The discussion between David Platt and Kevin De Young, arising from Platt's book, Radical; Taking Back Your Faith From The American Dream, makes thought-provoking reading. Together with the many responses to the blog, it also shows how widely evangelical Christians differ on what "radical" really means.
"You can be radical in your own home", I read. If your definition of 'radical' is little more than the opposite of nominal, then fine - you can. But surely, committed or zealous ought to do here. By the way, isn't it sad that the old word "staunch" died the death? It had done a good job for centuries!
There is a generally accepted thumbnail definition of 'radical' used by political historians. Might it help us here? For them, it must:
a) refer to a movement, not an individual
b) be organised, not spontaneous, and
c) have as its aim a change to the current system of power.
If we are ready to accept these criteria in a Christian context, it immediately blows out the 'radical at home' idea, for you can't be a movement on your own! But questions still remain, not least regarding the categorisation of particular movements in history. The political-historical criteria by their very nature apply to movements "in the world", actively agitating for good, and not movements which sought to express their protest against the system by going "out of the world" and setting up an alternative society. Chief among these, of course, would be the Desert Fathers and the early monastic tradition.
There is, however, one movement which historians have actually called the Radical Reformation. This was the grassroots reaction in the 16th century against the system and trappings of both the Roman Catholic and mainstream Protestant (Lutheran) churches. A movement sprang up, not by any means in full unity, but committed to breaking free from State-Church structures, externally imposed bishops, and the notion of salvation lying within an ecclesiastical system. They called for a return to New Testament principles of church structure and governance, a congregation's right to appoint its own elders, baptise believers, administer the sacraments and refuse to take up arms and fight wars.
Platt uses the phrase gospel-driven, grace-saturated, God-glorifying obedience, not particularly intending it as a definition, but as a description of the radical heart of Christianity. It seems to me that the Radical Reformation meets these requirements and fits the historians' definition of a radical movement. In my next posts, therefore, I'll try to give specific examples from their story and their writings that unpack this a little more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting. The word radical does have its problems, not least its association in most Western minds with jihadist Islamism. Also, in Christian theological circles it is sometimes used to denote radically liberal theology. Then evangelicals tend to use it, like you indicate here, as a synonym for zealous, fiery, passionate - or staunch ;-) I suppose the term 'radical reformation' refers to the determination among the Anabaptists to go back to the roots - the earliest church and the New Testament. This is surely true Christian radicalism - so, yes, Trevor, give us more on them please!
ReplyDeleteThanks for this, normal. At risk of getting ahead of myself, the Anabaptists qualify as true radicals by going back to the roots AND rebuilding FROM the roots.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Since the mid-70's 'radicalism' as, shall we say, a flavour du jour has been perceived as more desirable/holier/closer to the 'truth' than mainstream in all its forms. My question is - 'why?' Currently, presumably because of radical Islam has hijacked the agenda, any religious activity which is perceived as on the edge has been subject to greater criticism. What then is wrong with being a part of the 90% of the submerged iceberg? Is being remembered so very important?
ReplyDelete(enjoyed 'Pilgrims....", btw)
Interesting stuff, John, so thank you. My reading of church history suggests that, in any age, there have been 3 main groups in the church:
ReplyDelete1. Those perfectly satisfied with the status quo; the mainstream, if you like;
2. Those dissatisfied with lacks and laxities in the mainstream church but who don't want to rock the boat, so withdraw into an intensely personal spirituality. That was the mystics, of course, but I see the same thing in today's "me and Daddy" worship emphasis, where an entirely personal 'intimacy' is all that matters;
3. Those dissatisfied with the status quo and who see it as an affront to New Testament norms and see it as responsible for the lack of divine honour on the church. So they agitate for reform within, or withdraw and start something new.
We can look in group 3 for the "radicals" in my interpretation. They have been the movers and shakers, the bringers about of change. But they haven't produced much devotional stuff - for that we must look to category 2.
I absolutely agree. I was a 'fly on the wall' at Bugbrooke a lot of years ago, and it helped my own formation into a #2 but with a passion for worship. I'm not sure what you mean by 'lack of divine honour'. It rather sounds like something Jonathan Edwards might say...
ReplyDeletePoint taken, John. I guess I was trying to sound as they might sound: "The Church is backslidden!" We can see their point to a degree, but the brush is too broad.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you found 'Pilgrims' a good read. It was the book we as a church had hoped to find when we felt a call to explore community, but it didn't exist - so I was sent to research and write it! For anyone needing a link, http://www.jesuspeople.biz/shop/books/pilgrims.html