John MacArthur points out that John was not always the apostle of love. Because we have been told about his love from the time we were in Sunday School or catechism class, we have accepted it. Mediaeval and Renaissance paintings further reinforce the image of a delicate man, doe-eyed, leaning on Christ’s shoulder at the Last Supper.

However, when Christ chose him and his brother James, Mark’s Gospel refers to them as standing out with their strong personalities. Here is Mark 3:14-19 (emphases mine):

¹⁴And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

 ¹⁵And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:

 ¹⁶And Simon he surnamed Peter;

 ¹⁷And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

 ¹⁸And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite,

 ¹⁹And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

Off topic for a moment: I linked to Mark 3 in its entirety so that readers who are unaware may also note verses 28 and 29 about the unforgiveable sin of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.

Back to the apostle John. Note that Christ referred to them as Boanerges — ‘the sons of thunder’. Neither was soft or self-effacing.

MacArthur reminds us that John is quoted only once in the Gospels, in Mark 9. To set the background, the chapter begins with an account of the Transfiguration, in which Jesus took Peter, James and John to a mountaintop whereby they saw Him become absolutely radiant in all His glory. Not only that, but Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus and conversed with Him.

As most of us would have done, Peter proposes erecting three tents — one for the transfigured Christ and two more for Moses and Elijah. Then, the Transfiguration suddenly ends, but not before God the Father says (Mark 9:7): ‘This is my beloved Son, hear Him’.

On the way back, the three apostles started discussing who amongst them was the greatest. They were proud and privileged to have seen the glorious Christ. None of the other apostles had. Surely, they reasoned, among the three of them, Jesus must have had a preference. This is an example of boastful human nature at its best, and who are we to say that we would have done any differently?

Later on, Jesus asks them what they were talking about. He knows, of course, but He wants them to say it.  Here is the exchange (Mark 9:33-35):

³³And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?

 ³⁴But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.

 ³⁵And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.

In an attempt to deflect His attention from them, John briefly points a finger at someone of whom he disapproved (Mark 9:38):

And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

Jesus corrects him by replying (verses 39-41):

³⁹But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

⁴⁰For he that is not against us is on our part.

⁴¹For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

MacArthur said in a sermon about John:

He had a volatile personality. He had a fervent passionate personality. He was intolerant, very ambitious. He was anything but that dove-like person he’s often painted as being in those medieval paintings. In fact, when James one time wanted to bring down fire and burn up all the Samaritans, that’s a little less than the desirable evangelistic love, when James wanted to call down fire from heaven and just burn up all the Samaritans, John was in agreement. John agreed. John wasn’t the passive brother, they were both sons of thunder. When James’ mother went to Jesus to ask for special privilege and honor from the Lord, John was there too. They were explosive, ambitious, driven …

That’s [Mark 9:38] the only thing John ever says and he feels guilty about being stubborn, obstinate. He feels guilty about being narrow. He feels guilty about being prejudice. He feels guilty about being sectarian. He’s wired like that. Yeah, burn up the Samaritans. Yeah, we want to be in the chief seats. Yeah, buddy, you’re not in our group, shut up! This is John. He had a real competitive spirit. It showed up in condemning this man who was trying to minister in the name of Jesus, whether he was actually doing it or not, he was trying to do it. John shut him down. Jesus rebukes John for that sectarian attitude.

By now, you might wonder why Jesus would have chosen people whom we would accuse today of being ‘intolerant’ or ‘not very nice’.

MacArthur explains:

Why would the Lord Jesus make him an Apostle? Because this is the kind of man that can be shaped into strength. He had the potential to be hard for the truth. What the Lord had to do was make him loving. And perhaps it was that critical rebuke there in Mark 9 that catapulted John toward being loving. He had that kind of personality of conviction, of narrowness, uncompromising, intolerant devotion to what was true. He was very black and white, he had a clear-cut view of spiritual realities. There was nothing vague in his world. And that was good and God needed it but it had to be tempered with love.

And this is what happened and how John became Jesus’s favourite apostle, leaning on His shoulder at the Last Supper and being the go-to man for Peter to say, ‘Ask Jesus who the betrayer is’ (John 13:21-26):

²¹When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

²²Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.

²³Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

²⁴Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.

²⁵He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

²⁶Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

So, although John does not name himself in his own Gospel, MacArthur points out that we know it is he who penned it — and how he came to be portrayed in mediaeval and Renaissance paintings:

And so, that’s why … when the medieval artist starts to paint John, he starts to paint a lover because it was eventually true of John. And it shines through the gospel that he wrote and it shines through the epistles that he wrote. For in the gospel of John you see this unwavering regard for the truth. Everything with John is absolute, there is light and darkness in the gospel. There is life and death, there’s the Kingdom of God, and there’s the kingdom of the devil. There are the children of God and there are the children of the devil. There’s the judgment of the righteous and there’s the judgment of the wicked. There is salvation and there is damnation. There is receiving Christ and rejecting Christ. There is a vine and it has some branches with fruit and some with no fruit. There is obedience to His commands and there is disobedience to His commands. And that’s the way it’s always portrayed by John. And when you get to the epistles, it’s the same thing. There are those who are in the light, and those who are in the darkness. There are those who confess their sin and those who deny their sin. There are those who are disobedient to Christ and those who are obedient to Him. There are those who love others and those who don’t, those who love God and those who don’t, those who are righteous and those who are sinful, those who keep the commandments and those who don’t, those who believe and those who don’t, and it’s just that simple.

John did not write an ‘analogy’ — as someone who emailed me a few months ago said — but Gospel truths. This also holds for his epistles, which also preach about the basis of love in Christ’s commandments. They also warn us against false prophets, who came into the Church almost immediately.

MacArthur observes:

In the second epistle, 2 John, calls for complete separation from all those people who aren’t faithful to the truth. And the third epistle says essentially the same thing. The one who does good belongs to God, the one who doesn’t hasn’t seen God. John gives us a fundamental understanding of Christianity in its absolute sense, but he does it in these epistles as we will find with a tenderness and a love of a pastor. Somewhere along the line, this man had been tempered. Jesus wanted his strengths, He wanted his resolution, his commitment, but He needed to get rid of all the hints of selfish ambition and pride and He needed to turn him from being a sectarian to being a lover who could embrace while calling them to the truth …

But John’s love never slid into some sentimentality. It was never sentimentality and tolerance masquerading as love. Until the end of his life as the last Apostle to die at the end of the first century, he never, never tolerated deception, he never tolerated lies, he was always committed to the truth. He never tolerated sin of any kind …

And the assumption today is that if you hold to the truth without ambiguity, without vagueness, if you hold to the absolute truth of Scripture, you’re somehow not loving. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth.

Allow me, please, to segue briefly before returning to St John. I’m fully aware from some of the comments I receive from Anglicans that a) we should be focussing more on the ‘nice’, comforting verses and b) embrace semi-Pelagianism, Universalism and pietism. Many of our Church of England clergy — top to bottom — are utterly irresponsible in presenting Christ’s teachings to us. Anglicans announce, ‘Well, my vicar says …’ or ‘My vicar told me I didn’t need preparation for my confirmation’. Confirmation is the time when Anglicans need to understand the 39 Articles of Religion and why we have them. It’s also the time when we need to study the various heresies, because many of us go on to adulthood, if not death, in error. We have no catechism in current use, which probably wouldn’t be so bad if our clergy knew Scripture well enough to explain it to us, but they do not. Or, if they do, then they wilfully take most of it out of context and apply unintended meaning — e.g. Social Gospel, ‘analogy’ — to it.  Or they say, ‘Look, all that was in the past. Just focus on the Beatitudes’. They raise more questions than they answer, and the result is that many Anglicans are at sea spiritually. It is no wonder our churches are empty. Our clergy make the Bible sound like an historical tome, nothing more. It’s no wonder that some Anglicans drift into New Age ‘philosophy’ or towards the ‘certainties’ of Islam which they describe as ‘beautiful’ and ‘peaceful’. On the other hand, the laity who stay in the Church are offended by verses proscribing sin: ‘Surely, we will all be saved at the end of the day’. Why?

That is not what the New Testament says. And this is what John points out to us in his Gospel and his letters in the way that only he can.

I’ll close here with another passage from MacArthur’s sermon:

The priority is the truth, proclaimed in love. That’s the balance. That’s the divine balance … sound doctrine and the graciousness, the love of the Spirit. It’s not enough to have the love and the gentleness and the graciousness and leave out the truth. You have to have the truth. The ignorant and the deceived need the truth. And it’s not enough to love them, that is to leave them in error, leave them in shallowness. It’s not enough to come to people clothed in tolerant sentimentality which is a poor substitute for genuine love. There must be the truth.

But it’s not unloving, self-exalting orthodoxy either. It’s not good when love is missing and the truth is just cold facts stifling and unattractive. Ministry must possess truth and love for that is the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Christ was the perfect image of truth and love in balance. If you’re seeking to minister, these are the two things you seek. You seek to know the truth as God has revealed it, and you seek to love as Christ loves. And there all, as always in every era, lots of imbalance with respect to these two virtues. Plenty of shallow teaching, plenty of tolerance of error in the name of love, and there’s always plenty of hard, harsh, brash, self-righteous, cold orthodoxy. Sentiment and superficiality on the one hand, and orthodox indifference on the other. Critical mix and the critical balance is what God desires.

There will always be passages from Scripture, even the New Testament, which are difficult to grasp or seem ‘offensive’ to modern-day readers. However, that is our opportunity to study them more closely and understand their meaning. This is why a good commentary is such an important accompaniment to our reading. It has nothing to do with ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, because both of them can sometimes be in error, especially with some of the more present-day regression (e.g. ‘federal headship‘) in reaction to current denominational politicisation and apathy.

Back on topic: if you enjoy reading John’s Gospel, you will certainly like what his letters have to say. You can find out more in the next several Forbidden Bible Verses, continuing tomorrow.

The story left off with Hus in a prime position as an ordained priest and rector of the University of Prague. Meanwhile, the Archbishop of Prague’s importance was lessening and, in 1411, he died. Religious dissent was growing with many citizens wishing for a return to the type of worship and polity they had under the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has Christianised them. Helping further fan the flames were renegade priests such as Conrad Waldhauser (Steikna), John Milicz, of Kremsier in Moravia; and Matthias of Janow.  Waldenses had also established themselves in the area, having fled Strasbourg some years before.  All were promoting a theology which was Waldensian and pietist.

Bohemians, Hus and schism

John Wycliffe‘s writings became increasingly important in northern Europe. Wealthy Bohemian and German travellers to England — yes, there were some — were able to bring back copies of Wycliffe’s works to Bohemia.  Wycliffe’s theology, being oriented to Scripture and prayer, became increasingly important to people living in the region as an antidote to the excesses of the papacy, indulgences and clergy.

Hus (shown at left, courtesy of Wikipedia) borrowed heavily from Wycliffe’s teachings in his speeches and writing. In 1412, some theologians from the University of Prague opposed Hus’s support of Wycliffe.  Successive popes had issued papal bulls forbidding mention of or belief in Wycliffe’s teachings.  A group of his followers took it upon themselves to burn the papal bulls, insisting that Hus — not the Pope — was their spiritual leader.

Then, three men from the lower class openly denounced indulgences. The authorities arrested and beheaded them. They are considered to be the first Hussite martyrs.

Hus’s teachings were then officially forbidden, although, by then, the University of Prague theologians ignored the edict and asked that any objections be proven scripturally. The conflict between Church and State against Hus had escalated. Meanwhile, everyone in or near Prague was aware of it. Hus and his followers also wanted tensions to calm down and asked for freedom in ecclesiastical matters — a teaching borrowed from Wycliffe.

By then:

Bohemian Wyclifism was carried into Poland, Hungary, Croatia, and Austria.

In 1413, Rome declared that Wycliffe’s works must be burnt.

Hus’s final months

The following year, King Wenceslaus’s brother — Sigismund of Hungary (heir to the Bohemian crown) — promised Hus safe passage if he would attend the conference at Konstanz (Constance) in order to resolve the schism.

Hus agreed and wisely got his personal affairs in order before leaving home.  For a few weeks, he was free in Konstanz as Sigismund had promised, until his opponents hunted him down and eventually imprisoned him in a Dominican monastery. Sigismund was angry upon hearing the news, but Church authorities replied that promises made to a heretic (Hus) could not be guaranteed.

Hus was transferred to the Archbishop of Konstanz’s castle on the Rhine River and imprisoned for 73 days under brutal conditions.  In June 1415, he was transferred to a Franciscan monastery before he went on trial. During his trial, Church authorities asked him to recant Wycliffe’s teachings. Hus replied that he wished to debate with them Wycliffe’s teachings versus those of the Church, using Scripture. He said that should the clerics prove him wrong, he would be glad to recant. They refused his offer and he refused to recant.

He was burnt at the stake, with these words:

God is my witness that the things charged against me I never preached. In the same truth of the Gospel which I have written, taught, and preached, drawing upon the sayings and positions of the holy doctors, I am ready to die today.

The aftermath – conflict

In 1457, a group of Hus’s followers organised themselves as the Bohemian Brethren, or the Unity of the Brethren — Unitas Fratrum being the original name.  Ten years later, the Waldensians ordained the Brethren’s bishop.

Hus’s movement spread to the extent that 90 per cent of those living in Czech crown lands — including the nobility — became Protestant.  They opened their own schools, many of which had more than one teacher — unusual for that period in history. Also unusual were their schools for girls. The University of Prague was also Protestant.

To counter this, the Holy Roman Emperors invited the Jesuits to establish Catholic schools in the region, which they did, beginning in 1566.  By 1622, with the backing of the Holy Roman Empire, the Protestant schools were forced to close. The Protestants had rebelled a few years earlier in the Bohemian Revolt, which occurred when the Emperor Matthias attempted to instal a Catholic as King of Bohemia, but were defeated in 1621.  Not only had Protestant education and civil authority had come to a close, but the Holy Roman Emperor forbade the use of the Czech language, including the reading of books in that language.

Consequently, the Brethren had to flee or go underground. One community went to Poland and the other dispersed into smaller groups in Moravia.  This latter group became known amongst them as the Hidden Seed.

The Hidden Seed and Count von Zinzendorf

Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf und Pottendorf, Imperial Count of Zinzendorf and Pottendorf, (1700 – 1760), German pietist and bishop of the Moravian Church, was born in Dresden. He was known as Ludwig.

The Zinzendorf family were Lutheran pietists and among the longstanding nobility of Lower Austria. Despite its name, Lower Austria is actually in the northeastern corner of the country. Young Ludwig’s godfather was Philipp Jakob Spener, one of the foremost Lutheran pietists. As I mentioned previously (emphases mine):

Spener studied theology in Strasbourg … then moved on to see what the Calvinists and the Waldensians were doing in Geneva. There he met a number of professors and pastors who deeply impressed him …

In 1686, Spener became a royal chaplain and was transferred to Dresden. He mentored a group of young theologians in Leipzig in a society he formed there for devout application and practice of biblical principles. Later, he ended up founding the University of Halle, which was based on pietistic theology. Not all went smoothly; a number of pastors in Leipzig opposed his pietism and made a stance for orthodox Lutheran doctrine and practice.

Like Spener, the Zinzendorfs — along with a number of other Lutherans — believed that Lutheranism had lost its way since the days of Martin Luther. They did not believe the clergy engaged people enough to pursue a holy and righteous life.

When Ludwig was only six weeks old, his father died. The child was raised by a pietist grandmother and aunt. His grandmother did much to bring him into the Christian faith — and pietism.  He attended school in Halle, a pietist stronghold, thanks to Spener’s influence. Note that Spener’s earlier royal chaplaincy had based him in Dresden, where Ludwig was born.

In 1716, Zinzendorf studied law at the University of Wittenberg in preparation for a diplomatic career. He also travelled to the Netherlands, France and Germany. Like his godfather, he, too, visited a variety of Protestant churches and was careful to seek out the holiest of men as his friends.

He married whilst young, but not to his first love, whose family disapproved of the proposed union.  Scholars believe that this disappointment brought him into an even closer pursuit of holiness.  Although Spener died when his godson was only five years old, his teachings must have had a profound influence on the Zinzendorf family, because the young count was determined to further his godfather’s pietism. However, Zinzendorf was also concerned about the excessive rationalism emerging from the new Age of Enlightenment, which would eventually give rise to atheism and deism.

Although Spener never intended to separate from the Lutheran Church, Zinzendorf believed that a true practice of Christianity could come about only through free associations of believers committed to a knowledge and love of Jesus Christ.

When the young Count was 22 years old, a small group of the Hidden Seed from Moravia arrived on  his estate. Their leader asked the Count whether he would countenance accommodating them on part of it. The Count granted permission to these refugees, whose faith was now illegal in their native Moravia and Bohemia, to construct the village of Herrnhut, two miles from the Count’s residence.

Herrnhut still exists today, by the way, as the centre for the Moravians in Germany.

Herrnhut, a refuge for persecuted Protestants

As the established village of Herrnhut became more widely known as a centre for freedom of Christians, a number of other persecuted groups settled there. In time, conflicts about belief arose amongst them.

Nonetheless, Zinzendorf continued putting money and support into the settlement. He was also deeply attached to it and in 1727, compiled the unifying Brotherly Agreement, which the settlers adopted. After that, the village’s popularity increased even further.  Moravian historians note what took place from that point into the early 19th century:

1. Setting up a watch of continuous prayer that ran uninterrupted, 24 hours a day, for 100 years.
2. Originating the Daily Watchwords.
3. Establishing more than 30 settlements internationally on the Herrnhut model, which emphasised prayer and worship, and a form of communal living in which simplicity of lifestyle and generosity with wealth were held to be important spiritual attributes. The purpose of these communities was to assist the members resident there in the sanctification of their lives, to provide a meeting place for Christians from different confessional backgrounds, to provide Christian training for their own children and the children of their friends and supporters and to provide support for the Moravian Mission work throughout the world. As a result, although personal property was held, divisions between social groups and extremes of wealth and poverty were largely eliminated.
4. Being the first church body to begin missionary work; and
5. Forming many hundreds of small renewal groups operating within the existing churches of Europe, known as “diaspora societies”. These groups encouraged personal prayer and worship, Bible study, confession of sins and mutual accountability.

All those points certainly characterise the main tenets of pietism: a close watch on one another, small groups, personal accountability within those groups, evangelism, mission work and personal sanctification — sometimes in a radical pietist commune.

Zinzendorf’s Brotherly Agreement, incidentally, still exists today as ‘The Moravian Covenant for Christian Living’.

Radical pietism and lovefeasts

Some time after he established the Brotherly Agreement, Zinzendorf obtained a copy of the Ratio Disciplinae, which was the behavioural guide for the early Unitas Fratrum. He was amazed to see how closely the two aligned.

He proceeded to organise the Herrnhut inhabitants into families. These, however, were not what we call nuclear families today, but ones which he called ‘choirs’, organised by sex, marital status and age. The Count explained that at every age, people need something different from Christ and what better way to obtain it than by impartial group segregation. The concept sounds awful, but similar Moravian communes were established in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (later known for its steel), and in Salem, North Carolina (the other half of which is Winston).  Two positives to note about the American settlements: escaped slaves there were on a par with all the other members and the wealthy occupied the same living quarters as the poorest.

As we know from previous posts on pietism, it is a religion of the ‘heart’, deeply rooted in emotionalism and personal experience rather than a more detached, cerebral exegesis of Scripture. The notion of ‘love’ was — and still is — also emphasised. The Moravian communities were no different.

To this end, at certain times of year, a ‘lovefeast’ was performed. This ritual was also part of other Brethren and Primitive Methodist services on special occasions.  All these groups are pietist. The Primitive Methodists’ lovefeasts featured a potluck — ‘bring a dish to pass’ — which is also part of today’s Alpha groups, originating in the Anglican Church. Alpha also revolves around small groups in many parishes and involves experiential sharing and, to some extent, personal accountability.

Back to the Moravian and Brethren denominations which undertake lovefeasts. Wikipedia describes them as being:

based upon the Agape feast and the meals of the early churches described in the Bible in the Acts of the Apostles, which were partaken in unity and love. It is not, however, to be confused with or serve as a replacement for Communion. Traditionally for European, Canadian, and American Lovefeasts, a sweetened bun and coffee (sweetened milky tea in Germany, Holland and England) is served to the congregation in the pews by dieners (from the German for servers); before partaking, a simple table grace is said. The foods and drinks consumed from congregation may vary tremendously at the Lovefeast and are usually adapted from what the congregations have available. Services in some Colonial-era Lovefeasts, for example, used plain bread and water; some in Salem were even known to have served beer.

The Moravian Lovefeast also concentrates on the singing of hymns, and listening to music which may come from the organ or choir. The songs and hymns chosen usually describe love and harmony. The congregation can also talk quietly with their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ about their spiritual walk with God. Christmas Eve Lovefeasts can become particularly spectacular in the congregation’s choice of music and instrumentation. Many churches also have trombone choirs or church bands play prior to a Lovefeast as a call to service.

A Moravian congregation may hold a Lovefeast on any special occasion, such as the date their church was founded, but there are certain established dates that Lovefeasts are regularly observed. Some of these notable dates include Watch Night, Good Friday, the Festival of August 13th (the 1727 date on which the Moravian Church was renewed or reborn), and Christmas Eve, where each member of the congregation receives a lighted candle at the end of the service in addition to the bun and coffee.

Groups that descend from the Schwarzenau Brethren such as the Church of the Brethren, Brethren Church, Old German Baptist Brethren, and Dunkard Brethren also regularly practice a Love Feast based upon New Testament descriptions of the Last Supper of Christ. The Brethren, however, combine the Agape meal (often consisting of lamb or beef and a bowl of sop) with a service of feetwashing prior to the meal and communion afterward. The term “Lovefeast” in this case generally refers to all three ordinances, not just the meal. Influenced by German Pietists during the early 18th century, the Lovefeast was instituted among Brethren before Moravians adopted the practice.

International Moravian missions

Before the population of Herrnhut reached 300 people, their Moravian missionaries were already on the move, evangelising.  The first were in Europe, but in 1732, they were on a ship to St Thomas (Virgin Islands). They ministered there to slaves as well as to slaveowners. St Thomas had its first Moravian bishop in 1735.

In 1740, they focussed on the (then) British colonies in America, establishing a mission in Dutchess County, New York (where Poughkeepsie is). There, they evangelised among Native Americans, treating them as equals. However, with the advent of the French and Indian Wars, their motives were suspect and the colony of New York expelled them.  The following year, they moved on to Pennsylvania and North Carolina to found the aforementioned Bethlehem and Salem settlements. By 1801, they had reached the state of Georgia, where they established a mission to the Cherokee tribe, until the United States Government resettled the Cherokees in Oklahoma, where the mission continues today under the aegis of the Danish Lutheran Church.

We may well owe our two-day weekend to Count von Zinzendorf, thanks to his exhortations in Philadelphia to respect the Old Testament Saturday Sabbath with time off to listen to additional preaching on the Sunday. (The picture on the left, courtesy of Wikipedia, shows him preaching to all men and women on his mission travels.)

Moravian missions in Australia were transferred in time to the Presbyterian Church. Those in Greenland are now under the auspices of the Lutheran Church.

They also evangelised in South America and Asia, as well as Africa.

Today, the largest concentration of Moravians can be found in Tanzania in Africa.

So, from their earliest days in Herrnhut, Zinzendorf ensured that the Moravians could spread Christianity.

The darker side — sexual imagery, scandal and the Count’s remarriage

Because Zinzendorf was so emotionally involved in religious experience, he began to use rather explicit — if not, to the outsider, blasphemous — sexual references to describe it.

He was preoccupied with our Lord’s wounds from the Cross, describing them as

so moist, so gory

and, astonishingly, in referring to the side wound, called it

the Seitenhölchen (‘little side-hole’). This was tied to his wish to overcome the traditional shame which was attached to sexual organs and acts:

What in the Bible is mentioned an hundred, and more than an hundred Times, but on Account of the Fall, by Reason of Deprivation, is call’d by the hideous name Pudendum; this he (the Saviour) has changed into Verendum, in the proper and strictest sense of that Word: And what was chastised by Circumcision, in the Time of the Law, is restored again to its first Essence and flourishing State; ’tis made equal to the most respectable Parts of the Body, yea ’tis on account of its Dignity and Distinction, become superior to all the rest; especially as the Lamb would choose to endure in that Part his first Wound, his first Pain…^[6]

Today’s pietists are welcome to disagree with me, but their undue prohibition on behaviour and thoughts brings about a vacuum which only Satan can fill. It would be interesting to find out which branch of Christianity has the most pornography addicts. Personally, I venture that it is the pietists. Only on their blogs and fora do I see such comments as, ‘Brother, I have struggled with this sin  [pornography] for many years and find it to be a daily battle’. To those men in good physical health, I say have a drink, enjoy a quiet smoke and love your wife. The first two are far preferable in moderation than seeking out depraved internet sites or, like Zinzendorf, referring to our Redeemer in such carnal phraseology.

Wikipedia cites a famous Christian hymn which follows this carnal line of thought:

Zinzendorf’s emphasis on the “blood and wounds” is not that different from hymns that are sung today without second thought: “Rock of Ages, cleft for me, let me hide myself in Thee.”

Well, those lyrics have also given me pause for thought in the past, and I am happy that my church does not sing them.

Zinzendorf’s son, Christian Renatus, lived in another commune, Herrnhaag — the Lord’s Grove — and took the imagery further:

he led the Single Brethren’s Choir composed of the unmarried men in the Congregation. Excessive use of sexual imagery, combined with questionable theology of “playing in the Lord,” came to mean that the young men did little work and came to look down on those who were in the mission field laboring for the Kingdom instead of spending every moment adoring the Savior. Ensuing scandal and near-financial ruin forced Ludwig to chastise his son, bringing him to England. Casimir Count of Isenburg-Buedingen demanded the submission of the Moravians of Herrnhaag to himself, and that they reject their allegiance to the elder Zinzendorf. The entire community rejected this demand, leading to the closure of Herrnhaag beginning in 1750-53.

Christian Renatus died in 1752. Zinzendorf felt a profound loss. Two years before, the Count was almost forced to file for bankruptcy, having spent his fortune on financing Herrnhut and the missions. In 1756, his wife died; she was also a close friend and confidante. However, only a year later, he married Anna Caritas Nitschmann, 15 years younger than he.  Wikipedia explains:

he had been very close [to her] for many years. Anna had for years been spiritual leader of the women of the movement. The marriage was not publicized broadly since Anna was a commoner, and would have been extremely controversial.

Hmm.

Zinzendorf died in 1760.  Anna went to her rest just a few weeks later. Zinzendorf’s son-in-law took his place as head of the Moravian communities.

Soon: More on pietism in other denominations

However, to understand where Jan (‘John’) Hus and the Moravians derived their influence, it helps to find out more about the history of Moravia and its influences from geography as well as kingdoms and other strands of Christianity. As most Protestants know, Hus was part of the run-up to Luther’s Reformation.

Background

Moravia comprises more or less the eastern part of today’s Czech Republic. It derives its name from the Morava River, the principal waterway of the region.  One of the Morava’s lowland regions is known as the Marchland, march meaning ‘border’ in German and not ‘marsh’, as we might think. Wikipedia explains a fact pertinent to parts of this post (highlights mine):

The lower part of the river, downstream of the confluence with the Thaya at Hohenau an der March, marks the Austro-Slovakian border. This is one of the oldest national boundaries still extant in continental Europe; it was the eastern boundary of the March of Austria from the 11th century, and also marked the boundary of the Carolingian Empire with the Avar Khaganate during the 9th century (the March was within Habsburg territory during 1526–1918 due to the imperial expansion of Austria).

Bohemia is the territory to the west of Moravia.

Both Moravia and Bohemia are surrounded by mountains. Moravia’s northern and westernmost range is the Sudete(n) Mountains. The Carpathians lie to the east. The Beskids form its southern border.

Bohemia, which translates loosely to ‘home of the Boi people’, has the Bohemian Forest on its borders between what are now Germany and Austria, with the Ore Mountains to the north and the Sudeten mountains to the east. Its principal river is the Moldau.

Celts and, later, a Germanic tribe, invaded Moravia. As for Bohemia, the Boii were originally in what is now today’s Italy, when they fled from Roman invasion in the late 2nd century BC.

An independent people

Both groups, although later invaded and conquered by different tribes and kingdoms and were at times unified, maintained an independent streak which would play its part in the century leading up to Martin Luther’s Reformation.

When I was growing up, unconventional ‘artsy’ people — or ‘beatniks’, as they were called in the 1950s and early 1960s, were called Bohemians. They frequented coffee houses, dressed unconventionally and had little regard for social mores. They were not Bohemians from what was then Czechoslovakia; they were just unconventional.  In the late 1960s, author Tom (Bonfire of the Vanities) Wolfe shortened this to ‘boho’. Today, in the 21st century, we have another word, ‘bobo’, which originated in France and is short for ‘bourgeois Bohemian’. It refers to well-brought up people of means who have defected from the middle-class norm in terms of behaviour, politics and social attitudes.  ‘Bobo’ is now increasingly used in English and American parlance.  In recent years, Americans have been using the word ‘hipster’, which means the same thing.

Although I won’t go into the historical nuances of Moravia and Bohemia, it is worth noting from Ezra Hall Gillett’s forensic work, The Life and Times of John Huss, that

During the latter half of the fourteenth century (1350-1400), Bohemia occupied a place among the nations of Europe somewhat correspondent to her local position in the heart of the continent. Her capital was the residence of the German emperor. Her university at Prague, though recently founded, was the oldest and most flourishing – indeed, almost the only one – in Eastern Europe. Her churches, cloisters, and palaces were remarked by the stranger with surprise and admiration, while through her connection with the German empire, her influence was widely felt.

This was because:

in 1310 John of Luxembourg became king of Bohemia. Moravia and Bohemia remained within the Luxembourg dynasty of Holy Roman kings and emperors (except during the Hussite wars), until inherited by Albert II of Habsburg in 1437.

Even so:

The cry of Reform which was to be heard in almost every country of Europe, demanding the removal of the papal schism, and a remedy for the evils of the church, was to find a memorable echo in her own university. In her bosom she was fondly to cherish one of her own sons, whose influence should be more enduring and extensive than that of Petrarch, and the fundamental principle of whose doctrines – the sole and supreme authority of the word of God – was to strike the key-note of the Great Reformation in the succeeding century.

This was because the Bohemians resented the Germans, who seemed to overrun the area not only in governance but also in cities and universities in their own land. As Gillett explains:

For the two preceding centuries it had been kept alive, and had even acquired strength in opposition to foreign innovations. The introduction of the usages of the Romish church, and the extended jurisdiction of Roman law, had not been gained without a struggle. The popular literature, meager as it was, was warmly cherished, and gave place but slowly to Latin learning.

Before then:

Bohemia, like England, was sheltered by her isolated situation. And besides all this, her attachment to her old usages, long cherished by the patriotic feeling of her citizens, had made her exceedingly reluctant to conform to the Romish ritual. Former sympathies and associations had connected her with the East. By the Greek church she had first been Christianized, and, until near the middle of the fourteenth century, a strong attachment to the rites and usages derived from this source had very generally prevailed. The process by which the nation was brought to recognize the authority of the See of Rome was slow and difficult.

The Bohemians and Moravians resented the Germanic introduction of the Church of Rome’s practices of the Eucharist in one specie only (bread) and the celibacy of the clergy. Emperor Charles IV set forth a series of penalties for rebellion against Rome and the sentiment among local people was bitter.

As such, they began to revive their own local and regional traditions. This was true in every social class, even the nobility. Bohemian literature was made available — this was pre-printing press — to the people as much as possible. Works in Latin were translated into Bohemian to further their classical awareness.

Charles IV was forced to install an Archbishop of Prague over the presiding (German) Archbishop of Mayence (Mainz). The Bohemians also gained the right to civil judges who could speak and understand the local language. At the turn of the 15th century, the University of Prague instituted the ‘College of the Bohemian nation’, specifically for Bohemians.

It was against this backdrop that Jan Hus began his university education.

Waldensian influence in Bohemia

If you read my post on Peter Waldo and his Waldenses from southern France and the Italian Alps, you’ll recall that a version of Waldo’s life story takes him into ‘Germany’ for safe haven, where he is thought to have died. Gillett subscribed to that theory, saying that after the burning at the stake of a number of Waldenses in Strasbourg many others fled to Bohemia and settled there — Waldo, he believed, among their number.

Interestingly, Gillett posits that Waldo first fled to Picardy — the region in Northern France where John Calvin was born in the early 16th century. Incidentally, the Bogomilist map shows that their beliefs spread to the same region. Indeed, ex-Catholic Calvin codified Christianity along Bogomilist lines, which Martin Luther, himself a former Augustinian monk, did not do, although it appears that Bogomilism had also spread to Germany.

Am I saying that Calvin is a heretic? Not necessarily, however, he was firmly opposed to anything which was even vaguely Roman Catholic, whereas Luther showed a greater flexibility towards adiaphora, which the Bogomilists despised, as do present-day Calvinists.

In any event, back to the Waldenses — also influenced by Bogomilism — seeking refuge in Bohemia, a region of mountains and valleys, both to which they were already accustomed. ‘Waldenses’ comes from ‘Vaudois’, the French word for ‘people from mountain valleys’, as I explained in my post, citing the Swiss canton of Vaud, located in the Alps.

According to Gillett, the Waldenses continued to preach and teach in Bohemia:

The vulgar tongue was as fitting for prayer, in their view, as the Latin, which they did not understand … They laughed at the legends of the saints. They reverenced “the traditions” of the church no more than Christ did the traditions of the Pharisees. They denied purgatory. They considered lights in churches needless. To them holy water was no better than any other, and the cross was but a piece of wood. But it was their veneration for, and their acquaintance with, the word of God, abundantly attested by their persecutors, that led them to dissent so emphatically from the Roman church. Of the purity of their lives, and the simple devotion which characterized their worship, their foes themselves leave us no room to doubt.

Prosperity and independent thought

That said, the region was advancing, thanks to the German presence.  And, on another level, the more people became aware of their social and mercantile advances, the more they began examining their own Eastern Orthodox traditions, the teachings of the Waldenses and the Roman Catholic Church. The University of Prague ranked the third most notable institution of higher education in Europe, only behind those of Oxford and Paris, respectively.

Many Bohemians — Moravians included — had already heard of three men of recent memory who had opposed the Catholic Church. They were Conrad Waldhauser (Steikna), John Milicz, of Kremsier in Moravia; and Matthias of Janow.

Conrad Walshauer died around the time that Jan Hus was born. Walshauer had lived through the Black Death and made the journey to Rome for Pope Clement VI’s jubilee in 1350. The numbers of people there and the immoderate sales of various indulgences floored him. He returned to Austria a changed man and devoted his life to repentance.  He was later charged with breach of the peace for his inflammatory preaching, much of it in Prague.  Despite that, Charles IV appreciated his sermons and invited him to become the parish priest in Leitmeritz. However, a number of the locals as well as Franciscans and Dominicans opposed the appointment. He was able to preach at a church in Prague, but the numbers who gathered in and outside the church were too numerous, and, as a result, Walshauer went outdoors to preach — a notable characteristic of pietism.  He especially criticised the monks for their licentiousness and hypocrisy. However, he also preached that the laity repent of their sins and give the proceeds of their wealth to the poor — the latter being another mark of pietism. He appears to have meant much more than charity.  He died, a parish priest, in 1369.

John Milicz was a native of Moravia, appointed archdeacon and preacher at the cathedral. He was a contemporary of Walshauer’s and had — as John Calvin would — read theology and law at university.  He studied at the University of Prague. He preached against Communion as bread only, saying that the people should partake of the wine as well, as Christ instituted at the Last Supper.  He was also disconcerted that people could not worship in their own language. Furthermore, he objected to the taking of holy orders as being synonymous with personal sanctity. Eventually, he resigned his position at the cathedral for a much lesser-paid post as sacristan there (preparing the elements for Communion, maintaining the vestments and parts of the building). He volunteered himself to poverty — another mark of pietism. Although Milicz had been strident, he practiced what he preached and maintained the affection of those attending cathedral services. Even as a sacristan, they demanded that he preach to them three or four times a day.

In time, word spread to German visitors to Prague.  In order to widen his audience, he learned German and preached in that language.  Although he spent a short time as a curate in a town in Pilsen (western Bohemia, where the beer originated, not the neighbourhood in Chicago!), he returned to Prague, where he became more self-sacrificing in his poverty and preaching than before, going from church to church to spread his message. Eventually, he focused his ministry on helping to reform women of ill repute. He became convinced that the Pope was the Antichrist and journeyed to Rome to seek an audience with Pope Urban. Milicz was imprisoned for intimating his thoughts publicly and was freed only once Urban returned to Rome from Avignon (Provence, in France, where a concurrent opposing papacy with Rome was in place for some years).  Back in Prague, he organised a group of like-minded pietistic ascetics, whom the public opposed vigorously. Perhaps Milicz had gone one step too far.  Yet, Charles IV appointed him to the post Walshauer held when he died.  Regional bishops complained. Milicz travelled to Avignon to complain to the Pope, but died whilst there.

Matthias of Janow was similar in that he taught that the laity must live a holy life by works — a ticklist of behaviours which they must adopt, another hallmark of pietism. ‘If you do this, then you will be saved’ — a form of semi-Pelagianism.  He seems to have been the John Wesley of his time in that his innate holiness inspired others to adopt it. However, innate holiness in one person on the road to sanctification does not necessarily mean that everyone else will experience that same Providential grace at the same time along that same road. All of us are different.

Matthias, like Wesley was well-versed in Scripture and well-travelled. He wrote a treatise on the truth of Scripture, contrasting it with the practices of the Catholic Church. Although he cross-referenced not only his volume but his sermons with Scripture, he, too, had a pietistic bent in railing against people who did not accept his version of personal holiness. Sometimes he was right in lashing out against hypocrisy amongst the clergy and laity. He was also right to argue for a return to Holy Communion in both forms — bread and wine. However, he seemed to have been bound up in condemnation for people who did not do exactly as he did by means of sanctification. Although he became a prebendary at Prague, in 1389, he appeared before the Synod there and was told to recant what he had written.  As was the case with Milicz, Charles IV won out in the end. Matthias continued in the same vein as before. He died in 1394, and in 1410, his writings were burnt along with those of John Wycliffe.

Jan Hus’s ministry

By 1396, Jan Hus held a Master’s degree from the University of Prague. Four years later, he was ordained a Catholic priest.  Between 1402 and 1403, he became the rector of the University of Prague as well as the priest of the new Bethlehem chapel. His main influence was John Wycliffe, whose writings had been condemned during the same time period.  Nonetheless, Hus translated Wycliffe’s Trialogus into the vernacular, so that the local people could read it.

As had his fellow countrymen — Walshauer, Milicz and Matthias of Janow — Hus railed against the same ills of the Catholic Church. In 1405, upon instruction of Pope Innocent VII, the Archbishop of Prague forbade any preaching or teaching of Wycliffe.

In 1406, two Bohemian students brought a document bearing the seal of the University of Oxford.  It was a tribute to Wycliffe which Hus read from the pulpit. Two years later, Pope Gregory XII wrote the Archbishop of Prague that anyone espousing Wycliffe’s teachings — including King Wenceslaus — must stop doing so.

Wenceslaus (pictured on the right) also needed to act, as he wished to become a future Holy Roman Emperor.  He decreed a neutrality towards both Popes — of Rome and Avignon.  He expected the University of Prague to follow. The Archbishop pledged to remain loyal to Gregory XII. Meanwhile, at the university, only Hus’s voting bloc — one of four — voted for neutrality.

Wenceslaus declared that the Bohemians would become the major voting blocs in university affairs. You wouldn’t think that this would be such a major event, but between 5,000 and 20,000 foreign scholars left the university in 1409.  A number of them founded the University of Leipzig and denounced the Bohemians for spreading heresies.

One would have thought this could have spelled disaster for Hus, but instead he remained rector of the University of Prague and went on to greater renown. Meanwhile, the Archbishop was sidelined.

Next: Hus — fame or notoriety?

Elbert County owns the Georgia Guidestones site. According to the Georgia Mountain Travel Association’s detailed history: “The Georgia Guidestones are located on the farm of Mildred and Wayne Mullenix…”^[3] The Elbert County land registration system shows what appears to be the Guidestones as County land purchased on October 1, 1979. ^[4][5]

The monument was unveiled in March 1980, with the presence of 100 people.^[6] Another account specifies March 22, 1980 and said 400 people attended.^[2]

My friends and I discussed it in the dining hall. One said, ‘It’s really evil — all about population control.’ I, on the other hand, found the messages quite intriguing and perfect for the end of the 20th century.  Our group had a dinnertime discussion about the morality and ethics behind the ‘ten guides for a New Age of Reason’ (image at left courtesy of Wikipedia):

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature.

I accused my friend of not having bothered reading past the first point, to which she said, ‘A “world court” would be really problematic. It would be like the UN. This is the United States of America! We don’t need world courts!’

In her Midwestern state, many people outside the larger towns and cities were deeply suspicious of the United Nations. It was not unusual for someone in that part of the world to pay in perpetuity for a billboard in the countryside that said ‘Get US out of the UN!’ At that time, the only people who thought like that had read books by the John Birch Society or heard their ideas discussed by friends or family.

So, I ignored what she had to say and forgot all about the Georgia Guidestones. Everyone else in our group was more anti- than pro-, by the way.

Over the past couple of years, however, I started reading about them again online. My occasional correspondent, Rogue Lutheran, sent me a few links to peruse in 2010, which got me going.

Thirty years on, after having reread the ten guides and the articles, I now think that the whole concept and content are rather depressing. So, my sincere apologies to Rogue Lutheran for not having written on them earlier.

It turns out that we still don’t know who paid for this humanist monument de nos jours, although speculation abounds. The only thing we know is that its sponsors are or were

A small group
of Americans who seek
the Age of Reason.

The author of this multilingual message is one R C Christian, which is a pseudonym. The word is misspelled on the stone as ‘pseudonyn’. I bet whoever commissioned it is rather annoyed about that.

Those who are familiar with esoteric (gnostic) societies surmise that R C Christian is a person (or persons) involved in Rosicrucianism, which used to be advertised in the back of Sunday newspaper supplements. They also call for

a global religion, world courts, and for population levels to be maintained at around 500 million, over a 5.5 billion reduction from current levels. The stones infer that humans are a cancer upon the earth and should be culled in order to maintain balance with nature.”^[8]

Throughout the 1970s, overpopulation, the biosphere (as it was called then) and pollution were big news. The word ‘ecologist’ went mainstream at that time. These were experts, don’t you know, and I took what they had to say seriously. Guest editorials in newspapers and cover articles in newsweeklies covered these subjects regularly.

Back then, our society was much freer and much more given — in my opinion — to conspicuous consumption. Maybe it was just newer then; it was certainly cheaper. People also seemed happier, although not as happy as they were in the 1960s.  However, we had fewer laws then, although the clamour for more regulation of industry was increasing.

Now that we are in the 21st century, we have more laws not only for businesses but also many of a personal nature — more than we even know about.  It seems to me, that regardless of who devised the ten guides, we are being forced into them. Even OccupyZine — the magazine of the Occupy movement — has called them to its adherents’ attention.

The OccupyZine link directs readers to an article published by the Vigilant Citizen in 2010 called ‘Sinister Sites: The Georgia Guidestones’.

Vigilant Citizen (VC) writes:

As you can see, the guidelines call for a drastic reduction of the world population, the adoption of new a world language, the creation of a world court and a vague allusions to eugenics. In other words, a blueprint for a New World Order.

The first “commandment” is particularly shocking, since it basically stipulates that 12 out of 13 people on Earth should not exist; basically, that would mean everybody in the world would disappear except half of India. If today’s world population is 6,7 billion, then that is a 92.54% surplus. To consider these figures is mind-boggling. But then, how many people survived in the movie 2012? Not many. Who were they? The earth’s wealthiest people. Is this predictive programming?

The last rule of the Guidestones, “Be not a cancer on the earth – leave room for nature – leave room for nature” is particularly disturbing as it compares human life to cancer on earth. With this state of mind, it is easy to rationalize the extinction of nearly all of the world’s population.

VC also notes:

The second rule (“Guide reproduction wisely – improving diversity and fitness”) basically calls for the inference of lawmakers into the management of family units. If we read between the lines, it requires to creation of laws structuring the number of children per family. Furthermore, “improving diversity and fitness” can be obtained with “selective breeding” or the sterilization of undesirable members of society. This used to be called “eugenics”, until it became politically incorrect because of the Nazis.

VC has read the Georgia Guidestones Guidebook and provides several helpful quotations from it which promote the idea of a world government and world courts.

In their own words, the authors have chosen to stay anonymous

in order to avoid debate and contention which might confuse our meaning, and which might delay a considered review of our thoughts. We believe that our precepts are sound. They must stand on their own merits …

Fair enough. But they also are in favour of

A diverse and prosperous world population in perpetual balance with global resources will be the cornerstone for a rational world order. People of good will in all nations must work to establish that balance …

With the completion of the central cluster of The Georgia Guidestones our small sponsoring group has disbanded. We leave the monument in the safekeeping of the people of Elbert County, Georgia.

If our inscribed words are dimmed by the wear of wind and sun and time, we ask that you will cut them deeper. If the stones should fall, or if they be scattered by people of little understanding. we ask that you will raise them up again.

Ugh.

We have enough laws controlling our own behaviour as it is. I predict that the exponential increase in laws regulating personal conduct will be the theme which history shows as characteristic of the first two decades of the 21st century.

VC explains that R C Christian (emphases in the original):

is a clear reference to Christian Rosenkreuz whose English name is Christian Rose Cross, the legendary founder of the Rosicrucian Order. Some might say that the resemblance between R.C. Christian and Christian Rose Cross is the result of an odd coincidence. As we will see, it is however only one of the MANY references to Rosicrucianism associated with the monument. This is only one piece of the puzzle, but an important piece nonetheless.

Rosenkreuz (1378 – 1484) was kidnapped as a five-year old by an Albigensian and raised in one of their monasteries.  Therefore, he fell under the Bogomilist spell with the Albigenses in the south of France. Bogomilism is a heresy which is again picking up in popularity.

VC has also picked up on the loss of personal liberties and freedom:

Reading between the lines, the Guidestones require from the masses the loss of many personal liberties and to submit to heightened governmental control on many social issues … not to mention the death of 92.5% of the population…and probably not those of the “elite”. Is the concept of a democracy “by and for the people”, as idealized by the Founding Fathers a mere illusion, a temporary solution until the introduction of  socialist world government? Why are the world’s citizens not being consulted in a democratic matter? I guess it is easier for the elites to manufacture consent through mass medias. But maybe it won’t work on everybody…

Someone defaced one of the tablets in 2008, but the stones must be pretty securely placed to have survived intact — outside of a few chips — up to now.

It seems that this would be a good subject for Sunday School ethics classes for those in secondary school. If you’re reading this and happen to teach a class of youngsters, it would make a good lesson or two on discernment.

One of the links Rogue Lutheran sent me is from Van’s Hardware Journal. Don’t be dissuaded by the name of the blog; this post, ‘Decoding the Georgia Guidestones’, tells the local story.  As mentioned earlier, no one is sure of the identity of R C Christian, however, there are even a few local Elberton possibilities, including someone who closely followed Alice A Bailey’s Theosophist teachings, which she and her husband turned into the Lucifer Publishing Company in 1920. It is now Lucis Trust and well known for its New Age publications.

The Baileys’ Lucis Trust and their Arcane School, Van tells us (emphases mine):

have become very influential organizations and appear to be favored as the blueprint for a United Nations endorsed world religion.

A central theme in this Theosophical lineage … is the idea that man can attain divinity. As such, God becomes the jealous adversary working to thwart man’s elevation to godhood. Satan, or, more commonly in modern occult circles, Lucifer is seen as man’s ally, the Bringer of Light, the Bestower of Knowledge.

Therefore, it is a blend of Pelagianism — man’s ‘divinity’ — with satanic ideas and gnosticism, or secret knowledge.

Van’s Hardware Journal explains a possible Guidestones scenario for the unfortunate masses — well worth using if you ever teach this subject:

Through a state run eugenics program, Christian believes the world can produce “healthier and more productive human beings” over each succeeding generation. “Superior human intelligence, compassion and drive” and other “desirable mental and physical qualities” can also be enhanced under such eugenic conditions.

Humorously yet sinisterly, Christian cites “docility” and “loyalty” achieved through selective breeding in dogs as evidence that “comparable but more important modifications” in human behavior can be achieved through eugenics.

In R.C. Christian’s “Age of Reason,” even if the state allows you to have children, you will be required to raise them under strict conditions so as to “mold their characters and to develop their potentials as socially worthwhile adults.”

That is, if the state even allows you to keep them.

Because even if you and your spouse are considered good breeding stock, the state might find you “temperamentally unsuited for parenthood.” In which case, your children will be transferred “to the care of others capable of nurturing them into well adjusted adulthood” …

And don’t think that you are safe just because you lined up for voluntary sterilization.

For instance, if the economy is bad and you lose your job, in Robert Christian’s rational world order, you will have to become a slave of the state to survive. You won’t be able to vote and you will be compelled to work jobs often held by illegal immigrants, who will then be displaced back to their native lands. If you don’t like your job and quit, you will starve.

Not only will you have to be suitably employed or own a private business to vote, you will also have to pass both intelligence and “educational requirements” tests to prove to the state that you are worthy of the right of suffrage. Want to run for public office? Robert Christian has more tests that you will need to pass first.

Speaking of rights, you will have none if Christian gets his way. Rights to him are privileges that the state will only bestow upon you if you properly serve the state.

And don’t forget your identity card! In Christian’s nightmare world, everyone is required to carry with them a unique biometric ID card. Without one you will not be able to get work or get government help.

Okay, so you are a good citizen in Christian’s new age world. You might be allowed to have children. You might be allowed to raise them. You might be lucky enough to find a suitable job so that you can vote.

Just be sure not to get sick or injured, because Christian believes the state must ration health care “favoring those individuals whose continuing lives are most valuable” to the state.

But you were injured because your new Halliburton electric toothbrush exploded in your right hand, blowing it off at the wrist and blinding you for life. Surely, you have recourse to litigation. No, Christian wants to place caps on litigation and let financial damage beyond this limit fall to his state’s wonderfully efficient and fair health and welfare system.

Unfortunately, that means that since you can no longer work, you will lose your voting privileges, almost certainly lose your child because you will not be able to care for him properly on welfare and you will receive the lowest standard of medical care available because you are no longer productive for the state.

It’s all very rational and reasonable in Christian’s mind.

Yet, I run across a number of commenters on British and American blogs who also (sadly) would find this all perfectly reasonable.

What does the Bible say about each of these ten guides of our time?

Short answer: obey the Ten Commandments and one will have no need for the ten guides.

I would say, since I’ve been doing this work, over 30 years ago, I’ve never been more concerned than I am right now.

According to Dominique de Kevelioc de Bailleul of Beacon Equity, who summarises the interview:

Twenty-two months of hysteria of an impending European financial collapse, starting with Greece in March of 2010, will finally come to an end in 2012, according to the founder of Trends Research Institute, Gerald Celente.

Celente’s latest forecast, ‘The First Great War of the 21st Century—Prepare, Survive, Prevail’, predicts more turmoil for the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.

And — things are set to become even worse in the United States, to be covered in a moment.

Meanwhile, Celente voices his concerns about Europe:

“If you live in Greece, you’re in a depression; if you live in Spain, you’re in a depression; if you live in Portugal or Ireland, you’re in a depression,” Celente said. “If you live in Lithuania, you’re running to the bank to get your money out of the bank as the bank runs go on. It’s a depression. Hungary, there’s a depression, and much of Eastern Europe, Romania, Bulgaria. And there are a lot of depressions going on [already].”

Celente advises us not to expect China to come to the rescue (quite rightly):

… China will then likely slow its imports of materials from countries which have been supplying mined product during the commodities boom, leading to a vicious spiral of increased unemployment and declining economic activity—a scenario strongly intimated by Dow Theory Letters author Richard Russell in his latest letter to investors (excerpts posted on King World News). Russell, too, expects a steepening U.S. depression, with 25 percent unemployment in the America as his target at the bottom of the depression.

“This whole thing is connected,” Celente explained. “China isn’t going to have the money to throw around to losers anymore than loan shark would give a gambler who can’t pay his old debts back and has a bad gambling habit another loan to gamble . . . They [Chinese] have their own problems to deal with.”

As for the United States, Celente’s home country:

The Panic of ’08; you have the Great Recessions—Great Depressions going on. Oh, by the way, real estate prices in the United States, they’re at a steeper decline than they were during the Great Depression. Foreclosures continue to mount. It’s taking people over 40 weeks, who lose jobs to find another job, and then finding one at a fraction of what they lost the old one at.

He hasn’t changed his mind about imminent war, either, which, as students of history know, is the established answer to a prolonged economic downturn:

“So then you look at the trade wars that they’re now talking about,” Celente said. “And, as I said, when you add them up, you have the beginnings of a great war going on already. Oh, and now, and now, they’re talking about, hey, we did such a great job in Iraq and Afghanistan, why don’t we bomb Iran? Have you heard the presidential candidates of the United States, with the exception of Ron Paul, that all want to go to war against Iran? So you can see where it’s going.

Celente said the kickoff to a global meltdown and a call to war could “spiral out of control” some time “by the first quarter of 2012” as the European crisis worsens to the point of a crack up. “There’s no way to bail out the European nations,” Celente said forcefully.

And the build up to social unrest, calamity and possible civil war can be seen a mile away, said Celente, who segued into another one of the trends he sees for 2012: Safe Havens (escaping the United States).

Celente also mentioned the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) in the interview, which allows for American citizens to be unconstitutionally held with no charge and without trial.  Although he offers no clear solutions for Americans wishing to escape this possibility:

enacted … expansion plans suggest the U.S. may enter a crisis on par with the lead up to the U.S. Civil War of 1861-5.

To find out how Celente’s 2011 predictions worked — very well, by the way — continue reading here.

Whilst I do not wish to alarm anyone unnecessarily, Celente is often, shall we say, on the money.

However, before I cover their pietism in more detail, it seems apposite to look to the group which partly inspired them — the Waldensians, or Waldenses.

Reviewing pietism’s earliest origins

Yet, before I cover the Waldenses, it seems appropriate to look at what probably inspired their faith, which were the beliefs of the Bogomils.

Last year, an horrific murder occurred in the resort of Tenerife in the Canary Islands. The suspect, a Bulgarian, was said to be ‘obsessed’ with the ancient heresy of Bogomilism, which originated in his native land in the 10th century.

I wrote both about the murder and the heresy back in May 2011, explaining exactly what Bogomilism is. It would appear that, because of the trade routes between Bulgaria and the rest of Europe (see the Wikipedia map which you can click to enlarge), there could be a link to this heresy and other Christian denominations:

Cathars, Albigenses and Waldenses, people who later turned to the Reformed churches.  This might partly explain why there is so much Catholic distrust of Calvinists in France and Italy.  There may be something deeper than the Reformation going on here.  This is a sensitive topic, especially when one reads Huguenot (Calvinist) histories of these mountain dwellers which present them as being martyrs for the faith.  I remain neutral on this but welcome contributions in the comments.  

To that, I would now add pietists.  The Bogomils and the subsequent pietist groups share certain beliefs about Christianity. From my post which cited the Wikipedia article on Bogomilism (emphases mine):

The Bogomils called for a return to early Christianity, rejecting the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and their primary political tendencies were resistance to the state and church authorities.

… the corruption of the church as an institution, led to the grave disappointment among its recently converted flock.

They regarded every material being to be work of Satan, and therefore sinful. 

Each community had its own twelve “apostles,” and women could be raised to the rank of “elect.”

… keen missionaries, traveling far and wide to propagate their doctrines.

Its followers refuse to pay taxes, to work in serfdom, or to fight in conquering wars.

… they elected their “teachers” from among themselves to be their spiritual guides …

each member could obtain the perfection of Christ and become a Christ or “Chuist.”

Bogomils refused to fast on Mondays and Fridays, and that they rejected monasticism.

they declared … that the bread and wine of the Eucharist were not physically transformed into flesh and blood; … that the images and the cross were idols and the veneration of saints and relics idolatry …

The Wikipedia entry goes on to say:

The popes in Rome whilst leading the Crusade against the Albigenses did not forget their counterpart in the Balkans and recommended the annihilation of the heretics …

The Bogomils were the connecting link between the so-called heretical sects of the East and those of the West.^{[citation needed]} They were, moreover, the most active agents in disseminating such teachings in Kievan Rus’ and among all the nations of Europe. In the 12th and 13th century, the Bogomils were already known in the West as “Cathars” or in other places as “Bulgari”, i.e. Bulgarians (българи). In 1207 the Bulgarorum heresis is mentioned. In 1223 the Albigenses are declared to be the local Bougres, and in the same period mention is made of the “Pope of the Albigenses who resided within the confines of Bulgaria” (see also Nicetas, Bogomil bishop). The Cathars and Patarenes, the Waldenses, the Anabaptists, and in Russia the Strigolniki, Molokani and Doukhobors, have all at different times been either identified with the Bogomils or closely connected with them.

My post explained that Bogomilism seems to be experiencing a small revival these days, particularly judging from the supportive commentary on the Wikipedia discussion page.

Peter Waldo

Bogomilism reviewed, we can now move on to Peter Waldo, early pietist and spiritual leader of the Waldenses.  We do not have much information about him, but it is believed that he was born in 1140, by which time Bogomilism was already spreading through Europe.

Waldo lived in Lyon, France, where he was a successful merchant and clothier. He was a man of means. In 1160, he had a spiritual awakening. Three factors played a part:

- Waldo had heard a sermon about St Alexius, a wealthy man who left his marriage and lived on alms whilst teaching the Christian faith in seclusion.

- A disbelief in transubstantiation was made punishable by death.

- A friend of his died whilst eating dinner.

If you look at the Bogomilism map, you’ll see that its teachings reached Lyon around 1160, so, around the time that Waldo experienced his spiritual awakening. Whether there is a definite connection between the two events is difficult to determine, however, it is an interesting coincidence.

Again, at the same time, Waldo began preaching publicly:

- “No man can serve two masters, God and mammon“, he proclaimed, in accordance with Jesus.

- He criticised Papal materialism and Catholic dogma — including, amongst other things, transubstantiation.

- He accused the Catholic Church of being the ‘harlot’ of the Book of Revelation.

So far, these teachings tie in with those the Bogomils were proclaiming.

He gave his property to his wife and sold the rest of what he had to provide alms for the poor. By 1170, Waldo had gathered quite a few followers. However, for reasons of safety, they disguised themselves as pedlars in order to spread their teachings.  They became known as the Poor of Lyons, the Poor of Lombardy, the Poor of God and as the Waldenses.

The Wikipedia entry on Waldo states that the Waldenses were distinct from the Albigenses, or Cathars, however, some of the teachings of the two groups are quite similar: rejection of the established Church, anti-materialism, charity and simplicity. Furthermore, both groups drew heavily from Bogomilism, although the Albigenses embraced it more fully than had the Waldenses.

The Waldenses believed in:

- the importance of lay preaching.

- a universal priesthood.

- voluntary poverty.

- the primacy of Scripture, especially being able to read it in one’s own language.

The last point is particularly important, because Waldo commissioned a cleric from Lyon — and possibly collaborated with him — on a translation of the Bible into the local dialect, Arpitan, between 1175 and 1185.  This was the first European translation of the Bible into the vernacular.  This is why Waldo features on the Luther Memorial in Worms (see photo at left, courtesy of Wikipedia).

In 1179, Waldo and one of his followers had an audience with Pope Alexander III and the Curia. They were required to explain their theology. Later that year, the Third Lateran Council condemned Waldo’s movement.

Waldo and his followers were no longer safe in Lyon. Many fled to the valleys of Piedmont, today in northern Italy but then a part of the Duchy of Savoy.  Those who remained in France moved eastward to the Luberon region of Provence.  Both areas are mountainous and Waldo’s followers settled in remote valleys in the southern Alps. Controversy carries on as to whether these inhabitants, known as Vaudes or Waldenses, were named after Waldo. Note the Bogomil map above and the words ‘Les Vaudois’ which cover Provence and Piedmont. Waldo’s name in French is Pierre Vaudès or de Vaux. However, the Waldensian Church, which still exists, states that they are named after him.

My own opinion is that the word ‘Vaudois’ means ‘people from mountain valleys’. I base this on the Swiss canton near Geneva — Vaud — which is in the Alps and with which I am well acquainted. Their residents are also called ‘Vaudois’. Therefore, I hypothesise that it is possible that Waldo’s surname ‘Vaudès’ or ‘de Vaux’ might come from his Provençal (Alpes-Maritime) and Piedmont followers. If his surname really was ‘Vaudès’ or ‘de Vaux’ and his followers had to hide in the mountain valleys — becoming ‘les Vaudois’ — well, what a coincidence.

Because of the lack of documentation, it is unclear exactly when or where Peter Waldo died. Some scholars say he died in 1218. Some also think that he died in Germany. Others say that he died not long after his audience with Pope Alexander III in 1179. However, it seems as if he must still have been alive in 1184, as Pope Lucius III excommunicated him during the synod at Verona that year. In 1211, 80 Waldenses were burnt at the stake in Strasbourg; this event nearly put paid to Waldo’s movement. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council under Pope Innocent III declared that his doctrine of the Poor of Lyons was a heresy.

The Waldenses

The Wikipedia entry on Waldensians explains the significance they had to subsequent pietist groups:

Some groups of Mennonites, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and other Protestants have claimed that the Waldenses’ history extends back to the Apostles.^[1]

Indeed, the Bogomils said that their beliefs came from St Paul and that their movement originated in the region where he preached — Asia Minor. Refer to the map above where you see the words ‘Les Pauliciens’:

Karp Strigolnik, who in the 14th century preached the doctrine in Novgorod, explained that St. Paul had taught that simpleminded men should instruct one another; therefore they elected their “teachers” from among themselves to be their spiritual guides, and had no special priests. There is a tradition that the Bogomils taught that prayers were to be said in private houses, not in separate buildings such as churches.^{[citation needed]}

That seems to be the origin of small groups.

The Waldenses were known by the sabots, or wooden clogs, they wore:

Sandaliati, who received sacred orders and were to prove the heresiarchs wrong; Doctores, who instructed and trained missionaries; and Novellani, who preached to the general population.^[6] They were also called Insabbatati, Sabati, Inzabbatati Sabotiers due to the unusual type of sabot they used as footwear.^[7][8]

Some Catholics believed that Waldensian women were witches; illustrations to that effect appear in a French manuscript from 1451.

Piedmont borders France and Switzerland, therefore, it was possible for determined Waldenses to travel if necessary, although it would not have been easy.  In 1526, an Italian synod of Waldenses decided to send envoys to Germany and Switzerland to meet with new Protestant groups. This meeting took place in 1532. This Italian branch then decided to break all ties with the Catholic faith and become a Reformed church.

Calvinists William Farel and Anthony Saunier attended a French Waldenses synod of Chanforan that same year, at which they  invited the group to come out into the open and ally themselves with the Reformed Church. The French Waldenses developed a confession of faith and began to worship openly.

The French Waldenses later contributed 1,500 gold crowns to help finance a translation of Waldo’s Provençal New Testament into French for Calvinist use.

French religious tensions between Catholics and Calvinists increased to bloody battles and massacres, which I intend to cover at some point in a history of the Huguenots, with whom the French Waldenses are linked. As such:

As early as 1631, Protestants scholars began to regard the Waldensians as early forerunners of the Reformation, in a manner that is similar to how the followers of John Wycliffe and Jan Hus – who were also persecuted by Roman Catholic authorities – were viewed.

Jan Hus founded the Moravians, and some Waldenses allied themselves with his ‘Bohemian’ movement.

In England, Cromwell — in power during the Interregnum — and poet John Milton, sympathetic to the Calvinists then to the pietist, quietist Quakers, openly opposed French Catholic civil rulers who persecuted the Waldenses.

Also (emphases mine):

Later denominations such as Anabaptists and Baptists also began to point to the Waldensians as an example of earlier Christians who were not a part of the Roman Catholic Church, and held beliefs they interpreted to be similar to their own. The Mennonite book Martyrs Mirror lists them in this regard as it attempts to trace the history of believer’s baptism back to the apostles. James Aitken Wylie (1808–1890) likewise believed that the Waldensians preserved the apostolic faith during the Middle Ages.^[31] Still later, Seventh-day Adventist Ellen G. White taught that the Waldenses were preservers of biblical truth during the so-called Great Apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church.^[32] She believed that the Waldenses kept the seventh-day Sabbath, engaged in widespread missionary activity, and “planted the seeds of the Reformation” in Europe.^[33][34] Based on the Catechism of the Waldenses they believed in keeping the ten commandments.^[35]

Some Waldensian families joined Anabaptism. A group from North Italy fled to Switzerland for religious protection and then to Pennsylvania later on after becoming followers of Menno Simons. Some later migrated north to Canada,^[36] where some of the communities still exist.^[37]

Today, the Waldensian Church is included in the Alliance of Reformed Churches of the Presbyterian Order.

Waldenses today

Even if you have never heard of them until now, Waldenses still exist today.

During the Second World War, the Italian Waldenses actively protected Jewish people in Italy. The Italian Waldensian Evangelical Church allied with the Italian Methodist Church and, in 1975, formed the Union of Waldensian and Methodist Churches.

Germany became a point of refuge for a number of Waldenses in 1698. Most eventually returned to Piedmont. However, some stayed and eventually joined the Lutheran or Calvinist churches. However, there are still 10 Waldensian congregations today united with the Evangelical Church in Germany, a united church on the Prussian model of the 19th century.

In South America, Waldenses first arrived in 1856. Their Waldensian Church of Rio de la Plata, between Argentina and Uruguay, has 40 congregations and 15,000 members.

In the United States, Waldenses, who began arriving in the late 19th century, are largely affiliated with Presbyterian practice:

By the 1920s most of the Waldensian churches and missions merged into the Presbyterian Church due to the cultural assimilation of the second and third generations.

The work of the American Waldensian Society continues in the United States today. The mission of the American Waldensian Society is to foster dialogue and partnership among Waldensian Churches in Italy and South America and Christian churches within North America in order to promote a compelling vision of Waldensian Christian witness for North America.

The vision of the society is to be a passionate witness in North America to the contemporary and historic Waldensian spiritual heritage: to Proclaim the Gospel; to Serve among the Marginalized; to Promote Social Justice; to Foster Inter-religious Work; and to Advocate Respect for Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience. As such, the society is committed to: Tell the Story; Encourage ‘Crossings’; and Provide Financial Support.^[46]

The most well known Waldensian Churches in America were in New York, Monett, Missouri and in Valdese, North Carolina. The church in New York City was disbanded by the mid-1990′s. ^[47]

… The Waldensian Presbyterian churches in the United States and the American Waldensian Society have links with the Italian-based Waldensian Evangelical Church, but, unlike the South American Waldensian communities, today they are independent institutions from the European organization.

Next: More on the Moravians

The Apostle discusses assurance and false teachers, topics which continue to be relevant in our times, as any faithful Christian knows.

These omissions from the Lectionary make John’s letters an ideal addition to my ongoing series Forbidden Bible Verses, also essential to our understanding of Scripture.

Today’s reading is from the King James Version. Commentary is by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

1 John 2:3-11

³And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

 ⁴He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

 ⁵But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

 ⁶He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

 ⁷Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

 ⁸Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

 ⁹He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

 ¹⁰He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.

 ¹¹But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

———————————————————————————–

Matthew Henry describes John’s epistle as:

general, as being not inscribed to any particular church; it is, as a circular letter (or visitation charge), sent to divers churches (some say of Parthia), in order to confirm them in their stedfast adherence to the Lord Christ, and the sacred doctrines concerning his person and office, against seducers; and to instigate them to adorn that doctrine by love to God and man, and particularly to each other, as being descended from God, united by the same head, and travelling towards the same eternal life.

As with John’s Gospel, we see the same themes of light and darkness. I had not read these letters until last year and found them most instructive. I hope that you will, too.

Verse 3 addresses the matter of assurance. Every Christian wants to know how to assess whether he has truly been saved. John says that if we keep Christ’s commandments, then we are saved.

However, keeping the commandments must be a sincere undertaking, as John warns in verse 4.  If we claim to be Christians — to know Christ — yet we neglect to obey His commands, then we are liars and we do not possess the eternal truth of Jesus Christ.

Some Christians consider their faith as little more than a philosophy. They say that they believe in Christ, know the prayers, receive the Sacraments and have studied Christianity on an intellectual level. But little in their lives shows the spontaneous fruits of faith.  This applies equally to some pietists and holiness movement followers. They comply with their church’s legalism and think that it suffices. Yet, their behaviour towards others betrays them.

However, John says that a Christian who takes our Lord’s words seriously and obeys them is a person in whom God’s love is ‘perfected’ (verse 5). Matthew Henry posits that this verse also concerns our love towards God as we demonstrate in our behaviour and ties this in with 1 John 2:15:

… so v. 15, The love of (to) the Father is not in him; so ch. 3:17, How dwelleth the love of (to) God in him? Now light is to kindle love; and love must and will keep the word of God; it enquires wherein the beloved may be pleased and served, and, finding he will be so by observance of his declared will, there it employs and exerts itself; there love is demonstrated; there it has its perfect (or complete) exercise, operation, and delight; and hereby (by this dutiful attendance to the will of God, or Christ) we know that we are in him (v. 5), we know that we belong to him, and that we are united to him by that Spirit which elevates and assists us to this obedience; and if we acknowledge our relation to him, and our union with him, it must have this continued enforcement upon us …

And, indeed, if we profess and confess our faith, then, we naturally desire to imitate Christ and do what He would wish (verse 6).

In verse 7, John says that this is not a new commandment but an old one, which has been around from the start. John is going back even further than Christ, however, which is something his converts would have understood. John MacArthur says that the Apostle is referring to the Book of Leviticus in the Old Testament:

Leviticus, the Levitical law, all the way back into Moses, chapter 19 verse 18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself and I am the Lord.” In other words, I’m telling you this and I’m God and that makes it very, very binding and very important.

The Old Testament, of course, in the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:5 demanded that God be loved with all our heart, soul, mind and strength but Leviticus 19:18 added to that, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” And that’s part of the law that’s been around since the very, very beginning.

So they knew that even in their Jewishness. That wasn’t anything new that God wanted them to love their neighbors, that God wanted them to love those that are around them. And then, of course, the apostle Paul builds on that. Turn for a moment to Romans chapter 13 which is a familiar portion of Scripture because of its link with the Old Testament law. Paul in Romans 13 verse 8 says, “Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another, or he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.” Not only is loving your neighbor part of the Law, but loving your neighbor fulfills the Law. That is to say all of the Law that pertains to human relationships is fulfilled if you just love your neighbor. And then he explains that in verse 9, “For this you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet.” And if there’s any other commandment that has to do with human relationships it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself because love does not wrong to a neighbor, love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law.”

However, in verse 8, John says that there is a new commandment in that Christ — the light — by His death and resurrection have freed us from sin — the darkness. And knowing that is light to the Christian; he no longer walks in the darkness of ignorance. That light comes to us through the Gospel message, the Good News. And when we have that light and love that light, then we will want to obey Christ’s commandments. Henry explains (emphasis mine):

We should see that that grace or virtue which was true in Christ be true also in us; we should be conformable to our head. The more our darkness is past, and gospel light shines unto us, the deeper should our subjection be to the commandments of our Lord, whether considered as old or new. Light should produce a suitable heat.

This is why John then says that anyone claiming to follow Christ and who hates his fellow man is not walking in light at all but is instead stumbling in the darkness (verse 9). And there are notional Christians who are, in reality, hypocrites. They make a big deal about their denomination then conduct themselves in appalling ways towards others — friends, family and colleagues.

Are we reflecting Christ’s light through our own actions? Are we attracting people to Christ or repelling them, keeping them and ourselves in darkness?

I hold my hand up, guilty as charged, wishing that I could have done many things in life better.

This is why it is so important to pray and to study the Bible regularly.  Pray for the grace to walk in Christ’s light. Read Scripture in order to be convicted as well as comforted.

John says that when we show our love spontaneously, then we really are walking in the light of Christ (verse 10).

He reiterates this in verse 11: we can profess and confess our faith all we like, but if we hate our fellow man, we’re still enveloped in the darkness of sin.

We might say, ‘Well, I don’t wish anyone ill’. MacArthur tells us that there is more to it than that:

…anything from disdain to indifference could qualify as a form of hate. Sometimes disdain and indifference seem to us polar opposites, but in fact they’re not. My indifference to someone comes out in the end equal to my disdain. Whatever might be that attitude, whether it’s just absolute indifference or whether it’s utter hostility, it’s virtually to have no regard for their condition. And if there is any regard, it’s to worsen it. Such people are in the darkness no matter what they claim. They are outside the Kingdom. They don’t walk in the light. They don’t have any spiritual life.

When we really love Christ, we will want to obey Him and do what He wishes. When we feel lukewarm or are too involved with the world, we begin to turn away from Him and His commandments.  That is why prayer and Scripture are so important in the Christian life.

Next week: 1 John 2:12-17

Most of these rules concern women’s clothes, jewellery and hair. They generally pertain to members of Holiness and Pentecostal churches — pietist denominations.

However, pietist women did not always dress in a way which resembles a badly-styled Little House on the Prairie.

In fact, they dressed quite conventionally and were indistinguishable from other women.  A case in point is a portrait of the Lundquist family (p.3 in the PDF).  They are members of the Baptist General Conference, a pietist denomination comprised mainly of Americans whose ancestors emigrated from Sweden in the 19th century.  Dr Lundquist, incidentally, is a former president of Bethel College and Seminary.

This photo most likely dates from the late 1960s. Note that the women’s hemlines are at the knee and that sleeves are short or nonexistent (the youngest daughter excepted). Their hair is also short.  The women look stylish yet modest.  They are presentable and fit in with the fashion norms of the time.

So, how is it that today’s Christian pietist female population in America has to look frumpy or homesteader-like?  How many converts are they bringing to the faith?

Or is it that they — or church leaders — believe that they must be visibly set apart from other women and attract unnecessary attention?

As such, would that not be verging on a sin of pride?

Dressing modestly in a classic style to fit in with the rest of the population would win far more souls for Christ, it would seem.  Worth considering, isn’t it?

A good site for helpful summaries about various Christian denominations is Deus Vitae’s A Study of Denominations, which I have added to my Resources section.  I have borrowed heavily from it below.

Even before dissatisfied Lutherans in Germany latched onto pietism, the movement already existed in Middle Europe. In fact, Jan (‘John’) Hus started the movement in what is now the Czech Republic in the 1450s.

Hus organised his pietist groups as the Moravian Brethren. Their name comes from the region of Moravia. Most of their congregations use the name ‘Brethren’. Over the centuries they passed on their own practices and also absorbed influences from Anabaptists, then Baptists and Methodists.  This brought about more Moravian denominations, which developed over time because of modern versus conservative disagreements about religious practices.

Moravian religious characteristics include a focus on the works of the Holy Spirit in personal holiness and a literal interpretation of the Bible.  We have already seen how this evolved in various Protestant denominations to the present day.

The Anabaptists originated in 1525 and also called themselves ‘Brethren’. They did not want to be known as a ‘church’.  Their beliefs of non-conformity, pacifism and ‘believer’s baptism’ (only for adults) went against not only the Roman Catholic Church but also the Swiss Reformers Calvin (Geneva) and Zwingli (Zurich). Religious leaders of state and city-mandated denominations objected to their depriving children of Baptism. Civil leaders objected to the pacifism. As a result, Anabaptists were often persecuted and some were put to death.  This is history some modern-day adherents do not hesitate to bring up today in discussions about established churches in Europe.

This helpful chart, also from Deus Vitae (click to enlarge), shows how the Anabaptists developed from the early 16th century to the present day:

The Swiss Brethren were the first group of Anabaptists. A second group, calling themselves Anabaptists, began in Germany as a result of Swiss Brethren evangelising there. Another German grouping, formed by Hans Hut, was called the Hutterian Brethren, sometimes known as Hutterites. The Hutterians never experienced schism and still have a number of colonies today.

Menno Simons (Minne Simens), a former Catholic priest, who left the Church over a disagreement over transubstantiation, was responsible for the spread of Anabaptists in the Low Countries, from which three regional groups of Brethren developed: the Dutch, the Frisian (Simons’s region) and the Flemish. They became known as Mennonites.

Whilst he was serving as a priest, Simons thoroughly studied Scripture, which he had not done before, even at seminary. This left him to conclude that infant baptism went against the New Testament. He then read the works of Martin Luther and Heinrich Bullinger. Simons was transferred to another parish, where he met a group of Anabaptists.  They preached ‘believer’s baptism’.  His brother Pieter had become an Anabaptist in the meantime and was later killed as a result of religious persecution.

Whilst Menno Simons did not agree with everything the Anabaptists taught, he admired their love of the Bible.  After his brother’s death, Menno prayed that he would become holy and that Christ would forgive him his sins.  Menno Simons left the Catholic priesthood to become an Anabaptist in 1536; he was rebaptised. He became a very well known and respected Anabaptist preacher and, in the Low Countries, was considered as influential a theologian for Anabaptism as John Calvin was for Calvinism in Geneva. He died in 1561 in the region of Holstein and was buried in the garden of his home. By then, he was married and had three children.

Because of their controversial stances, the Anabaptist groups found life in cities dangerous.  In order to flee persecution, they moved to the countryside and pursued farming as an occupation. A number also lived in discrete, self-sufficient communities.  They were radical pietists — closed to the rest of the world, although charitable to strangers.  Everyone had a role to play whether on the farm, in the kitchen or elsewhere in the commune (e.g. sewing, carpentry).

A number of Anabaptist groups emigrated to North America in the 18th and 19th centuries. By that time, earlier opposition to their presence in Europe had eased. However, Canada and the United States meant land and opportunity.

Ironically, it was also in their new settlements where division occurred in the 19th century — this time internal.

Deus Vitae discusses the early Brethren congregations in America:

The Brethren in Christ Church, formed on the basis of revivalistic preaching heavily influenced by Pietism and Anabaptism in Pennsylvania in the late eighteenth century. In 1767, some of those who were influential in establishing the Brethren in Christ Church diverged and formed the United Brethren. The United Brethren were split in the late 1860s by one George Hoffman, whose followers were known first as the “Hoffmanites” and later as the United Christian Church. In 1889, another division occurred in the United Brethren, with a portion of the more liberal members joining the Evangelical Church (another sect of German Pietists) to form the Evangelical United Brethren Church, which would in 1968 joined the Methodists to form the United Methodist Church.

The Amish split into two groups: the Amish Mennonites, who had relaxed some of the original strict practices, and the ‘Old Order’ Amish, who maintained the original tenets of the group.  Eventually, all the Amish Mennonites became Mennonites.

Mennonite schisms had started already in Europe with the influence of German pietism and its emphasis on personal holiness. In time this spread to Russian Mennonites who adopted the same beliefs. These groups of Mennonites also came into contact with Baptists and eventually merged the practice of Baptism by immersion into their beliefs.  This branch became known as the Mennonite Brethren Church in 1859.

In the United States, Mennonites divided over the use of the German language in the 1870s. They split into ‘Old Order’ and ‘Old Colony’ groupings. However, to outsiders, they appear similar in their embrace of agriculture and simplicity as well as in their rejection of technology.

Further Mennonite divisions occurred by the end of the 19th century. Today, there are two main Mennonite groups: the Mennonite Church (MC) and the General Conference Mennonite Church (GCMC) which places a greater value on evangelism.

Next week: More on the Moravians

This entry will examine how the holiness movement viewed the term ‘pentecostal’, why today’s holiness churches consider themselves separate from Pentecostalism and how Pentecostalism later developed.

Members of the Fire-Baptized Holiness Church sometimes spoke in tongues — glossolalia, theologically speaking. However, at the end of the 19th century, no one held it to be evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Repudiating the ‘Pentecostal’ label

Another holiness denomination, now called Pillar of Fire International, was incorporated in 1901 as the Pentecostal Union.

Like the members of the Fire-Baptized Holiness Church, its followers were also known as ‘holy rollers’ and ‘holy jumpers’ for their supposed Spirit-led gyrations during worship.

Therefore, the physical movements, noise and glossolalia were originally part of the holiness churches.

However, after the Azusa Street Revival (described below), the Pentecostal Union’s founder Bishop Alma White changed the name to Pillar of Fire. It appears that she did this partly for social reasons, as the Azusa Street Revival involved too much mixing of blacks and whites during services.

However, there is a deeper theological aspect here. Pentecostals believe that one can only be baptised in the Spirit by giving evidence of it through speaking in tongues. Holiness churches, on the other hand, do not believe that glossolalia is a given for baptism in the Spirit.

Pentecostal borrowing from holiness churches

Members of holiness churches became the first Pentecostalists at the beginning of the 20th century. As such, they brought their Wesleyan holiness standards with them and (emphases mine):

to this day many “classical Pentecostals” maintain much of holiness doctrine and many of its devotional practices. (Oneness Pentecostals, such as the United Pentecostal Church, still largely adhere to these “standards.”) Additionally, the terms Pentecostal and apostolic, now used by adherents to Pentecostal and charismatic doctrine, were once widely used by holiness churches in connection with the consecrated lifestyle described in the New Testament.

Looking at the Wikipedia page for the United Pentecostal Church International, we read that this denomination

puts an emphasis upon Holiness living in all aspects of one’s life.

‘Holiness living’ involves:

Inward holiness, such as demonstration of the fruits of the Spirit in the Christian’s life, is accompanied by outward signs of holiness, according to the UPCI. These include a belief that women should not cut their hair; in addition, they should wear dresses or skirts rather than pants, in accordance with the scriptural mandate to “not wear that which pertaineth to a man”.^[10] Skirt lengths are generally expected to reach below the knee. Woman and men alike are encouraged to “adorn [themselves] in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety”,^[11] and are discouraged from wearing cosmetics or jewelry, biblically defined as “gold, or pearls, or costly array”.^[11] The precise strictness to which these standards are adhered to often varies, however …

Other controversial issues include: men wearing shorts, attendance at movie theatres, dancing, and mixed bathing.

How it is that outward ‘holiness’ is a sign of inward holiness is unclear. It sounds like semi-Pelagian style over substance.

Yet, when it comes to worship:

Worship at the UPCI is often described as lively, with members jumping, dancing, singing, shouting, and clapping, as in all Pentecostal churches. Some people run through the church aisles, dance in the spirit, roll in the floor, which coined the term “holy rollers”. They have even been known, mostly in the earlier days of Pentecostalism, to walk across the top of pews or jump over pews in an act of fervent worship … Excessive control of worship activities is often referred to as “quenching the spirit”, a scriptural term taken from I Thessolonians 5:19, which states, “Quench not the Spirit.” There has often been controversy over how much worship should be controlled and how much a congregational leader should “let the Spirit move.”

Again, this worship style refers back to the 19th century holiness churches in the United States and England (Primitive Methodists).

Another example can be found in Oneness Pentecostalism, so called because they reject the Holy Trinity and baptise only in the name of Jesus Christ. (Heresy alert: Modalism and Arianism). The popular American evangelist, the Revd T D Jakes, is a Oneness Pentecostal, incidentally.

Oneness Pentecostals also follow standards of behaviour derived from the holiness movement:

Practical or outward holiness for Oneness believers involves certain “holiness standards” that dictate, among other things, modest apparel and gender distinction. Some Oneness organizations, considering current social trends in fashion and dress to be immoral, have established “dress codes” for their members. These guidelines are similar to those used by all Pentecostal denominations for much of the first half of the 20th century.^[1] Generally, women wear long sleeves & skirts are expected not to wear pants, makeup, jewellery or to cut their hair; men are enjoined to be clean-shaven, short-haired,no jewellery and are expected to wear long sleeve shirts, long-legged pants, as opposed to shorts.^[44] Oneness Pentecostals believe wholeheartedly in dressing modestly (with restraints and limits) and NOT moderately which by definition means “not in excess”. They believe that there is a distinct deference in Modesty (being aware of one’s limitations, or shunning indecency,) and Moderation (avoiding excesses or extremes while suggesting more than usual). Modesty carries the connotation of something being off-limits. They justify this belief by using the Biblical scripture in 1 Timothy 2:9 “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel…” Additionally, many Oneness organizations proscribe their members from watching secular movies or television. Many of these views on “standards” have roots in the larger Holiness movement. However, the precise degree to which these standards are enforced varies from church to church and even from individual to individual within the movement.

Due to the comparative strictness of their “standards”, Oneness Pentecostals are ofttimes accused of “legalism” by other Christians.^[45] Oneness believers respond by saying that holiness is commanded by God,^[46] and that it follows salvation, rather than causes it.^[43] “Holiness living”, for Oneness Pentecostals, proceeds from love rather than duty, and is motivated by the holy nature inparted by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.^[43] While the Christian life is indeed one of liberty from rules and laws, that liberty does not negate one’s responsibility to follow scriptural teachings on moral issues,^[43] many of which were established by the Apostles themselves.^[47]

Once more, adhering to a ticklist of things to do is no sign of inner holiness.

Charles Fox Parham –  a founder of Pentecostalism

Charles Fox Parham was the preacher and evangelist who devised the idea of glossolalia being the evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Not surprisingly, he came from a Wesley-influenced home. His stepmother was a devout Methodist, and her father had been a circuit rider.  When she married Parham’s father, the couple opened up their home for religious meetings — small groups — a characteristic of pietism.

Four things stand out about Parham’s early life:

- He was steeped in Methodism and attended a Methodist college before becoming a supply pastor in the Methodist Episcopal Church.

- He married the daughter of a Quaker — a pietist — in a Friends Meeting House.

- He left the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1895, complaining that it did not allow enough scope to preach by ‘direct inspiration’ — another pietist characteristic.

- He started his own itinerant ministry — more evidence of pietism, as he rejected the formal church.

Parham and his infant son both fell ill at the same time; he attributed their recovery to ‘divine intervention’ and decided to make ‘divine healing’ part of his ministry.  At his new base in Topeka, Kansas, he opened the Bethel Healing Home.

In 1900, he became interested in the Bible and the ‘later day movements’, namely, what the Holy Spirit was trying to tell Christians. After studying with evangelist Frank Sandford in Maine and in Ontario, Parham opened his own Bible school. Although he charged no tuition, by instructing applicants to sell what they had, the implication was that they were to pay their way at the Bethel Bible School.

Parham knew from Sandford that at least one person had spoken in tongues. He also believed that there was more significance to Baptism than Christians had believed through the centuries.  Parham was looking for an outward sign and wonder connected with the sacrament. In other words, Baptism on its own did not suffice for Parham.

During a New Year’s vigil and worship from December 31, 1900 through January 1, 1901, a group of Parham’s Bible school students gathered.  It was during the worship service on New Year’s Day that one of them, Agnes Ozman, asked to be prayed for in order that she might receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Immediately afterward, she began to speak in tongues.

One would have thought that this event would have catapulted his ministry to nationwide acclaim, but it was not to be — yet. Parham’s ministry had failed, so he decided to make an evangelistic tour of nearby resorts. In 1903, a socialite from Galena, Kansas — Mary Arthur — claimed that Parham had healed her. She and her husband invited Parham to conduct a service at a large venue in Galena over the New Year period of 1903-1904. The News Herald of Joplin, Missouri, picked up the event and reported that 1,000 people had been healed and 800 claimed conversion.  Parham’s ministry was finally on the up.

Parham was able to recruit ‘bands’ of assistants to help him spread ‘apostolic faith’ from town to town in Kansas and parts of Missouri. Putting aside the holiness movement’s diktat of modest dress, he encouraged them to dress stylishly in order to show others how attractive the Christian life is. This is worth mentioning, because it is something many televangelists, especially their wives, do to the present day.

In pietist fashion, Parham disliked the word ‘church’, so he opened ‘assemblies’ — another name which would catch on in the Pentecostal world. His first assembly opened in 1904 — a characteristically Pentecostal frame church — in Keelville, Kansas.  More opened in the Galena area.

Parham expanded his ministry, taking it to Houston, where he attracted a number of black holiness church members. By this time, the aforementioned Fire-Baptized Holiness Church had 50 black congregations, led by a former AME Church pastor.  Although they were not the only denomination, holiness and pentecostalism, as the Wesleyans understood it, appealed to black Protestants, many of whom had been exposed to the movement since the days of slavery.

Parham opened a Bible school in Houston in 1906. He soon teamed up with one of his black students, William J Seymour, who would become the other co-founder of the Pentecostal movement through the Azusa Street Revival (see below).

Parham and Seymour preached to blacks in the Houston area. Soon afterward, Seymour, by then holding a licence to preach as a minister in Parham’s Apostolic Faith Movement, moved to Los Angeles to serve as an associate pastor in a holiness mission for a limited time.

Parham did much to bring whites and blacks together in his services.  Today’s younger readers might say that he didn’t do much at all, yet, in a time when slavery had been abolished for only four decades and the American South was divided on clear racial lines, Parham could be considered as having been ahead of his time.

In 1907, Parham was arrested in San Antonio on charges of homosexuality, which was illegal in those days.  Although charges were dropped, orthodox Christians used the episode against the new Pentecostal movement. As we shall see below, on top of the sodomy charges, the transfer of Pentecostal focus to Seymour made Parham even more resentful.

Parham turned his attention towards his Anglo-Saxon belief that the British are direct descendents of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. (British Israelism is still popular today.) In 1928, he returned from a long-awaited trip to Palestine and was scheduled to go on a speaking tour, complete with slides, to show his audience. On January 5, 1929, he collapsed in the middle of one of his appearances. He died on January 29, 1929.

William J Seymour — co-founder of Pentecostalism

Parham’s protege, William J Seymour, was born in Louisiana in 1870 to former slaves and had the use of only one eye.  Seymour, as we read above, became a successful preacher under Parham and left his Houston evangelism for a holiness mission in Los Angeles.

Like Parham, he believed that glossolalia signified evidence that a Christian had been baptised in the Spirit.  This was a highly controversial belief at the time and, even today, the holiness churches do not accept it.  Consequently, the elders of the congregation took little time in locking Seymour out of the church. However, Edward S Lee, a member of the congregation, took Seymour into his own home, where Seymour started a small group of house worship and Bible study.

He then moved on to the home of Richard and Ruth Asberry in Bonnie Brae Street in Los Angeles. His small group became larger, now attracting white holiness church members as well. Together, the group prayed for baptism in the Holy Spirit as evidenced by glossolalia.  On April 9, 1906, Seymour’s first host — Edward S Lee — began speaking in tongues. At the next meeting, six more people spoke in tongues. Then Seymour himself began speaking in tongues, only three days after Lee.

News of the phenomenon spread by word of mouth in Los Angeles neighbourhoods. Latinos joined blacks and whites in front of the Asberry house in Bonnie Brae Street. Speakers appeared on the porch to describe or evangelise to the onlookers outside. Seymour’s first pastor in Los Angeles — Julia Hutchins — whose church locked him out, attended a meeting and also began speaking in tongues.  The crowds grew into a cross section of Los Angelenos of every background.

The numbers of people attending the meetings grew to the point where the porch of 214 Bonnie Brae Street collapsed and a new meeting place had to be found.

The Azusa Street Revival and William J Seymour

The group which had met at Bonnie Brae Street found another place to meet in a black district of Los Angeles. The building at 312 Azusa Street had once been an AME Church which was then converted into a warehouse among other businesses.

The building was in disrepair and required substantial cleaning inside. It had most recently been a horse stable.  Still, the group were able to transform it enough so that the congregation met on the ground floor and the church offices were upstairs, along with accommodation for Seymour and his bride, Jenny.

The main congregation was estimated at 50 or 60 people, but anywhere from 300 to 1,500 people often attended the meetings.

The people who knew about the house in Bonnie Brae Street now flocked to the new church in Azusa Street along with newcomers, including Asians, German immigrants and Yiddish-speaking Jews.  First-hand accounts describe American congregants as speaking in foreign languages to be understood by speakers of those languages near them in the pews. A number of Protestants, including pastors, from other denominations also attended meetings, if only out of curiosity.

Worship included people claiming being ‘slain in the Spirit’, personal testimony and altar calls. Contributions were strictly voluntary, with a receptacle by the door.  Characteristic of holiness churches dedicated to the Holy Spirit were the jumping, rolling around and gyrations.  Songs were in a cappella or in tongues.

Not surprisingly, members of respectable society — including reporters from the Los Angeles Times and Charles Parham — disapproved of the noise, the dirt and racial mixing.  Pastors also criticised the notional worship and warned against extremes of emotion and unbiblical practices.

By 1913, the excitement had gone and the Azusa Street Mission, as it was called, welcomed smaller congregations. Seymour and his wife lived there the rest of their lives. Seymour died of a heart attack in 1922.  Jenny, who died in 1936, led the congregation until 1931, when the church had to give up the premises. The building was razed later on, and a new structure now houses the Japanese-American Cultural Center.

Rapid spread of Pentecostalism

It should come as no surprise that certain holiness movement pastors and missionaries wished to replicate the sensational religious experience of Azusa Street in their own congregations.

In the United States:

The Southeast United States was a particularly prolific area of growth for the movement, since Seymour’s approach gave a useful explanation for a charismatic spiritual climate that had already been taking root in those areas. Other new missions were based on preachers who had charisma and energy. Nearly all of these new churches were founded among immigrants and the poor.^[12]

Missions opened for Mexican and Italian immigrants, nationalities which are traditionally Catholic.

Internationally, missionaries took the Azusa Street experience to every continent and a variety of countries around the world.

A century later, the emotionalism, intensity and sentimentality characterising the ‘slain in the Sprit’  Baptism makes the Pentecostal congregations the fastest growing branch of Christianity in the world. Pentecostalism claims over 500 million believers today.

Types of Pentecostalism

Earlier in the post, we read about the Oneness Pentecostals.

Two other groups — Wesleyan and Finished Work (quasi-Calvinist) — are also represented:

Wesleyan Pentecostals believe in the experience of entire sanctification, a definite event that occurs after salvation but before Spirit baptism. This experience cleanses the believer, rooting out the sinful, fallen nature … Finished Work Pentecostals reject entire sanctification as a definite event. They believe that one is initially sanctified at the moment of salvation. After conversion, the believer grows in grace through a life-long process … With the exception of Oneness Pentecostals, classical Pentecostal churches share basic beliefs with the rest of evangelical Christianity.

Wesleyan Pentecostals

The Wesleyan Pentecostal churches adhere to the standards of the holiness movement.  One of the main denominations is the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) comprised of primarily black congregations which has an extensive mission network around the world.

Another denomination is the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee). It is worth noting that the denomination began with three Tennessee evangelists who had links to the aforementioned  Fire-Baptized Holiness Church preachers who evangelised at a revival in North Carolina.  Some of those attending began to speak in tongues. In 1902 this group organised a church called Holiness Church at Camp Creek, near the site of the revival.

In the early 20th century:

The 1st Assembly decided that foot washing was on the same level as the sacrament of communion and, like other holiness groups, condemned the use of tobacco.

Later:

The practice of snake handling briefly became a controversy in the denomination in the 1920s after it was endorsed by George Went Hensley, a Church of God minister.

Finished Work Pentecostals

Two main Finished Work Pentecostal denominations are the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel and the Assemblies of God.

I’ll explore the life of founder Aimee Semple McPherson, a Canadian-American, in a later post. Hers is a story in and of itself.

However, her church’s theology is a bit more mainstream with no apparent holiness — strict rules and regulations. The denomination calls for ‘moderation’ and supports many mainstream Protestant teachings, although it does mention the ‘imminent’ return of Christ and ‘divine healing’.  McPherson was the — or one of the — first ‘celebrity’ evangelists of the 20th century. Note that the church’s Angelus Temple is in Los Angeles. There is also an established denomination in Canada. Foursquare Gospel has missions in Nigeria and the Philippines.

The Assemblies of God (AOG) are a larger denomination.  Many who move to mainstream Protestantism become Calvinists. They bring with them huge ‘enthusiasm’ (not a good thing: here, here and here) and, for whatever reason, a number of them wish to transform the churches of which they are now members. Unfortunately, some are ‘Reformed Anglicans’ who are also anti-Catholic and anticipate a return to Cromwellian worship and standards. They not only do a disservice to Anglo-Catholics in our broad church but also to the Reformation heritage.  As one ex-member put it online, ‘I want to win the world for Christ!’ The ardour does not decrease with time.  Future Dominionists, perhaps?

The AOG began in 1914 in Hot Springs, Arkansas, a few years after the Azusa Revival.  Enough said about the location, which is — or was (even when I was a child) — not known for all things pious and holy.

A number of Anglo-Saxon Pentecostalist groups of the same name around the world united in fellowship during the first half of the 20th century.  Also, before 1967, the AOG was considered a ‘peace church’. Even now, it supports pacifists — a traditional sign of pietism.

The AOG, like other Pentecostal denominations, places a great emphasis on evidence of ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit’ through speaking in tongues.  Interestingly, a number of its churches in other parts of the world no longer have entries on Wikipedia. One cannot think that this is solely out of persecution, as they were located around the world.  Therefore, we would do well to let the matter rest for now.

Next time: Pietism in other denominations