Calvinism's Spiritual Blind Spot According to a Calvinist

I recently read an article by NeoCalvinist theologian Al Wolters.  The primary recognition that he has received over the years has been for his book "Creation Regained," a book which has been highly read in Calvinist circles and in seminary classrooms.  While the whole article is truly fantastic and highly informative, there is one portion of the article that I found particularly interesting.

To preface, he is speaking about neocalvinism (Dutch Calvinism, not Piper and Driscoll Calvinism) as a whole, about what it has offered our world, and what it has yet to gain.  While he reflects upon the philosophical and theological implications that the neocalvinist branch of Protestantism has had to offer, he does admit that prayer and spiritual discipline has been neocalvinism's blind spot throughout the years.   

"A related issue is the place of spirituality and the traditional spiritual disciplines. Although Kuyper was a man of intense prayer and a deep devotional life, and Dooyeweerd gave a pivotal position in human life to the modality of faith, many of their intellectual heirs have paid more attention to the dangers of pietism and its relative neglect of the call to cultural discipleship than to the importance of cultivating genuine piety or authentic spirituality. Generally speaking, neocalvinists are more noted for their intellectual ability and culture-transforming zeal than for their personal godliness or their living relationship with Jesus Christ. This is of course not to suggest that there is some kind of inherent tension between intellectuality and spirituality, but only that the neocalvinist polemic against a pietistic otherworldliness can have the unfortunate effect of throwing out the godly baby with the pietistic bathwater. But even apart from the danger of this polemical one-sidedness, I believe that neocalvinism has neglected to its detriment the whole range of traditional spiritual disciplines, as cultivated in Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox circles. The practice of various kinds of prayer and meditation has not enjoyed a great deal of attention or emphasis.
This neglect has been both theoretical and practical. To my knowledge there has been little study of the pistical modality from the point of view of the dynamics of spiritual life as described in the great devotional classics, nor has there been a great deal of actual cultivation of the traditional "spiritual exercises" in neocalvinist circles. I suspect that reformational philosophical insights might actually be quite helpful in spiritual direction and the personal cultivation of spiritual growth, but I know of no literature where this is explored. Speaking for myself, I have found that exploring the tradition of Ignatian spirituality has been stimulating and enriching, but has also left me with many unanswered questions."

While I am grateful for Wolter's observation and I totally agree with him from my own experience in working with not just the Neocalvinist movement but with Calvinism as a whole, I am very curious about a few things.  He confesses that he has had to look to Ignatian spirituality for his own spiritual formation.  While I truly sympathize with him on this one because I to have looked into the past to put into practice the wisdom of the ancient Church (Chrysostom, Palamas, Maximus the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian), I have not been able to do so without experiencing a fair amount of tension in the process.  To put it simply, these men had radically different worldviews than Calvinists do, including Ignatius.  You don' have to go to far in reading any of them to understand that their spirituality was directly tied to their sacramental theology, to the role of bishops in the church, and tradition.  Ignatius even goes as far as to say that without the bishops, a church cannot be called a church and that Christians need to be obedient to their bishops (To the Ephesians 2:2, Philadelphians 1:1, To the Trallians 3:1).  If you do not know this already, most Calvinist circles have rejected the role of the bishop (even though Calvin didn't!). 

The tension that I feel is that, if I want to remain a confessionally faithful Neocalvinist, I have to pick and choose which portions of these ancient spiritual teachings to adopt.  And, to be faithful to the Reformed confessions, church order, and catechism, I have to consciously choose to reject everything else men like Ignatius (and countless others) have to offer.  I understand that many folks will not see a problem with this.  However, to do so would be to divorce these teachings (from Ignatius, Palamas...etc) from the context in which they were bred.  To do so would literally diffuse the whole picture of what these early church fathers had to offer.  Do we believe that we can adopt an ancient spiritual teaching, such as that of Ignatius, that was directly connected to views that placed the role of the bishops and the sacrament (particularly the Lord's Supper) in a place of priority in spiritual formation while we don't place priority on these things ourselves?  Can we truly say that we can fully adopt such a spiritual method whenever our Christian worldview is played out much differently than the worldview of the ancient Church?  We can say all that we want to about this, but history proves the point.  The ancient Church operated in a much different way than the ways of Calvinism today.  It looked much different than the way we look today.

I am not seeking to corner and criticize Wolter's thought here.  Again, I whole-heartedly agree with him and am very grateful that he has written what he is written.  To put it bluntly, Calvinists are notorious in our day for "sucking at prayer," as I have heard it put by a few Calvinist pastors.  The only concern I have is how Wolters can adopt an Ignatian spirituality with such ease.  I am not saying that he is wrong for doing so.  I just simply have not been able to do so with the ease that he seems to present.  For, I want to take both the ancient spiritual teachers and my own Calvinist faith seriously.  And, to take both seriously causes a dilemma for me because both present radically different views of Christianity and life in Christ.

Here is the link to Wolter's article: http://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/282/what-is-to-be-done-toward-a-neocalvinist-agenda/

Letter to My Child: On the Consequences of Rejecting Asceticism

My Dear Child in the Faith,

It is quite apparent to me that Protestantism, by and large, misunderstands monasticism and its true purpose.  It is my belief that Protestantism is wrong to reject monasticism.  The irony is that, while they reject monasticism, they are baffled by how terrible they are at praying.  They are shocked by their utter lack of spiritual maturity, vigor and discipline.  Little do they know that to reject asceticism is to reject spiritual vigor and maturity.  Little do they know that to reject monasticism is to reject our greatest teachers and prophets.

Now, my child, I am not saying that you need to become a monk or nun.  I am not saying that at all to you.  I am simply saying that you don't need to refuse the place of monastics in the Church.  It would be wise for you to learn their ways and to acquire their wisdom no matter which direction life takes you.  Hear me whenever I say this: you have something to learn from them; they have something to teach you.

Now, let me provide logical grounds for why we need the monastics and why Protestantism is in the wrong for rejecting them.

In a very large way, monasteries were like early seminaries.  People came from all over the globe (they still do) to learn about the ascetic way of life, the way of unceasing prayer and union with God through the Spirit.  They understood the vital significance the men and women within the monastery walls played within our world.

One of the critiques the Reformers had, particularly the Calvinists, of monasticism, and the main reason why they rejected it, was the false notion that monasticism somehow led to "spiritual elitism."  They claimed, and rightly so (but off the mark), that prayer was for everyone and not just the duty of some.

Here is the deal, though: monks are no more "elite" than seminary professors/theologians are "elite."  We must remember that Christians had a much different notion of learning back in the ancient Church, one that was far different from rationalizing all things.  The ancient Church wasn't affected by the philosophy of the Enlightenment as we are today since it wasn't around then.  For early Christians, you learned primarily through practice...practicing prayer, worship and virtue.

Furthermore, asceticism was not for the "elite" anyways.  It was for everyone and should always be for everyone.  Again, not everyone will become a monk or nun.  However, all are called to adopt a life of prayer and spiritual discipline.  The monks and nuns, however, dedicated the fullness of their lives to learning how to cultivate a life of prayer so that they could teach others to do likewise.  Again, asceticism is for everyone and the monastics have a heavy hand in teaching us about how to live it out.

How is the monastery, then, different than a seminary?  This is such an important question that desperately needs to be addressed today.  If theology is for everyone, and theologians teach us theology and they are not seen as "elite", how then are monastics who teach us the ways of prayer "elite?"  Do you see what I am getting at, my child?

The sad thing is, while rejecting one notion of elitism, Protestantism have simply replaced it with another form of elitism.  They fail to recognize that by simply renouncing monasticism that this doesn't automatically mean that "elitism" is removed from the Church.  They fail to realize that monasticism isn't the problem; elitism is.  In many ways, theologians have become the "elite," and in the worst possible way.  What's worse than theological elitism?  Or, to put it another way, what is worse than Pharisee-ism?

Listen to me my child and understand: would you rather listen to a man who gets paid to think about God a lot or would you rather listen to a man who has forsaken all riches and worldly luxury just to grow closer in his communion with God and to teach others to do likewise?  Would you rather listen to a man who thinks or a man who prays?  Does the power of the Spirit come from thinking lofty theological thoughts about God or from praying to Him?

My child, listen again and hear a word of wisdom: it is a freeing and life altering thing to learn who the truest teachers of the faith are.  Don't get me wrong here.  Intellectual teachers are great and necessary.  Don't reject and devalue them.  Seek to grow in intellectual understanding.  However, don't do as many do and trade prayer for theological intellectualism.  Don't listen to intellectuals more than you listen to those who pray.  It is quite an unfortunate thing in our day that we often have to choose between the two in selecting who will guide and lead us.  If you have to choose, always choose the man who prays and has a child-like faith over the one whose pride rests only in his doctrinal formulations...for one type of man will inherit the earth and reign with our Lord while the other will not.  Be very cautious in who you follow, for they are not all going to end up with the same fate.  The prideful teacher will always do what he does best...admire and think about God and His Kingdom from afar, excluded from the Spirit of God.

My child, listen to the man who prays so that you can hear God's voice.  Ignore the theologian who enjoys listening to his own voice over God's. 

Letter to My Child: On Being Human

My Dear Child,

            Let me tell you what it means to be a human being: it means being made in the image of God.  This is a special honor that God has bestowed on humankind alone.  My child, do not forsake this great privilege and treasure the fact that God has formed you in this Way.  For you are called and made to be human, not an unruly animal. 

            You are called to be human; you are called to be godly.  For they are one and the same pursuit…godliness and humanness.  The more you pursue our Lord and Master the more human you will become.  While you pursue God, you will discover godliness.  While you pursue the One in whose image you are made after, you discover the epitome of humanness.  The pursuit is one and the same. 

            Hear and understand the words of our Lord’s servant, Irenaeus:

            “The glory of God is a human being fully alive; and to be alive consists in beholding God.”

            Be alive, then, my child.  Live!

            “For the Lord is your life.” –Deuteronomy 30:20

Letter to My Child: On Prayer and Prophets

Dear Child,

            Are you not like me?  Do you not feel out of place in the Church…a foreigner to every church that you have belonged to and communed with?  Do you not fail to fit in everywhere you go?  My child, allow me to continue to elaborate why this is the case for you. 

            Keeping in step with my last letter to you I will say this: whenever the Church forsakes the tradition handed down to her, she loses sight of the unity that Jesus prayed to His Father for in John 17, and she can’t help but perpetually reinvent herself…she has to…she has nothing to ground her.  She has lost sight of herself and how to act as the bride of the King. 

            As Protestants, we continually fracture and divide because of our own short-sightedness.  While much can be said on this topic, I want to focus on you and why you, in particular, feel as though you are a foreigner in your own faith. 

            As Protestants, we have forsaken the ascetical part of the tradition that was handed down.  If you don’t know what “ascetical” means, go and learn what it means and never ever forget what it means.  For, it is a word that should define your way of life.  The ascetical tradition was always the prophetical tradition in the Church.  Whenever we forsake the ascetical, we forsake the prophetical.  You should be able to connect the dots here on your own so I will not elaborate.  All of that being said, the Church no longer makes room for or listens to God’s prophets. 

            Let me define a prophet in this way: a prophet is someone who knows the Lord and who trembles in His presence; who knows what is of God and what is not of God because a prophet knows God and His ways.  Since the tradition of the apostles that Paul talked about is of Him, from Him, you will feel out of place in every Church who does not uphold the ascetical tradition, every church that denounces monasticism.

            Whenever the ascetical tradition (true prayer) becomes a secondary option for Christians as it is in most of Protestantism…whenever prayer and asceticism simply is about enhancing something that we already have instead of gaining something we are lacking, God’s voice and will will continue to go unheard and prophets will be brushed aside.  The Church will continue to fail to make space for the prophets because it literally has no place for them and, even if it does have a place for them, that place is a very secondary position.  What matters to Protestants is knowing, not praying.  They can say that they value both.  However, knowing always trumps praying to them.  They are much more apt to listen to a learned man who may not know Christ than they are to listen to a praying man who has no “official” education.  In fact, they rule out prayer as a means of theological education altogether even though our Lord Jesus, Himself, tells us that the Spirit will lead us into all truth. 

            Prophets are always bred in isolation, in the ascetical life, through rigorous prayer, the mortification of the passions and in the implementation of the virtues.  Prophets then, and rightly so, see Christianity not so much as a worldview to be believed as a life to be lived. 

            Be warned, my child: prophets are never well received in the Church.  Just in case you haven’t put it all together yet, I am telling you about prophets and their reception by the Church because, by trying to point out the frustration you feel with the Church, I am hoping that you will see that you also have the prophetical voice inside of you.  You are frustrated because you are one of God’s prophets.  You are frustrated because you know what is of God and what is not, what honors Him and what doesn’t. 

            Again, this bears the necessity of repeating for your sake: be warned, prophets are never well received by the Church.  The ironic thing is that even though prophets know the Lord more intimately than most and they walk more closely to Him than most, they will be (and have been) labeled as heretics and trouble makers by the rest of the Church.  Why is this the case?  Because prophets upset man-made traditions as they call the Church back to God’s tradition.  Be warned, the Church has established itself in such a way where all that matters to many, if not most, is their beliefs about the Way than following the Way itself/Himself.  They will believe in things about it and will talk about it, but they won’t walk in it and they will condemn you for doing so.  They are far too comfortable walking the on the treadmill of their own safe traditions in the house they have built for themselves than to ever ascend the mountain heavenward in the creation that God has built.  If you have ears, my child, then hear what I am saying to you. 

            Lastly, do not be angry with the Church and sin in your heart against them.  Do not put them out of place as they have misplaced you.  Trust me when I tell you this: they need you.  Do not forsake them.  For the Lord has forsaken you after all of those times you’ve put Him out of place. 

            “Students are not above their Master,” our Master says.  If they rejected Him, why do you assume that they won’t also reject you?  Why are you so surprised at this?  Join the Lord in His suffering for His children, for you to are one of them. 

Letter to My Child: On Your Frustration With the Protestant Church

My Dearest Child,

            Oh, how I struggle!  My struggle is for you and others like you.  I struggle so that you may not have to!  I write to you because I know that you will hear the wisdom behind my words and understand.  And, where you fail to understand me, I know you will seek to understand me.  For, the pursuit of wisdom is a heavy thing and not to be taken lightly, and you know this.

            Let us talk about that feeling you get whenever you go to church.  You know the feeling that I am talking about.  I truly believe that all Protestants…all Protestants that have a passion for God as you do…have this feeling deep down.  Many are simply afraid to admit it.

            The feeling that I am describing goes something like this: that, although the worship that you are participating in is a good thing, there is something “off.”  There is something off and you can’t quite put your finger on it.  Although things are good, you feel like there should be something more. 

            Now, let’s talk about the frustration that stems from that.  You also know this feeling that I am talking about: the frustration that you feel over the way that the Church neuters itself and its mission in our world.  You are also frustrated over the fact that, although all Protestant denominations supposedly profess the same Lord, we are utterly divided amongst ourselves.  Where is the value of the "oneness" that Jesus prayed to the Father for in our thinking at large and our way of being? 

            Now you see why I struggle as I attempt to address these things!  Again, my struggle is for you and others like you so that you may not have to experience the burden that I have been forced to experience in all of this. 

            Allow me to tell you why your feelings are accurate and why the church that you go to is the way that it is.  Do not fret, my child, but understand and move immediately into action.  You feel the way you do because, as Protestants, we have completely cut ourselves off from the Way and practices of the ancient Church.  At best we have a 500 year old faith (from the Reformation), not a faith that was established from the beginning.  Does this surprise you?  I must say to you though; do we not live in the light of a 500 year old Church as opposed to a 2,000 year old Church?  Actually, the Church is truly older than this, even. 

            Protestantism is so fractured because we have abandoned and not made room for the tradition that preceded its origin; the tradition of the ancient-apostolic Church.  We, as Protestants, view tradition only in terms of confessional ancestry and not in terms of habit and practice.  In other words, our only connection to the Christians who came before us are the confessions that have been written in the last 500 years.  We don’t seek to live as they did.  We don’t seek to worship as they did.  We just seek to believe what they believed as if that alone is enough to suffice. 

            So, for us Protestants, there is a way to believe, but not a Way to worship, evangelize, pray and even plant churches.  These are all up for grabs.  All of these things, these Ways, are optional for us as long as we believe the correct things doctrinally.  All that matters is confessional heritage, not methodological heritage, to us Protestants. 

            Do you understand the immense importance in what I am telling you, my child?  That, all throughout the Scriptures God taught His people how to worship, how to pray, how to witness and how to spread His Kingdom.  To reject the apostolic tradition, then, is to reject the teachings and Way of God.  My child, do not fret and do not be angered.  Come back to the church fathers.  Read them, learn from them.  They will teach you how to come back to the Way so you can learn how to truly worship and revere God.  Come back to the Christ and learn from Him how to pray and witness in this world.  Come back to the tradition the apostles left behind that we have utterly forsaken. 

           

            “Where is this teaching of yours on tradition found in the Scriptures?” you may ask of me.  Well, I am glad you asked.

            “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the tradition (not “teachings”) we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”

                                                                                                -2 Thessalonians 2:15

            Even though this verse is often renders the Greek word paradosis as “teaching,” that is entirely incorrect.  The Greek word for “teaching” is didaskalia.  Paradosis means, “that which is handed over,” or “tradition.”

            Paul is telling his readers to hold fast to the tradition that he and others have passed on to us, not just to simply hold fast to Paul’s theological doctrine. 

            Lastly, and this is an important note: not all of the tradition was passed on in written-Scriptural form.  Some of it, according to Paul, came by word of mouth.  This means that there were some parts of the “tradition” that were not written down and, thus, not placed in the Scriptures.  There will be some things that the apostolic Church practices and that the church fathers discuss that will not be found in the Bible.  Why?  Again, some of the tradition was passed on by word of mouth.  So, it is Biblical that not everything is Biblical, if you see what I mean.  I tell you all of this, my child, so that you will not be concerned whenever you fail to find aspects of the tradition that the fathers talk about in the Scriptures.  It is Biblical for some of their teaching not to be there. 

My Story, My Frustration, My Joy!

I thought that I'd use Chapter One from the book that I have been writing to serve as an introductory post.  Welcome to the blog.  Thanks for listening!

            To those who this next bit of labeling may mean something, I have been well immersed in the Protestant tradition for quite some time.  My first introduction to Christianity came in the form of the Left Behind books with all of their Dispensationalistic theological undertones.  After I became a Christian, I went from being clueless, Arminian-Baptist, Emergent, Heretical-Baptist (since I visited the pubs from time to time), Reformed Baptist, to strongly Reformed in the Christian Reformed tradition, to Christian Reformed with strong Anglican leanings, to a Protestant who has strongly fallen in love with the Christian East and the early Church.  I have been all over the place; a journey that I am not necessarily proud of. 

            It is not as though I view Christianity through a strongly guided Post-Modern lens, attempting to find my own truth wherever I can find it.  I am actually someone who believes that denominational heritage is important and who places a much higher value on tradition than most of my Christian brothers and sisters do.  Even though there has been a lot of talk about blurring denominational lines and, essentially, bleeding all of the denominations together, I would have to say that I am opposed to such an idea.  To me, redesigning and redefining the Church is not something that we have the wisdom or the authority to do.  To me, fracturing ourselves off from history and redefining ourselves in history or, doing what we have always done, is misguided and useless.  Fracturing and redefining is what we have always done, particularly as Protestants.  It hasn’t worked for us in the past and it won’t work now or in the future.  The task before us is not to ignore history, but to decipher whose history is more “correct.” 

            I have come to the realization in recent years that my journey theologically and denominationally has been so vast because I feel like I haven’t arrived yet.  In the words of Bono, “I still haven’t found what I am looking for.”  I have not found the culture of Christians who can even begin to relate to the worldview that I have come to know that my own experience of God over the years has forged into me.  No matter where I have been, I have always felt like an outsider, always felt like a foreigner. 

            At first, I thought that this was just my own personal problem; that I am seeking to resurrect my old non-conformist ways from my high school days or that I am just too wishy-washy theologically.  However, as time has gone on, I have come to meet countless Christians who feel the same way that I do about Protestantism today, even if it is for differing reasons.  There is an overwhelmingly large group of people in our country who would consider themselves Christians and Protestants but who legitimately feel as though they do not fit into the Protestant church in North America today as it is.  As sincere as they are, something is always “off” for them.  Our church culture can no longer afford to ignore people like these, nor their prophetic voice.  It is no longer sufficient to label this group of people as “Post-Moderns” or shallow Christians because many of them are neither of the two.    Many of these are people who sincerely love the Lord, love the Church as best they can, and are doing their very best to follow Christ in this life.  Even though this is the case, many of them find it a tremendous struggle to feel at home in the church today.  They are people who know the Lord and adequately understand that many of the people in the congregations they come across are absolutely fake and, rightly so, they are disgusted by the state of the modern Church today.  Perhaps they feel as I do; that something drastically large is missing from the Protestantism that they have experienced. 

            I wouldn’t be writing this book if I did not sympathize with this crowd.  To me, there is something missing from the Protestant world today…the 1,500 years of theological and ecclesiological influence and history that came before the Protestant movement even began.  Most Christians have absolutely no concept of the history, or perhaps more importantly, the teaching and tradition of the first 1,500 years of the Church as it was established by our Lord Jesus and progressed by the Holy-Spirit throughout the ages.  Many people nowadays might have some knowledge of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cramner and other people that triggered the Reformation movement about 500 years ago, and others might have a great deal of knowledge about these historical figures.  However, many people in the pews are absolutely clueless whenever it comes to a man like Irenaeus, who was the disciple of the disciple of the Apostle John.  Nor, do they know much, if anything about Athanasius or the extremely important role he played in the early Church.  What about Irenaeus, Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, John Chrysostom, or the theological giant of the Eastern Church named Maximus the Confessor?

            What is very intriguing to me as well is that it is well documented that the Reformers were not attempting to start a new church from scratch, but to reform the already existing Church by appealing to the Church Fathers and by following their ways and teachings.    

            The question, then, that I have is this: “If all of our major reformed theologians and leaders from the 1500’s started the reformation in order to get the Church back to the ways of the early Church, and they used the early Church Fathers as their guide; how much do we actually know and understand of the reformation thinkers if we know nothing of the men whose shoulders these reformed thinkers stood on?”

            Protestantism today seems to function as though it was bred in a vacuum, and it definitely functions as though its tradition(s) is the only one that is the legitimate God-ordained tradition (not that Protestantism has been anywhere close to establishing and upholding one unified tradition within its many fractures).  It seems to carry within itself a vague notion that all tradition and teaching within the Church, with the exception of the first three to four hundred years of the early Church, was completely corrupt and needed to be done away with, which is the result of a justified, yet very over-reactive, severing from Catholicism.  Also, people tend to think that the Church was, in its infancy; off the mark, theologically immature, and nowhere near producing the pedigree of fine theologians like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. 

            I even recall studying Church history in my under graduate and post graduate studies where, in both instances, the professors referred to the early theologians as nowhere near the caliber of the theologians of the Reformation.  “Athanasius was ok; Augustine was pretty great…but Calvin…wow!!!,” they would say.  As a Protestant pursuing a religious course of study, I was always led to believe that the early Church guys (never heard about the plethora of women in the early Church to!) were great and all, but they’re not really worth taking the time to study.  It is best, they would tell us, to study the Reformed guys instead.  I have no doubt, after being a Protestant (for 12 years at the point of writing this book) that this is the general notion of the majority of the people in our congregations, if they are even remotely aware enough of a Church that existed for fifteen centuries before the coming of the Reformation. 

            This is a tremendous problem for us Protestants in so many ways: 

            First, our people remain in ignorance of the history, teachings, methods, and traditions of the portion of the Church that existed for three times longer than Protestantism has so far.  Ignorance of our history is never a good thing for a variety of reasons, but in this case because it produces pride; ignorant pride at that.  Ignoring where we came from instills in us a sense of not having to listen to the wisdom of those who came before us, but that our wisdom is adequate enough. 

            Second, it misses out on the teachings of the early Church Fathers that the theologians of the Reformation would have taken for granted.  Contrary to what may be commonly assumed, again, the Reformers sought to Reform the already existing Church, not start completely from scratch.  There would have been teachings that were in existence during their time that they would have taken for granted and most likely not have elaborated on quite as much, since there would have been no need to elaborate on what was already commonly accepted and even practiced.

            Third, with that said, we falsely assume that Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Cramner and the other Reformers were wiser and more theologically advanced than anyone from the first 1,500 years of the Church.  Now, even though I definitely have a great amount of respect for all of the Reformers, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that any of them had a greater knowledge base of the things of God than a man like Irenaeus, for example; who was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John the Apostle.  It cannot be the case that the man who was separated by one generation from the Apostle John, who was directly mentored by the man who was mentored by the Apostle John, is less theologically advanced than the men who came nearly 1,500 years after him. 

            Perhaps the reason why the Church seems to have such little traction and carries so little influence today is because we spend too little time studying the people who both, through the power of the Spirit, established the Church and caused its initial explosion on our little planet.  It is no secret how quickly the early Church expanded across the Roman Empire and beyond, changing our world permanently.  You are telling me that these people who carried this movement of the Spirit out have less to say to us today than men like Calvin and Luther?  Really?  And, the methods and traditions that they very clearly established…methods of worship, methods of discipleship, that they duly established as the Church was exploding across the globe, is not worth our concentrated study and time today?  Really?   

            Perhaps if we were to turn our attention to a part of the Church that we have for a long time ignored, we would find that lost aspect to Protestantism in North America (and beyond) that so many today are ardently searching for.