Househunting

I share this short paper I recently wrote as part of my studies at the University of Utrecht for the benefit of those who might be interested in the role of houses in the period of the apostolic church. This is just an initial exploration of a subject that interest me because I have heard many claims about the early Christian 'house churches', but have a feeling that much of it reads back into the New Testament our own concepts of space and family.

Exploring the role of houses in understanding early Christian literature

Type the term 'temple' in the search engine of the Utrecht university library and you immediately find several articles in the field of Biblical studies. The same applies to synagogue. When you type 'house' however, the first results refer to the American journal for architecture or the Burlington magazine for connoisseurs.  Perhaps this typifies some of the problems when looking at the spatial influence of houses in the texts of the New Testament. In the minds of the authors of the New Testament there was only one temple that mattered. Several of them indicate a familiarity with synagogues, though their relation to these synagogue often seem strained (Joh. 9:22, Rev. 2:9). Houses however are mentioned, not as some great architectural achievements, neither as centres of religious or ethnic identity. Houses are just houses. Or are they?

In one of the more recent discussions of the role of the house church in the Early Church, Roger Gehring remarks that though Christians met almost exclusively in private houses built for domestic use for the first three hundred years, little attention has been paid to the role of households or house churches.[1] In this paper I want to explore the significance of houses for a better understanding of early Christian literature, especially in the book of Acts.

Oἶκος and οἰκία

Though there is a difference of opinion on the exact distinctions between οἶκος and οἰκία, Gehring follows Klauck in rather determining the exact meaning of the words from the context instead of assuming οἶκος to refer to the architectural and οἰκία to the sociological meaning. Oἶκος and οἰκία could thus refer to (a) a house in the sense of living quarters, an inhabited building or (b) an extended family, though the concept of family would still be quite different from the modern sense.[2] Perhaps the ambiguity of the term show the close connection between the space and its social implications which would at least in part explain the significance of the place of the house in early Christian literature. 

Significance

Filson listed five areas  in which a study of house churches could further an understanding of the apostolic church: (1) a distinctively Christian worship, (2) the great amount of attention paid to family life, (3) a tendency to party strife, (4) the social status of early Christians and (5) the development of church polity.[3] To a certain degree all of these, except perhaps the third point touch on the passage from Acts 20:7-12 which I would like to examine in my next paper.  

Several attempts have been made to explain the origin of the early house churches in terms of different models present in the ancient world. Gehring follows White in ascribing the overlap in comparisons of early house churches with the models of philosophical schools, associations, synagogues and household not so much to early Christianity's dependence on either of these, but rather because their organizational schemes overlap in the use of private, often domestic settings and their dependence on patronage.[4]

Gehring rejects the notion that the prominent references to houses in the gospels purely reflect the Post-Easter interests of the early church. Convincingly he argues that the historical Jesus used houses, especially that of Peter in Capernaum, as bases for his itinerant mission to surrounding villages and instructed his disciples to apply a similar model. Gehring envisions groups that would not be too large. They would have to be accommodated in houses of which the living rooms would mostly be about five meters square if one would follow indications in rabbinical writings (m.Ber. 8:12c; 3:6d; Gen. Rab. 31:11) and archaeological evidence which also show courtyards as an integral part of most houses.[5]  Characteristic of the Jesus movement are people giving up their house, both those who do so to as itinerant preachers as well as those who provide housing for the new groups of believers, creating a new spiritual based family.[6]

Gehring sees the continuation of a similar pattern in the Post-Easter use of houses as a base for the Jerusalem church where meetings in the houses of wealthy patrons function parallel to meetings in the temple.[7] He demonstrates how several gatherings in houses exist at the same time in larger cities like Jerusalem, Corinth and Rome.[8] In some cases  like that of Mary in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12-17) and Philemon, the houses in which believers gathered seemed to be owned by people of reasonable wealth.[9]  As Campbell rightly remarks, Gehring's identification of other patrons like Pricilla and Aquilla as wealthy, is less convincing, though plausible. If they rented something like the excavated shops in Corinth with an area of approximately 27m², we could imagine a gathering of about twenty believers.[10] More recent discussions seriously questioned the tendency to locate the gatherings of early Christians in affluent villa's like that excavated at Anaploga. Horrell might therefore be right in saying:

'NT studies should pay more attention to the varieties of domestic space in the urban setting of Corinth and other cities of the Roman empire, and consider these as possible settings for early Christian meetings.'[11]

Different shapes and sizes

Not too much is known about the character of many residential areas in the Roman Empire since excavations like that in Corinth largely focus on forum areas, temples and villa's. This is partly due to the fact that poorer housing tend to be constructed from poorer materials and leave less evidence. More humane reasons also play a role as  Horrel illustrates by quoting Ramsay MacMullen saying: ‘no one has sought fame through the excavation of a slum'.[12] One region where we have a broader picture of both urban and rural housing is that of the Levant.

Yzhar Hirschfeld combined research on rural dwellings in the Hebron Hills and references in rabbinical sources with information about archaeological finds to get a clearer picture of the Palestinian Dwellings in Roman-Byzantine times. Though he recognizes that identical houses are rarely found, he divides the dwellings into four categories: a) simple houses measuring between 20 m² and 220 m², mostly found in rural parts with a courtyard on the side; b) 'courtyard houses' found mostly in cities, measuring between 200-300m² with a simple inner courtyard without columns; c) spacious 'peristyle houses' characterized by an inner courtyard surrounded by columns; d) complex houses, mostly in cities with a combination of several units around a courtyard. Many of these houses were two storied, the lower often used for domestic and workshop activities and the upper story as living quarters, sometimes including a triclinium used for social events.[13] There is even mention of three and five stories in rabbinical sources.[14] Access to roofs and upper stories were by means of wooden or stone staircases.[15] Though windows were often small, the so-called Tyrian windows were large with a rectangular frame.[16]

Though Hirschfeld's analysis could be supplemented by a more accurate classification of the different types of houses like that provided by Richardson[17], and we could imagine regional variations including more insulae in places like Corinth and Troas where the influence of Roman building styles seem larger[18], a greater awareness of the different styles of houses and the way in which such spaces could be utilized in various ways, might at least rid us of the images of an early house church having a cosy bible study in a living room while having a cup of tea on the night of Paul's visit to the church in Troas. It is important that in each case a range op optional settings need to be considered.

.   

Bibliography

Campbell. A. R., & Gehring, R. W. (January 01, 2007). House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity. By Roger W. Gehring. Journal of Theological Studies, 58, 2, 666-671.

Clarke, A. D. (January 01, 2008). Roger W. Gehring House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity The Evangelical Quarterly, 80, 4, 367.

Gehring, R. W. (2004). House church and mission: The importance of household structures in early Christianity. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers.

Filson, F. V. (June 01, 1939). The Significance of the Early House Churches. Journal of Biblical Literature, 58, 2, 105-112.

Horrell, D.. G. (July 01, 1999). Domestic Space and Christian Meetings at Corinth: Imagining New Contexts and the Buildings East of the Theatre. New Testament Studies, 50, 3, 349-369.

Hirschfeld, Y. (1995). The Palestinian dwelling in the Roman-Byzantine period. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press.

Richardson, P. (January 01, 2004). Towards a Typology of Levantine/Palestinian Houses. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 27, 47-68.

---

[1] With the exception of a few books and landmark articles like that of Filson after the discovery of a house church in Dura Europos in 1939, not much has been written about the role of houses in the New Testament until the 1980's when interest in the role of the house church in the New Testament increased dramatically with publications by authors like D. Von Allmen, R. Banks, J.H. Elliot, D.C. Verner, H.J. Klauck and L.M. White and B.B. Blue. Gehring, R. W. (2004). House church and mission: The importance of household structures in early Christianity. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers. p. 5-17.

[2] Gehring, R. W. (2004). p. 8.

[3] Filson, F. V. (June 01, 1939). The Significance of the Early House Churches. Journal of Biblical Literature, 58, 2, 109-112.

[4] Gehring, R. W. (2004). p. 22-23.

[5] Gehring, R. W. (2004). p. 28-61.

[6] Gehring, R. W. (2004). p. 61.

[7] Gehring, R. W. (2004). p. 117.

[8] Gehring, R. W. (2004). p. 71-75,142, 145.

[9] The house of Mary has a gateway πυλών and accomadate a large number ἱκανός of believers, praying. Also see Gehring's discussion on Philemon p. 154. Gehring, R. W. (2004). House church and mission: The importance of household structures in early Christianity. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers. p. 73.

[10] Campbell. A. R., & Gehring, R. W. (January 01, 2007). House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity. By Roger W. Gehring. Journal of Theological Studies, 58, 2, p. 669. Gehring, R. W. (2004). p. 135-136.

[11] Horrel, D. G. (July 01, 1999). Domestic Space and Christian Meetings at Corinth: Imagining New Contexts and the Buildings East of the Theatre. New Testament Studies, 50, 3. p. 369.

[12] Horrel, D. G. (July 01, 1999). p. 360.

[13] Hirschfeld, Y. (1995). The Palestinian dwelling in the Roman-Byzantine period. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press.p.102.

[14] Hirschfield  refers to T. Eruvin 8:3 , P.T. Baba Bathra 1,13a and M. Baba Bathra 1:5. Hirschfeld, Y. (1995). p.264, 286.

[15] Hirschfeld, Y. (1995). p.245-246.

[16] Hirschfeld, Y. (1995). p.256.

[17] Richardson, P. (January 01, 2004). Towards a Typology of Levantine/Palestinian Houses. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 27, 56-58.

[18] Richardson, P. (January 01, 2004). 27, 61.

Why Christians don't know any gays

A discussion on Facebook and my recent experience in a media debate about reparative therapy made me think about why most Christians hardly know any gays.

For many years thought I was the only gay Christian. I simply did not know any other people struggling with the feelings I was struggling with. You see the problem in the church is that we do not know many gays. We often only know them from a distance. In that case our perception is often colored by our preconceived ideas, about what we heard. To be very honest even though I knew for quite a while that I was 'different' I had the same ideas about other gays as most of my fellow Christians. Gays were the kind of people who had no limits, were just following their feelings and lusts, had unlimited sex-partners and would have sex at the drop of a hat. And gays could not be Christians and Christians could not be gay. Then I got to know some.

I still remember the first time I went to the birthday-party of a friend who lived with his partner for a couple of years by that time. He used to be actively involved in a Pentecostal church close to where I lived by the way. I went to his party, curious about what I would encounter. I was also a bit scarred that I was doing the wrong thing. What if I would be tempted to do something I shouldn't. But he was a friend who listened to me in my struggles. And I had to, I wanted to. I wanted to know if there was perhaps anyone else in the world that would understand what I was going through, the pain I was feeling. Not just telling me so, but someone who would really understand. Well, there wasn't. You know why? None of the people I met was struggling with themselves being gay, in fact all the people I met at the party were actually pretty normal. They talked about their work, talked about the politics of the past election, about a new job, about the weather. When they heard what I was doing, one of them told me about his experience with a Christian colleague. When she heard that he was gay, she said something about getting healed. He said: Healed from what? I am not sick. I had a hard time trying to explain to him why some Christians think like that. But apart from this incident, when I went home I had to think: "Actually I haven't been to such a 'normal' party outside of the Christian circles I spent all my time in".

When a few years later I got to know the stories of some Christian gays, I heard very different things. Some of them were convinced that they were not supposed to have a relationship and tried to stay celibate. Others were thinking that they could have a relationship but were often still wrestling with God, and those verses from time to time. Some gave up hope thinking: "Since I am already going to hell, I can just as well take the scenic route". I remember the emotional words of a man at a meeting about the subject. He came from a strict Reformed background and said, while shaking with emotion: "I tried for 35 years, I can't anymore. If God really thinks this is so important, it is His turn now. I cannot anymore..." I heard many heartbreaking stories of people who told about their struggles to accept themselves and get accepted in the church. Many just gave it up. And in giving up their church, or in being given up by their church, lost the only support group they had. But these stories are never heard in church.

Meeting other gays, I also heard other stories never told in church. I met people who found a love of their life. People who have been together for 11, 17, 23 years. People who make coffee in the morning, go to church together. In fact one of them, a wonderful guy with a true pastoral heart just moved to another church after pastoring his church for a number of years. I heard from someone in that church that the people are quite sorry that he and his husband left, because he was such a good pastor. I know another couple who have been together for 23 years. Still in love, still monogamous. Last year I ate dinner with a friend and four lesbian couples in a nice restaurant. I was reluctant at first, confronted by all my stereotype idea's about lesbians. What a night we had. What warm and wonderful people, what love. But I realize that many Christians would rather have me tell that I noticed that they were all somehow struggling with something.

The sad thing, is that most of my fellow Christians do not think about such people when they think about gays. They think about threats to their families and their way of life, just like I used to think about black people as dangerous and uncivilized when I was growing up in South-Africa under apartheid. Once I got to really know some black people, I was surprised to meet loving and intelligent people, people who enriched my life through their unique gifts and characteristics. In fact, eventually I forgot that they were black.

The sad thing is that when it comes to LGBT's we have created a church apartheid. We accept those gays who 'get healed' and married to someone from the opposite sex. If they are doing well, we ask them to give their testimonies. And we rejoice and say amen. Or if they struggle, we comfort them with a place in heaven where it will all be ok, just like the slaves in the American South were comforted with the 'sweet by and by'. We tell them they are welcome to visit anytime. And we really mean it, mean it well. But is that really what you want to do all the time? Barging in on another family? Hopping from the one, then to the other, never being just really at home.

As for those who do not manage one of these two categories, we have no place for him. If he or she does not get kicked out, they get gossiped or judged out. And when they leave we shake our heads about another person who 'chose to follow his own feelings instead of Christ'. Perhaps we are sad. But we quickly forget. That is why the only gays we know are ones who tell about the change in their lives or the ones who struggle, but at least they are doing it for Jesus, and we comfort ourselves with the idea that He will reward them. As for the rest...well we of course we love them, but we hate their sin. And since we hate their sin so much, we never get very close to any of them. For fear of contamination or just because we do not really care. Not knowing too many gays, helps us to keep saying the harsh things that makes them stay secret or leave.

And most gays do not know any loving Christians. Perhaps that is why so many of them are so anti-Christian...or are they?

A few unfinished thoughts on Baptism

"Are you able to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" Jesus asked the disciples who thought they deserved a place of honor in the kingdom. (Mark. 10:35-45)

"O course" they answered confidently. Did they think of the day Jesus went to be baptized by John in the Jordan? Many people were baptized by John. Baptism itself was not something totally new. Many pagan mystic groups had ritual washings of initiation. The Jews had ritual washings too. The Essenes, a Jewish religious group who lived in strict communities, expecting the coming of Gods kingdom, took regular ritual baths to be cleansed. They took the ritual cleansing every Jew learned about from the laws of Moses to new extremes. But John's baptism was somewhat different. Instead of repeated baths which the individual would take himself, John's baptism seems to be a unique event, a radical turnaround. His custom of washing people was so extraordinary, that he became known as the Baptizer. It was not so much his act of washing someone, but the fact that he did this, not to gentiles who were converting to Judaism, but to Jews. And in the Jordan. This prophet, reminded them so much of Elijah, the prophet who turned Israel back to God in a time of growing idolatry. Here John was, baptizing in the Jordan, reminding them of Joshua bringing the Israelites into the promised land. All the signs were there that the kingdom of God was near. People repented in preparation for this coming kingdom. Was this the baptism Jesus was talking about? He too went to John to be baptized. What a remarkable event that was! What was such a perfect person doing at a baptism for repentance? And after that, why did he go into the wilderness? For forty days! Suffering hunger and temptation. It sounded so much like the story of Israel, God's son, called from Egypt, who went through the waters of the sea and suffered hunger and temptation in the desert for forty years.  

Only later did the disciples realize the true meaning of these words. The baptism Jesus referred to was his death. Consequently the baptism they learned from John received a new meaning. What once was an act of cleansing, now became associated with something Jews considered unclean - a grave. What once was seen as an act of obedience, repentance from the side of man, now became a testimony of rebirth, new life. In this new life the hierarchies of the world was overturned. For as many of them as have been baptized, have put on Christ, like a new coat which covered the old identities which defined their place in the kingdom of this world. They were no longer Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, or even male or female. A new creation, that is what they were. And baptism was a sign of this - out of death came life. A new covenant.  

Old habits die hard

Unfortunately, even in a new covenant, old habits did not always disappear. The fights about who was best and who deserved the places of honor in God's kingdom still continued. In the quests of perfection baptism became such a point of no-return that many people postponed it till shortly before their death, afraid that they would sin again after their baptism. For such sins there was no forgiveness some said. In other circles, baptism became a means of bestowing grace. Once the thought that unbaptized souls were lost, became popular, the baptism of children in a society with a high infant mortality rate, became customary. In their radical break with the established church, the Anabaptists emphasized the baptism of adults by immersion. Even though they might have had a literal reading of the Bible verses on their side, the radicalism of some Anabaptist groups proved that claiming that right did not automatically make you a true follower of Christ. One of these groups were so convinced of their recovery of 'true baptism' and the 'right way' of reading the Bible, that they converged in the city of Münster, expecting the kingdom of God to appear with them having a place of honor in it. The corruption of their leaders like John of Leiden who took 17 wives, publically killing one of them, illustrated that baptism, even that of adults who profess faith,  in itself is no remedy against evil.  

In that sense, the baptism of adult believers have proved no more effective than that of infants. It guarantees nothing. And it can be just such a ritual, done without any sense of new life in Christ, of new covenant.  

"Biblical" Baptism

To be honest, I think that the idea of recovering one 'true' or 'right' baptism from the scriptures, is optimistic. There is a clear move in meaning from the baptism of John to the baptism of Christ and a clear historical move that can be traced even within the Bible itself. How we read those verses have been colored by centuries of development and debate. Should we just ignore these? I fear we are reading too much of our individualism, a fairly recent development into these scriptures, ignoring the way whole households accepted faith and baptism. One of the problems with modern evangelicals is their total lack of awareness of church history. The idea that we can ignore two thousand years is a fallacy. To do so, would be ignoring the developments and debates that colors our reading of the Bible. To do so would disregard Gods work through history. 

It bothers me that in the debate about baptism, I often hear scriptures being quoted superficially. I miss a deeper reflection of what baptism is all about. Perhaps this is also because of a failure to read of the verses in their whole context, historically and literally.  I too have quoted those passages, fiercely debating for the baptism of believers, especially after I just got baptized at the age of fourteen. I was quite zealous for the kingdom of God, but perhaps like James and John, a bit ignorant of the fact that God's kingdom may be bigger than I imagined. I was a bit like those people Paul described in his letter to the Corinthians. Baptism played a role in their factionalism too (1 Cor. 1:10ff). The problem with the proof-texting approach common among modern evangelicals is that it quotes some verses that prove our point and neglect those that may diminish the authority we claim. Perhaps we also limit our expectations of God.

 We have shown that both infant baptism and the baptism of adult believers are not infallible guarantees that grace will prevail in the life of a person. But is it perhaps possible that God can work in and through both? That God can be present at the baptism of a believer who wants to confess Christ publically? And that at the same time, God can be present at the baptism of a child, the parents marking their dedication to bring up their child in the fear of the Lord?  What would happen, if we would celebrate both? Would we perhaps be amazed at a God of covenant, who is also a God of families and at the same time a God who meets each person individually where he or she is? And what would happen, if in both cases we would first and foremost focus on the work and person of Christ?

Coming Out Day 2011

Overdue
This blog is long overdue. Though many of my friends for whom it is meant may speak Afrikaans, German, Swedish or perhaps another language, I write it in English  simply because it is not easy to choose the words every time again. If I had the time and energy I would have preferred to write to many different friends individually, because what I am about to write is quite personal.

With only a few more formalities remaining, I will officially stop working with the wonderful Christian Missions organization I have worked with as a volunteer for nearly twelve years. This decision came at the end of a process which at times has been difficult and painful for both sides.


A  long road

The process began when I discovered that I was different. Looking back over the years I can trace that awareness back to my first year in high school, but I managed to suppress the feelings I had and to reinterpret them for such a long time that I was about 28 before, for the first time, I dared to admit to myself that perhaps I was what they call 'gay'. I certainly was not happy about that. Still don't like the word very much, but for lack of a better term in English. It took another couple of years before I admitted it to a friend and told a few leaders, friends and family about that. Fear of rejection, but also fear of falling away from God kept me from being open. The message I got was very black and white. I still remember the words of a colleague who did not know about me when she said: "I am sorry, if you are gay you can't be a Christian."  Or the words of a prominent church leader who asked when I was getting married and when I told him that there was nothing on the horizon said: "I hope you are not queer."  Those words felt like daggers in my heart. I silently endured their pain for fear that once I told the truth, no more words would be spoken.

I should not judge. For I have spoken words like that myself.  As a young pastor I affirmed that homosexuality was a choice, even though I tried not to be too judgmental when saying that. But if it is a choice, one simple choice, why could a thousand determined choices, not cure me? I prayed. I tried therapy. But nothing changed. In fact, it got worse, because I was left with more and more questions about God and life. In this period I started studying the Bible more intensively. This was and still is an exciting journey in itself, giving me a passion and appreciation for the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. It also confronted me with evidence that everything was not as black and white as I always learned or thought.

If the world seems black and white, it is rather due to the glasses we wear. Even trying to squeeze everything into seven rainbow colors may not do justice to reality. In fact a panel beater often has a hard time finding the exact kind of red when repairing a damaged car, and a famous painter may struggle to mix the yellow of the flower he wants to paint. Is that why Jesus taught people not to judge? As humans we are simply unable to judge the motives of another person, especially when we are standing at some distance from them. On top of that our judgment is often colored by our own fears, insecurities and pain.

Coping and Changing

Once I recognized that I was different, I thought I could cope living in a community where happy families seemed to be the only legitimate expression of intimacy, by keeping busy. I filled my schedule with exciting challenges, travelling and teaching. In my free time, I escaped into a world of adrenaline and instant success, playing computer games. At least that kept me from the street and reasonably free from temptation. Lonely summers and long weekends finally got the better of me. The safe Christian bubble I was living in became suffocating. It is hard to make real friends if you always keep a significant part of who you are, hidden from others. What do you do when you feel the situation is unfair, but you cannot even talk about it? What do you do if you feel depressed because you are lonely and not understood? On an internet forum for Christian gays, I met people whose stories sounded much like mine. Real people. Some of the stories about their struggles broke my heart.

Listening, thinking, praying I became convinced that I could not make a contribution towards making things better by keeping silent. I also had to confront the pride in me that was not willing to be known fully for who I am. Not that my whole identity is defined my it, but it does have a significant influence in my life. Keeping it to myself resulted in internal struggles and tensions which affected who I was outwardly. Can you imagine what it does to someone when you are never able to even say that you like the appearance of another man? Or why you are not married?

Dialogue

Being open about it was not all that simple either. When I became more open in public it became important  what I thought about relationships and what the dreams for my own life were. I have become convinced that trying to get healed or living a celibate life are not the only, and in many cases not the best options open to a Christian gay or lesbian person. I would have to go into too much detail to explain why I say that here. I am not sure if and how I can explain such a paradigm shift on a blog like this, but perhaps I can try to do so in more blog entries if people have specific questions.  Ever since I read the biography of David du Plessis in my youth, I am convinced that dialogue is key. That is why at first I thought that a continuing dialogue would benefit both me and the organization I worked for, but the embarrassment my views would cause for an organization dependent on the goodwill of a conservative constituency made clarity important and led to the decision to terminate our mutual commitment.

And now?

Though in some ways it is also a relief, it is hard to describe how much this hurts and how much the uncertainties and changes which it brings with it, will influence my life. Even though there were some aspects of YWAM life which drove me nuts and it sometimes tolerates views which are absolutely heretical, it remains a special family. For now I am planning to finish my studies at the university of Utrecht, hoping to stay in the Netherlands after that. This is where my life has developed for the last 13 years.  As I said a little more than two years ago when I came out to a group of colleagues:

"In the end I hope that my greatest love will always be for a very special man, a man born of a virgin, who died on a tree and was resurrected from the dead."

Though the sad undertone of this song of Ray Boltz express many of the emotions I experienced through the years, some even when I write this, it does not say it all. On Coming Out Day 2011, it is a relief to no longer look over my shoulder when I say:"I'm gay, and I'm OK."

Anti-Intellectual Christianity produces Anti-Christian intellectuals.

While hunting down a newspaper article about a new interest in the Bible in some Dutch churches, my eye caught the title of an article on the content page of an otherwise unimposing little magazine called Mission Frontiers.

Under the theme: “Are we losing more than we’re gaining” I noticed the words “An Anti-intellectual faith and the tragic consequences for Britain’s Evangelical Awakening. “ I just had to read the article and smuggled the magazine to our office consoling myself that it is already an older issue and that no-one at the base seems to read them anyway.

In his article Jonathan W. Rice relates how the evangelicals impacted British society in the 18th and 19th century. They played a key role in ending slavery, abolishing sati and infant sacrifice in India, bringing education, rehabilitating prostitutes, reforming prisons, lunatic asylums etc. Yet they were also known for their petty legalisms and repressive behavior codes. The mixed results are summarized by a historian in the following way:

“Between 1780
and 1850 the English ceased to be one of the most
aggressive, brutal, rowdy, outspoken, riotous, cruel and bloodthirsty nations in
the world and became one of the most inhibited, polite, tender-minded, prudish
and hypocritical”

One of the saddest results of their “practical” religion however was the intellectual weakness of it.

"True Christianity, they believed, did not entail entering the marketplace
of ideas. They did not think it worthwhile to intelligently engage the skeptics,
German Biblical critics, agnostics and atheistic philosophers of their day.
Instead, they claimed, God had called them to a purely practical faith: to send
forth missionaries, to help the poor and downtrodden, to better peoples’
manners. These were the things pleasing to God; not intellectual debate or true
apologetics."

Rice goes on describing how as a result of this Anti-intellectual tendency an alarming number of the children and grandchildren of these Evangelicals turned from the faith of their parents. He tells the tragic story of the classic author George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans) who at some stage wrote that she would be happy if the only music she ever heard again would be worship music. A couple of years later she rejected Christianity after reading Hennell’s Inquiry concerning the Origin of Christianity and Strauss’ Life of Jesus and became an ardent atheist.

What makes this anti-conversion of Evans so sad is the fact that the claims of both Hennell and Strauss have been completely refuted in modern times. Rice asks why Evangelicals from the 19th century failed to produce solid responses to Straus and others. Hennell and Strauss however have their modern day equivalents in the Jesus Seminar, Michael Baigent etc. Rice heckles the lack of response to the Anti-Christian propaganda of Arun Shourie in India and I am afraid that the situation for a few exceptions of people like McGrath and Wright is not much better in Europe or America.

The Anti-intellectual tendency of evangelical and charismatic Christianity of our day has bothered me for years. In the last year however as I started to participate in discussions on an internet forum, I have become increasingly aware of the unpaid bills of the section of Christianity in which I have been actively involved over the last two decades.

I have heard stories like that of Mary Ann Evans from different people. One of the key elements is usually a very naive literalistic reading of the Bible and some of the infallibility claims made about it. When people discover that the world is not as black and white as they have learned, it seems that they are often shocked into blindness. If only there would be guides who could take them by the hand and lead them through their first shocked moments into appreciating the rainbow of the colorful riches of a personal God displayed in the Scriptures. Were it not for a couple of people like Ed Sherman, Dirk Bouman, Wilrens Hornstra and the books of Wright, Peterson and others, I guess I might have chosen the safe dark corner of blind intellectualism where things fit nicely into the black and white categories albeit that all things end up being black.

Anti-intellectualism is an easy but in the long run devastating response to the new antichristian voices of our day. The Anti-intellectual sounds I often hear even in my own Christian community somehow remind me of the unwise choices of bank managers in the last couple of years. The immediate results are not bad. We can simplify faith with formulas and slogans. In the long run however, we pay a dear price when we do not teach people that loving God is not only done with your heart, but also with your whole mind.

The whole article of Rice can be read in the Archives of Mission Frontiers in the March-April 2008 issue under the title: “An Anti-intellectual faith and the tragic consequences for Britain’s Evangelical Awakening. “