Three Great Ironies of Restorationism

1. Introduction: What is Restorationism?

2. The Irony of Many Conflicting Restorations

3. The Irony of Anti-Sectarian Sects and Anti-Denominational Denominations

4. The Irony of Anti-Traditionalist Tradition

5. Conclusion: The Allure of Restorationism versus the Richness of Catholicism

1. Introduction: What is Restorationism?

Restorationism, otherwise known as primitivism, is an ideology that "involves the attempt to recover some important belief or practice from the time of pure beginnings that believers are convinced has been lost, defiled, or corrupted."1 In a Christian context, restorationism rests on two main premises: (1) that the earliest period of the Church represents a golden age, an ideal to be replicated; (2) that following this earliest period the Church was defiled by a great apostasy (usually dated soon after the apostles died, at the beginning of the second century).

Christian restorationists have generally regarded the Roman Catholic Church, together with some or all Protestant denominations, as perpetuating the great apostasy and thus beyond hope of reform. For this reason they have tended to dissociate themselves from established Christianity, opting for a fresh start, a new religious community composed of people with a shared vision for recreating primitive Christianity and an agreed blueprint for reconstructing the long-lost beliefs, practices, and/or spirituality.

While elements of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation—especially the Radical Reformation—could be called 'restorationist' with some justification, restorationism really came into its own three centuries later in the "New World" of the United States, a nation built on the value of liberty, including religious liberty. Rapidly growing literacy rates and the onset of the Industrial Revolution meant that more people than ever before had both the ability and the time to read the Bible and other religious literature and to form and disseminate their own personal theological views. Early nineteenth-century America was also in the midst of the Second Great Awakening, a period of intense religious fervour, and so a talented religious orator or writer could attract a considerable following. The nineteenth century was also a time of great optimism about the progress and potential of the human race, as well as of the American nation with its rapid industrial development and ever-extending frontiers. These socioeconomic factors converged to make nineteenth-century America an unparalleled breeding ground for restorationist movements, many of which survive today as denominations and sects.

The best-known American restorationist movement was the Stone-Campbell Movement, which was actually a merger of two movements led respectively by Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell (the latter building on a theological foundation laid by his father, Thomas Campbell). Several contemporary religious groups have their roots in this movement, including the Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ, and the Christadelphians (the sect in which I was raised).2 Other notable restorationist movements of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century America include the Latter Day Saints movement (a.k.a. the Mormons), the Bible Students movement (from which arose Jehovah's Witnesses), the Adventist movement (from which arose Seventh Day Adventists), and the Pentecostal movement (with its many resulting denominations and sects). All of these movements, and many other lesser-known ones, began from the historical premises mentioned above: an idealised primitive church that had subsequently been defiled by a great apostasy and thus needed to be restored.

In this article, I want to offer a brief and broad critique of restorationism. In particular, I wish to point out three ironies in restorationist movements: (1) the irony of many conflicting restorations; (2) the irony of anti-sectarian sects and anti-denominational denominations; and (3) the irony of anti-traditionalist tradition.

2. The Irony of Many Conflicting Restorations

Despite beginning from a common premise about the need to restore primitive Christianity due to a subsequent apostasy, restorationists have differed widely on both the methods and results of the restoration. All the restorationists proclaimed to the world that they had restored authentic Christianity in its simple purity, but they could not agree among themselves over what this simple purity should look like. In the words of Martin Marty, "They bade others come into their clearing but soon fell out with each other and fought over the boundaries and definitions of their exempla."3

For the Latter Day Saints, new revelation was required; for the Pentecostals, a "latter rain," i.e. a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The Stone-Campbell movement and the Christadelphians, however, did not claim any special divine gift but believed that interpreting the Bible using common sense would enable believers to reconstruct the unadulterated beliefs and practices of the apostolic age. Perhaps more significantly than their methodological differences were the differences in results, i.e. the doctrines and practices that each restorationist movement arrived at in "restoring" primitive Christianity. These differences boiled down to hermeneutics, i.e. methods of biblical interpretation. Let us, by way of illustration, consider Alexander Campbell's monumental effort to restore primitive Christianity through common-sense biblical interpretation. As Bill J. Humble explains, Campbell's life's work was to determine in practical terms what it meant to restore the primitive church. He was "an iconoclastic, pragmatic restorer whose task was to apply the restoration principle to the practical questions of faith and life."4 Campbell's efforts are on display in a series of thirty articles he wrote from 1825-1829 entitled A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things, in his periodical Christian Baptist. Campbell's articles explored various subjects, such as creeds, church organisation and discipline, worship and hymnody, the Spirit, requirements for membership, the Lord's Supper, etc. One of the pressing hermeneutical problems that he acknowledged was

the question of determining which practices of the primitive church are important for today. What does the New Testament bind on all ages? And what may be dismissed as the culture of an ancient world?5

Specific problems that Campbell or later restorationists wrestled with here included trine immersion, foot-washing, greeting with a holy kiss, sharing all goods in common, the charismatic Spirit gifts, and the simplicity of ancient life (i.e. the absence of modern technological innovations). All of the restorationist movements displayed selectivity, restoring some primitive practices but leaving others "un-restored".

A broader problem than selectively restoring ancient practices was that of disagreement over what the primitive church believed and practiced, and also how to handle such disagreements. The main idea was to restore the essential doctrines of the primitive church and permit difference of opinion on non-essential matters, but where was the line to be drawn between essential and non-essential? Restorationists disagreed with one another on doctrines as fundamental as the Trinity, and many others besides. Campbell's own movement faced ongoing controversy over the issue of infant baptism. Campbell himself "believed, after 1812, that immersion of believers was the only valid form of the ordinance,"6 and his movement contained many former Baptists who shared this position. However, Campbell believed that his movement was destined to reunite the Christians of various Protestant denominations under a common banner. In his optimism he began a new periodical called The Millennial Harbinger (implying that the Millennium itself was dawning through the restoration movement).7 Yet "to require believers' baptism as an essential ordinance would seriously impede his efforts toward unity,"8 since his ecumenical vision included denominations that practiced infant baptism. 

Campbell made some theological qualifications that allowed him, "in effect, to hold to the necessity and to the non-necessity of believers' baptism at one and the same time" and supplemented this with "a great deal of theological double-talk concerning baptism".9 As Hughes observes, baptism was a flash-point in a conflict, within Campbell's mind and within his movement, between two competing ideals: that of radical restorationism (restoring primitive Christianity—as Campbell understood it—without compromise) and that of ecumenical unity (ending denominationalism and uniting all Christians, or at least all Protestants, under a common denominator of belief and practice). As time went on, Campbell "increasingly lost faith" in the power of his restorationist movement "to produce ecclesiastical and societal unity," even as he showed greater willingness to compromise radical restorationism for the sake of unity.10

Disagreements over doctrine and practice, and disagreements over how fundamental these disagreements were, caused numerous schisms not only between restorationist movements but within them. Thus, each of the major nineteenth-century restorationist movements listed above has several descendants each claiming to be the legitimate heir of the parent movement, or the true restoration of primitive Christianity.

A convinced restorationist who surveys the landscape of restorationist movements must conclude that all such movements besides his or her own have been misguided and mistaken. This calls to mind the line from the great American humorist Mark Twain: "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also." How can one be sure that one's own restorationist movement has succeeded when one is equally sure that all others have failed? Of course, in the age of postmodernism some will prefer to concede that all religious movements (including all restorationist movements) contain much subjectivity, that all—including one's own—have some merit and some demerit. However, such a position differs so radically from the ideals of the founder of any restorationist movement that it calls into question the reason for the movement's existence, and the reason for any person to continue to belong to that movement. If, for example, I am not convinced that the Christadelphians are uniquely the restoration of primitive Christianity, then what justification can I give for the Christadelphian movement to continue to exist, or for myself to continue to identify as a Christadelphian? Inertia, sentimentality, and lack of a better option are all poor reasons to belong to a religious movement.

Thus, the first great irony of restorationism is that it proffers a vision for restoring the purity and simplicity of primitive Christianity—but in reality restorationists have produced many accounts of what restored Christianity should look like, and their witness does not agree.

3. The Irony of Anti-Sectarian Sects and Anti-Denominational Denominations

Wacker writes that primitivist movements are characterised by "an antistructuralist impulse: a determination to destroy the arbitrary conventions of denominational Christianity in order to replace them with a new order of primal simplicity and purity".11 When Alexander Campbell began his periodical The Millennial Harbinger in 1830, he declared it to be "devoted to the destruction of Sectarianism".12 Yet he was aware of a risk: "While endeavoring to abolish the old sects, let us be cautious that we form not a new one".13 As history would show, this is precisely what happened: Campbell's movement ultimately became just another established denomination, which later broke into several denominations.

Campbell's critical awareness that by opposing sectarianism one might end up only adding to it seems to have escaped his erstwhile protégé, John Thomas, who broke away from Campbell's movement to found his own (which became the Christadelphians). Thomas wrote of his disgust with "sectarianism" and with all "the sects," which are characterised by dissent and heterogeneity.14 In his earlier writings (before the final break with Campbell) he declared his resolute intention to maintain his "independence of all religious sects in America," opting instead for the "spirit of liberty."15 In a pre-Christadelphian periodical, he declared that he would "advocate no sectarian formula of faith," disavowing any "favor or affection of any sect, save that of the 'Nazarines' [i.e. the primitive church]".16 Again, he wrote to Campbell that he "labours for no denomination; it is for the truth as he believes it, independent of all sects or parties...The party he belongs to is a church of Christ...[who] worship God in spirit and in truth according to His word, and not according to the dogmas of this or that reformation or denomination."17 By the end of his life, after having founded a movement called the Christadelphians, Thomas straightforwardly identified his movement with the primitive church, i.e. "'the sect everywhere spoken against' [Acts 28:22], in the first century, newly revived". He contrasted this "newly-revived sect of antiquity," the Christadelphians, with "the sects of the apostasy," namely all other churches, within which "there is no salvation."18 These statements were made, ironically enough, in the context of laying out the Christadelphians' sectarian formula of faith in 24 propositions. Thomas apparently thought that he could escape the charge of sectarianism by dogmatically asserting that his sect was identical with the true church, while all others were apostate. However, such dogmatism is a feature of most, if not all, sects!

Every restorationist movement, while claiming to be unique and incomparable to other "sects" and "denominations," perhaps even claiming that they would abolish the phenomenon of sects and denominations, eventually congealed into one more sect or denomination among many. Marty states the irony succinctly: "They did not want to see denominationalism thrive and ended up creating new denominations".19 Hughes incisively observes that all the restorationist movements represented in his book "began their careers with a strong restorationist emphasis, but virtually all have now abandoned their restorationist moorings for a modern project that renders the restoration vision essentially powerless",20 i.e. by becoming part of the religious furniture, just another established denomination or sect.

4. The Irony of Anti-Traditionalist Tradition

Wacker defines primitivism (a term more or less synonymous with restorationism) as "any effort to deny history, or to deny the contingencies of historical existence, by returning to the time before time, to the golden age that preceded the corruptions of life in history".21 Similarly, Hill states that restorationism is concerned with the normative primitive Christian period and the present time; "It repudiates all intervening history, rarely as fact, but as holding any theological significance...such-Christianity-as-there-was is ignored (at best) in the practice of authentic church life and sometimes branded as a centuries-long aberration."22 Hughes states that "Without question, a profound 'sense of historylessness' often characterizes self-proclaimed restorationist or primitivist movements" and that this historylessness often engenders "illusions of innocence,"23 and "a rationalized self-reliance, set free from the constraints of history".24 Restorationism thus involves a "naïve attempt to avoid the power of history and culture."25

A major issue distinguishing restorationists not only from Catholics and Orthodox but from most other Protestants is "the extent of history's jurisdiction."26 For restorationists, church history between the time of the apostles and the contemporary restoration has no jurisdiction, no normative value. It is either ignored or used as a cautionary tale of all that can go wrong. Restorationists give no deference to post-biblical Christian tradition. It is not "our" history and tradition; its personalities are not "our" forefathers. They can safely be ignored or repudiated, and no debt of gratitude is owed to them.

This anti-traditionalist, historyless perspective of restorationist movements contains a great irony.27 As restorationist movements come of age, they rapidly develop their own history and tradition that the movement deems to be important and to some extent normative. Thus, for example, one finds "traditionally minded" Christadelphians exhorting one another to adhere to the teachings of their "pioneers" and to seek the "old paths"—paths that are barely 150 years old! Histories, often idealised, unscholarly and uncritical, are written of the movement's origins and founders, painting the age of restoration and the subsequent development of the movement as instructive and inspiring, even as they ignore or belittle many previous centuries of Christian history. By closely studying any restorationist movement, one could identify numerous examples of traditionalism relative to the movement's own history.

In short, the "historylessness" and aversion to tradition that characterises restorationist movements is not sustainable. It inevitably gives way to a history and a tradition that is confined to the post-restoration era. As Marty aptly puts it, "They did not want to be fallen into history, but they made history and became part of its stream."28 They were anti-traditionalist until they had their own tradition to maintain.

5. Conclusion: The Allure of Restorationism versus the Richness of Catholicism

There is no denying that restorationism has a certain allure. It is the allure of a fresh start, of freedom from the baggage and messiness of church history. Unfortunately, it is a deceptive allure. I may think, whether out of self-reliance or misguided reliance on God, that I can start from scratch and work out the pure, unadulterated doctrines and practices of primitive Christianity for once and for all. However, many others have thought they could do so, and disagreed in their methods and results. Am I wiser, more diligent, more pious or more gifted than all of them? Disillusioned with the many dissenting sects and denominations on the Christian landscape, I may say, "Away with them all!", but if my solution is to start a new movement that restores the simplicity of primitive Christianity, it will inevitably become yet another sect or denomination with its own idiosyncrasies. Confronted with the complexity, messiness, and even horrors of Christian tradition and history, I may say, "Away with it all, give me only the Bible and its history!", but if my solution is to start a new movement, it will soon develop its own history and tradition, and may well repeat some of the mistakes of the previous Christian history that it has disowned.

Catholicism is an alternative to restorationism that I have found to be compelling. It is unique among Christian movements in that it does not trace its origins back to a schism with a parent movement; it traces its origins directly back to the apostles, both via unbroken history and via apostolic succession.29 It also has a uniquely objective claim to being the custodian and guardian of Christian doctrine, through its continued exercise of the prime ministerial office that Christ bestowed on Peter. Admittedly, it has a checkered history. However, I have written previously on why this is an asset and not a liability. 

Finally, there is great capacity for restoration and reform within the Catholic Church. St. Francis of Assisi in 1206 heard Christ telling him to rebuild His Church, which He said was in ruins. The Church also introduced many reforms that acknowledged merit in the some of the criticism brought against her by the Reformers of the sixteenth century. More recently, commentators on the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) use the term "reform" frequently with reference to changes that were enacted there. The difference between this kind of restoration and "restorationism" is that Catholic restoration is not sectarian or schismatic. It does not start from scratch; it respects what has gone before and what is, and introduces necessary changes while preserving essential continuity. If one thinks of the Church as a dilapidated old manor house, the Catholic model is to undertake a painstaking restoration project, while the restorationist model is to tear it down and start fresh. Easier, yes, and therefore tempting; but the result will not be half as beautiful, and something priceless will have been lost.

Footnotes

• 1 Richard T. Hughes, ed. The Primitive Church in the Modern World (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995), x-xi.
• 2 It should be noted that the founders of some of these restorationist movements were immigrants from Great Britain, such as Alexander Campbell and John Thomas (founder of Christadelphians), and their movements were active on both sides of the Atlantic. There were also restorationist movements that were primarily British phenomena, such as the Plymouth Brethren.
• 3 Martin E. Marty, "Primitivism and Modernization: Assessing the Relationship," in The Primitive Church in the Modern World, 7.
• 4 Bill J. Humble, "The Restoration Ideal in the Churches of Christ," in The American Quest for the Primitive Church (ed. Richard T. Hughes; Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 223.
• 5 Humble, "Restoration Ideal," 226.
• 6 Richard T. Hughes, "From Primitive Church to Civil Religion: The Millennial Odyssey of Alexander Campbell," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 44 (1976): 94.
• 7 Humble, "Restoration Ideal," 224-25.
• 8 Hughes, "From Primitive Church to Civil Religion," 94.
• 9 Hughes, "From Primitive Church to Civil Religion," 94-95.
• 10 Hughes, "From Primitive Church to Civil Religion," 95-96.
• 11 Grant Wacker, "Playing for Keeps: The Primitivist Impulse in Early Pentecostalism," in The American Quest for the Primitive Church, 209-210.
• 12 Quoted in Hughes, "From Primitive Church to Civil Religion," 88.
• 13 Quoted in Humble, "Restoration Ideal," 226-27.
• 14 Quoted in Robert Roberts, Dr. Thomas: His Life and Work (London: Christadelphian Book Depot, 1873), 77; cf. John Thomas, Elpis Israel, 4th edn (Adelaide: Logos Publications, 1866/2000), 98, 352; cf. Peter Hemingray, John Thomas: His Friends and His Faith, 2nd edn (Christadelphian Tidings, 2008), 331.
• 15 Quoted in Roberts, Dr. Thomas, 77.
• 16 Quoted in Hemingray, John Thomas, 94.
• 17 Quoted in Roberts, Dr. Thomas, 82.
• 18 Quoted in Hemingray, John Thomas, 335-38.
• 19 Marty, "Primivitism and Modernization," 7.
• 20 Hughes, The Primitive Church in the Modern World, xiii-xiv.
• 21 Wacker, "Playing for Keeps," 197.
• 22 Samuel S. Hill, Jr., "Comparing Three Approaches to Restorationism: A Response," in The American Quest for the Primitive Church, 233-34.
• 23 Hughes, The Primitive Church in the Modern World, x.
• 24 Hughes, "Introduction," in The American Quest for the Primitive Church, 12.
• 25 Hughes, The Primitive Church in the Modern World, x.
• 26 Hughes, "Introduction," in The American Quest for the Primitive Church, 5.
• 27 There is actually a second great irony, namely that restorationist movements are, in fact, heavily indebted to the very post-biblical Christian history and tradition that they repudiate. For instance, most restorationist movements have uncritically assumed a particular biblical canon, which was only cemented by the fourth century A.D. (and revised slightly by the Reformers in the sixteenth century). Furthermore, restorationists use the text of the New Testament as their primary resource for restoring primitive Christianity. However, they have no texts from the apostolic era but only later manuscripts, copied by scribes and monks from the "apostate" era. Similarly, most restorationist movements have assumed, as their starting point, pre-existing Protestant positions on doctrinal issues such as the Lord's Supper (a purely symbolic view) and church polity (usually, but not always, a decentralised, congregational structure). Yet restorationists did not for this reason regard earlier Protestants as their forefathers, but repudiated them along with Catholics.
• 28 Marty, "Primivitism and Modernization," 7.
• 29 The Eastern Orthodox Church can at least plausibly make the same claim, since it is as old as the Roman Catholic Church, and which of the two is the parent movement depends on the disputed issue of papal authority that precipitated the Great Schism of 1054. However, none of the Protestant movements can plausibly claim to trace their origins directly back to the apostles.

Did Pope Francis really say that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is dangerous?

YouTube contains a large quantity of videos purporting to be exposés about the Pope, Vatican or Roman Catholic Church. Often these take the form of clips of the Pope saying something, sometimes combined with commentary on why what he said was so shocking and diabolical.

One such video that, in several different versions, has garnered millions of views, pertains to some remarks Pope Francis made during his General Audience at St. Peter's Square on June 25, 2014. Here are the titles of the five most-viewed videos on this topic:

“POPE says Personal Relationship with Jesus VERY DANGEROUS & HARMFUL – Must Share!!” 

“POPE Francis Warns ANY ‘Personal Relationship w/ Jesus is Dangerous’: (NEWS)”  

“ANTI CHRIST! Pope Francis Says ‘Personal Relationship With Jesus Is Dangerous’” 

“Satanic Pope Francis Says Having a Personal Relationship With Jesus Is Dangerous!!!”

“Personal relationship with Jesus is dangerous outside the RCC says pope.”

Now, perhaps responding to such videos is an exercise in futility. Many of those who share them are only interested in making the Pope look as bad as possible, and not in careful, judicious reflection on the Pope's words. Nevertheless, for the sake of those willing to consider the issue with an open mind, I offer the following comments.

In order to correctly interpret speech or text it is always a good idea to place them in context. Most of the videos above include a roughly two-minute clip of Pope Francis speaking in Italian with English subtitles. This clip is an excerpt from a homily that Pope Francis gave on the topic of "belonging to the Church." The Vatican's official transcript of the homily, translated into English, indicates that the subtitles in the videos do appear to accurately represent the Pope's words.

That said, the first four headlines above show that most of the Pope's YouTube critics have blatantly misrepresented the Pope's point. (Perhaps unsurprisingly, the fifth video has far fewer views than the first three with their more provocative titles and use of all capitals, which has been called the Internet version of shouting.) Two of the headlines place the words "Personal Relationship with Jesus is Dangerous" in quotation marks, implying that Pope Francis said them, which he did not. Two of the headlines gratuitously apply an inflammatory label to Pope Francis ("ANTI CHRIST!"; "Satanic"); the latter also childishly superimposes red "devil horns" onto a picture of Pope Francis. More fundamentally, the titles convey the idea that Pope Francis is against having a personal relationship with Jesus, and this is simply false. Here are the key words that the Pope's critics have latched onto:

There are those who believe they can maintain a personal, direct and immediate relationship with Jesus Christ outside the communion and the mediation of the Church. These are dangerous and harmful temptations. These are, as the great Paul VI said, absurd dichotomies.

Placed in the context of Pope Francis's homily on the topic of "belonging to the Church," it is obvious that his emphasis lies on the words "outside the communion and the mediation of the Church." What is dangerous and harmful is not a personal relationship with Jesus Christ but a personal relationship with Jesus Christ outside the Church. Now, unfortunately, I was unable to track down the source and context of Pope Paul VI's statement about "absurd dichotomies." However, it seems clear that Pope Francis is warning against constructing a false dichotomy whereby one can either have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ or one can have the communion and mediation of the Church but not both. By opposing this false dichotomy, Pope Francis affirms the need for both of these things. On the need for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, consider the following excerpt from a summary of a morning mediation Pope Francis delivered on January 9, 2017:

In this perspective, the Pope suggested, we should ask a “question: is the centre of my life Jesus Christ? What is my relationship with Jesus Christ?”. Francis pointed out that at the start of the celebration, in the oration of the collect prayer, “we asked for the grace to see, the grace to know what we have to do and the grace to have the strength to do it”. But “the first thing we have to do is look to Jesus Christ”. In doing so, “there are three things, let’s say three tasks, to assure ourselves that Jesus is at the centre of our life”. “First of all”, the Pope explained, “recognize Jesus, know him and recognize him. In his time, the Apostle John, at the beginning of his Gospel, says that many did not recognize him: the doctors of the law, the high priests, the scribes, the Sadducees, some Pharisees”. What’s more, “they persecuted him; they killed him”. Thus, “the first approach is to know and recognize Jesus; to seek how Jesus was: does this interest me”? It is, Francis stated, “a question that all of us must ask ourselves: does it interest me to know Jesus or perhaps am I more interested in soap operas or gossip or ambitions or knowing about other people’s lives”? Indeed, to “know Jesus, one must first “be able to recognize him”. And, the Pope added, “to know Jesus, there is prayer, the Holy Spirit, yes, but it is also good practice to “pick up the Gospel every day”. He then asked the congregation: “How many of you pick up the Gospel each day and read a passage? I would tell you to raise your hands: but I won’t do so”, he added, telling them not to worry. It is important, the Pope said, to always take a copy of the Gospel with you, such as “the pocket version, which is small, in order to be carried in a pocket, purse”, so it is “always with me”. It is said, the Pontiff continued, that “Saint Cecilia had the Gospel close to her heart: close, close!”. And in this way, keeping it always close at hand, we can “read a passage of the Gospel every day: it is the only way to know Jesus”, to know “what he did, what he said”.

So Pope Francis is clearly for a personal relationship with Jesus, not against it. What then was Pope Francis's point in saying that it is "dangerous and harmful" to think one can "maintain a personal, direct and immediate relationship with Jesus Christ outside the communion and the mediation of the Church"? I think the basic point Pope Francis is making has been made and could be made in a sermon at any church. Some other excerpts from the homily will bring out his core message:

We are not isolated and we are not Christians on an individual basis, each one on his or her own, no, our Christian identity is to belong! ... No one becomes Christian on his or her own! Is that clear? No one becomes Christian by him- or herself. Christians are not made in a laboratory. A Christian is part of a people who comes from afar. The Christian belongs to a people called the Church and this Church is what makes him or her Christian, on the day of Baptism, and then in the course of catechesis, and so on. But no one, no one becomes Christian on his or her own. If we believe, if we know how to pray, if we acknowledge the Lord and can listen to his Word, if we feel him close to us and recognize him in our brothers and sisters, it is because others, before us, lived the faith and then transmitted it to us.

The point is that no Christian is an island. One cannot live as a Christian in isolation from other Christians. We are indebted to those Christians who went before us and we are in need of those Christians who journey alongside us and they are in need of us. Hence Pope Francis warns against 

the temptation of thinking we can make it without the others, that we can get along without the Church, that we can save ourselves on our own... we cannot be good Christians if we are not together with those who seek to follow the Lord Jesus, as one single people, one single body, and this is the Church.

In any Protestant church this could form the core message of a sermon directed at those who say things like "I love Jesus but I'm not into church." Thus, I think Pope Francis's basic point is one to which every Christian should be able to say "Amen." Furthermore, in saying, "The Christian belongs to a people called the Church and this Church is what makes him or her Christian, on the day of Baptism," Pope Francis states the Catholic belief that one becomes a Christian - and part of the Church - through baptism (1 Cor. 12:13). The Catholic Church recognizes Protestant baptisms as valid, so this statement pertains to all Christians. Protestants, like Catholics, become Christians and part of the Church on the day of baptism. Without the sacrament of baptism, one is neither a Christian nor part of the Church.

Having said that, not all the aspects of "belonging to the Church" touched on in Pope Francis's homily pertain to Protestants. When Pope Francis speaks of "the Church," he means the Roman Catholic Church, because there is only one body and Catholics believe the Roman Catholic Church is that body. Pope Francis's general audience was addressed to the Catholic faithful, and in stressing the need for "the communion and the mediation of the Church" Pope Francis implicitly reiterates the Roman Catholic Church's claim to be the "one holy, catholic and apostolic" Church founded by Jesus Christ. Protestant Christians do not completely enjoy the communion and mediation of the Church because they do not receive the special gifts that the Lord makes available through the Church - most especially his Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist. Protestants are, from a Catholic point of view, Christians who are walking with Christ without the fullness of the spiritual gifts that he offers in the Church to enable us to complete that walk successfully. It could be likened (and this is my analogy, not Pope Francis's) to a firefighter entering a burning building without all of his or her equipment. It is indeed dangerous, and this is one reason why we as Catholics are passionate about working toward reconciliation and reunion with Protestants. We want them to enjoy the full benefits of "belonging to the Church."

Since Protestants reject Catholic teaching about the Church and the Eucharist, it makes sense to debate and discuss these issues. In that sense, a legitimate Protestant headline describing Pope Francis's headline might be something like, "Pope Francis says personal relationship with Jesus dangerous outside communion and mediation of Catholic Church." This captures what is controversial about Pope Francis's homily (from a Protestant perspective) without misrepresenting him. The fifth headline quoted above is the only one that does this. The other four headlines are sensationalizing red herrings designed to make Protestants loathe the Pope.

Dialogue is always needed between Catholics and Protestants, but if we are to make progress toward unity in the body of Christ we must eschew the temptation to resort to partisan propaganda - either by creating such propaganda or by sharing it uncritically in our social networks. We must instead discuss the issues that divide us in a fair, honest and loving way. We must also always keep in mind the common ground that we share, and belief in the need for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is, in fact, part of that common ground.

Form, Genre, and Historicity of the Wilderness Temptations of Jesus in the Gospels: A Response to Jonathan Burke (Part 3)

This continues a series of posts which discuss the literary background to the TS in response to two online articles by Jonathan Burke.

5.       The TS as narrative

Narrative criticism is concerned with the text of the Gospels as literature and, consequently, how features such as plot and characters combine to communicate meaning. The primary focus is not historical or form-critical in the sense of recovering the sources, form or historicity of a pericope. Instead, the primary focus is on “the formal features of a text in its finished form.”[1] Despite the widespread use of this methodology in interpreting the Gospels, including the TS, Burke inexplicably ignores it and flatly denies that the TS are narrative. In a curiously circular fashion, this assumption becomes his basis for dismissing my evidence that the TS must be read as a narrative.[2]

As an element within a wider narrative, how does the TS communicate meaning? For one, narrative critics have noted how Satan functions as a character in the story in all three Synoptic Gospels, with the TS playing a key role in this feature of the narrative.

Concerning Mark, this approach has recently been explored by Shively, who states that “Mark introduces Satan as Jesus’ adversary in the prologue, arguably establishing Satan as a key opposing power for the rest of the narrative.”[3] She holds that Mark’s Gospel presupposes the Satan figure and demonology of the LXX and Second Temple Judaism.[4]

Concerning Matthew, Branden has written an entire narrative-critical monograph on ‘Satanic Conflict in the Plot of Matthew’. He observes that “the temptations function as the beginning of Satanic challenge to Jesus’ mission,”[5] while also noting the close correspondence between the characterization of Satan in this pericope and the demonology of intertestamental Judaism.[6] Similarly, Powell states the following on conflict in Matthew:

A better understanding is gained through the realization that neither Jesus’ conflict with the religious leaders nor his conflict with his disciples is ultimately definitive of the Gospel’s plot. What this narrative is really about is conflict on a deeper level, namely, conflict between God and Satan…As the supreme agent of God, Jesus comes to save God’s people from their sin by giving his life as a ransom for many and by shedding his blood to establish a new covenant of forgiveness. Satan challenges Jesus specifically as God’s Son (4:1-11) and, indirectly, remains active throughout the story.[7]

Kingsbury states concerning Luke: 

Finally, one also encounters transcendent beings in Luke’s gospel story, such as God, angels, Satan, and demons, and the figure of the narrator. Strictly speaking, neither God nor the narrator can be said to be characters, and while Satan is alluded and referred to, in only one episode (the temptation) does he assume the more normal role of a character…Although Satan is, like God, a transcendent being, unlike God he does not remain beyond narrative sight but functions in part as one of the characters within Luke’s story (4:1-13).[8]

So also Carroll:

Both the intensity of the struggle and its cosmological import are heightened by the presence of the devil, introduced for the first time in the narrative. Luke uses the names devil (διάβολος) and Satan interchangeably for this character, and with comparable frequency, though only διάβολος appears in 4:1-13… His role in the testing narrative is reminiscent of the part played by Satan in Job, probing the character of a person. But the devil’s malevolence as the head of forces opposed to God becomes clear as the narrative proceeds.[9]

That the Gospels, in their finished form, position the TS fundamentally as events within the wider narrative about Jesus can scarcely be denied. As Bock states, Luke “simply presents the temptations as an event in Jesus’ life”.[10] Nothing in the context of Luke’s TS suggests that it departs from his stated purpose, “to compile an account… to write it out for you in consecutive order” (Luke 1:1-3 NASB); an account “about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up…” (Acts 1:1-2 NASB). As I’ve argued elsewhere, the writers fit the TS seamlessly into the narrative, with no internal indication that its characters or events are less real than other pericopae.

The TS belong to the genre of narrative within the Gospels, regardless of what view may be taken concerning their historicity. Hence, any enterprise in the discipline of biblical theology which seeks to recover the Satanology of the Synoptic Evangelists must approach the TS as narrative and, consequently, resort to narrative criticism.

6.       The TS as history

We have seen that there is general agreement that the TS is mythological. However, Nickle reminds us that “To designate a unit of Jesus tradition as myth is not to assess its historicity.”[11]

There are scholars who take a very high view of the historicity of the TS. Edwards, for example:

Jesus himself is the only plausible source of the narrative. Many modern readers, including modern Christians, find talk of the devil intellectually embarrassing. As a consequence, the temptation is commonly interpreted metaphorically. Ancient Jews, however, believed in an evil force, both superhuman and personal, that contended with and distorted God’s created ideal. They believed this power to be real, although not ultimate. We know that Jesus shared this belief, and we cannot doubt that Luke shared it. The temptation narrative is not presented as a dream, vision, myth, or parable, but as a historical occurrence in which an intentional and deadly earnest personification of evil attempts, using both natural and supernatural means, to mislead the incarnate Son of God from his salvific mission in the world.[12]

While many scholars would dispute the extent to which the TS describes actual historical events verbatim, there does seem to be support for the idea that has a basis in actual historical events:

There appears to be reasonable evidence that the temptation story does have a kernel of authentic tradition (Murphy-O’Connor; Allison). Perhaps Jesus communicated such visionary experiences to his disciples in a teaching context pertaining to temptations and the coming peirazmos or eschatological testing that was approaching (Twelftree 822-823). The authenticity of the story would also account for other traditions including Mark 3:27, Luke 10:18, Jesus’ belief in the presence of the kingdom, and the call for a return to pre-Edenic conditions, e.g. Mark 10:2-9 (Davies and Allison: 1.357).[13]

What seems to be beyond historical doubt in the minds of most scholars is that Jesus and the Gospel writers believed in Satan as a supernatural being. As Towner puts it:

the narrators of the Gospels and Jesus himself seem to have had a lively sense of an evil spiritual being who stood at the head of all demonic powers and who was able to enter into human hearts and to challenge the influence of God there.[14]

A large number of other modern sources which conclude that Jesus and the Synoptic writers believed in Satan and demons can be found in my paper on the accommodation theory.

Bock notes that the criterion of dissimilarity may support the historicity of the narrative, since temptation stories of this kind played no obvious role in the early church.[15] He also warns against divorcing symbolism from history (a warning which has gone unheeded in Burke's case). Moreover, as Gibson points out, in the Beelzebul pericope (the historicity of which is generally accepted), Jesus alludes to an earlier victory over Satan which is best understood to be a reference to the wilderness temptations (Matt. 12:29/Mark 3:27/Luke 11:21-22).[16]

However, the TS still remains problematic from a historical point of view because of its clear supernatural elements. Ehrman states in a similar context (Jesus’ exorcisms) that the ‘supernatural realm’ lies “outside of the historian’s province,” and consequently, “historians can’t say that Jesus actually cast evil spirits out of people.”[17] For many historical critics, such methodological assumptions rule out the possibility of judging the TS as historical.

Similar problems apply to the other Gospel stories that Dibelius regarded as mythological in genre, namely the baptism of Jesus and the transfiguration. Kvalbein notes a parallel between the baptismal miracle and the TS:

The stories of the theophany at Jesus’ baptism have no references to witnesses except Jesus himself and John. In this regard they are similar to the temptation stories, presented as an experience between Jesus and the devil, with no others present.[18]

He states the two prevailing views of the historicity of the theophany at Jesus’ baptism. The first is that it is a non-historical creation of the early church, and the second is that it is a tradition based on Jesus’ personal experience at his baptism, e.g. “a vision Jesus had in connection with his baptism.”

As for the transfiguration, Poirier notes,

For many, anything so otherworldly cannot be historical, and the account must be explained either as a heightening of tendencies latent within a more authentic report of as a wholecloth invention.[19]

He adds that some ascribe the account to “real religious experiences” while ducking the question of whether ‘real’ “refers to objective or subjective categories.”

We can see that the historical problems bound up with the TS are very similar to those in these other two pericopae. In all cases a transcendent being palpably interacts with the human sphere. There are, in each case, three basic positions that scholars may take. The first regards the event as a historical fact. The second regards it as purely symbolic, with no historical foundation. The third, intermediate position allows for some rhetorical license but regards the pericope as based on a historical “experience” of some kind, such as a vision.[20]

The third position is perhaps the most sensible for a historian to take in all three cases. However, for a reader who regards the supernatural worldview of the early church as normative, there is no reason why these historical "experiences" may not be seen as rooted in objective reality, and thus tantamount to historical facts.

---

[1] Resseguie, J.L. (2005). Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, p. 19. Emphasis added.

[2] Burke seems to take the formal resemblance of the TS to ‘haggadic midrash’ as final proof that they are not narrative. He then summarily dismisses all the evidence I adduced that the Gospel TS only make sense when read as narrative, rather than interacting with this material. See here for an overview of this evidence.

[3] Shively, E. (2015). Characterizing the Non-Human: Satan in the Gospel of Mark. In M.R. Hauge & C.W. Skinner (Eds.), Character Studies and the Gospel of Mark (pp. 127-151). London: Bloomsbury. Here pp. 127-128.

[4] Shively 2015: 136-137.

[5] Branden, R.C. (2006). Satanic Conflict and the Plot of Matthew. Bern: Peter Lang, p. 55.

[6] Branden 2006: 43.

[7] Powell, M.A. (1990). What is Narrative Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, pp. 47-48.

[8] Kingsbury, J.D. (1991). Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, pp. 9, 13.

[9] Carroll, J.T. (2012). Luke: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, p. 102.

[10] Bock, D.L. (1994). Luke (Vol. 1). Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, p. 366.

[11] Nickle, K.F. (2001). The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, p. 29.

[12] Edwards, J.R. (2015). The Gospel according to Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 131.

[13] Bird, M.F. (2014). Temptation of Jesus. In C.A. Evans (Ed)., Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus (pp. 638-640). New York: Routledge. Here pp. 639-640.

[14] Towner, W.S. (2003). Satan. In D.E. Gowan (Ed.), The Westminster Theological Wordbook of the Bible (pp. 447-449). Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Here p. 448.

[15] Bock 1994: 364.

[16] Gibson 2004: 93; so also Best, E. (1965). The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 14; Jeremias, J. (1977). New Testament Theology: The proclamation of Jesus (G. Bowden, trans.) New York: Scribner’s Sons, p. 72.

[17] Ehrman, B.D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 197-198.

[18] Kvalbein, H. (2014). Baptism of Jesus. In C.A. Evans (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus (pp. 55-58). New York: Routledge. Here p. 57.

[19] Poirier, J.C. (2014). Transfiguration of Jesus. In C.A. Evans (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus (pp. 653-656). New York: Routledge. Here p. 655.

[20] These three scholarly positions, with respect to the TS, are described by Schiavo 2002: 142-143.

'The things concerning' (Acts 8:12) in Christadelphian theology: a critical assessment

1. 'The things concerning' in Christadelphian theology
2. A fresh reading of Acts 8:12
2.1. A two-part gospel?
2.2. A text-critical issue
2.3. Reconstructing Philip's proclamation to the Samaritans
3. Conclusion


1. 'The things concerning' in Christadelphian theology

There are probably few passages of Scripture that have done as much heavy lifting in Christadelphian dogmatic theology as Acts 8:12. In the KJV the verse reads thus:

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

The phrase 'the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ' has taken on a life of its own in Christadelphian usage. For example:

• The 1877 Birmingham Statement of Faith took its title from this verse: 'A Statement of the Things Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ, Set Forth in a Series of Thirty-Four Scripture-Attested Propositions'
• The same Statement of Faith was structurally built around this phrase, with its articles divided into two sections covering 'the things of the kingdom of God' and 'the things concerning the name of Jesus Christ' respectively
• The phrase still functions as an overarching structure in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (BASF) used by the majority of Christadelphian ecclesias today. Articles 17 and 18 state:

17. That the Gospel consists of "The things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ."

18. That the "Things of the Kingdom of God" are the facts testified concerning the Kingdom of God in the writings of the prophets and apostles, and definable as in the next 12 paragraphs.1

• Some Christadelphian 'first principles' teaching materials have taken their titles from this verse2 
• Numerous Christadelphian websites quote this phrase to summarize their beliefs.3

The traditional Christadelphian view has been that one must understand 'the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ' prior to baptism for the baptism to be valid (i.e. regenerative).4 This idea can be traced right back to the book that launched the Christadelphian movement, Elpis Israel (originally published in 1848). There, Christadelphian founder Dr. John Thomas emphasizes,

The difficulty lies, not in getting men to be dipped, but in first getting them to believe "the things concerning the kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12)5

One major section of the book is subtitled, 'The Things of the Kingdom of God, and the Name of Jesus Christ'. Here, Dr. Thomas explains:

As a whole "the truth" is defined as "the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12). This phrase covers the entire ground upon which the "one faith," and the "one hope," of the gospel are based; so that if a man believe only the "things of the kingdom," his faith is defective in the "things of the name;" or, if his belief be confined to the "things of the name," it is deficient in the "things of the kingdom." There can be no separation of them recognised in a "like precious faith" (2Pet. 1:1) to that of the apostles. They believed and taught all these things; God hath joined them together, and no man need expect His favour who separates them; or abolishes the necessity of believing the things He has revealed for faith.6

He thus infers that 'The gospel is not preached when the things of the kingdom are omitted.'7 And finally:

God's salvation is placed in the name of Jesus; and this name is accessible to mankind only upon the condition of believing the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus," and being baptized by his name.8

The simple but radical corollary of this doctrine is that those who lack, or disagree with, any point of Christadelphians' systematic, propositional understanding of 'the things concerning' at the time of their baptism are ontologically non-Christian, because they are not validly baptized.

There are positives that should be recognized in Christadelphian use of the phrase 'the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ'. There is, of course, nothing wrong with the phrase itself; it is an excellent summary of the Christian faith. Moreover, its use has helped preserve a salvation-historical and eschatological emphasis in Christadelphian teaching that is marginalized or absent in the teaching of many churches. Its use as a minimum standard of Bible knowledge has also helped to ensure a high level of biblical literacy in Christadelphian congregations that few other movements or denominations could match. However, the polemical stance described above is problematic because it imposes extremely narrow criteria for identifying who can be called a Christian. Dr. Thomas' unwillingness to recognize as a fellow Christian anyone who did not share his distinctive interpretation of the biblical devil is a case in point:

A man who believes in the Devil of the religious world and that he has the powers of disease and death, etc., is ignorant of "the things of the Name of Jesus Christ."... No one should be recognized as one of Christ's brethren who is not sound in the first principles of the Gospel before immersion.9

In the previous post, I pointed out that the Christadelphian polemical interpretation of Acts 8:12 has required them to deny the adequacy of Paul's definition of the gospel in 1 Cor. 15:1-5. I noted that some of Paul's readers were ignorant of basic doctrinal ideas that Christadelphians would classify as 'first principles of the gospel' (e.g. the resurrection of the dead), and that Paul nonetheless considered these ignorant people to be fellow believers. This provides some external motivation for a reexamination of Acts 8:12. This is the task to which we now turn.

2. A fresh reading of Acts 8:12

2.1. A two-part gospel?

A key assumption of the Christadelphian reading of Acts 8:12 has been that 'the things concerning the kingdom of God' and 'the things concerning the name of Jesus Christ' represent two distinct sets of facts which together form the gospel. As one Christadelphian website puts it,

We believe in the gospel message as preached by Christ and his followers in the 1st Century. This message consisted of two parts: The things concerning the kingdom of God [and] Those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ.

Support for this two-part gospel is found not only in Acts 8:12 but also in Acts 28:23 and 28:30-31:

When [the Jewish leaders in Rome] had appointed a day for [Paul], they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets... [Paul] lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance. (Acts 28:23, 30-31 ESV, emphasis added)

In these texts, as in Acts 8:12, there is a bifurcation of gospel content into 'the kingdom of God' and 'Jesus'. To interpret these as two distinct sets of facts comprising a two-part message sounds plausible. However, if we argue that the writer divided the content in two specifically to show that the gospel consists of two distinct parts, consistency dictates that we apply the same intentionality to the pairs of verbs used. That is, 'testifying' and 'persuading'10 in v. 23 should refer to two distinct activities, as should 'proclaiming' and 'teaching' in v. 31. However, this is not very plausible; it appears the use of two verbs is largely for stylistic variation. They function in synonymous parallelism. If this is the case, we ought to consider the possibility that 'the kingdom of God' and 'Jesus' refer to essentially the same content in two different ways. In other words, both phrases capture the essence of the gospel message and they can thus be used interchangeably; they do not denote two separate parts of the message.11

If Luke regards 'the kingdom of God' and 'Jesus' as essentially interchangeable descriptors, each of which adequately captures the core content of the Christian message, we would expect him to use just one or the other on occasion to denote the gospel message. This is precisely what we do find: the content of the Christian proclamation can be described simply as 'the kingdom of God' (Acts 1:3; 19:8; 20:25) or, on the other hand, simply as 'Jesus' or 'Christ' (Acts 8:5; 8:35; 9:20; 11:20; 17:3). These texts do not refer to only half of a two-part gospel being proclaimed. Rather, all of this terminology refers to one, indivisible gospel: proclaiming the kingdom of God is proclaiming Christ, and vice versa.

2.2. A text-critical issue

Looking now at the text of Acts 8:12, the latest critical texts of the Greek New Testament yield further evidence against taking 'the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ' as two separate sets of facts. The famous KJV phrase translates the Greek of the Textus Receptus: euangelizomenō ta peri tēs basileias tou theou kai tou onomatos tou iēsou christou. However, in the NA28 and SBL critical texts, ta ('the things') is omitted at the beginning.12 Thus, according to the latest biblical scholarship, Acts 8:12 does not refer to 'the things' at all.13 Once 'the things' are removed, the verb euangelizomenō takes on added emphasis. The verb euangelizō means 'to proclaim good news', but the corresponding noun euangelion in the early church became a technical term for their message to the world, their 'good news'. Hence, one should translate euangelizomenō with 'proclaiming good news' or, better yet, 'proclaiming the gospel' rather than with 'preaching' as the KJV does. Put these points together and we have something like the NRSV translation:

But when they believed Philip, who was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Or, as Peterson notes, a literal translation of our phrase would be 'gospelling about the kingdom of God and the name of the Lord Jesus Christ'.14 This is not exactly an earth-shattering change, but it is significant in that it leaves no room for inferring two distinct sets of 'things', understood to be facts about the kingdom of God and facts about the name of Jesus Christ respectively. Rather, there is a single proclamation of good news which integrates the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.15

2.3. Reconstructing Philip's proclamation to the Samaritans

Luke does not give us Philip's proclamation in Acts 8 in speech form, but only in two brief summary statements. In 8:5 we read that Philip 'proclaimed to them the Christ', and then in 8:12 we read that he was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ. Luke does not report any of Philip's actual words here, and we cannot pretend to know exactly what he said. The best we can do is a conjectural reconstruction of his message based on clues found in the context.

Firstly, the audience consisted of Samaritans. The Samaritan Bible consisted only of an edited version of the Pentateuch. No prophets, no 'writings', no Davidic covenant. Hence, we can be reasonably confident that Philip's proclamation did not appeal to 'the facts testified concerning the Kingdom of God in the writings of the prophets',16 as the apostles did on other occasions. Philip would have drawn on common ground he shared with his audience, just as Paul did in Athens (Acts 17:22-31). This included a Messiah concept (cf. John 4:25), a figure the Samaritans referred to as Taheb; hence Philip's emphasis on proclaiming (Jesus as) 'the Christ' (Acts 8:5).17

Secondly, the setting within which Luke places the proclamation to the Samaritans is that of a power struggle of sorts between two wonder workers, Philip and Simon. In vv. 6-8 we read that the crowds paid attention to what Philip said on account of the signs that he did, consisting of healings and exorcisms. In vv. 9-11 we read that Simon had also amazed the Samaritans with his magic. Significantly, the 'aside' about Simon in vv. 9-11 begins with an adversative (de, 'but'), as does v. 12. This suggests that v. 12 represents a decision on the part of the Samaritans to align with Philip rather than Simon. If so, v. 12 suggests that it was Philip's message that set him apart from Simon: he offered a more compelling interpretation of his wonders than Simon did of his.

This makes it likely that the main thrust of Philip's proclamation to the Samaritans was an exposition of the meaning of his signs and wonders. Hence, arguably the best approach to reconstructing the content of his message is to draw on other narratives in Luke-Acts which comment on the kingdom of God and/or the name of Jesus in relation to healings or exorcisms just performed. In Luke 10:9, Jesus instructs his disciples to 'Heal the sick... and say to them, "The kingdom of God has come near to you."' The disciples returned from their mission 'with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!"' (v. 17) Similarly, in Luke 11:20, Jesus interprets his exorcisms as the arrival of the kingdom of God: 'But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.' Again, in Acts 3-4, the apostles repeatedly emphasize that their miracles are performed through the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 3:6; 3:16; 4:10; 4:30), while in Acts 16:18 and 19:13-17, the name of Jesus is shown to have power over spirits, leading to 'the name of the Lord Jesus' being extolled. Hence, it is probable that the good news 'about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ' proclaimed by Philip focused primarily on the arrival of the kingdom of God and the power of Jesus in their midst attested by healings and exorcisms.18 Unfortunately, the 'active power of Jesus' is precisely what is missing from 'the things concerning the name of Jesus Christ' defined in the BASF.

What of Philip's proclamation about the kingdom of God? By comparing with Jesus' proclamations of the kingdom of God made in the context of healing and exorcism, we can be confident that Philip's emphasis lay heavily on the present reality of the kingdom of God.19 Again, this stands in contrast with the BASF, which speaks of the kingdom of God exclusively as a future phenomenon. The only mention of the kingdom of God as a present reality in the BASF is in the Doctrines to be Rejected section.20 

Very likely, Philip passed on other basic truths such as the death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus and the future consummation of the kingdom of God. However, Acts 8:12 gives us no information as to the extent of his teaching on these topics prior to the Samaritans being baptized en masse. Surely there is no reason to assume that these converts had an understanding approaching the level of detail in the propositional definition of the 'things concerning' offered in the BASF.21 Moreover, we have good reason to conclude that Philip placed a strong emphasis on present realities (the inaugurated kingdom of God; the active power of Jesus) that are absent from the BASF. Parsons' highly plausible reconstruction of Philip's proclamation to the Samaritans is as follows:

Philip and Simon are both active in a Samaritan city (8:5, 8, 9). They both perform wondrous deeds (8:6-7, 9, 11) and make speeches (8:6, 9). Large numbers of the Samaritans paid close attention to both of them (8:6, 10, 11). Simon is called the "Great Power" (8:10) and amazes (8:9, 11) the Samaritans, while Philip works great miracles (8:13) and amazes Simon (8:13; see Spencer 1992b, 88-89). The similarities between Simon and Philip serve only to bring out in bolder relief their differences. Luke uses an encomium/invective synkrisis in which to praise Philip and his message while condemning Simon (cf. Acts 3:13-15; Hermogenes, Prog. 19, trans. Kennedy 2003, 84). Simon's deeds point to himself as an act of self-aggrandizement and self-gain (8:9, 19); Philip's signs point to the kingdom of God and corroborate his proclamation of the Christian gospel (8:5-6). What was the content of this message? Luke fills it out later in the narrative claiming that Philip was preaching about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (8:12). So to preach the gospel for Philip was to proclaim that Jesus was the "Christ," the one God had anointed "for doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil" (as Peter would put it in 10:38). Hence, Philip's signs and wonders - the healings and exorcisms - were outward signs reinforcing his message: Satan is being overcome, and the kingdom of God is being established (Garrett 1989, 65).'22

3. Conclusion

We have seen that the Christadelphian tradition has placed great emphasis on the phrase 'the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ' (Acts 8:12 KJV) as the definition of the gospel. The phrase has been understood by Christadelphians to divide the content of the gospel message into two parts, each of which consists of a set of facts. 'The things concerning the kingdom of God' are thought to be facts about a future kingdom that will be established at the second coming of Christ. 'The things concerning the name of Jesus Christ' are thought to be facts about the person and work of Jesus. While Christadelphians do not regard the two parts of the gospel as unrelated, they have nonetheless conceived of the possibility of proclaiming only 'the things of the kingdom' or only 'the things of the name', which in their view would be no gospel at all.

Our conclusions here are threefold. First, I argued that the gospel in Luke-Acts is not dualistic but monistic. That is, 'the kingdom of God' and 'the name of Jesus Christ' are not two parts that must be combined to form the gospel. Rather, they are two interchangeable ways of describing the gospel message, which is the story of God breaking decisively into history in the person of Jesus to redeem the world. In Acts, 'the kingdom of God' and 'Jesus'/'Christ' are each adequate on their own to summarize the content of the gospel. Alternatively, on three occasions the two aspects are placed in synonymous parallelism, but nowhere in Acts or the rest of the New Testament are they treated as two distinct sets of facts as they are in the BASF.

Second, I noted that according to recent critical texts of the New Testament, the words 'the things' have no basis in the Greek of Acts 8:12. This further undermines the contention that Luke is referring to two sets of propositions, one set about the kingdom of God and one set about the name of Jesus Christ. While it is not wrong to represent the gospel message propositionally, there is no evidence that these or other converts mentioned in Acts had a systematic, propositional understanding of 'the kingdom of God' and 'the name of Jesus Christ' respectively prior to baptism.

Third, I extended the above observations by looking more closely at Acts 8:12. I noted that Philip proclaimed the gospel to a Samaritan audience with very limited biblical background and in the context of his miracles and exorcisms. His message set him apart from Simon, a rival wonder worker in Samaria, and thus probably offered a compelling theological interpretation of his signs. By comparison with other interpretations of signs in Luke-Acts that involved the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus, I suggested that Philip's message probably emphasized the present reality of the inaugurated kingdom of God and the active power of Jesus' name. Both of these emphases are quite foreign to traditional Christadelphian interpretations of Acts 8:12.

The most important implication of this study is that Acts 8:12 does not support the claim that one must possess a systematic, propositional understanding of 'the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ' prior to baptism for one's baptism to be valid. This issue lies at the heart of Christadelphians' sectarian stance, because it is the logical basis by which Christadelphians have traditionally regarded nearly all professing Christians outside their community as ontologically non-Christian. Hopefully a reexamination of Acts 8:12 will lead some Christadelphians to rethink their relationship to the wider Christian Church.

Footnotes

• 1 The BASF no longer explicitly identifies a group of articles as declaring 'the things concerning the name of Jesus Christ', but this would still seem to be the implicit claim for articles 2-16.
• 2 e.g. one Christadelphian periodical, the Christadelphian Advocate, has a regular supplement entitled 'Things Concerning' devoted to doctrinal fundamentals, which have subsequently been published in a book; there is a separate Christadelphian 'first principles' manual entitled 'The Things of the Kingdom and the Things of the Name'.
• 3 E.g. theChristadelphians.org: 'Christadelphians base their faith on the things which were believed and taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles about 2,000 years ago. These things are summarised in the New Testament as "the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ".' Newbury Christadelphians: 'The name 'Christadelphian' means "Brothers in Christ" and describes men and women who believe "the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ".'
• 4 Christadelphian Bible Mission teaching materials explain: 'The two fundamental themes of the Gospel message are a. The things concerning the Kingdom of God, and b. The things concerning the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12)... To believe and obey the Gospel one must have an understanding of these Bible truths (Mark 16:15-16).' Similarly, the website Christadelphians Online defines baptism as 'immersion in water following a confession of faith in the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12)'. The website of The Christadelphian magazine explains, 'To be saved a man must acknowledge his belief in the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ. He must demonstrate his belief and need of forgiveness by asking for God’s pardon, and by being baptised by full immersion in water, confessing his sins. He now belongs to God and has become an heir of the promises made to Abraham. As such he waits in patience for God’s coming kingdom.'
• 5 Thomas, John. (1866/2000). Elpis Israel (4th ed.). Findon: Logos Publications, p. 136.
• 6 op. cit., p. 193.
• 7 op. cit., p. 196. Hence, 'a man may believe that Jesus is the Son of God; that he was sent of God as a messenger to Israel; that there is remission of sins through the shedding of his blood; that he is the saviour; and that he rose from the dead: — if he believe these things, but be ignorant, and consequently faithless, of "the things of the kingdom," he cannot obtain glory, honor, incorruptibility, and life in that kingdom. The condition of salvation is the belief of the whole gospel and obedience to it.' (op. cit., p. 198)
• 8 op. cit., p. 206.
• 9 Quoted in Roberts, Robert. My Days and My Ways, p. 115.
• 10 These are two present participles in Greek; 'trying to convince' is not a literal translation.
• 11 'As to the substance of the kingdom-message proclaimed by Philip and Paul, Luke supplies few details. What information is provided, however, all points to Jesus. Philip's proclamation of God's kingdom is placed alongside his witness to "the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8.12), and, likewise, Paul's is conjoined with convincing the Jews "about Jesus" (28.23) and teaching "about the Lord Jesus Christ" (28.31)' (Spencer, F. Scott. (1992). The Portrait of Philip in Acts: A Study of Roles and Relations. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, p. 40). 'In the preaching of the apostles, the kingdom of God was related to the person of Christ...Preaching the kingdom, then, is preaching Jesus' (Jabini, Franklin S. (2010). Preaching Christ in a pluralistic world: the message and method of the mission to Samaria in Acts 8. Conspectus, 9, 51-68, here p. 59). 'The things relating to the kingdom which form the theme of [Jesus'] postresurrection teaching at the beginning of Acts are identical with "the things relating to the Lord Jesus Christ" which form the theme of Paul's teaching in Rome at the end of the book (28:31). When they told the story of Jesus, the apostles proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God - the same good news as Jesus himself had announced earlier, but now given effective fulfilment by the saving events of his passion and triumph.' (Bruce, F.F. (1988). The Book of Acts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 32)
• 12 The final tou before iēsou is also omitted, but this is of no exegetical significance.
• 13 ta is the definite article (i.e. 'the'). Because it stands alone here and does not modify a substantive, it functions like a substantive. Because it is neuter and plural, it means 'the things'.
• 14 Peterson, David G. (2009). The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 283.
• 15 We do read elsewhere in Acts of 'the things concerning (ta peri) the kingdom of God' (1:3) and 'the things concerning (ta peri) the Lord Jesus Christ' (28:31), so the point is not that describing the message in terms of 'things' is uncharacteristic of Luke (indeed, the expression ta peri occurs more in Luke-Acts - 11 to 15 times, depending on text-critical decisions - than in the rest of the New Testament combined: Luke 22:37(?); 24:19; 24:27; Acts 1:3; 8:12(?); 13:29; 18:25; 19:8(?); 23:11; 23:15; 24:10; 24:22; 28:15; 28:23(?); 28:31; Eph. 6:22; Phil. 1:27; 2:19; 2:20; 2:23; Col. 4:8). Rather, the point is that Luke uses a variety of ways of describing the proclamation of the gospel, and none of them implies a division of the gospel into two distinct sets of facts. Some of Luke's language includes: 'preach the good news of the kingdom of God' (Luke 4:43); 'proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God' (Luke 8:1); 'proclaim the kingdom of God' (Luke 9:1, 9:60); 'spoke to them of the kingdom of God' (Luke 9:11); 'speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God' (Acts 1:3); 'proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ' (Acts 8:12); 'reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God' (Acts 19:8); 'testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus' (Acts 28:23); 'proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ' (Acts 28:31); 'preached boldly in the name of Jesus' (Acts 9:27); 'preaching the gospel' (Luke 9:6, 20:1, Acts 8:25, 40, 14:7, 21, 16:10), 'testify to the gospel of the grace of God' (Acts 20:24); 'preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ' (Acts 10:36); 'teaching and preaching the word of the Lord' (Acts 15:35); 'preaching Jesus and the resurrection' (Acts 17:18); 'proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead' (Acts 4:2); 'proclaimed the Christ' (Acts 8:5); 'proclaimed Jesus' (Acts 9:20); 'repentance and forgiveness of sins... proclaimed in his name' (Luke 24:47).
• 16 BASF, article 18.
• 17 Samkutty comments, 'There is a logical progression of the content and result of his message: Christ (v. 5), Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (v. 12); the result is: people paid attention (v. 6), believed and were baptized (v. 12). It implies that Philip starts with the messianic concept of the Samaritans and then presents Jesus as the fulfilment of their hope.' (Samkutty, V.J. (2006). The Samaritan Mission in Acts. London: T&T Clark, p. 132)
• 18 'the mention of believing in the name of Jesus refers to responding to his power and occurs several times in Acts (2:38; 3:6; 4:8-10; 8:12; 10:48; 16:18).' (Bock, Darrell L. (2007). Acts. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, p. 328); 'The name of Jesus is a term for the active power of Jesus, visibly at work in the healing of disease and in spiritual healing also. His name is invoked, men and women are baptized in his name; faith is thereby expressed and saving power is appropriated.' (Barrett, C.K. (1994). Acts 1-14. London: T&T Clark, p. 408); 'Au sein d'un judaïsme qui prie "Dieu, sauve-moi par ton nom" (Ps 54,3), proclamer le "nom de Jésus Christ" est apparu comme un acte dangereux. Blasphématoire, même. Les démêlés des apôtres avec le sanhédrin en Ac 3-5 restituent ce souvenir. Parler de Jésus Christ comme du Nom qui sauve fut cependant l'une des formulations théologiques précoces des premiers chrétiens, ce dont l'hymne pré-paulinien de Philippiens 2,6-11 est un bon témoin (cf. 2,9-10). La formule en tō onomati Iēsou Christou (dans ou par le nom de Jésus Christ) est une christologisation de en tō onomati tou theou (dans ou par le nom de Dieu), par quoi les traducteurs de la Septante ont rendu beshem YHWH. Cette formulation, complètement inusitée en grec, hérite de la polysémie du B hébraïque, qui a une valeur autant locale (dans) qu'instrumentale (par). L'ambivalence sémantique se comprend à partir de la conception du Nom: représentatif de la personne, le Nom dégage une sphère de puissance dans laquelle et par laquelle le Seigneur agit.' (Marguerat, Daniel. (2007). Les Actes des apôtres (1-12). Genève: Labor et Fides, p. 145; Greek and Hebrew characters have been replaced by transliterations)
• 19 'in Philip modelling the ministry of Jesus, just as Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God inextricably involved miracles, especially exorcism, so Philip's miracles, especially exorcism, were a "visible and audible enactment" of the kingdom of God. In other words, for Luke, the exorcism formed a symbiotic relationship with the message, each requiring the other for their completeness and comprehension.' (Twelftree, Graham H. (2007). In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, p. 145); 'As to the vexed question of whether the announced kingdom is a present reality or future hope, the primary stress in Acts seems to fall on the former, since the good news of the Christian message obviously includes the promise of immediate benefits such as the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2.38; 10.43; cf. Lk. 24.47). The possibly future-oriented exhortation to "enter the kingdom of God" in Acts 14.22 is a lone exception in Luke's account of the early church's kerygma.' (Spencer, op. cit., p. 41)
• 20 'We reject the doctrine - that the Kingdom of God is "the church"' (DTBR 12)
• 21 The BASF contains twelve articles which are said to define the 'Things of the Kingdom of God' mentioned in Acts. However, for example, articles 26-30 contain a detailed description of the millennium, a subject which receives no attention in Luke-Acts.
• 22 Parsons, Mikeal C. (2008). Acts. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, p. 115.