a friendship with Moody, and the older evangelist gradually became a warm mentor for the younger man. Chapman claimed that Moody had a most profound influence which only increased with the passing years.32 In fact, after Moody's death, Chapman wrote a book about him entitled The Life and Work of D.L. Moody. Moody often cheered him up with his optimistic encouragement. And when advice was needed, Moody's advice was always prompt and wise.33 Chapman learned much from watching Moody, and described his mentor as "modest as a woman and humble as a child."34 Moody displayed this unassuming spirit by often speaking words of encouragement to civil servants and ordinary folks. He said he wanted them to know he was interested. In conversation, Moody's questions were invariably ones which would make a person appear to best advantage before his peers. And he always had an open hand toward others. Once, in the middle of a conversation with Chapman about urban evangelization, he pointed out some white turkeys and rare ducks on his property and promised he would send a pair to Chapman's children, which he did.35 *See note. Along with D.L. Moody, F.B. Meyer, the well-known British author and preacher, also served as an example for Wilbur Chapman.36 Meyer placed vital emphasis on the Holy Spirit, and, following a special filling of the Spirit in 1871, Moody also preached of the indispensability of spiritual anointing. These emphases had such a profound impact on Chapman that he wrote a book entitled, Received Ye the Holy Ghost? A preacher named Billy Sunday would later be greatly influenced by the book. When Chapman was a young seminary graduate, Moody had encouraged him to preach evangelistically. Initially, Chapman took a pastorate, but when Moody and others gave him evangelistic preaching opportunities, he eagerly took them.37 Moody also encouraged Chapman and a Reverend Dickey to launch a Christian conference center at Winona Lake, Indiana which is still thriving today.38 When Chapman led evangelistic meetings, his musician/song leader was named Peter

Bilhorn. Through involvement with the YMCA, Bilhorn met a young man named Billy Sunday. Sunday was a well-known ex-major league baseball player who had become an enthusiastic Christian. Sensing a call to ministry, young Billy Sunday left professional baseball in 1891 and, like D.L. Moody before him, began working for the YMCA. From 1891 until 1894, Sunday worked long hours helping the sick and destitute, presenting his personal testimony, praying with the troubled, comforting the afflicted, and burying the dead. He became increasingly convinced that no political, economic, or social program could transform the slums or lastingly decrease crime. He stated that "to attempt reform in the black depths of the great city would be as useless as trying to purify the ocean by pouring into it a few gallons of spring water."39 During this period, there were several from Sunday's church who taught him the Bible and he began, in turn, to teach new converts the biblical basics. And there was also Bilhorn. He never got tired of answering Sunday's constant questions about God's Word. Bilhorn taught him how the entire Bible fit together. Through this discipling, Sunday began to learn, not only how to understand and obey Scripture but how to break it down so the typical non-believer or new believer could comprehend it.40 In 1892, ten years after Chapman entered the pastorate, he left it to devote himself full time to evangelism. For the next two years he criss-crossed the Midwest, holding meetings in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and even venturing on occasion to Pennsylvania, Ontario, and New York.41 When, in 1894, Chapman was searching for a ministry assistant, Bilhorn introduced him to Sunday.42 Along with Chapman himself, young Sunday had been one of Moody's World's Fair preachers the year before.43 In any case, after interviewing many prospective candidates, Chapman decided Sunday was the right choice. *Note: Moody not only led many to salvation but he influenced a great number of people's lives. Just to name a few: Ira Sankey might have died an IRS collector if Moody had not tapped him to be his musical partner in evangelism; the ministry of British pastor, F.B. Meyer, was transformed through Moody's influence; intellectual R.A. Torrey became an evangelistic preacher, G.Campbell Morgan's gifts were enhanced and publicized...the list goes on. Billy Sunday: Apprentice for Evangelism When Billy Sunday agreed to work with Chapman, he was not volunteering as an evangelist. Most of his responsibilities were behind the scenes. He went into towns in advance of Chapman and arranged housing, set up prayer meetings, organized choirs, helped erect revival tents, organized the offerings, sold the evangelist's song books and sermons following each meeting, and occasionally preached when called upon. This apprenticeship period proved invaluable to Sunday.44 He learned that careful preparation is vital to the success of evangelistic campaigns. He learned that evangelistic meetings were inextricably connected to local churches and were successful only when pastors inspired their people to invite the unchurched in their city and trained believers to follow up with discipleship when the evangelist moved on.45 Sunday did not feel he was a good public speaker. He said to his wife, "I don't know why God wants me in His work. He knows I'm a good ball player and a poor preacher." However, at this point, Sunday recalled that his grandfather used to say: "It's not the man of great natural talent who wins, but he who pushes his talent, however small, to its utmost capacity."46 So Sunday applied himself and learned volumes about preaching through the mentorship of Chapman. No homiletics course could have been nearly as profitable--Chapman had gone on to earn his doctorate in theology, and some claimed he was without peer as a Christian thinkerpreacher. Chapman critiqued Sunday's first messages, he provided him with texts and outlines, showed him how to make his sermons both biblical and relevant, and gradually began giving him more preaching assignments. His sermon critiques, instruction, and modeling helped

Sunday polish his preaching and his people skills.47 Chapman was wise enough not to try producing a clone of himself. He encouraged Sunday to develop his own speaking style.48 Sunday developed a style that was uniquely dynamic and straightforward. In the winter of 1896, Chapman made a decision to leave evangelism and return to the pastorate. This came as a surprise to Sunday, and initially he was stunned and discouraged. He had been away from baseball too long to return, and he hesitated to go back to YMCA work. Six days after Chapman's announcement a telegram arrived from the small town of Garner, Iowa asking if Sunday would come and preach for their revival. A week after he started preaching in Garner, a larger Iowa town invited him, and then other invitations began flowing in. During the next twelve years, Sunday preached sixty-six revivals, mostly in Iowa and Illinois. He himself was a colorful character with a bombastic, radical, athletic style of preaching. But in the early years there was nothing glamorous or glitzy about the ministry. Most of the meetings were held in small cities, and Sunday traveled from one town to the next in drafty, uncomfortable railway coaches. Meetings were held in church buildings. But as the crowds began to grow, Sunday rented big canvas tents. Then in 1907, Sunday and his wife made a crucial decision that would have great repercussions upon their family and ministry in the years following. Sunday's wife, Nell, left the children with caretakers and joined him on the road as his full-time administrator. She began screening the mail that came in, planning revival dates, organizing advance preparations in cities, setting up prayer meetings, Bible studies, and Christian clubs in these cities, rearranging staff assignments, and building the organization eventually to twenty-six staff members. Soon Sunday and his team were in demand in large cities across America and the campaigns began drawing major media coverage. Lyle Dorsett, Sunday historian, believes that there is no way Billy Sunday could have vaulted himself and his infant organization to national fame, material wealth, and numerical success without his wife's administrative skills. However, the two serious missteps the Sundays made at this point were 1) abandoning their primary role as parents to their children, and 2) managing the organization's finances without appropriate accountability. Both situations resulted in eventual disaster. Financially, between 1907 and 1920, the Sundays began receiving huge offerings in some of the big city revivals, and the family was soon enjoying the benefits of a wealthy lifestyle. There was no individual or board to govern finances. They were not following the example of the fastidious Chapman. Though Moody was not answerable to anyone in regard to ministry monies, he was always quite frugal with his personal finances. Sunday was not.49 Generally speaking, the final period of Sunday's preaching ministry (1921-1935) was a period of decline. The Sundays' three sons grew to reject the Christian faith and adopted wild, irresponsible lifestyles. Each died prematurely. Thus, outside pressures and family tragedies resulted in a radical cutback of Sunday's revival engagements, and he preached fewer revivals, limited mostly to smaller cities.50 Just like Moody, however, it is believed that Sunday was amazingly effective as an ambassador of the gospel. He preached to over one hundred million people over the thirty-nineyear span of his campaigns. And again, similar to Moody, of this number, over one million responded to an invitation to make a commitment to Jesus Christ.51 Billy Graham: Boy Preacher Another boy named Billy was exposed to Billy Sunday's preaching when he was only five years old and his daddy took him to a 1924 evangelistic campaign in Charlotte, North Carolina. When Sunday's campaign ended, he left behind a dedicated group called the Christian Men's Club. In 1934, this club got together with a few area pastors and invited an evangelist named Mordecai Ham to come preach in Charlotte. He came to a 5,000-seat ramshackle tabernacle on Pecan Avenue.52 By this time, the boy named Billy was sixteen years old. In prayer meetings for Ham's crusade, a friend of Billy's father prayed that out of Charlotte the Lord would raise up someone

to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth. But Billy appeared to be the last person on earth who would embody an answer to that prayer. He told his parents that he had no intention of going to hear Mr. Ham, and he boycotted the meetings for nearly a month. In his mind, Ham was only part of a religious traveling circus. When he finally went to a meeting it was only because a friend called Ham a fighting preacher and Billy liked fighters.53 Ham always opened his Bible and spoke straight from the text. Billy didn't like some of the things Ham said, but he found himself mesmerized and he returned night after night to hear more. It seemed as if when the evangelist spoke about sin, he always pointed his bony finger right at the young man. Once Billy was so sure Ham had singled him out, he ducked behind a woman's wide-brimmed hat. Finally one evening in 1934, Billy Graham made his way forward during the invitation time and committed his life to Christ as Savior and Lord.54 Though Billy Sunday (indirectly) and Mordecai Ham (directly) had early influence upon Graham's choice to live for Christ, there does not appear to be one mentor in particular that stands out in his life. However, after Graham sensed a call from God to preach the gospel in 1937, a Florida Bible Institute instructor named John Minder offered training in pastoral theology, Bible interpretation, and Christian service.55 John Minder was not just an instructor to Graham. He occasionally offered gentle counsel, and he comforted the heartbroken young man when a fiance broke their engagement. He let Graham fill in as preacher at a tabernacle, and he encouraged minister friends to give Graham a chance.56 Still a teen at this time, Graham raided books of printed sermons, gleaning illustrations, borrowing outlines, and, at times, memorizing the entire text of a message.57 His preaching was not limited to churches; he was willing to take almost any opportunity at all to practice his speaking. He preached at a dog track, at the local jail, and at a Tampa, Florida trailer park. He used an interpreter at a Spanish mission, and was once shoved face-first into the mud after preaching in front of a bar.58 By the age of twenty-two he was an ordained Southern Baptist minister and a particularly effective evangelist to teens. But feeling an insatiable desire to learn, he then entered Wheaton College near Chicago.59 Following Graham's college education, he married and accepted a pastorate which would only last eighteen months. He loved preaching but did not warm up to other pastoral duties such as personal visitation and managing congregational conflict.60 Then Graham began preaching on a small radio show sponsored by a man named Torrey Johnson. This ministry evolved into evangelistic preaching at nationwide youth rallies for a fledgling organization called Youth for Christ which was being developed by Johnson.61 Graham was gradually polishing speaking skills which God would use mightily in later years. He often practiced each sermon on an associate, sometimes running through it several times until it was well implanted in his mind.62 During the mid-1940s, Graham met Stephen Olford, an eloquent British evangelist. He was impressed by a message on the Holy Spirit Olford delivered. The two men spent several days together and he led Graham step by step through the commitment process that had produced such a profound spiritual renewal in him a few months earlier. Olford later recalled that Graham was "so teachable, so beautifully humble and reflective. He just drank in everything I could give him." As Olford shared his own testimony, Graham's eyes grew moist and he said, "Stephen, I see it. That's what I want. That's what I need in my life." The two knelt and Graham poured out a prayer of total dedication to God. Soon they went from praying to praising and Graham exulted, "I have it. I'm filled. This is the turning point in my life."63 It seemed evident to many that, following this experience, Graham's preaching took on fresh power and authority. An evidence of this power can be noted in an incident which took place in Britain. A rector sent a transcript of one of Graham's recent sermons to a celebrated speaker. The speaker remarked that he could see nothing in the message that any ordinary evangelical might not have preached. When Graham heard of the reaction, he wasnt surprised. His only response was that it was the Holy Spirit that gave the message its power. It reminded

Graham of George Whitefield's response when someone asked if one of his sermons could be printed. "Yes," said Whitefield, "if you print the lightning and the thunder."64 Graham's Spirit filling did not, of course, negate the need for conscientious reading, study, and preparation. He was extremely thorough in writing his sermons, and he read incessantly. His reading tended to focus on biography, history and current affairs. He subscribed to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor, and three London papers. His wife, Ruth, extended his range by distilling for him such writers as C.S. Lewis, Solzhenitsyn, Pascal, Chesterton, George MacDonald, along with some theology and Bible studies. As the years passed, Graham also gleaned research materials from his father-inlaw, Nelson Bell, and from Leighton Ford, Calvin Theilman, Donald Gray Barnhouse, and others.65 In 1949, he agreed to preach an evangelistic crusade in Los Angeles. Stuart Hamblen, the number one radio personality on the West Coast, invited Graham to his radio show. Then Hamblen attended the campaign, committed his life to Christ, and testified to it in a campaign meeting.66 At this point, William Randolph Hearst, the great newspaper magnate, instructed his reporters to "puff Graham." Other papers across the nation picked up the story.The Los Angeles campaign lasted for eight full weeks.67 Almost overnight, an unknown sometime evangelist from North Carolina, became a speaker in national demand. In the first year following the Los Angeles phenomenon, Graham preached to 1.5 million people and founded the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, a nationwide radio broadcast, a film ministry, a financial policy, and a compatible Team.68 The full-time evangelistic career that began in 1944 has not stopped since. It is conservatively estimated that Billy Graham Crusades have reached more than 200 million people in person, and many millions more on radio, television, and film.69 Franklin Graham: Like Father, Like Son In 1952, Billy and Ruth bore a son whom they named William Franklin.70 As Franklin grew up, his father was away preaching crusades for months at a time. As is rather common with preacher's kids, people expected the Graham children to be exemplary Christians. Franklin rebelled against this stereotype and adopted a lifestyle which included heavy drinking, drugs, smoking, girls, and fast cars.71 He lived this way throughout his teen years and into his twenties. It was in Jerusalem, during a trip through the Middle East, that Franklin made a firm decision to follow Christ. After committing his life to Christ, Franklin admitted that he had not been able to forget a conversation he had with his father in 1974 in which Billy assured him of Ruth's love and his own no matter what Franklin did, where he went, or how he ended up.72 After Franklin became serious about God, he took the helm of two Christian relief organizations, Samaritan's Purse and World Medical Mission. As Franklin became immersed in these ministries of mercy, he began telling people that the Lord called his dad to the stadiums of the world and called him to the ditches.73 However, it became increasingly obvious as the years passed that God also was appointing Franklin to preach the gospel. Franklin was ordained into the Gospel ministry in Tempe, Arizona in 1982, with his father and several other ministers presiding.74 Then in 1995 he was elected vice chairman of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. The demand for his evangelistic preaching around the world is steadily growing.75 Along with his father's obvious example, Franklin has also been mentored by associate preachers in Billy Graham's Association such as Dr. John Wesley White and others.76 Franklin Graham's early ministry appears to indicate the potential of being perhaps as spiritually successful as his father's. Note: In addition to the gospel thread traced briefly here, there are many other threads fastened to it, stretching out in numerous directions. One example is seen in Moody's witness to Britisher, Edward Studd. Then Edwards son, C.T. Studd, also became a Christian, and volunteered as a lifetime missionary. Then J.E.K. Studd, C.T.s brother, became a believer and was invited to promote missions on U.S. campuses. John R. Mott, still another Moody convert,

was intrigued by J.E.K. Studd and, as a result, later attended a Christian Student Conference sponsored by Moody.77 There he heard a challenging sermon on missions and volunteered with 99 others to be a foreign missionary.78 Mott became, arguably, the "most influential world religious leader of the twentieth century."79 Another example: Billy Sunday led a man named Fred Donnelson to salvation, Donnelson led Jerry Falwell to salvation, and Falwell has led many others to salvation through his church work and the college that he has established.80 Implications for Today's Church Leaders Principles We Can Learn From: A number of people helped to mentor D.L. Moody as the young man reached out to mature believers all around him for knowledge and insight. Then Moody and F.B. Meyer were prominent mentors for Wilbur Chapman as he began in the pastorate and eventually moved into evangelism. Chapman and his music leader, Peter Bilhorn, were influential mentors to Billy Sunday as God prepared him to launch his own evangelistic career. Billy Graham was indirectly converted through Sundays ministry and mentored by John Minder, a college instructor, who not only taught him in the classroom but was a friend who comforted him in tough times and found opportunities for Graham to begin improving his preaching ability. Graham also learned eagerly from peers such as Torrey Johnson and Stephen Olford, as well as older veterans in the faith such as his father-in-law, L. Nelson Bell. Franklin Graham surely gleaned much from his own father. Other Graham associates also served as models for him and Bob Pierce, former president of World Vision, was a powerful influence. Kenn Gangel writes that effectiveness in this mentoring process is determined by a number of factors including degree of rapport, the effectiveness of the process, and the willingness of the mentees to grow. But he emphasizes that Christian leaders can capitalize on a power-packed threesome that no secular leader possesses---the power of the Word of God, the supernatural dynamic of prayer, and the vitality of the Holy Spirit.81 What are some principles we can learn from the lives of these men? 1) Humble Teachability Once, some Bible college students converged on Dr. Stephen Olford and asked him for the key to successful Christian leadership. His immediate answer was, Bent knees, wet eyes, and a broken heart.82 The best leaders are those who remain humble and teachable throughout their lives. Moody put aside his pride as he asked ministers and leaders his multitudinous questions about the Bible and about God. They were his seminary and he didn't care if this placed him below these men. Chapman was humble enough to constantly observe Moody and ask advice from him even when Chapman became a respected preacher himself. Sunday displayed teachability as he spent several years behind the scenes, doing the grunt work for Chapman's evangelistic ministry and learning the ropes from an experienced servant of God. As a young man, Graham preached everywhere from trailer parks to dog tracks in order to reach people and to gain experience in speaking. And when a young British preacher told Graham about the anointing power of the Holy Spirit, Graham did not disdain the words of a peer, but eagerly sat at Olford's feet to learn what he could learn. As the son of one of the greats, Franklin Graham could rest on his laurels and seek special treatment, but he paid his dues by climbing down into the trenches and helping the disadvantaged worldwide. Each of these leaders learned to follow long before they were ever called to lead. Leith Anderson reminds us that "the Bible says comparatively little about leadership and a great deal about followership. Jesus did not invite Peter, Andrew, James, and John to become leaders immediately. He said, 'Follow me.' "83 Even after their apprenticeship years, it is obvious that the preachers presented in this chapter always viewed themselves as servants with a master. While position can present

opportunities for leadership, position does not guarantee that one is a leader. As long as position is honored above the discipleship of being a follower, Christendom will honor the ambitious over the obedient.84 We get the kind of leaders we allow for. At this time, there does not seem to be a shortage of egotistically ambitious Christian leaders competing for attention and finances. 2) Preaching Expertise Each of the men in this chapter studied respected preachers and their sermons incessantly. If such a thing can happen, some preachers mentored our evangelists in their speaking skills without even knowing it. Though each evangelist eventually developed his own style, in the early years they copied the pulpit delivery and even some of the messages of select leaders. It is interesting that in comparing the written sermon texts of these preachers, none stands out significantly from the others as more eloquent, powerful, or captivating. In fact, some of the messages do not appear especially extraordinary in themselves. This supports the point that it was really the Spirit of God infusing the words with power to convict, persuade, and lead to salvation. Humanly speaking, some may attach significance to the fact that both Moody and Graham served at one point as salesmen. However, Sunday, Chapman, and Franklin Graham didn't have sales jobs, yet thousands have responded to their gospel presentations just the same. It is impossible to say which of the preachers were more talented or skillful in the art of preaching. Certainly, Moody had the most strikes against him. His education did not reach beyond 7th grade, he had no formal theological education, and he was never formally ordained.85 For months after he founded the Chicago Sunday school classes, he felt unable to teach the children himself, depending on recruits to do it. His first attempts were hesitant and bumbling, consisting of only a few broken sentences. Sunday had no education at Bible school or seminary either, and, at least initially, viewed himself honestly as a poor speaker. In the world of professional baseball he had not needed to develop public speaking abilities. His speaking gradually improved with practice under the tutelage of Wilbur Chapman. Thus, God chose to use Moody and Sunday, two relatively untrained servants, as powerfully and extensively as the others. In terms of sheer energy and dynamism on the platform, Sunday and the Grahams probably outstrip Moody and Chapman. But the latter two have been considered just as effective for God. It is interesting that, though all came to depend completely upon the Holy Spirit for results, they spent years honing and polishing their preaching gift. As we know, dependence on God's Spirit does not mean we don't need to work at being the best communicators we can possibly be. Still, it is self-evident that God does not depend upon human charisma or energy to work supernaturally. 3) Emphasis upon the Holy Spirit After Moody experienced a special anointing of the Holy Spirit, he always emphasized the Spirit and the need to constantly lean on him for spiritual strength and fruitfulness. Growing out of this was a strong focus on prayer. He stated, "I'd rather be able to pray than to be a great preacher. Jesus Christ never taught his disciples to preach, but only how to pray."86 Homiletics professor, David Larsen, adds, Strange it is that any discussion of preaching should take place outside the context of believing prayer! We have not prepared until we have prayed.87 In fact, everywhere one looks regarding the subject of preaching, there seems to be an unrelenting challenge to pray: Finney stated, I would say that unless I had the spirit of prayer I could do nothing.88 Spurgeon wrote, If there be any man under heaven who is compelled to carry out the precept--Pray without ceasing, surely it is the Christian minister. The fact is,

the secret of all ministerial success lies in prevalence at the mercy-seat.89 Torrey said, Prayer is the key that unlocks all the storehouses of Gods infinite grace and power.90 Reverend Kent Hughes stated, Should I ever write a book on essentials for preaching. I would devote at least the first third of the book to spiritual preparation in matters such as prayer.91 Chapman learned the truth about the Holy Spirit and prayer from Moody and was so renewed by it that he wrote the book Received Ye the Holy Ghost? Sunday later read the book and was powerfully influenced by it.92 Graham was challenged by the lives of these evangelists to seek the power of God in his own ministry, and after Stephen Olford spoke to him about receiving the filling of the Holy Spirit, this also transformed his effectiveness. Throughout the biographical and autobiographical material regarding these preachers, over and over they declare the fact that it was the power of God's Spirit that brought spiritual success to their ministries. The indispensability of the Holy Spirit's power for preachers and teachers cannot be overemphasized. God used the sermons of these men to move in millions of human lives because the words were infused with His Spirit's power. John MacArthur writes, Powerful preaching is neither benign storytelling, sociological commentary on current events, nor pop psychology designed to make everyone feel good. Powerful preaching occurs only when a Spiritillumined man of God expounds clearly and compellingly Gods Spirit-inspired revelation in Scripture.93 Leaders can "sell" Christ with human methods of persuasion, but the results of such ministry is often superficial and does not result in genuine, lasting fruit. Gods power is not some automated ethereal force that takes control of listeners minds. The Spirit of God first and foremost expresses himself in compassion for the individual human being. John Broadus stated, If I were asked what is the first thing in effective preaching, I should say sympathy; and what is the second thing, I should say sympathy; and what is the third thing, I should say sympathy.94 This caring is not an end in itself; out of real compassion for real people must come fresh insight for dealing with their problems in wisdom and faith. Any preacher who does not love people in this way should not continue to preach. Along with a deep caring, another important strength of these evangelists was the ability to connect the Scriptures with peoples greatest spiritual needs. Whoever will become a preacher must feel the needs of humanity until it becomes an obsession of his soul.95 Haddon Robinson writes, Sermons catch fire when the flint of a persons problem strikes the steel of the Word of God. A spark ignites that burns in the mind. Directing our preaching at peoples needs is not a mere persuasive technique; it is the task of the ministry.96 4) Focus on the Scriptures Moody was challenged by Henry Moorehouse to stop preaching his own words and concentrate on God's Word. From this point, Moody began spending early morning hours with his Cruden's Concordance, painstakingly studying the Bible. His messages placed a much stronger focus, not on what D.L. Moody thought, but on what God proclaims. Wilbur Chapman was probably the greatest thinker of the evangelists in this chapter. Many of his messages might be considered thoughtful masterpieces in the presentation of God's Word. (Even Graham had immense respect for the life and message of Chapman. One account describes how Graham went alone to Chapman's former home one day and spent the afternoon on his doorstep, musing and praying.) Though Billy Sunday's sermons were peppered quite liberally with catchy statements, anecdotes, and moral warnings, they always had a focal Scripture text. Chapmans messages were steeped consistently in Scriptural insight. From the beginning, Graham made the Bible the core of his messages, and many of his sermons consist of rapid-fire Scripture quotations, punctuated by relevant statistics or brief illustrative stories or anecdotes. When asked what

Graham would change if he had his life to live over again, he said that he would devote more time to Bible study.97 Like his father, Franklin Graham, refers often to Scripture in his messages, and the Bible is focused on as the answer to human dilemmas. Thus, preaching is not simply standing in front of an audience and giving a speech on an ancient book. If that were the case, we should cancel all church and evangelistic services, effective immediately. No, the point of preaching is the transformation of lives--when we have preached a difficult Scripture because God said to, when we impart something about Christs character, when God speaks to people in an intimate way, when spiritual victories are won, when the tactics of Satan are exposed and diminished, we know we are preaching for transformation.98 And this goal was always central in the lives of these evangelists. 5) Spiritual accountability D.L Moody had honest friends such as John Farwell to advise him, especially in those first attempts at ministry when his rash nature sometimes kicked in. Later, his wife was constantly in the background helping to keep her husband on his toes. His family never coddled him but kept him firmly in the world of reality. Also he worked closely throughout his evangelistic career with Ira Sankey, and they were a check on each other spiritually. Chapman was a man of integrity and nothing he did ever smacked of scandal. His ministry partner, Peter Bilhorn, was an accountability partner for him. For several years, Billy Sunday had Chapman to keep him accountable, and later he traveled with his wife. Besides this, it is not certain who stayed close enough to him to play this role. At least one case is documented in which individuals tried to enmesh Sunday in a sexual scandal, but he escaped the trap and avoided involvement with the woman. From the beginning of Graham's ministry, his team members--men such as Grady Wilson and Cliff Barrows--were also his close friends. Undoubtedly this closeness with an inner circle has helped guard against moral failure throughout his long ministry. Still, it is said that Graham has taken wise precautions such as having his hotel rooms checked for women or scandalous materials before he even enters them. Moody was not closely accountable financially but did not abuse the situation. Though he and his family lived comfortably, they never indulged in a luxurious lifestyle. By all accounts Chapman also lived quite frugally throughout his ministry.86 Sunday was not closely accountable financially and it is obvious that, as his ministry progressed, he didn't handle the growing coffers very responsibly. Graham saw the problem early in ministry and took steps to resolve it by setting up an organizational board that made budgetary decisions and doled out a fixed yearly salary to him.99 6) Leaving a Living Spiritual Legacy a) We cannot even estimate the hundreds of gospel threads these preachers were used to initiate. We must emphasize, however, that a spiritual salvation thread can be started by any Christian, no matter how unknown or seemingly insignificant. Ed Kimball was only a boy's Sunday school teacher, but he was part of a plan that eventually resulted in five great evangelists preaching in North America, Europe, and throughout the world. b)History holds many examples of a process that starts with one man or woman, becomes a movement, but ends as a monument---a dusty spiritual tombstone.100 This is often because there was no God-centered mentoring. In the Bible we find that Moses mentored Joshua to take his place and Eli trained young Samuel. But we also note that most of Israel's judges and kings never trained holy successors. John Maxwell states outright that there is no genuine success without a successor.101 Generally speaking, the individuals featured in this chapter realized that without future leaders there is no future for the Christian faith. In the book Developing the Leaders around You, John Maxwell writes that the ideal equippers or mentors can impart a spiritual vision of the ministry, give the protege the tools he or she needs, and then help the individual along the way, especially at those crucial beginning points of the journey.

But if leaders want to win and develop people, writes Gangel, they must know their followers--their spiritual condition, their personal abilities and limitations, their weaknesses and strengths, and their personal needs. That knowledge presupposes a highly developed, indeed, a spiritually sophisticated network of interpersonal relations and communication.102 As Christians, we tend to want the process of discipleship or mentoring to be neat and tidy---one long-term exclusive relationship between a completely mature saint and a longing learner. However, in some cases the mentoring process may be shared by more than one person over a span of years. Maybe that is the way it should be. A former seminary student of mine showed promise as a writer and I began encouraging him. I coached him a bit and edited his first attempts. Eventually, I started looking for writing opportunities for him. Now, eight years later, he's experienced in pastoral ministry, a fine writer, and we still keep in touch. Back in seminary, we were close friends, but he didn't seek mentoring from me in other areas, only in writing, so that's how I tried to help. Few veterans in the faith have all the knowledge and expertise to nurture someone in every area. Many leaders probably do not mentor because they imagine that it requires an inordinate amount of time, and extra time is one commodity they do not have. However, being one of several mentors in a person's life need not be terribly time-consuming. Making efficient use of lunches, the phone, e-mail, etc., can make a relatively small commitment of time very valuable in the mentoring process. At least as important as one's primary ministry is the ministry of mentoring at least one person. Ron Lee Davis writes of an athiestic Russian Jew named Boris Kornfeld who was imprisoned in one of Stalin's gulags. He despised Christianity until he met a fellow prisoner who told him of a Jewish Messiah who had died for mankind and now called all humanity to himself. The friend was removed to an unknown fate, but Kornfeld could not forget his message. Kornfeld became a reluctant believer, and realized he could no longer sign false documents which would send fellow prisoners to their deaths. When he refused, he had to know he may have signed his own death warrant. In the meantime, in the gulag hospital, Kornfeld's duty was to check on patients. One patient was groggy from an operation for intestinal cancer, but Kornfeld began sharing with him the change that was occurring in his heart because of Christ. He spoke of hope and forgiveness. The next morning, Kornfeld was dead, his head crushed as he slept, but the patient lived. He remembered the hope of faith in Christ and embraced Christ for himself. The patient's name was Alexander Solzhenitsyn. In the final hours of his life, Boris Kornfeld lived the lifestyle of a mentor.103 A black pastor related the following words to the college group in his church: Children, you're going to die! One of these days, they're going to take you out to the cemetery, drop you in a hole...and go back to the church and eat potato salad. The important question I want to ask is this: When you die are you alone going to be happy, leaving everybody else crying? The answer lies in whether you live to get titles or you live to get testimonies. When they lay you in the grave, are people going to stand around reciting the fancy titles you earned, or are they going to stand around giving testimonies of the good things you did for them. Will you leave behind just a newspaper column telling people how important you were, or will you leave crying people who give testimonies of how they've lost the best friend they ever had There's nothing wrong with titles. Titles are good things to have. But if it ever comes down to a choice between a title or a testimony---go for the testimony." 104 Ron Lee Davis reminds us that, as mentors, we are going for the testimony. A mentor is one who pours his life into others, and is willing to pour his life out for others. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that a righteous person is one who lives for the next generation.105 The leaders in this chapter did not forget the next generation.

Footnotes
1 Buechner, Frederick, Wishful Thinking: A Theological ABC, New York: Harper & Row, 1973, p. 38. 2 Dorsett, Lyle, The Life of D.L. Moody: A Passion for Souls, Chicago: Moody Press, 1997, pp.47-48 3 Ibid, p. 50. 4 Curtis, Richard, They Called Him Mister Moody, New York: Doubleday, 1962, p. 55. 5 High, Stanley, Billy Graham, New York: McGraw Hill, 1956, p. 6. 6 Dorsett, Lyle, The Life of D.L. Moody: A Passion for Souls, pp. 62-64, 70-71. 7 Ibid, pp. 64, 73. 8 Pollock, John, Moody: A Biographical Portrait of a Pacesetter in Modern Mass Evangelism, New York: Macmillan, 1963, p. 31. 9 Ibid, pp. 34-35. 10 Ibid, pp. 61. 11 Ibid, p. 62 12 Gundry, Stanley, Love Them In: The Life and Theology of D.L. Moody, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976, p. 40. 13 Dorsett, Lyle, The Life of D.L. Moody: A Passion for Souls, pp. 81-84. 14 Ibid, pp. 91-91, 97. 15 Curtis, Richard, They Called Him Mister Moody, p. 55. 16 Gundry, Stanley, Love Them In: The Life and Theology of D.L. Moody, p. 41. 17 Ibid, p. 42. 18 Dorsett, Lyle, The Life of D.L. Moody: A Passion for Souls, pp. 122-126. 19 High, Stanley, Billy Graham, p. 6. 20 Pollock, John, Moody: A Biographical Portrait of a Pacesetter in Modern Mass Evangelism, p. 28. 21 Bailey, Faith, D.L. Moody: The Greatest Evangelist of the Nineteenth Century, Chicago: Moody Press, 1959, pp. 82-84. 22 Ibid, p. 84. 23 High, Stanley, Billy Graham, p. 9. 24 Gundry, Stanley, Love Them In: The Life and Theology of D.L. Moody, pp. 45-46. 25 Wiersbe, Warren, Living with the Giants: The Lives of Great Men of the Faith, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993, pp. 96-98. 26 Dorsett, Lyle, The Life of D.L. Moody: A Passion for Souls, pp. 179-194. 27 Bailey, Faith, D.L. Moody: The Greatest Evangelist of the Nineteenth Century, pp. 120-121. 28 Dorsett, Lyle, The Life of D.L. Moody: A Passion for Souls, pp. 390-391. 29 Dufus, Robert, "The Hound of Heaven," American Mercury, Vol. 5, April 1925, pp. 424-32. 30 Chapman, Wilbur, The Life and Work of Dwight L. Moody, Philadelphia: John Winston, 1900, pp. 28-29. 31 Dorsett, Lyle, Billy Sunday and the Redemption of Urban America, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991, pp. 28-29. 32 Chapman, Wilbur, The Life and Work of Dwight L. Moody, p. 19. 33 Ibid, p. 29. 34 Ibid, p. 26. 35 Ibid, pp. 26-27. 36 Dorsett, Lyle, Billy Sunday and the Redemption of Urban America, p. 50. 37 Ibid, p. 57. 38 Ibid, p. 50. 39 Ibid, p. 48. 40 Stocker, Neal, Billy Sunday: Baseball Preacher, Chicago: Moody Press, 1985, p. 129. 41 Dorsett, Lyle, Billy Sunday and the Redemption of Urban America, p. 53. 42 Ellis, William, Billy Sunday: The Man and his Message, Chicago: Moody Press, 1959, pp. 44-45. 43 Moody, William, The Life of Dwight L. Moody, New York: Fleming Revell, 1900, pp. 12-13. 44 Dorsett, Lyle, Billy Sunday and the Redemption of Urban America, p. 53. 45 Ibid, p. 53. 46 Ibid, p. 57. 47 Ibid, pp. 53. 48 Ibid, p. 54. 49 Dorsett, Lyle, The Life of D.L. Moody: A Passion for Souls, p. 402. 50 Dorsett, Lyle, Billy Sunday and the Redemption of Urban America, p. 128. 51 Ibid, p. 146. 52 High, Stanley, Billy Graham, p. 21. 53 Ibid, p. 26. 54 Graham, Billy, Just As I Am: Autobiography of Billy Graham, HarperSanfrancisco, 1997, 29. 55 Ibid, p. 47. 56 Martin, William, A Prophet With Honor: The Billy Graham Story, New York: Morrow, 1991, pp. 74-75. 57 Ibid, p. 76.

58 Ibid, p. 75. 59 John Pollock, cited in Woodbridge, John, Great Leaders of the Christian Church, Chicago: Moody Press, 1988, p. 368. 60 Martin, William, A Prophet With Honor: The Billy Graham Story, New York: Morrow, 1991, p. 85. 61 Graham, Billy, Just As I Am: Autobiography of Billy Graham, p. 93. 62 Pollock, John, Billy Graham: Evangelist to the World, Minneapolis: Worldwide Publications, 1979, p. 152. 63 Martin, William, A Prophet With Honor: The Billy Graham Story, pp. 98-99. 64 Pollock, John, Billy Graham: Evangelist to the World, p. 152. 65 Ibid, pp. 148-149, 151. 66 Graham, Billy, Just As I Am: Autobiography of Billy Graham, p. 149. 67 Ibid, pp. 157-158. 68 Ibid, p. 187. 69 Ibid, (book jacket information). 70 Ibid, p. 210. 71 Ibid, p. 708. 72 Ibid, p. 708-710. 73 Ibid, p. 712. 74 Ibid, p. 711. 75 Ibid, p. 675. 76 Ibid, p. 672. 77 High, Stanley, Billy Graham, p. 559. 78 Tucker, Ruth, From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983, 269. 79 Ibid, p. 268. 80 Dorsett, Lyle, Billy Sunday and the Redemption of Urban America, p. 152. 81 Gangel, Kenn, Team Leadership in Christian Ministry, Chicago: Moody Press, Revised edition, 1997, p.270 82 Stephen Olford, cited in A Passion for Preaching, Olford, David (ed) Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989, p. 156. 83 Leith Anderson, cited in Wilkes, Gene, Jesus On Leadership, Wheaton, Ill: Tyndale House, 1998, p. 60. 84 Wilkes, Gene, Jesus On Leadership, p. 71. 85 Wiersbe, Warren, Living with the Giants: The Lives of Great Men of the Faith, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993, p. 89. 86 Ibid, p. 105. 87 Larsen, David, The Anatomy of Preaching: Identifying the Issues in Preaching Today, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989, pp. 53-54. 88 Charles Finney, cited in Parkhurst, L.G., Charles G. Finneys Answers to Prayer, Minneapolis: Bethany, 1983, p. 59. 89 C.H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, First Series, reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977, , pp. 41, 49. 90 R.A. Torrey, The Power of Prayer and the Prayer of Power, New York: Revell, 1924, p. 17. 91 Hughes, R. Kent, Personal Conversation, December 21, 1990. 92 Dorsett, Lyle, Billy Sunday and the Redemption of Urban America, p. 57. 93 MacArthur, John (ed) Rediscovering Expository Preaching: Balancing the Science and Art of Biblical Exposition, Waco: Word Publishing, 1992. 94 Broadus, John, cited in Edgar DeWitt Jones, The Royalty of the Pulpit, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951, p. 55. 95 Tizard, Leslie, Preaching: The Art of Communication, London: Allen & Unwin, 1958, n.p. 96 Robinson, Haddon, Biblical Preaching, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980, p. 163. 97 Dorsett, Lyle, Billy Sunday and the Redemption of Urban America, p. 56. 98 Wagner, Glen, cited in Great Preaching: Practical Advice from Powerful Preachers, pp. 144-145. 99 Graham, Billy, Just As I Am: Autobiography of Billy Graham, p. 185. 100 Briscoe, Stuart, Everyday Discipleship for Ordinary People, Wheaton, Ill: Victor Books, 1988, 35. 101 John Maxwell, cited in Wilkes, Gene, Jesus On Leadership, p. 208. 102 Gangel, Kenneth and Samuel Canine, Communication and Conflict Management, Nashville: Broadman, 1992, p. 22. 103 Davis, Ron Lee, Mentoring: The Strategy of the Master, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991, pp. 201-203. 104 Campolo, Anthony, Who Switched the Price Tags?, Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1986, pp. 58-59. 105 Davis, Ron Lee, Mentoring: The Strategy of the Master, p. 203.

Chapter Nine: The World was not Worthy

"Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die... A soldier surrounded by enemies, if he is to cut his way out, needs to combine a strong desire for living with a strange carelessness about dying. He must not merely cling to life, for then he will be a coward and will not escape. He must not merely wait for death, for then he will be a suicide, and will not escape. He must seek his life in a spirit of indifference to it; he must desire life like water, yet drink death like wine." G.K. Chesterton1

Martyrs of Many Stripes Martyrdom is an ultimate sacrifice made by the good as well as sometimes the evil. Lacey Smith writes that history contains martyrs of every stripe and hue. There are introverted martyrs who, pained by doubt or guilt, did a glorious thing with tortured motives. There are extroverted martyrs who, like athletes of faith and truth, saw themselves as instruments of God's perfect design.2 On the other hand, there are conceited, ambitious martyrs who sought distorted power, fame, or self-esteem through martyrdom. There are accidental martyrs who seemed to stumble upon an unwelcome death, and useless, silly martyrs who died for foolish, even traitorous causes.3 We must decide what constitutes true Christian martryrdom. And we must also ask what the lives and deaths of martyrs really mean in a lasting sense. Through the centuries, there developed several categories of those persecuted for the faith. Those who survived great tortures were called confessors. Those who renounced Christ either permanently or temporarily were known as the lapsed. Those who bribed officials, hired substitute recanters, or purchased certificates stating falsely that they had sacrificed to the gods were called libellatici. Those who delivered up precious copies of the Scriptures were mockingly called traditores. And those who suffered death for the faith were, of course, called martyrs and they will be our chief concern in this chapter. 4 God's Wheat, Ground Fine We find the stories of Christian martyrs not only fascinating but awe-inspiring. We admire these individuals who seemed to speak of death with an odd happiness, who smelt the grave afar off like a field of flowers.5 What has seemed to some the poetry of pessimism has stirred in others the longing to show the same spiritual beauty and courage if ever faced with attack or death for the faith. There is only space in this chapter for brief snapshots of a small group of martyrs. But perhaps through these brief descriptions lessons can be learned. Some mentioned here were Anabaptists and Mennonites living in Holland during the 1500s. These were tortured on the rack, scourged, imprisoned in dungeons, roasted to death before slow fires, and they saw their women drowned, buried alive, or pressed into coffins so small their ribs were broken6 Throughout church history there have been thousands of Christian martyrs, but, amazingly, there have been more martyrs in this century than in all other centuries combined.7 Though Christians at all levels have been persecuted, it is often Christian leaders who have been the primary focus of attackers. Apparently, the opposition has believed that if the framework of Christian leadership is destroyed, local bodies of Christians would scatter and die out. This strategy may have been effective with many other faiths or movements in history, but it has always boomeranged when used against Christians. Are there lessons we can learn from the lives of martyrs? Can we gain anything specific now from their lives then and the way they viewed life and faced death? Through observing qualities instilled in believers through the Spirit of God we will see a power which consistently made them invincible, though facing torture or death. In this chapter, five crucial qualities of the martyrs will be discussed; then we will draw out implications for the church today. Human, Yet Consecrated The consecration of past martyrs seems largely based on the total trust that their captors

could do nothing to harm them unless God allowed it. Matthias Servae of Kottenem wrote to his wife, "But that the Lord permitted our imprisonment is all for our best, that through such chastisement we may learn true obedience."8 A leader named Jan Wouterss wrote to his brother and sisters: "Men are perishable; they cannot harm a hair of our head unless the Lord permits them. And He will not permit them more than we are able to bear and keep the faith.9 It should not be imagined that the Christian martyrs of history were emotionally imbalanced, sick of life, or simply chasing after fame or human praise. There are numerous examples of very normal human emotions. The church father, Ignatius, claimed: "I am God's wheat, ground fine by the lion's teeth to become the purest bread for Christ."10 But before his martyrdom by the Romans in A.D. 111, Ignatius pleaded with believers to pray for him, that inward and outward strength be given him, not only to speak rightly but to die as a true Christian. While acknowledging his deep need for grace, Ignatius also claimed boldly that Jesus was written so deeply into his heart that if they cut him open and chopped his heart to pieces, each piece would contain the name of Jesus.11 Before Maryken Boosers was burnt at the stake in 1564, she wrote, "...according to my spirit, I might be better, for I find weakness in me; but my hope is fixed upon God who strengthens the feeble."12 A man named Willem Droogscheerder was placed in an Antwerp prison for his faith in 1557. He described his emotional upheaval in a letter: "A great torment and temptation came upon me, so that I was very sorrowful and it seemed to me that the Lord had utterly forsaken me. I fell down upon my knees and wept bitterly before the Lord and prayed for strength and power. And the Lord heard my prayer and lifted me." Willem was later martyred publicly in a marketplace.13 There has often been more grief about leaving loved ones than about one's own suffering. Confessing himself a weak man, Christian Langedul, a lay leader, wrote to his wife, "The Lord knows the great sorrow and tears I have had, and still have, and shall yet have, before my departure comes--for you, the children, grandmother, and for all the friends."14 A believer named Claudine Le Vettre (1568) was imprisoned with her infant. Soon thereafter the baby was taken away from her and deposited with a wet nurse. At this point, Ms. Le Vettre wept often, praying constantly for power and strength against such loss and sorrow.15 There are also cases in which the free spouse did not share the same Christian beliefs as the imprisoned spouse. While in prison, a Lenaert Plovier wrote a letter to his wife expressing such a heartache: "Some of the hardest things for my flesh to bear are that I must leave you and the children, that I cannot help you provide food for them nor be a protector, and that you are not minded like we are; but I hope that this will come about in the course of time."16 At times, children have died on a mission field, while their parents have remained alive-at least for a time. When Eva and Charles Price and their two young children arrived in China as missionaries in 1889, disease was rampant because of open sewers, bloated corpses in the rivers, and great piles of garbage. Donnie, Eva's beloved infant died first, at the age of three. Eva wrote to family: "I am called to write to you that [God] wanted Donnie and we gave him back with joy even; you must not grieve for us nor think of us as stricken and suffering but as looking up into the Heavenly Father's face with trust and peace...that he has enabled us to so willingly give back this precious, precious little one we had for three and a half years...." Four years later, their elder son, Stewart, became very ill and the Prices rushed back to the United States to seek treatment. But it was too late. The boy died in Oberlin, Ohio at the age of thirteen. Before returning to China with her husband, Eva wrote home about the effects of losing her children: "My heart aches at leaving you all. My capacity for loving has enlarged in all the discipline of sorrow we have had and I love you all more perfectly than ever before." Charles and Eva Price returned to China to continue their leadership of a small church

body. Eventually, they were trapped by the Boxer rebels. With five other missionary families, they were riddled with bullets. No one survived. Yet the earlier loss of their children was likely a more heartbreaking trial than facing their own death.17 Martyrs have been accused of being reckless radicals, wild-eyed fanatics, so troublesome that authorities have had little choice but to arrest them. There may be a few of these through the centuries, but it is obvious that most have been Christians who did not purposely antagonize their enemies. Hans Schleffer, an ex-Roman Catholic priest, typifies the great majority. He was arrested for teaching things contrary to Catholic tenets. When asked why he caused uproar and sedition, he replied that it had never entered his heart to cause an uproar, neither had he ever approved of it in others. He said there was no other design in his way of life than to amend lives and to forsake the vicious ways of the world.18 Are these Christians mentioned here, then, individuals who harbored an unhealthy death wish? Certainly not. Most did what they could to avoid arrest. Before his final jailing, Lenaert Plovier, mentioned earlier, fled with his wife and children to Antwerp, Holland. Then, fearing the danger, he moved his family to Friesland, while he remained in Antwerp for a short time. It was during this interval that he was apprehended. Even the Apostle Paul sought to avoid arrest and persecution when possible, at one point pitting the Pharisees and Sadducees against one another in such a way that the Pharisees didn't press for his execution. Numerous accounts can be given of Christians who used every means to avoid arrest or persecution. Yet when they faced it, they did so with holy resignation. Bold, Yet Forgiving In the history of the persecuted, even many who would naturally be timid and fearful have been enabled to display a magnificent boldness. In one letter to a friend, a soon-to-be martyr wrote in regard to his condition: "...the Lord grants me great joy in my heart, so that I would desire of God, if it were His will, that I might be led bound through Cologne and beaten with rods from street to street, so that His name might become manifest; and that my body might be refined on the rack, only to the praise of God, not to mine."19 There is also the story of Lucius, an Alexandrian who was an onlooker at the trial of a pious man named Ptolomeus [A.D. 144]. When the judge rendered a quick sentence of death upon the man, Lucius objected, saying, "Urbicus, for what reason do you sentence this man so hastily...merely on account of one word, that he calls himself a Christian?" Lucius went on to say that the judge would actually deliberate longer over the fate of a murderer or adulteress. "This is not proper, O Urbicus," he continued. "It does not become a good emperor...the son of the emperor, or the senators to act thus." At this point, the judge said, "It appears to me that you also are a Christian." Lucius boldly admitted as much and was consequently led forth to his own death.20 There is also evident a supernatural attitude of peaceful forgiveness on the part of many martyrs. When facing death, Polycarp, the great church father, had a table spread for his captors and affectionately urged them to eat while he prayed. Matthias Servaes, mentioned earlier, told the count by whose order he faced martyrdom, "You well know, sir Count, how you have treated me; but I have forgiven you all...it is all out of my heart."21 During an imprisonment in 1572, one young man wrote to his sister: "Yes, our dear Lord so strengthened me that I was not disturbed by all the torturing. It seemed to me that I could embrace the bailiff, so friendly was my heart towards him...." In his final confession of faith to the bailiff and council, the same young minister wrote: "I wish that God would grant you all a prosperous, peaceful, healthy, long life, and understanding rightly to use your office in punishing the evil and protecting the good."22 Later in the statement, the man warned the government leaders to repent, yet, even then, he stated that he did this out of a spirit of love and not bitterness.

In May, 1966, Georgi Vins, a Kiev Pastor, was arrested by Soviet police. In a brief address Vins was allowed at his defense, he showed graciousness and courtesy toward his captors: "...I do not see you, Comrade Judge, Comrade Prosecutor and all here present as my enemies; you're my brothers and sisters in the human race. When I leave the courtroom, I shall pray to God for you there in my cell, asking that he should reveal his divine truth to you and the great meaning of life."23 The Christlike spirit Christians have shown at the moment of death has even softened brutal executioners. When a Christian leader named Joos Verbeeck was burned at the stake, the executioner performed his task trembling visibly with fear.24 And when two Dutchmen were facing martyrdom [1561], the executioner actually begged their forgiveness for what he was about to do. 25 Thus, it is clear that, hand in hand with their boldness, saints have also exhibited a sweet, forgiving spirit toward their captors. This is obviously not innate to human nature. It implies a godlike attitude which only One can provide. Only Christ, living within a person through the Holy Spirit, can make that individual purely, genuinely forgiving. Wise in the Scriptures Because of their immersement in the Scriptures, imprisoned Christians have been able to stand before stern judges and present powerful, even eloquent defenses. Two young sisters faced a judge and declared these words: O judge, how is it that thou dost command us to turn away from true godliness? Since God has made known to us that no one in the world is richer than Jesus Christ our Savior; and that nothing is more blessed than the Christian faith, by which the just live and the saints have conquered kingdoms. For, without Christ there is no life, and without His knowledge there is nothing but eternal death. To dwell with Him and to live in Him is our only and true consolation. But to depart from Him is eternal perdition. From His communion we will never be separated as long as we live in this life..."26 For this, the sisters were executed by sword in Osca, Spain by the Muslims in A.D. 851. Thousands of Anabaptists, Protestants, and other dissenters have been sent to their deaths by Roman church leaders and government officials in past centuries. Great wisdom is evident in answers church leaders gave during harsh interrogations. The following contains excerpts from several different interrogations by religious or government officials: Ques. Do you not fear death, which you have not tasted? Ans. I shall never taste death, for Christ says, 'If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste death.' Ques. What do you consider our holy father the pope...? Ans. Does not the pope of Rome do the very works of antichrist? Does he not forbid to marry? Does he not command you to abstain from meats God has created to be received with thanksgiving...? Ques. Bah! Do not the popes sit upon the same seat as successors of St. Peter and have the same priestly authority of the keys of heaven, to forgive sins and retain them through absolution after confession? Ans. Christ said that upon this rock---upon such a faith as Peter's---He would build His church. Christ is our only true high priest. He said nothing of a seat, or vicars, or successors, or popes, or of priestly authority. We believers are all appointed priests since Peter calls us a royal priesthood, a holy nation... Que. You are accursed. What do you hold concerning the Eucharist and the mass? Ans. Is not your mass the sacrifice of the altar? Was the wine delivered for us, and did the bread die on the cross for our sins? When Paul asked, Are not Israelites those who partake of the altar? Did Paul mean that they ate the altar, or that which was on the altar? Similarly, when Jesus said to eat his body and blood, he spoke of that bread and wine which signified his body

and blood, which we partake of in remembrance. Ques. What do you hold concerning the saints? Ans. I know no other Mediator than Christ. Ques. What do you believe of confession? Ans. If you take and understand confession from the fifth chapter of James, you must also confess your sins to him who confesses his sins to you. Ques. You accursed heretic! Will you have a confessor or not? Ans. I have Christ, to Him I confess. Nevertheless, if I have offended any I would willingly ask for forgiveness. Ques. What do you believe about the holy oil? Ans. Oil is good for salad or to oil your shoes with. The oil James spoke of healed the sick. But however much you priests conjure your oil, it cannot heal the sick. Yours is another oil. Ques. You miserable blockhead. What do you believe regarding infant baptism? Ans. It is not commanded in the Scriptures. Christ commanded to baptize those who believed and were instructed and taught, and the apostles baptized only those who received the Word. You baptize only infants, who cannot be instructed nor receive the Word. In fact, we often find that those subjected to infant baptism, as they grow older, instead of becoming adorned with Christian virtues, generally are led by their own spirit into increasing perverseness..." Ques. On the contrary, all sacraments are sacred! We have no ordinance or institution which I could not prove to you by the Scriptures. Ans. Where is the word mass recorded, or purgatory, or that we must pray for the dead? Ques. I could prove any ordinance---confession, image worship, invocation of the saints... Will you receive the books of the Maccabees? Ans. It is apocryphal. The ancients used this name to indicate they are not authentic for establishing ordinances. Christ and his apostles did not receive them or quote from them. Ques. Bah! They will put you to death and you will be damned to the devils. Ans. My lord, it is written that judgment belongs to God alone; how then do you so presumptuously usurp God's place? They stoned false prophets as instructed in Deuteronomy, but we are no more under Law but Grace. The Law commanded, an eye for an eye, but Christ commanded not to resist evil and to love our enemies. Ques. You do not believe, and you will be damned. Ans. It is written, Judge not according to appearance but judge righteous judgment. Yet, though they burn me tomorrow or put me into a bag I care not... I will adhere to the Lord. 27 It is also remarkable how Scripture-saturated are many letters written by imprisoned Christians through the centuries. A believer named "Little Hans" of Stotzingen, Holland was martyred in 1528. This is a brief excerpt of a letter he wrote to fellow Christians: ...He will aid and succor us. Come hither, beloved brethren...we are now members of Jesus Christ [Rom. 12:4,5]. He is the captain of our faith [Eph. 1:22]. He has prepared a glorious crown with which he will crown those who shall persevere unto the end [Mt. 10:22] Be of good courage and undaunted, thou worm Jacob [Isa. 41:14]. The Red Sea shall stand open, if Pharaoh will pursue thee, he will perish in it. Thou little flock, be not afraid, for it is a little while here...[Lk. 12:32] but in the city which God has prepared us in the everlasting kingdom, we shall be as angels of God [Heb. 11:10, Mt. 22:30]. 28 A church leader named Lenaert Plovier wrote at least one lengthy letter to his wife while in prison and one to his children. The letters are very tender, and a brief section from the letter to his children testifies to his superior knowledge of scripture: Dear children, see that you obey your mother and honor her, for it is written: Honor thy father and mother that thou mayest live long in the earth and that it may be well with thee [Ex. 20:12, Eph. 6:2-3]. And be not obstinate or gainsaying or quarrelsome, but kind [Col. 3:13]. Neither lie, for it is written that the liar...has no part in the kingdom of

God, but his part shall be in the burning lake [Rev. 21:8]. Be industrious with your hands so as to help your mother gain a living [Gen. 3:19, Eph. 4:28]. And be always modest in your words, as becomes children... [Phil. 4:5] 29 Selfless in their Love As the martyrs' lives are studied in depth, one unmistakable trait that emerges is their concern for others at their own moment of greatest peril. Knowing her life was in the balance, Lizzie Atwater, missionary to China, was concerned about the people of China: "I do not regret coming to China, am only sorry I have done so little. But my married life, two precious years, has been so very full of happiness." Twelve days later, she and her husband were murdered. 30 When terrorist Simba warriors wished to kill one of two brothers as an example to a village, Lazaro Udubre, their father, stepped forward. "Please don't kill either of my boys," he said. "You said someone must die. Let me be the one...I have lived my life. I am a Christian and I know I will go to a far better place. Kill me." The warriors placed the father in a lorry with instructions to kill him later. The sobbing sons embraced their father, but he said, "Do not worry about me. I'll see you in heaven."31 Similarly, in a letter to his wife, a leader named Jelis Matthijss wrote, "Oh, do not yield nor waver on account of your great grief--He will not forsake you, I am sure of it. My dear chosen lamb, we shall now be separated for a little while, but shall meet each other again..."32 Immediately before his execution in 1569, an elderly man known only as Pieter said, "O Lord, succor Thy servant and strengthen him in his last extremity; and do not account this as sin to them but convert them, for they know not what they do."33 Though his sister-in-law was still in the camp of those who persecuted him, Dutchman, Jan Wouterss also showed no vindictiveness. His letter to her reflected only gratefulness. He wrote: "I beseech you most affectionately, grieve not on my account. I thank you very kindly for all the great friendship you have shown me and my dearest wife, and also my only daughter, and which you may have further shown while I have been in bonds...."34 And as he faced death, the deepest concern of a Wouter Denijs was his fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. In an excerpt from a letter in prison, he wrote: "I entreat everyone from the depth of my heart and with tears before God to excuse my weakness kindly and in love. I deplore it before God and men that I have not been more of a light and that the talent which I have received has gained so little profit."35 In his book, Reaching for the Invisible God, Philip Yancey emphasizes the biblical paradox that, the more Christians reach out beyond themselves, the more they are enriched and deepened, and the more they grow in likeness to God. On the other hand, the more individuals "incurve," to use Martin Luther's word, the less human they become.36 Surely if there is any time a person has the right to turn inward, it would be when facing possible martyrdom, yet we find these believers still exercising care toward others. Courageous to the End In these accounts, the fact is borne out that God gives miraculous grace as the trials grow greater. A Christian leader named Maximus, who was martyred in A.D. 255, stood before the proconsul and declared, "If I sacrifice not [to the gods], I shall save my life; but if I do, I shall lose it. For neither thy sticks, hooks, claws, pincers, nor thy fire hurt me; nor do I feel any pain through it, because the grace of Christ abides in me."37 Similarly, a mother named Felicitas, along with her seven sons were arrested as Christians in A.D. 164. An official named Publius tried with many friendly words and promises to convince her to abandon her faith and readopt the old Roman worship of the gods. She replied, "I am neither moved by thy flatteries and entreaties, nor am I intimidated by thy threats. For I experience in my heart the working of the Holy Ghost, who gives me a living power and prepares me for...all that thou lay upon me for the confession of my faith."38

In sight of the mother, her first born was then scourged to death, two sons were beaten to death with rods, one was cast from a height, and the last three were beheaded. Finally, Felicitas was herself beheaded. During Hitler's Third Reich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer asserted the claims of Christ in a radical sense and thereby encouraged and reassured those drawn to what became the Confessing Church. Actually, Bonhoeffer had opportunities to leave Germany and he spent a brief period in the U.S. where he was offered a pastorate to German refugees. At the same time, he was chastising those who were trying to use Christianity as an escape hatch from the troubles of the world, who were modifying their Christianity so totally to society that the culture was becoming a sort of religion unto itself. Bonhoeffer knew that many in the Confessing Church looked to him for leadership. He knew that to be consistent with what he was teaching, he must return to Germany and face with the Confessing Church whatever the Nazis inflicted. So he returned to the place of greatest danger. Bonhoeffer was eventually arrested by the Nazi SS. After nineteen months in a Nazi prison he was executed before a firing squad in April of 1945. He preached a sermon on the day he died, and as he was led away he said, "This is the end--but for me, the beginning...."39 Another example of great bravery was exemplified in Aleksandr Menn, a Jew born in Russia. As an adult he became a Christian convert. His notoriety spread because he had a very visible verbal role in society. For some unknown reason, on July 19, 1990 he managed to be interviewed on nationwide Russian radio. In this amazing interview, Menn said that the normal state of mankind is to seek a God, even if he ends up worshipping idols. During the interview he also acknowledged that most religions have scriptures as Christianity does and also have some system of morality. "So why did you choose the Christian faith?" he was asked "It is the uniqueness of Christ himself," Menn said. "Jesus is the only one who says 'I say unto you,' and he claims God is speaking to us. Jesus says, 'I and the Father are one.' He didn't simply preach morals; he preached himself. Everything of value in Christianity is valuable because of Christ. Every religion is an attempt to reach God. But Jesus Christ is the only answer." Two months after this interview, he was dead. It should be understood that Menn was no "ignorant" Russian peasant; he was a brilliant leader. He read constantly and his memory was encyclopedic. To speak to him was like speaking to all the classics of great literature. Many Russians admired Menn and sought his wisdom, but many others hated him. At one point, he was invited to host a regular television show in Moscow and also to serve as rector at the Moscow Christian Sunday University. He was warned secretly that if he took either position, he would be dead. Friends began accompanying him almost everywhere he went, and some pressed him to emigrate to the West. "Why?" he replied, "If God hasn't turned away from me, I have to stay and serve him. And if He has, where could I hide?" In a morning twilight, as he headed to a parish church, someone leaped from behind and swung an axe at his head, severing major arteries. He died within minutes. In a lecture on the evening before he had said, "No living creature except for a man is able to take a risk, even the risk of death, for the sake of truth."40 In spite of these examples of incredible valor, it is true that some professing Christians have recanted the faith in moments of torture or in the facing of execution. Jerome of Prague, a brilliant educator and teacher, became converted as a result of Wycliffe's writings. In April, 1415, he was apprehended as he tried to assist his friend, John Huss, who was imprisoned in Constance, Germany. Faced with great torments and the certainty of death, Jerome recanted his beliefs and agreed that Huss and Wycliffe were heretics. Suspecting his sincerity, the authorities presented

another form of recantation. Jerome was brought before the council at which time he renounced his recantation and defended his beliefs, also strenuously objecting to the unfairness of his incarceration. However, a mock trial was held and he was condemned. On his way to execution, there was placed on his head a demeaning cap of paper painted with red devils. Jerome only said, "Our Lord Jesus Christ, when he suffered death for me, a most miserable sinner, did wear a crown of thorns upon his head; and I, for His sake, will wear this cap."41 All these believers discovered what a young student named Algerius found when imprisoned for his faith in Rome, A.D. 1557. The student wrote to fellow Christians: "I will tell to the world an incredible thing. I have found infinite sweetness in the bowels of the lion. In a dark hole I have found pleasure. Who will believe this? In a state of misery I have had very great delight; in a lonely corner I have had the most glorious company and in the severest bond, great rest."42 Algerius was later burned at the stake. The author of Hebrews well summarized the message of this chapter: "Some throughout history were tortured, endured cruel mockings, scourging and imprisonment. Others were stoned, sawn asunder, slain with the sword or wandered about in goatskins--destitute, afflicted, tormented--not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection." These individuals are truly those for whom the world was not worthy. 43 Implications for Today's Church Leaders 1) Perhaps from the outset, a particularly tragic phenomenon of martyrdom should be briefly addressed. As is documented in this chapter, throughout the history of the church, some pagans and adherents of other religions have hated Christians and sought to destroy them. But the greatest tragedy in the writer's opinion is that many professing a Christian faith have killed other professing Christians. This is certainly completely foreign to the character and teachings of Christ. None of the apostles advocated such brutality, and many early church fathers believed similarly to Jerome, who wrote, "He that is spiritual never persecutes him that is carnal. I have learned from the command of the apostles to avoid a heretic, but not to burn him. Christ came not to smite but to be smitten. He that is smitten follows Christ, but he that smites follows antichrist."44 Many leaders have been persecuted by religious individuals who saw dissenters as a great threat to what had become a "church" of enormous wealth, power, and corruption as built on selfish and false traditions. These based their murders primarily on Old Testament scriptures such as those advocating that false prophets and teachers should not be allowed to live. They thus demonstrated a gross misunderstanding of the new covenant of Grace as opposed to the harsh letter of the Law. Though the Inquisition and other slaughters seem to have been largely committed by those who were Christian only in name, it still remains as a terrible blot on the pages of church history. 2) One of the most obvious qualities noted in these martyred leaders is that they held to this earthly life very loosely. Many seemed to enjoy life to the full, but they were not so attached to the relationships and possessions of life as to be unwilling to leave them. Their attitude toward life should be the spirit we long for. Charles Swindoll writes, We cannot change our past. Nor can we change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10 percent what happens to me and 90 percent how I react to it. We are in charge of our attitudes.45 The Scriptures speak of those who "loved not their lives unto death" (Rev. 12:11). After six missionaries were murdered in Banmehuot, Vietnam, it was said of them that they did not have to be drafted for God's service: "They chose to be there and stay there. They were all veterans. The romance and the glory of the missionary call had long since departed. They had lived in the midst of war for many years. They had watched three of their comrades being led

away into the jungle, never to be seen again. They knew they were vulnerable. They chose to be faithful, even unto death." While in prison, Dietrich Bonhoeffer prayed, meditated, and studied Scripture for hours every day, joyfully keeping track of and celebrating the liturgical celebrations. His joy was not a naive joy. He knew that his imprisonment might well end in death. In the book The Cost of Discipleship, Bonhoeffer had acknowledged that Jesus never promised that when we bless our enemies and do good to them they would cease to despitefully use and persecute us. But Bonhoeffer believed that as we pray for them, they cannot truly overcome us.46 The inevitable thought of many of us is that we could not face the trauma of possible martyrdom. This apprehension is not necessarily one about which to be ashamed. Just as God gives the grace for His own to live and grow in Him, He also gives what we might term dying grace. This is the special grace needed to face ultimate sacrifices without betraying Christ or splintering emotionally. Before Corrie Ten Boom was incarcerated in a Nazi prison camp, she once told her father that she didn't know if she could ever face death for God. Her father asked, "When you travel to Amsterdam, when do I give you the ticket?" "Just before I go," said Corrie. "So will God give you grace," said her father, "just when you face the need." 3) A second supernatural trait of these leaders is that they died before they were physically killed. They had so committed their lives to God and they trusted Him so completely that whatever happened was accepted as something Christ had permitted for the glory of God. Bonhoeffer wrote to a friend that the Christian must live "unreservedly in life's duties, problems, successes and failures, experiences and perplexities. In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God, taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but those of God...watching with Christ in Gethsemane. How can success make us arrogant or failure lead us astray," he asked, "when we share in God's suffering through a life of this kind?"47 Bonhoeffer was living out what he had written years before: "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die." It may be a living death like those who stand firm for Christ for a lifetime, or it may be a dying death like Bonhoeffer at a young age. But it is always a call to deny oneself and die to all self-centeredness. Earlier in this chapter, the story of the Price family was briefly recounted. The family ended up in the far off province of Shansi, China where the Christian mission was a wreck. The place was a brutally hot dust bowl in the summer and a gaunt windy freezer in the winter. It was in this dark theater that the Prices lost their children and then lost their own lives for Christ. In regard to the Prices, Barbara Ascher wrote that without suffering, love remains exclusive, for suffering is the mother of true compassion. Eva Price wrote of her family's experiences, stating that when her heart broke early on as a missionary, she gradually became supported by a mysterious love that emerges from such ashes. When her heart broke, it broke wide open, enabling her to love more expansively. Suffering broke her open to grace. 48 We are not speaking here of self-deserved or self-inflicted suffering. We are speaking of the inevitable suffering that emerges from real life. In this sense Christianity is paradoxical-through losing we gain, through suffering we are healed, and in our brokenness we can heal others. Thus have we noted in these Christians' final moments, just when it appears they have a full right to be fully self-absorbed, love for others flows from their brokenness. 4) As was obvious in the martyrs' words, the importance of Scripture in a believer's life cannot be overemphasized. We must not only be saturated with the Word of God, but we must also be immersed in the meaning of it. Then we must take it one step farther and seek to put legs on it in the theater of real life. A young man stood in a church service to recite First Corinthians 13 by memory. Halfway through, his mind went blank. A sweet old woman in the front row reminded him of the next line in a stage whisper.

"Shut up," he snapped. "I knew that." At this point he showed his true spirit, and any benefit the love chapter might have had on others was also marred. In crisis or persecution the Word of God through the Spirit of God will hold us steady through the worst of it. I do not mean an inoculation of Scripture. An inoculation may involve little or much repetitive scripture; but it is planted in just enough shallowness and with just enough indifference to produce immunity to its effects. In the long run, this is deadly. Try to memorize as much of the Bible as possible, and relish it, swallow it, digest it, and let it bear rich fruit in your life. 5) A fourth shining mark of the martyrs is that, above all else, they wanted the kingdom of God to be furthered at all costs. Shortly before his martyrdom, Australian leader, David Barrett, wrote to a colleague, "The Empire [China] is evidently upside down. Our blood may be the true center for God's kingdom to increase over this land. Extermination is our exaltation. We may meet in glory in a few hours or days. Not a sleep, no dinner--a quiet time with God, sunset and evening bells, then the dark.... Let us be true till death."49 It is easy for some believers to criticize particular martyrs of the past for being too rash, too radical, or too daring. When five young missionaries died at the hands of unfamiliar Auca tribesman, some thought they had dashed in prematurely where angels fear to tread. Perhaps the best known of the five was Jim Elliott. Elliott was no missionary greenhorn and he wasn't a grandstander. He was a seasoned missionary who by all appearances wanted God's kingdom furthered to every corner of the planet as soon as possible. In a prayer found in his diary following his death, he wrote in one excerpt: "Lord God and Father, as I am entering Thy treasures, Thou must now come in to possess all mine. As I am to share the destiny, glory, and future affairs of Thy Son, so would I now have Him share this small destiny of earth which is mine."50 Elliott did not know it then, but his part in directly spreading the kingdom of Christ would soon end. However, his effectiveness would be just beginning; Elliott and his fellow martyrs moved hundreds, maybe thousands of young men and women to commit themselves to being kingdom-spreaders. 6) Thus, the familiar words of Tertullian have come true again and again: The blood of the martyrs really is the seed of the church. We need not be threatened or intimidated by the spiritual feats of the martyrs. They were exceedingly human just like us. As weve noted, they doubted, and wept, and feared, and struggled just like we do in our smaller trials. But in the end, God gave them the amazing grace they needed to face the worst that fellow humans and devils could do to them. Martyrs are to be honored and, I believe, will be rewarded beyond our imagination in heaven. However, I cannot help but also think of that six-year-old girl, dying of incurable cancer or that adult injured in the prime of life, who lies disabled for years or even decades. For the child, from the time she could understand anything, excruciating pain was the primary thing to be understood. For the adult, there may be agony and hospital rooms and operations and decades of aloneness before death. Yet an unflinching love for God is evident in each. At least martyrs can sense the inexpressible joy, the spiritual nobility of offering up their lives bravely for the faith. They know they will be recompensed in heaven, and some must also be aware that their courage will be revered for generations by fellow saints on earth. That Christian child or young adult will never be famous. Hardly anyone may know when he or she quietly, trustingly passes away on a hospital bed. Yet surely, in a sense, that death can be at least as much of a sweet-smelling sacrifice to the Father as that of the martyr. We all will face our own trouble and trials in this life, and whether they be through persecution or in some other form, we must all depend on Christ for courage with the totality of self or we will certainly fall. Andrew Jackson was as tough as old leather, and if he was a mans enemy, he could be brutal. Once, as a nineteenth-century circuit-riding preacher named Peter Cartwright prepared

to preach, he was told that President Andrew Jackson would be in attendance, and he was warned to keep his remarks inoffensive. During the message, he said, I have been told that Andrew Jackson is in this congregation, and I have been asked to guard my remarks. What I must say is that Andrew Jackson will go to hell if he doesnt repent of his sin. Following the sermon, Jackson strode up to Cartwright, but instead of challenging him to a duel, he said, If I had a regiment of men like you, I could whip the world.51 The world may hate the Christian message but Christlike courage stops them dead in their tracks in reverential awe. Footnotes
1 Chesterton, G.K., Orthodoxy, John Lane Company, 1908, p. 99. 2 Baldwin, Lacey, Fools, Martyrs, Traitors, New York: Knopf, 1997, p. 373. 3 Ibid, p. 374. 4 Austin, Bill, Austin's Topical History of Christianity, Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1983, p. 61. 5 Chesterton, G.K., Orthodoxy, p. 79. 6 Lindsay, Thomas, A History of the Reformation, vol.2, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908, pp. 236-237. 7 Shea, Nina, In the Lion's Den, Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997, p. 1. 8 Van Braght, Thieleman, The Martyrs Mirror, Scottdale, Pa: Mennonite Publishing House, 1837, p. 700. 9Ibid, p. 906, 10Ibid, pp 106-107. 11Van Braght, Thieleman, The Martyrs Mirror, Scottdale, Pa: Mennonite Publishing House, 1837, p. 667. 12Ibid, p. 668. 13 Ibid, p. 569. 14 Ibid, p. 705. 15 Ibid, p. 737. 16 Ibid, p. 642. 17 Bergman, Susan (ed) Martyrs, San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996. 18 Van Braght, Thieleman, The Martyrs Mirror, Scottdale, Pa: Mennonite Publishing House, 1837, p. 425. 19 Ibid, p. 702. 20 Ibid, p. 109. 21 Ibid, p. 689. 22 Ibid, pp. 920-921. 23 Hefley, James and Marti, By Their Blood: Christian Martyrs of the 20th Century, Milford, Mi.: Mott Media, 1979, p. 252. 24 Van Braght, Thieleman, The Martyrs Mirror, Scottdale, Pa: Mennonite Publishing House, 1837, p. 652. 25 Ibid, p. 653. 26 Ibid, p. 245. 27 Ibid, pp. 239, 422-23, 604-05, 778-783. 28 Ibid, p. 427. 29 Ibid, p. 642. 30 Hefley, James and Marti, By Their Blood: Christian Martyrs of the 20th Century, Milford, Mi.: Mott Media, 1979, p. 20. 31 Ibid, p. 497. 32 Ibid, 1979, p. 676. 33 Van Braght, Thieleman, The Martyrs Mirror, Scottdale, Pa: Mennonite Publishing House, 1837, p. 759. 34 Ibid, p. 918. 35 Ibid, p. 260. 34 Yancey, Philip, Reaching for the Invisible God, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000, p. 238. 36 Van Braght, Thieleman, The Martyrs Mirror, Scottdale, Pa: Mennonite Publishing House, 1837, p. 110. 37 Ibid, p. 113. 38 Hefley, James and Marti, By Their Blood: Christian Martyrs of the 20th Century, Milford, Mi.: Mott Media, 1979, pp. 211, 215. 39 Bergman, Susan (ed) Martyrs, San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996. 40 King, Gentert Marie (ed), Foxe's Book of Martyrs, Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming Revell, 1968, pp. 103-105. 41 Van Braght, Thieleman, The Martyrs Mirror, Scottdale, Pa: Mennonite Publishing House, 1837, p. 570. 42 Hebrews 11:35-38a, author's paraphrase. 43 Van Braght, Thieleman, The Martyrs Mirror, Scottdale, Pa: Mennonite Publishing House, 1837, p. 169. 44 Hefley, James and Marti, By Their Blood: Christian Martyrs of the 20th Century, Milford, Mi.: Mott Media, 1979, p. 129. 45 Swindoll, Charles, Improving Your Serve, Waco: Word Publishing, 1981. 46 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, The Cost of Discipleship, New York: MacMillan, 1963.

47 Ibid. 48 Bergman, Susan (ed) Martyrs, San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996, p. 315. 49 Hefley, James and Marti, By Their Blood: Christian Martyrs of the 20th Century, Milford, Mi.: Mott Media, 1979, p. 24. 50 Elliott, Jim, The Journals of Jim Elliott, Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1978, p. 450. 51 Maxwell, John, The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999, p. 36.

Appendix The following paragraphs expand on the structures and philosophies of history mentioned in the Introduction and explain who represented each. Reaching its zenith between 100 B.C. and A.D. 200, Stoicism taught that the universe was controlled by an impersonal, pantheistic Reason they called "God." Stoics believed in eliminating emotion from their lives and accepting whatever Fate determined. The system held that Fate would eventually result in a universal conflagration, after which the world would begin anew and duplicate the same course of events as the previous cycle. During the nineteenth century Friedrich Nietsche revived a form of this idea that every event on earth will recur in precisely the same sequence an infinite number of times. When a person could accept this reality with joy, Nietsche believed, the person had achieved an ideal life. It is difficult to understand how joy could be drawn from such a tedious and hopeless concept. Giambatista Vico believed that history occurs in a cycle, but he added that each cycle can spiral forward to reveal human progress. Vico's approach stated that history is a movement from a primitive mentality to a religious way of life and ultimately to an age of reflective rationality. He referred frequently to the role of divine providence in human affairs, but his view of providence excluded the supernatural. He depreciated God's transcendent control over history in order to maximize the role of humans as the makers of their own historical destiny. Both Vico and Immanuel Kant admitted the reality of human corruption and selfishness, but they thought human rationality would triumph in the end. What tainted, finite individuals could not accomplish, Kant hoped the collective species could. The mechanism nature employed to bring about the development of all human capacities was what Kant called "unsocial sociability." This is the tendency for humans to cooperate with fellow humans in society coupled with an opposing desire to withdraw into solitariness. In the end Kant held that a rational constitutional state or league of nations would evolve which would enable mankind to reach the zenith of original capacities and endowments. Many leagues of nations have joined together throughout history, but none have even come close to maximizing human rational potential. Johann Herder is classified as a key figure in what is now called historicism. He believed we should not treat the past with disdain but with sympathy in an effort to understand it. In contrast to Enlightenment philosophers, he insisted that human progress is largely an unconscious and non-rational process which does not lead to a perfect world. Herder taught that human nature differs in each age and culture. Instead of cultures resembling identical machines, he thought they resembled plants---growing unevenly, spontaneously, and uniquely according to the conditions of their environment. He also believed that any importance of individual humans in history has been swallowed up in the significance of their social unit. It is difficult to understand how Herder could not detect, among the differences, a clear constancy in human nature. Also, to insist that geographical, historical, and cultural conditions are indispensible for the formation of human nature is rather simplistic. Friedrich Hegel also had little use for the individual in the scheme of history. He believed the zigzagging evolution of humankind should result in a gradual awakening of selfconsciousness and freedom. History was a record of the World Spirit (Hegel's "God") working out its own freedom along with the human spirit as humanity evolves out of nature. True

freedom involved voluntary, self-conscious obedience to law by loyal people within allimportant nation-states. The attainment of this freedom, Hegel said, came through human passion. As nation-state citizens pursued what they thought were their own passionate ends, the World Spirit would be using them to pursue its goals. Through the destruction of individual personhood, the Universal or State could become rightfully preeminent. However, Hegel's "God" is not a person so it cannot actually possess or carry out the goals, intentions, and ends Hegel gives it. Karl Marx was an atheist materialist whose philosophy strangely had no theory of knowledge. Yet he made all sorts of knowledge claims. In a book filled with slightly distorted source misquotes, Marx presented his belief that the economic structure of a society determines the total human life of any society in historic times. He held that private property is the basis of all oppression and conflict. Revisionists realized how untenable this position was so they claimed that Marx meant that economics is only the most important of many influences upon human and cultural life. Engels and Marx stated that all of history has been filled with class struggles between the exploiting and the exploited. Through revolution, Marx believed that the exploitive State could be defeated, society would become classless, and the need for any bourgeois State would vanish. Neo-Marxists claim that the only way to truly understand Marxism is to study the early documents Marx wrote but never thought worthy to publish, but there is little in these documents to change Marxism fundamentally. There is also no answer from later followers of Marxism for why the 'reeducation" of humanity took the form of slaughtering whole categories of humans upon assuming power. In addition there is no answer as to why Communism (Marxism) failed so miserably in the Soviet Union and many other countries when it was supposed to swallow up all of history in its goodness. Spengler hypothesized that every culture is independent of other cultures. They evolve in four seasons or stages---spring, summer, fall, and finally winter. The spring and summer of a culture involves constant growth, simple lifestyles, and the appearance of mythology and religion. The fall season shows the development of cities, commerce, the elevation of science and philosophy over religion, and growing skepticism and revolutionary spirit. The winter is the period when a culture becomes a civilization and preoccupation with quantity, utility, and warlikeness finally kills the civilization. Toynbee studied Spengler but added and subtracted from Spengler's view. One significant change is that Toynbee believed a culture could change the course of their future and prevent final destruction.l In great brevity, these comprise some of the major philosophies of human history.