|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 3, 2010 12:37:48 GMT -5
RE Book: "The Apostles' Doctrine and Fellowship: a documentary history of the early church and revisionist movements." By Cornelius J. Jaenen; Published in 2003 Legus Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario ISBN 1-894508-48-3
To what: I'm finished reading the introduction. I found it to be interesting and informative. Thank you for encouraging me to reread it. I enjoyed the read.
Anybody care to discuss Dr. J's book? It's virtues and failings? Inclusions, Points, Errors and Omissions, etc. What do you agree/disagree with? What do you like/dislike about it?
As information, my purpose in inviting discussion about this book is not to put it down. I believe it has some positive significance.
What: would you care to restate your thoughts here about Dr J's book? They're buried somewhere on another thread...
The introduction to his book states it is a “…compilation of documents illustrating the nature of the early church, its later development, and finally attempts to restore what was conceived to be the primitive ideal, like all historical works, is a reconstruction of a segment of the past.” Dr Jaenen refers to his work/book as a "documentary history.”
He states “This compilation of documents is in good measure a response to two clusters of questions which I have been asked on several occasions during my teaching career. The first query concerns the nature of the first century Christian church. What did the early Christians believe? How did they worship? What problems did they face? Were they different from the Jews or other religious groups of their day? What documentation is available to suggest the thesis that the early church was intended to serve as the model for a continuing church?
“The second set of questions concerns the continuity of original Christianity. Has there been a continuation of the essentials of Christian belief and worship? Is it even possible to “continue in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship” in the 21st century? Were there sporadic or continuous efforts over the centuries to keep alive or revive the original tenets and practices of the first Christians?”
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 3, 2010 12:53:34 GMT -5
Nate is referring to this document I posted on another thread which was written to Wikipedia by Dr. J:
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:02:38 -0500 (EST) From: cornelius jaenen Subject: CHRISTIANS I have the E-mail; that was forwarded from the History department at the University of Ottawa where I am an Emeritus Professor long retired but active in graduate and post-doctoral studies, etc. I have noted carefully your research and thoughts and will confess there was a brief period when I too thought there was an unbroken apostolic succession of "workers" from the first century to our day. One of the workers who disabused me of that idea was Stanley Lee, our overseer in Manitoba at the time. Of course, I then paid much more attention to the teaching given by Jack Carroll, George Walker, and especially Wilson Reid. The write-up under my name you refer to is unscientific and undocumented and should not be in circulation. I encourage you to read carefully, in short sections at a time or it becomes undigestable, "The Apostles' Doctrine and Fellowship..." that sets out from documents the nature of the early church [not always what restorationists have imagined] and a "chain of witnesses" of efforts over the centuries to restore, regain, reconstitute, renew, retain, etc. the original faith. There was no unbroken consistent line of "workers" from the first century to our day [even the Roman Catholic succession is tenuous at times] but the Spirit was always working in the world to retain faith until Jesus returns. And so there were almost certainly "true believers" in every age and century somewhere but not in the sense of a constant visible community or fellowship. I have tried to formulate from the mediaeval documents the characteristics of such a spiritual people and tradition. "Hold fast the tradition you have been taught." Faith expresses itself in an ideal, a life-style, not always through a visible institution and hierarchy such as our fellowship at present since 1897. We are grateful that there has been this full restoration in our day, but our faith is not based on our organization or an unbroken lineage. We and what we believe is not the Way - Jesus is still THE WAY and He is THE TRUTH. Warmest greetings and good wishes, Cornelius J. Jaenen
Please note most specifically that Cornelius himself admits that his "Following Up..." statement "is unscientific and undocumented and should not be in circulation." We should remember that even the most learned and professional scholar still has his or her bias, and that historical "facts" can be selected and presented in such a way to support any hypothesis. If Cornelius is the "foremost authority" on the historical question, as another editor has written in the article, we should recognize as he himself has stated, that our present fellowship does not date back before the 1897 start date. He calls our fellowship a "full restoration" and not a "continuation." Eddie Tor 23:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia Talk: ChristianConventions en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_Conventions#Cornelius_Jaenen.27s_role_as_church_historianWiki Terms of Use: You can re-use content from Wikimedia projects freely, with the exception of content that is used under "fair use" exemptions, or similar exemptions of copyright law
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2010 12:58:35 GMT -5
Personally, I don't have any serious concerns with what is in the book. I don't see any glaring errors of fact. His downplaying of Irvine's role in the beginning is certainly worthy of argument but nothing major in the big picture.
My biggest concern has nothing directly to do with his writing on the F&Ws. My concern is that the F&Ws is the final subject he deals with as a restorationist movement. It could lead the reader to believe that the F&Ws is the last restorationist movement in the world, that none have taken place in the last century, so therefore, if you're are interested in THE only and current restorationist movement, give them a call and get involved. Was that his intention? Or did he just run out of steam when he got to the F&Ws?
The truth is, there have been and there are currently restorationist movements occurring in the 20th century and right now. Many home church movements are in process right now ( with unsalaried leaders), and the Christian movement in China is probably the largest of such movements in the world today.
The book cover claims that the author is examining movements "from at least the fourth century to the present", but in reality he stops over 110 years, hardly "the present".
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 3, 2010 15:17:09 GMT -5
Some of Dr. Jaenen's footnotes have this notation and I dont know what it means. Can anyone explain?
For example: #217 on Page 521 reads: PA-11-7 "The Work of God in Ireland in 1898," unpublished manuscript, May 1925.
#218 same page: PA-11-7, Bright Words, September 1901
Best I can tell, he has not referred to either of these two document previously... so its not the same as an "ibid"
On page 522 footnote # 219 he gives a different no.: PA-1-12 (to the unpublished Alfred Trotter Account)
On page 530 footnote #226 refers to PA-2-26 (Geo Walkers let to SS/Gov)
Does the PA+Nos. have anything to do with something being unpublished?
Is it a reference no. to documents in his possession? Is it a Canadian "thing"?
|
|
|
Post by dudeler on Feb 3, 2010 18:24:51 GMT -5
One thing I like about it is that it may lead some F&W to be less dismissive of scholarship and christian history.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 3, 2010 18:39:00 GMT -5
Personally, I don't have any serious concerns with what is in the book. I don't see any glaring errors of fact. His downplaying of Irvine's role in the beginning is certainly worthy of argument but nothing major in the big picture. My biggest concern has nothing directly to do with his writing on the F&Ws. My concern is that the F&Ws is the final subject he deals with as a restorationist movement. It could lead the reader to believe that the F&Ws is the last restorationist movement in the world, that none have taken place in the last century, so therefore, if you're are interested in THE only and current restorationist movement, give them a call and get involved. Was that his intention? Or did he just run out of steam when he got to the F&Ws? The truth is, there have been and there are currently restorationist movements occurring in the 20th century and right now. Many home church movements are in process right now ( with unsalaried leaders), and the Christian movement in China is probably the largest of such movements in the world today. The book cover claims that the author is examining movements "from at least the fourth century to the present", but in reality he stops over 110 years, hardly "the present". Just saw this thread, and we are going out, but I'll quickly answer this with the very last paragraph in the book: "The contemporary (Irish) movement [ that would be f&w] would appear to be exceptional inasmuch as it had during a century of expansion into new lands and cultures evolved in its understanding of the apostolic faith while adhering to its first principles. However, even the assemblies of these Christians, in the context of expanding knowledge and global communication, may be threatened by hierarchical domination, increased wealth and materialism, cultural confrontations, and the inroads of conservative evangelical Protestant ideology. Will the spirit of the primitive church and concepts and practices of evangelical poverty, apostolic preaching, lay participation and the charitable community be dissipated once again? Will the apostles' doctrine and fellowship survive, or need to be restored again, in the twenty-first century?" Our destiny would not appear to be manifest according to Dr. Jaenen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2010 19:03:21 GMT -5
Yes, that's a very interesting paragraph what. It sounds rather ominous doesn't it?
It also infers confirmation of his belief that the F&W church is the one and only restorationist movement at this time, and for all of the 20th century for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 3, 2010 20:26:19 GMT -5
Some of Dr. Jaenen's footnotes have this notation and I dont know what it means. Can anyone explain? For example: #217 on Page 521 reads: PA-11-7 "The Work of God in Ireland in 1898," unpublished manuscript, May 1925. #218 same page: PA-11-7, Bright Words, September 1901 Best I can tell, he has not referred to either of these two document previously... so its not the same as an "ibid" On page 522 footnote # 219 he gives a different no.: PA-1-12 (to the unpublished Alfred Trotter Account) On page 530 footnote #226 refers to PA-2-26 (Geo Walkers let to SS/Gov) Does the PA+Nos. have anything to do with something being unpublished? Is it a reference no. to documents in his possession? Is it a Canadian "thing"? Cherie, the ?University of Victoria (Canada) Department of History Style Guide for the Preparation of Footnotes and Bibliographies" makes a provision for Archival Materials by which an author may refer in the first instance to, for example, "Personal Archives, Box 11, Section 7 (hereafter PA-11-7)...". If that's the style Jaenen used in his book, you would need to search for the very first usage of "PA" in its long form (e.g. Personal Archive, if that's what PA stands for), and there you should find the clue to what it really means. Source: web.uvic.ca/history/files/styleguide.pdf
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 3, 2010 22:16:44 GMT -5
Personally, I don't have any serious concerns with what is in the book. I don't see any glaring errors of fact. His downplaying of Irvine's role in the beginning is certainly worthy of argument but nothing major in the big picture. My biggest concern has nothing directly to do with his writing on the F&Ws. My concern is that the F&Ws is the final subject he deals with as a restorationist movement. It could lead the reader to believe that the F&Ws is the last restorationist movement in the world, that none have taken place in the last century, so therefore, if you're are interested in THE only and current restorationist movement, give them a call and get involved. Was that his intention? Or did he just run out of steam when he got to the F&Ws? The truth is, there have been and there are currently restorationist movements occurring in the 20th century and right now. Many home church movements are in process right now ( with unsalaried leaders), and the Christian movement in China is probably the largest of such movements in the world today. The book cover claims that the author is examining movements "from at least the fourth century to the present", but in reality he stops over 110 years, hardly "the present". Obviously, the "Contemporary [Irish] Restorationist Movement" is the climax of Jaenen's book, and it clearly reveals his agenda (to lead the reader to believe that his fellowship is the "consummate" restoration of the "original church.") But really, who is reading Jaenen's book anyway? Mostly 2x2s (the ones who are willing to look into historical matters at all) and critics... It will never be used as a textbook for any university course I am sure, unless for one that Jaenen himself teaches. I'm not sure why that is so "clear". Our movement is the most recent of the many movements he examines, and the movements are presented in chronological order. So, yes, we are 'it' right now. So what? Jaenen is a professor emeritus after a long and distinguished career. Your insinuation that he would use the classroom to push his religious beliefs is unwarranted and unfair. On what do you base that allegation?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 3, 2010 22:20:27 GMT -5
Yes, that's a very interesting paragraph what. It sounds rather ominous doesn't it? It also infers confirmation of his belief that the F&W church is the one and only restorationist movement at this time, and for all of the 20th century for that matter. The only other that would meet his criteria currently would be 'local churches' who are not covered in the book. Of course, many of the 19th century churches he covers are still quite active. Plymouth Brethren, various Stone-Campbell churches and Mennonites among others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2010 23:57:40 GMT -5
Yes, that's a very interesting paragraph what. It sounds rather ominous doesn't it? It also infers confirmation of his belief that the F&W church is the one and only restorationist movement at this time, and for all of the 20th century for that matter. The only other that would meet his criteria currently would be 'local churches' who are not covered in the book. Of course, many of the 19th century churches he covers are still quite active. Plymouth Brethren, various Stone-Campbell churches and Mennonites among others. Check out the book "Heavenly Man". It chronciles the Chinese Christian movement, largely spontaneous, house churches, unsalaried evangelists who have put up with far more pain and deprivation than even our early workers in the first decade of the 20th century. This movement is far larger than anything the 2x2 group has managed to come up with. There is also the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, 5-6000 congregations which consider themselves a restorationist movement beginning in the 1920's.....not a group to be ignored. There is the Christian Restoration Movement www.thecra.org/history.htm which became well established in the 20th century. There's others too. By leaving these other movements out, Jaenen is de facto proclaiming that the F&W are the "it" group. They aren't, and I doubt that a non-2x2 historian would have stopped with the F&W group. It's flat out bias without telling a single lie.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 4, 2010 12:02:20 GMT -5
The only other that would meet his criteria currently would be 'local churches' who are not covered in the book. Of course, many of the 19th century churches he covers are still quite active. Plymouth Brethren, various Stone-Campbell churches and Mennonites among others. Check out the book "Heavenly Man". It chronciles the Chinese Christian movement, largely spontaneous, house churches, unsalaried evangelists who have put up with far more pain and deprivation than even our early workers in the first decade of the 20th century. This movement is far larger than anything the 2x2 group has managed to come up with. There is also the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, 5-6000 congregations which consider themselves a restorationist movement beginning in the 1920's.....not a group to be ignored. There is the Christian Restoration Movement www.thecra.org/history.htm which became well established in the 20th century. There's others too. By leaving these other movements out, Jaenen is de facto proclaiming that the F&W are the "it" group. They aren't, and I doubt that a non-2x2 historian would have stopped with the F&W group. It's flat out bias without telling a single lie. I don't really agree with your conclusion. First of all 'de facto proclaiming' is an oxymoron, isn't it? You can have a 'de facto' or implied conclusion or you can 'proclaim' a conclusion, but it's difficult to do both. The Churches of Christ are out of the Stone-Campbell movement and are covered in the book. They precede the Irish restoration movement chronologically, back to early 19th century. Not sure where the 1920 date comes from, but they have split numerous times over the years. The 'local churches' I mentioned are a Chinese-based house church movement but they exist also in North America. True, Jaenen does not cover them. The house church movement in China is not necessarily and entirely Restorationist, but exists because of the church having to go underground. For example, an Anglican minister told me not long ago that they have many house churches in China. Apparently there are 90 million Christians in China (World Almanac). I believe there is somewhat of a pro-f&W bias in the book. However, I don't think Jaenen left anything out that he didn't know about. All the major Restorationist churches, i.e. the various Stone-Campbell churches and the Plymouth Brethren are there. But I have a strong feeling you haven't read the book. Finally, one very interesting historical footnote, is that one of the first missionaries into the Chinese interior in 1855, William Chalmers Burns, came from Kilsyth. Kilsyth is the birthplace and family home of one William Irvine. Burns went into China with a companion, Hudson Taylor, 2 and 2 style. www.revival-library.org/pensketches/revivalists/burnswc.htmlA couple of interesting sites I ran across today: www.watchword.org/www.revival-library.org/catalogues/indexcat.html
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 4, 2010 13:11:27 GMT -5
RE Book: "The Apostles' Doctrine and Fellowship: a documentary history of the early church and revisionist movements." By Cornelius J. Jaenen; Published in 2003 Legus Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario ISBN 1-894508-48-3
To what: I'm finished reading the introduction. I found it to be interesting and informative. Thank you for encouraging me to reread it. I enjoyed the read.
Anybody care to discuss Dr. J's book? It's virtues and failings? Inclusions, Points, Errors and Omissions, etc. What do you agree/disagree with? What do you like/dislike about it? As information, my purpose in inviting discussion about this book is not to put it down. I believe it has some positive significance.
What: would you care to restate your thoughts here about Dr J's book? They're buried somewhere on another thread...
The introduction to his book states it is a “…compilation of documents illustrating the nature of the early church, its later development, and finally attempts to restore what was conceived to be the primitive ideal, like all historical works, is a reconstruction of a segment of the past.” Dr Jaenen refers to his work/book as a "documentary history.” He states “This compilation of documents is in good measure a response to two clusters of questions which I have been asked on several occasions during my teaching career. The first query concerns the nature of the first century Christian church. What did the early Christians believe? How did they worship? What problems did they face? Were they different from the Jews or other religious groups of their day? What documentation is available to suggest the thesis that the early church was intended to serve as the model for a continuing church? “The second set of questions concerns the continuity of original Christianity. Has there been a continuation of the essentials of Christian belief and worship? Is it even possible to “continue in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship” in the 21st century? Were there sporadic or continuous efforts over the centuries to keep alive or revive the original tenets and practices of the first Christians?” It is a very interesting book, but I've not yet read the whole thing. The books consists of 3 distinct parts: Part 1 - a consideration of how the earch church functioned, its structure and doctrine. It's a fairly literalist interpretation of the NT but also other early Christian writers. Part 2 - how the main stream of the church deviated from the original practice. (I have not yet read this part). Part 3 - a look at various efforts or movements attempt to return or restore the practices and doctrines of the early church. A few people on this thread view the book as an apologia for the f&w, and to an extent this is true. At a minimum level, the book assumes buy-in to the "Restoration" principle: that the way the early NT church worked was a model established for all time. The more you believe that the NT is oriented only to principles and that specific practices pertain to that time only, the less compelling you will find the "Restoration" principle. But given that you do accept that principle, I feel this is a serious attempt to work forward from what Scripture and the early church fathers said and did, rather than simply justify what the f&w are doing today. I did find some points of departure from f&w current practices, although not surprisingly there is a great deal that 'fits'. I think the main objection to the "Restoration" principle is that it re-institutes legalism or literalism, based on the NT not the OT. The argument against that objection is that God did define an order to things, both in the OT and the NT. The problem of legalism is not in defining that order, per se, but in linking that order to salvation, and ignoring the redemption in Christ. Some people (non-Restoration Christians, in particular) will read this book and say, it's just pushing the f&W doctrine. That's too simplistic an attack. It just follows that if you follow the Restoration principle through, you'll end up with very similar results. And many f&W will not like this book either, because it attempts to work forward from basic principles. Rather than trying to simply justify everything the f&w do, I believe there is a serious attempt to look at everything the NT says about structure and doctrine, and to a lesser extent, what the early church fathers say. In looking at this, and at actual historicial events, the inevitable result is that other movements than our own have to be considered as legitimate in order to establish a succession. Many f&w will not want to go even that far.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 4, 2010 13:13:32 GMT -5
Yesterday at 23:30, CherieKropp wrote: Quote: ~~ From the church history which I have read and studied.... There has ALWAYS been Jesus New Testament apostolic ministry and church on the earth since the time of Jesus prior to the time of WI and the early workers decided to restore/retain/renew the same Jesus apostolic ministry and faith in 1899. 1) Cherie: So Nate, are you agreeing or disagreeing with what Dr. J said above? Yes, I agree to these parts which he wrote below:"I encourage you to read carefully, in short sections at a time or it becomes undigestable, "The Apostles' Doctrine and Fellowship..." that sets out from documents the nature of the early church [not always what restorationists have imagined] and a "chain of witnesses" of efforts over the centuries to restore, regain, reconstitute, renew, retain, etc. the original faith.... .... I have tried to formulate from the mediaeval documents the characteristics of such a spiritual people and tradition. "Hold fast the tradition you have been taught." Faith expresses itself in an ideal, a life-style, .... We are grateful that there has been this full restoration in our day, but our faith is not based on our organization or an unbroken lineage. We and what we believe is not the Way - Jesus is still THE WAY and He is THE TRUTH." ~~ Dr. J hasn't seen or read the information on my website so I disagree with his writings below: "... not always through a visible institution and hierarchy such as our fellowship at present since 1897.... ..... There was no unbroken consistent line of "workers" from the first century to our day [even the Roman Catholic succession is tenuous at times] but the Spirit was always working in the world to retain faith until Jesus returns. And so there were almost certainly "true believers" in every age and century somewhere but not in the sense of a constant visible community or fellowship." ~~ Workers? was Dr. J meant apostles from the First century to our day... I have The Vaudois teachings, belief, practices and others like them had a visible institution and hierarchy for 1800 yrs prior to the 2x2 New Testament apostolic church in 1899-1907.You have Jaenen's comments on an unbroken line of workers, but he does not rule out some kind of succession. I don't have the book here, but will try and edit this post later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2010 14:07:41 GMT -5
Check out the book "Heavenly Man". It chronciles the Chinese Christian movement, largely spontaneous, house churches, unsalaried evangelists who have put up with far more pain and deprivation than even our early workers in the first decade of the 20th century. This movement is far larger than anything the 2x2 group has managed to come up with. There is also the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, 5-6000 congregations which consider themselves a restorationist movement beginning in the 1920's.....not a group to be ignored. There is the Christian Restoration Movement www.thecra.org/history.htm which became well established in the 20th century. There's others too. By leaving these other movements out, Jaenen is de facto proclaiming that the F&W are the "it" group. They aren't, and I doubt that a non-2x2 historian would have stopped with the F&W group. It's flat out bias without telling a single lie. I don't really agree with your conclusion. First of all 'de facto proclaiming' is an oxymoron, isn't it? You can have a 'de facto' or implied conclusion or you can 'proclaim' a conclusion, but it's difficult to do both. The Churches of Christ are out of the Stone-Campbell movement and are covered in the book. They precede the Irish restoration movement chronologically, back to early 19th century. Not sure where the 1920 date comes from, but they have split numerous times over the years. The 'local churches' I mentioned are a Chinese-based house church movement but they exist also in North America. True, Jaenen does not cover them. The house church movement in China is not necessarily and entirely Restorationist, but exists because of the church having to go underground. For example, an Anglican minister told me not long ago that they have many house churches in China. Apparently there are 90 million Christians in China (World Almanac). I believe there is somewhat of a pro-f&W bias in the book. However, I don't think Jaenen left anything out that he didn't know about. All the major Restorationist churches, i.e. the various Stone-Campbell churches and the Plymouth Brethren are there. But I have a strong feeling you haven't read the book. A "de facto declaration" seems to me to be the best way to describe what seems to be going on. That is, silence can be a proclamation in fact even though not visible. For example, if you asked me a question and I didn't answer, my silence should tell you something. Similarly, by leaving out movements of the 20th century, Jaenen is telling us something: (1) there have been no restorationist movements since the 2x2 movement, or (2) there have been movements but none are legitimate or sufficiently worthy of comment, or (3) ?? The Independent Churches of Christ do not lay claim to any official connection with the Stone-Campbell movement even though many congregations are a break off from that movement and share many of the same practices. They began in 1926, have 5-6000 congregations and feel they are a "true" restorationist group. To ignore this significant group would be a bit like stopping at the Faith Mission and ignoring the 2x2 group. He covers Stone-Campbell reasonably well, but I can find no reference at all to the Independent Churches.......''non-denominational" btw. The Chinese movement seems to me to be the most significant movement to report on. The persecutorial conditions in China seem to mirror 1st century conditions so the Chinese movement, rather than trying to be a copycat/restorationist movement, it effectively IS the 1st century church by virtue of the conditions under which it has spontaneously combusted. I think DrJaenen missed out on a real biggie here. There are other smaller movements. 10 years ago or so, I came in contact with another House Church movement on a discussion list called The New Wineskin. I think if someone did a serious study of the anti-establishment restoration movements going on right now, there would be some very interesting information come out......all of which is missed or ignored by DrJaenen's book. I'm getting less impressed with his book as I write!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 4, 2010 14:23:32 GMT -5
The Chinese movement seems to me to be the most significant movement to report on. The persecutorial conditions in China seem to mirror 1st century conditions so the Chinese movement, rather than trying to be a copycat/restorationist movement, it effectively IS the 1st century church by virtue of the conditions under which it has spontaneously combusted. I think DrJaenen missed out on a real biggie here.Our church has a couple of missionaries there in China. When they and their kids were here on a home visit they shared pictures and stories with the church about how the Christians there are meeting in homes. That was some time back, and I shared it here on the board. These are people that suffer from beatings and other persecution when it is found out that they are Christians. The couple from our church have a business that takes them around the countryside and that is how they come in contact with and stay in contact with the Chinese Christians. Baptisms are done in a warehouse away from public view. Makes me pretty grateful for the religious freedoms that we have in other countries.... Scott
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 4, 2010 14:49:27 GMT -5
I don't really agree with your conclusion. First of all 'de facto proclaiming' is an oxymoron, isn't it? You can have a 'de facto' or implied conclusion or you can 'proclaim' a conclusion, but it's difficult to do both. The Churches of Christ are out of the Stone-Campbell movement and are covered in the book. They precede the Irish restoration movement chronologically, back to early 19th century. Not sure where the 1920 date comes from, but they have split numerous times over the years. The 'local churches' I mentioned are a Chinese-based house church movement but they exist also in North America. True, Jaenen does not cover them. The house church movement in China is not necessarily and entirely Restorationist, but exists because of the church having to go underground. For example, an Anglican minister told me not long ago that they have many house churches in China. Apparently there are 90 million Christians in China (World Almanac). I believe there is somewhat of a pro-f&W bias in the book. However, I don't think Jaenen left anything out that he didn't know about. All the major Restorationist churches, i.e. the various Stone-Campbell churches and the Plymouth Brethren are there. But I have a strong feeling you haven't read the book. A "de facto declaration" seems to me to be the best way to describe what seems to be going on. That is, silence can be a proclamation in fact even though not visible. For example, if you asked me a question and I didn't answer, my silence should tell you something. Similarly, by leaving out movements of the 20th century, Jaenen is telling us something: (1) there have been no restorationist movements since the 2x2 movement, or (2) there have been movements but none are legitimate or sufficiently worthy of comment, or (3) ?? The Independent Churches of Christ do not lay claim to any official connection with the Stone-Campbell movement even though many congregations are a break off from that movement and share many of the same practices. They began in 1926, have 5-6000 congregations and feel they are a "true" restorationist group. To ignore this significant group would be a bit like stopping at the Faith Mission and ignoring the 2x2 group. He covers Stone-Campbell reasonably well, but I can find no reference at all to the Independent Churches.......''non-denominational" btw. The Chinese movement seems to me to be the most significant movement to report on. The persecutorial conditions in China seem to mirror 1st century conditions so the Chinese movement, rather than trying to be a copycat/restorationist movement, it effectively IS the 1st century church by virtue of the conditions under which it has spontaneously combusted. I think DrJaenen missed out on a real biggie here. There are other smaller movements. 10 years ago or so, I came in contact with another House Church movement on a discussion list called The New Wineskin. I think if someone did a serious study of the anti-establishment restoration movements going on right now, there would be some very interesting information come out......all of which is missed or ignored by DrJaenen's book. I'm getting less impressed with his book as I write! As Cherie keeps reminding us, one should be careful with "arguments from silence". I accept what you're saying that some movements of recent vintage are missing, although many are not. As we are now playing a guessing game about the reasons for this, I would volunteer that a very strong clue can be found in the subtitle of the book, a documentary history of the early church and revisionist movements. Given that the book concerns history and that Jaenen is a historian, to tackle the subject of restoration movements today was somehow felt outside the scope of the book. It might be a myopic focus on history or a deliberate strategy; in any case I don't find it greatly troubling. If you feel that he is overlooking these groups because they would undermine his slant on f&w, then why didn't he leave out the other 20-30 movements? A study of contemporary movements would indeed be interesting, and sounds like you'd get another 500 page book out of it. And there are quite a few resources on-line. "The persecutorial conditions in China seem to mirror 1st century conditions so the Chinese movement, rather than trying to be a copycat/restorationist movement, it effectively IS the 1st century church by virtue of the conditions under which it has spontaneously combusted." I have to single out this statement as it seems to be quite a leap. To be 'restorationist' there has to exist an earnest intention to use the structure and practices of the early NT church as a literal model. Meeting in a house and suffering persecution are not sufficient. Jaenen takes 200 pages (at a guess) to describe and document the polity and doctrine of the NT church.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2010 15:41:49 GMT -5
What I'm saying about the Chinese movement is that is NOT restorationist per se, but it in essence IS the 1st century church because of the conditions under which it has flourished which are so similar to the 1st century conditions. By looking at the Chinese church for instance, we can see why there were house churches in the 1st century, no magnificent organizational structures, no denominations, no great hierarchy, etc. The organizational structure in China is just as minimalist as the Christian church was in its early days too (and just like the 2x2 church in its early days!)
As far as your argument that the book is not intended to be a study of contemporary movements, I beg to differ. The back cover of your book says "A final section of the book documents attempts within the mainstream and also in heretical movements, from at least the 4th century to the present, to retain, to reconstitute, or restore the original Christian model."
"The present", I presume, would include contemporary movements, but Dr Jaenen covers none, except those which started in the 19th century and continue to the present. He literally left out a whole century +. To me, it's an egregious omission which I cannot write off to ignorance or laziness, but rather a conscious decision.
The interesting thing in the cover commentary is that it says that he covers both "mainstream" and "heretical" movements. Does he really consider the F&W movement as mainstream, when we reject everything about mainstream Christianity?
I wish DrJaenen would join this conversation!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 4, 2010 15:54:29 GMT -5
I think I agreed about the "conscious decision" part, but not on the why. So let's say he did intentionally leave out contemporary movements. Why do you think he did?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 4, 2010 16:07:53 GMT -5
Me too, CD!
It seemed as if someone invited Dr. J to respond to the Wiki article - maybe someone could invite him to chime in here also??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2010 18:45:47 GMT -5
I think I agreed about the "conscious decision" part, but not on the why. So let's say he did intentionally leave out contemporary movements. Why do you think he did? It just goes back to my original speculation: that he wanted to leave readers with the impression that the F&W was the present "it" group. Of course, I would be happy to be corrected on that.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 4, 2010 19:54:59 GMT -5
I think I agreed about the "conscious decision" part, but not on the why. So let's say he did intentionally leave out contemporary movements. Why do you think he did? It just goes back to my original speculation: that he wanted to leave readers with the impression that the F&W was the present "it" group. Of course, I would be happy to be corrected on that. I think perhaps he did. And maybe they are, ever think of that? I mean if you accept the Restoration principle, and many do, we are the 'it' group, aren't we? I suggest, in a non-exclusive, "it is possible", kind of way. In some respects, it does not really matter which restoration groups Jaenen looks at. Fully 221 pages deal with NT church polity and doctrine. Then a further 180 pages deal with what he calls the "invented tradition", invented by the apologists after A.D. 167. This is where the Catholic church begins to depart significantly from the text of the NT and the apostolic fathers. Only the final 130 pages deal with "select" restoration movements over the years. This is NOT a work of comparative religion, rather it is primarily a historical analysis. The most obvious reason that Jaenen did not include: local churches, China and other contemporary churches is simply that he hasn't studied them and doesn't have the background to deal with them. If the book is biased towards the f&W then it is important to understand how that bias comes about. There's no doubt that f&w teaching is an influence on the first 221 pages of the book. I don't see that as a problem however. Detecting a bias is not refutation.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 4, 2010 21:20:07 GMT -5
I know Dr Jaenen personally and I have visited with him briefly about this book. His statement to me is that MANY people were expecting something from him in the book that they simply were not going to get -- and they'd be unhappy. And for people who believe it gives some evidence of a continuing 2x2 ministry from Bible times, he categorically denies that. He is not a theologian, he's a historian, and it would be inappropriate to try to read his book as though it were representative of a specific theological leaning. In any case, to think that Dr Jaenen will be using the book in a classroom is absurd -- he's retired. To think he intended to defend a bias is also absurd, considering where his professional integrity has placed him in the academic community. Obviously, the "Contemporary [Irish] Restorationist Movement" is the climax of Jaenen's book, and it clearly reveals his agenda (to lead the reader to believe that his fellowship is the "consummate" restoration of the "original church.") But really, who is reading Jaenen's book anyway? Mostly 2x2s (the ones who are willing to look into historical matters at all) and critics... It will never be used as a textbook for any university course I am sure, unless for one that Jaenen himself teaches. I'm not sure why that is so "clear". Our movement is the most recent of the many movements he examines, and the movements are presented in chronological order. So, yes, we are 'it' right now. So what? Jaenen is a professor emeritus after a long and distinguished career. Your insinuation that he would use the classroom to push his religious beliefs is unwarranted and unfair. On what do you base that allegation?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 4, 2010 21:23:29 GMT -5
I think the title of Jaenen's book should give some indivation of what you should NOT expect to find in the book. It is "a documentary history of the early church and revisionist movements." So if a group has not attempted to "revise" something, it's not going to be the most important group for discussion.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 4, 2010 21:57:27 GMT -5
I know Dr Jaenen personally and I have visited with him briefly about this book. His statement to me is that MANY people were expecting something from him in the book that they simply were not going to get -- and they'd be unhappy. And for people who believe it gives some evidence of a continuing 2x2 ministry from Bible times, he categorically denies that. He is not a theologian, he's a historian, and it would be inappropriate to try to read his book as though it were representative of a specific theological leaning. In any case, to think that Dr Jaenen will be using the book in a classroom is absurd -- he's retired. To think he intended to defend a bias is also absurd, considering where his professional integrity has placed him in the academic community. I'm not sure why that is so "clear". Our movement is the most recent of the many movements he examines, and the movements are presented in chronological order. So, yes, we are 'it' right now. So what? Jaenen is a professor emeritus after a long and distinguished career. Your insinuation that he would use the classroom to push his religious beliefs is unwarranted and unfair. On what do you base that allegation? That should help calm all the speculation and finding the silver bullet
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 4, 2010 22:19:56 GMT -5
Dr. Jaenen makes a misleading statement on page 530 in his book.
He writes, “William Irvine asserted, at one point, that he had personally founded the movement but it was a claim that was never admitted generally by the community. It was a claim resurrected almost a century later by detractors of the movement who sought to associate it with one particular individual.”
It is true that Irvine’s role was never generally admitted. What is misleading is Jaenen’s implication that the claim of Irvine’s role was not made by anyone until a century later.
That implication is untrue. The claim has been raised at various times by various people all through the years, but, as Jaenen says, it was “not generally admitted” and only a few knew about it.
It is also interesting that not once does he cite from the Impartial Reporter Newspaper, which reported extensively about the early Irish Go-Preacher conventions, leaders, speakers, founder, workers, etc.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 4, 2010 22:25:42 GMT -5
RE: bias
Like to mention that Dr. J does not claim to be unbiased and further, he states upfront in the Introduction on page 24:
"I cannot as a historian claim to be completely devoid of beliefs, some of which might qualify as bias, even prejudice."
He also says he "knows of no historians who have no beliefs and no cultural baggage and who could therefore write what lay people too often believe to be perfectly objective history."
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 5, 2010 8:20:44 GMT -5
It would be nice if you had a disclaimer like this Cherie.
|
|