I have been thoroughly enjoying the book 'The Celtic Way of Evangelism' by George G. Hunter III, and I wanted to share some thoughts and excerpts.
The book is the summation of the evangelical mission of St. Patrick to the people of Ireland and the subsequent Christianization of that island, the rest of the British Isles and Western Europe by the succeeding generations of missionaries that continued Patrick's work.
The way that God used Patrick to bring the name of Jesus to the "Barbarian" people; the Britons (in what is now England), the Picts (in what is now Scotland), and the Scots-Irish (in what is now Ireland), is a great lesson for us today in how to reach Western cultures who are increasingly pagan and "Barbarian" in the eyes of Christianity.
From page 19-20
"Patrick's mission to Ireland was unprecedented and widely assumed to be impossible. The Irish context of that period, however, provided some strategic advantages for Patrick's mission. Ireland was populated by about 150 tuaths - extended tribes - each tribe fiercely loyal to its tribal king. Ireland's total population numbered between 200,000 and 500,000 people. By Patrick's time, all of the tribes spoke the same language that Patrick had learned while a slave, and they now shared more or less the same culture, so Patrick understood them.
Indeed, the fact that Patrick understood the people and their language, their issues, and their ways, serves as the most strategically significant single insight that was to drive the wider expansion of Celtic Christianity, and stands as perhaps our greatest single learning from this movement. There is no shortcut to understanding the people. When you understand the people, you will often know what to say and do, and how. When the people know the Christians understand them, they infer that maybe the High God understands them too."
Patrick was given an audience by the native Irish because Patrick chose to relate to them, he did not force them to relate to him. He understood and identified with them and he earned the right to speak to them.
As for the reaction outside of Ireland: Page 40-41
"You would think that the Roman wing of the Church would have been grateful for the expansion achieved by the mission of the Celtic wing and, begrudgingly, it was; but the Roman wing's leaders repeatedly criticized the Celtic wing for not doing church the "Roman way!"
The Celtic Christians...had not adopted Rome's innovations. David Bosch once observed that 'By and large...Catholicism endorsed the principle that a missionary church must reflect in every detail the Roman custom of the moment.'
A(n)...issue was indigeneity versus cultural uniformity. In the hairstyle matter, and many others, Celtic Christianity had adapted to the people's culture; the Romans wanted Roman cultural forms imposed upon all churches and peoples - a policy that was alien to the Celtic movement's practice and genius.
The driving issue, of course, was control. That is why it was so important, to the Romans, for everyone to do church the "Roman way." Once any society accepted Christianity, the politically dominant Roman wing of the Church insisted that the young churches organize in the Roman pattern of dioceses led by bishops and learn to worship in Latin, follow the liturgy from Rome, sing the music from Rome, etc.
The Synods of Whitby and Autun presumably settled the matter: the Roman way should be followed everywhere. In some cases, Celtic priests who refused to do church the Roman way were banished; in other cases, Benedictine rule was forced on Celtic monasteries. More often, presumably, church and secular leaders simply pressured Celtic leaders to conform, and they praised and rewarded those who did. Within two centuries of the Synods of Whitby and Autun, the Roman way largely prevailed throughout the Western Church."
This hits me very hard for three reasons:
1. We, and I mean all of us, who are in the Restoration movement, are heirs of Patrick's boldness to throw off the traditions of men and to lift up Jesus alone as God's answer to a broken world. Patrick dared to alter the pattern of his day to bring the truth of the Gospel to the ears and hearts of the "barbarian" people of his day.
The Stone/Campbell movement grew largely out of the Scotch/Irish church that maintained that rebellious tendency when presented with a choice between God and man. It also was a great influence on the origins of the United States of America.
2. It absolutely amazes me when I see an African church and the men are all wearing neckties. I see a church in Zambia where there are two songs, a prayer, a song, a lesson, an invitation, the Lord's Supper, a prayer, then they are dismissed. They've been taught the "new Roman way" of doing things. What would we say if they deviated from that?
I am finding myself more willing to release the old moorings of my customs and traditions and to be guided by God's Grace in all things.
3. I don't see any effort at all for our churches to reach out to a pagan and "unchurched" culture. I've been taught that the Church is there for the faithful Christians and if someone on the outside wanted Church of Christ "goods and services," then they must first become faithful members. That is not the pattern used by Patrick or by Jesus. Jesus never made anyone believe before He loved them. He loved them and they believed. They belonged before they believed.
Is that a pattern to follow? I think it is.
Oh, and get this book and read it!
The book is the summation of the evangelical mission of St. Patrick to the people of Ireland and the subsequent Christianization of that island, the rest of the British Isles and Western Europe by the succeeding generations of missionaries that continued Patrick's work.
The way that God used Patrick to bring the name of Jesus to the "Barbarian" people; the Britons (in what is now England), the Picts (in what is now Scotland), and the Scots-Irish (in what is now Ireland), is a great lesson for us today in how to reach Western cultures who are increasingly pagan and "Barbarian" in the eyes of Christianity.
From page 19-20
"Patrick's mission to Ireland was unprecedented and widely assumed to be impossible. The Irish context of that period, however, provided some strategic advantages for Patrick's mission. Ireland was populated by about 150 tuaths - extended tribes - each tribe fiercely loyal to its tribal king. Ireland's total population numbered between 200,000 and 500,000 people. By Patrick's time, all of the tribes spoke the same language that Patrick had learned while a slave, and they now shared more or less the same culture, so Patrick understood them.
Indeed, the fact that Patrick understood the people and their language, their issues, and their ways, serves as the most strategically significant single insight that was to drive the wider expansion of Celtic Christianity, and stands as perhaps our greatest single learning from this movement. There is no shortcut to understanding the people. When you understand the people, you will often know what to say and do, and how. When the people know the Christians understand them, they infer that maybe the High God understands them too."
Patrick was given an audience by the native Irish because Patrick chose to relate to them, he did not force them to relate to him. He understood and identified with them and he earned the right to speak to them.
As for the reaction outside of Ireland: Page 40-41
"You would think that the Roman wing of the Church would have been grateful for the expansion achieved by the mission of the Celtic wing and, begrudgingly, it was; but the Roman wing's leaders repeatedly criticized the Celtic wing for not doing church the "Roman way!"
The Celtic Christians...had not adopted Rome's innovations. David Bosch once observed that 'By and large...Catholicism endorsed the principle that a missionary church must reflect in every detail the Roman custom of the moment.'
A(n)...issue was indigeneity versus cultural uniformity. In the hairstyle matter, and many others, Celtic Christianity had adapted to the people's culture; the Romans wanted Roman cultural forms imposed upon all churches and peoples - a policy that was alien to the Celtic movement's practice and genius.
The driving issue, of course, was control. That is why it was so important, to the Romans, for everyone to do church the "Roman way." Once any society accepted Christianity, the politically dominant Roman wing of the Church insisted that the young churches organize in the Roman pattern of dioceses led by bishops and learn to worship in Latin, follow the liturgy from Rome, sing the music from Rome, etc.
The Synods of Whitby and Autun presumably settled the matter: the Roman way should be followed everywhere. In some cases, Celtic priests who refused to do church the Roman way were banished; in other cases, Benedictine rule was forced on Celtic monasteries. More often, presumably, church and secular leaders simply pressured Celtic leaders to conform, and they praised and rewarded those who did. Within two centuries of the Synods of Whitby and Autun, the Roman way largely prevailed throughout the Western Church."
This hits me very hard for three reasons:
1. We, and I mean all of us, who are in the Restoration movement, are heirs of Patrick's boldness to throw off the traditions of men and to lift up Jesus alone as God's answer to a broken world. Patrick dared to alter the pattern of his day to bring the truth of the Gospel to the ears and hearts of the "barbarian" people of his day.
The Stone/Campbell movement grew largely out of the Scotch/Irish church that maintained that rebellious tendency when presented with a choice between God and man. It also was a great influence on the origins of the United States of America.
2. It absolutely amazes me when I see an African church and the men are all wearing neckties. I see a church in Zambia where there are two songs, a prayer, a song, a lesson, an invitation, the Lord's Supper, a prayer, then they are dismissed. They've been taught the "new Roman way" of doing things. What would we say if they deviated from that?
I am finding myself more willing to release the old moorings of my customs and traditions and to be guided by God's Grace in all things.
3. I don't see any effort at all for our churches to reach out to a pagan and "unchurched" culture. I've been taught that the Church is there for the faithful Christians and if someone on the outside wanted Church of Christ "goods and services," then they must first become faithful members. That is not the pattern used by Patrick or by Jesus. Jesus never made anyone believe before He loved them. He loved them and they believed. They belonged before they believed.
Is that a pattern to follow? I think it is.
Oh, and get this book and read it!
No comments:
Post a Comment