In the King James Version, the word “art” is most associated with the past tense of the being verb, like “thou art.”  I say that tongue in cheek.  Then there is the word, “artificers” (1 Chronicles 29:5), which are craftsmen, men who create things with great skill, the “engraver” of Exodus 28:11 and the “carpenters” of 1 Chronicles 14:1.  God Himself is the Author of beautiful, creative works.  These are the works of His fingers — Psalm 8:3, “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained” — and His “handywork” (Psalm 19:1).  He is the Master Craftsman, Whose work is characterized as showing His beauty in its characteristics.

The aspiration for premodern art was God Himself, defining beauty as transcendent.  Therefore, God Himself was the standard for artists, looking toward His creation or nature as the model.  Whatever described the work of God should also explain the work of the artist.  God alone is Creator and man is an imitator.  God is of the Highest value and in Beauty (Psalm 27:4) because of the perfections of His attributes, His glory.  What He creates proceeds from Him as beautiful and He desires beauty from His creation.  The garments for Aaron as high priest were for “glory and for beauty” (Exodus 28:2).

Value is judgment proceeding from imagination.  The values correspond to the attributes of God.  The heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1).  God revealed Himself in what He made.  What God made is beautiful in that it reflects His nature.  The criteria for beauty begins with the qualities of God’s creation and these allow or cause the apprehension of beauty in the mind.

Before the Enlightenment and modernism, art correlated to objective measures of beauty, found in the words actuality, proportion, order, dimension, form, concord, unity, harmony, integrity, and clarity. These arise from the manifestation of God and His beauty in and through His creation, which is beautiful in that it reveals His beauty.  Men can know beauty based on their knowledge of God through His Word and creation.  Creation itself is a language that expresses the qualities of beauty.

Since we understand God in our imaginations, our values should accord with what is beautiful.  Using the guidelines God has revealed, we value what is highest.  We do not remain indifferent. The contemplation of beauty affects us so that we love what God loves and hate what He hates.  We be done with lesser things.

In the nineteenth century the definition of art was changed, or put another way, the idea of art was revised.  Most people don’t care, because it seems like a side issue to them.  As I have so often said, the art department of the university rests on the other end of the campus from science, the subjective side in contrast to the so-called objective sides.  Today, in many cases the science is so-called science and itself subjective, like the university considers its art.  One should wonder how critics could judge art to be better than any other, since subjectivity reigns.  Perhaps the only criteria is popularity or personal taste.  Roger Scruton summed up the perplexity in his book, Beauty: A Very Short Introduction, with the question, “If anything can count as art, what is the point or merit in achieving that label?”

Obviously “art” is an English word, and art itself existed previous to the English language.  However, how people have used the word reveals their understanding of its meaning.  Previous to 1800 the English regularly used the word “art” in such a phrase, “the art of” something, like “the art of poetry,” “the art of cookery,” “the art of swimming,” “the art of navigation,” or “the art of painting.” Described as such, one had achieved “art” when he had reached a high level of skill at whatever the particular performance.  In the 11-12th century, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, art was defined as “skill at doing anything as a result of knowledge and practice.”

Martin Archer Shee, a protege of Edmund Burke, was a portrait painter and ultimate president of the Royal Academy.  In 1809, he wrote Elements of Art, “including strictures on the state of the arts, criticism, patronage, and public taste,” where he described art:

The student reviews his progress, and proceeds with increased ardour–having ascended, through a course of preparatory studies, the prospect of Art begins to open before him, and he looks with confidence to the highest elevation of Taste.

The elevation of taste did not mean personal taste, but taste that corresponded to an objective standard. Someone developed the skill to reach an acceptable standard and elements that could be considered art. Elevating taste meant correlating what pleases you with what pleases God.  He says many other helpful statements, which mirror what Burke himself said in his, A Philsophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful.  Going back further than the English language, Aristotle in his Works said:

Pleasures are an impediment to the energy of prudence, and this in proportion to the delight which they afford; as is the case with venereal pleasure; for no one, when engaged in this pleasure, can intellectually perceive any thing.  Again, pleasure is not the offspring of art; though every thing which is good is the work of art.

In his prefix to Scottish poet James Thomson’s The Seasons, eighteenth century doctor and writer John Aikin writes in 1811:

When a work of art to masterly execution adds novelty of design, it demands not only a cursory admiration, but such a mature inquiry into the principles upon which it has been formed, as may determine how far it deserves to be received as a model for future attempts in the same walk. Originals are always rare productions. The performances of artists in general even of those who stand high in their respective classes are only imitations; which have more or less merit in proportion to the degree of skill and judgment with which they copy originals more or less excellent.

Modernism shifted from God to man as measure.  Art became a matter of personal taste. Value was not found in the object, but in the participant.  Art is now the experience of the viewer or hearer. With that, anything could be art, and it eliminated the objective standard, beauty in the eye of the beholder. Heidegger, agreeing with Hegel’s Death of Art, in his Epilogue to “The Origin of the Work of Art, described:

Aesthetics takes the work of art as an object, the object of aisthesis, of sensuous apprehension in the wide sense. Today we call this apprehension experience. The way in which man experiences art is supposed to give information about its nature. Experience is the source that is standard not only for art appreciation and enjoyment, but also for artistic creation. Everything is an experience. Yet perhaps experience is the element in which art dies.

The experience becomes the standard of judgment.  Did I feel anything and how did I feel?  Did I like it?

Postmodernism brings truth is your truth, goodness is your goodness, and beauty is your beauty, eliminating judgment or criticism, except as either a matter of personal taste or against intolerance of personal taste.  The best art is now popular.  It’s good because the most people like it.  They like it not because it is better, but because how it makes them feel, making them to feel like they want to feel.

Man is diminished by merely feeling like he wants to feel.  He should admire and be moved by what is best.  He should also shape his affections to God’s attributes.

The knowledge of God includes beauty.  God is beautiful.  The beauty of God is found in Himself, seen in the revelation of Himself in creation.  Man comprehends God in his imagination.

When men determine beauty on personal taste, understanding of beauty changes.  Something other than beauty is valued.  God is not comprehended.  Men love something other than God.  God is not worshiped.  Worship itself no longer conforms to God, but to popular culture.

Perhaps you are impressed with the founding fathers of the United States and their work on the Constitution. Perhaps you like that document and its outcome for the United States. The United States was no powerhouse when the Constitution was written. They became one with it.  We can’t chalk that up only to the Constitution, but it is a significant factor toward the success of the United States.

The founding fathers struggled to complete the Constitution.  It was a very difficult undertaking. The United States itself also wrestled to arrive at the quality of this founding charter in a strenuous ratification process.  The founders decided to make the constitution difficult to amend.  An entire article, Article V, lays out the mechanism.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

The Constitution, of course, was written by men.  It’s not divine in nature.  Nevertheless, the founders required monumental percentage of approval and accord to add, subtract, or revise.  For that reason, the United States Constitution has been amended only seventeen times since 1791 and the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

A change in the Constitution resulted from tremendous momentum and astounding assent.  The model for amendment was not a small cadre of scholars or noblesse taking matters into their own hands, deciding what is best for everyone.  Sixty-seven percent must agree a change is even necessary and then seventy-five percent must agree on the change.  This designed arrangement protected the nation from hasty innovation and experimentation.  It demanded exacting deliberation, not some impulse of the moment.

Even with the scarcity of change in the United States Constitution over almost 230 years, I don’t like some of the changes.  I don’t approve of them.  As a young adult, I talked to a couple of older men who were still living when the women were given the right to vote in 1920.  A very level-headed, intelligent and wise, godly pastor told me that the change in 1920 proceeded out of the instability following World War I.  The men from the war were barely back and informed, when this was kicked through.  You will find zero reference to a woman’s vote in the federalist and anti-federalist papers.

Much bad law has arisen from the wording of the fourteenth amendment, “equal protection of the laws,” often called the “equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.”  On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States found a right of same-sex marriage in the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution.  Many still see this decision as exceeding judicial authority. It shows, however, how that the wording of a change in 1868, even with a noble goal, brings ramifications in 2015, like some sort of time bomb.

Article V made the U.S. Constitution difficult to amend.  The requirements protected the Constitution and the people of the United States.  An authoritative document such as this was difficult to change, which is one characteristic of conservatism.  If we are to conserve what we have, change should be arduous.  The intricate system of constitutional change also reflects the foundational principle of the consent of the governed.  The people are more likely to keep a law that they believe is the law.  The people established the constitution.  It sprung from the consent of the governed.

Does the Bible come by consent of the governed?  The Bible is God’s Word, whether people like it or not.  However, God Himself used His people to canonize scripture, to agree what was in fact God’s Word.  The Constitution represented a view of natural law that people could consent to, guided by the law of God written in their hearts.  The Holy Spirit guided the church to the truth.  Our knowledge of sixty-six books comes from the consent of the governed, the Holy Spirit bearing witness in their hearts.

I contend that changes to the translation of scripture should come through a demanding, arduous, and exacting process among churches.  Many translations have emerged from incentives of profitability and niche marketing.  The Bible was the Bible, but as the separate books consolidated into One Book, this came by agreement of the churches.  A small group of men may have been motivated by concerns regarding the adequacy of the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts or by the clarity and accuracy of communication in the English translation, but amendment of scripture should come with great pause and solemnity, marked by widespread agreement.

Churches did not launch the glut of translations into English.  These arose almost exclusively from whatever concerns of a small group detached from church authority.  They were less serious about changing the Bible than our founding fathers were about changing the United States Constitution.

I weary of the talk of a new English translation of the Bible in a generation attached to this culture.  I don’t trust it.  I don’t trust the people calling for it.  I’d like to see some biblical conviction and obedience first.  Let’s be sure and certain.  This is the drive-through-window era, the selfie throng, who are lining up for their next cell phone iteration before the last one is out of its box.

Before we amend, churches who care should agree on an amendment process.  The King James Version itself unfolded from a painstaking carefulness.  If churches thought they needed an update or revision, that should start with the churches that trust and use the King James Version.  I’m not calling for it.  I don’t see any momentum to change.  If or since the Holy Spirit is involved in the KJV churches, this lack of desire either results from a quenching of or an alignment with the Holy Spirit. Assuming the latter, the lack of agreement should read as tell-tale.

I’m saying let’s take a cue from the founding fathers of the United States.  This is no ordinary country in the history of the world.  Today the people are messing it up.  The King James Version came from an extraordinary providence as well.  We should be thankful.  We shouldn’t want to mess it up either.

The term “nation” or “nations” occurs 481 times in the King James Version of the Bible.  The Hebrew term most translated “nation” is go’-ee (pronunciation), which is found 554 times in the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament.  The Greek term most translated “nation” is ethnos, which is found 164 times in the Greek textus receptus of the New Testament.  Those are a lot of usages, which present a lot of teaching about the concept of nation, to examine what God wills in the matter of nations.

We know God supported the idea or concept of nation, that He wanted at least a nation, because we read that in Genesis 12:2 with His promise to Abraham:  “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing.”  If nation was wrong, God would not have made Abraham and his descendants a great nation.

God will not just bless the nation Israel in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, but God will bless nations.  Later in Genesis 22:18 God promises again, “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.”  God wants to bless other nations beside Israel. He sent Jonah to Nineveh because He could bless Assyria even in the midst of the problems in that nation.  God sent His nation, Israel, into the nation Egypt as a means of protection.  Not only did God save Israel in Egypt, but he saved Egypt because of Israel through the leadership of Joseph.

Even before Abraham and the nation Israel, which God began, nations existed.  Genesis 10:5 reads, “By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.”  Same chapter, verse 20 states, “These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.”

Later, the Apostle Paul in teaching in Athens at Mars Hill, said to the people there about God’s will in Acts 17:26:  “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.”  God determined the bounds of the habitation of the nations.  God intended for there to be boundaries for nations.

Scripture actually makes up of borders and boundaries of people.  The Hebrew word gebul, which means border or boundary, is found 241 times in the Hebrew Masoretic of the Old Testament.  You see it used the first time in Genesis 10:19, which reads: “And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.”  The whole idea of not removing the ancient landmark is about protecting the boundaries of property, so that someone can’t rob someone else’s property by moving the boundary markers.

Today you see and hear about “doctors without borders” and “teachers without borders” and “lawyers without borders” and more.  I googled “without borders” and got 15,700,000 results.  Many today seem to like the idea of “without borders.”  They also like the thought every man doing that which is right in his own eyes.  It reminds me of Al Gore, busy violating campaign regulations on government property with his “no controlling legal authority” excuse.  Without borders, there is no controlling legal authority and an excuse for doing almost anything.

Boundaries and borders are biblical.  God wants boundaries and borders.  God separated people at the tower of Babel, because He knew they needed it.  I understand that people from all nations can be brought back together into the church, both Jew and Gentile, the Lord Jesus breaking down the middle wall of partition, but that is the church where the wall is broken down.  People from all nations will be in His kingdom.  Yet, Jesus is the door that brings sheep into a sheepfold, which implies walls of protection for His sheep.

The English word “wall” is found 179 times in the King James Version, but you also read “fence” or “fenced” (39 times).  Revelation 21 says that the New Jerusalem will have “a wall great and high” (21:12).  As much as Jesus breaks down certain walls, God actually builds a wall too.  The book of Nehemiah is a great story that centers much on the “rebuilding of the walls” of Jerusalem.  The idea of the watchman relates to someone watching to see if anyone is approaching the walls of the city.

The tabernacle or the temple was not a completely open concept.  You had to pass through various barriers to get to the final destination.  The further you got, the more exclusive and the greater the separation.  In the Old Testament, one person and only one time a year could enter into the holy of holies, completely surrounded by barriers that in certain ways was uninviting.

Why does God set boundaries?  Why does He have a sheepfold?  Why did He start a nation? Protection.  Conservation.  It’s why you have walls on a house, to protect the people and property, to mark boundaries.  A conservative conserves.  What is the geopolitical container by which he keeps what he conserves?  A nation.  At one time, it was the contents that we were mostly talking about.  Now we have to talk about the containers.  People want to remove the landmarks, the boundaries, and nothing will be conserved that way.  Even if you have a culture to protect, and maybe we don’t, you can’t protect it without borders, boundaries, and probably walls and fences.

Some reading this will squabble about definitions:  “we want patriotism, not nationalism.”  What are you patriotic about if you don’t have a nation?  We can talk “Americanism.”  America is the United States of America, which is a nation.  There is an alternative to globalism besides “anti-globalism.”

With the talk about borders and boundaries comes the talk of trade.  How does it relate?  One means of invasion and erasure of boundaries and borders comes through trade.  Globalism and corporatism are not patriotic or American.   Patriotic trade considers trade that benefits America, all of America, and not just the trade of American corporations.  The mission of American corporation is to make a profit for its shareholders.  That is not necessarily and anymore not usually in the best interests of the United States.  What is called “free trade,” that to some rings as a conservative value, is transnational corporatism.

You look at the stock market right now and corporations are making amazing profits, and yet the labor force participation is low.   Trade agreements benefit fewer and fewer.  They seem to benefit the few that contribute the most to a presidential campaign.  What is the sense of regulations in and on the United States, if a company can go elsewhere for cheap labor and less regulation?  It seems that free trade is trade without borders.

Weak immigration enforcement also brings profit to shareholders while bypassing laws of the land. Cheap labor comes by way of illegal immigration and the bill is passed on to the American taxpayer. Other nations lose incentive to change.  Multiple billions of dollars are sent every year to Mexico in tax free remittances.

I understand the argument that free trade allows American companies to sell their products to the rest of world, creating more jobs in this country.  Walmart can sell items from China for less, leaving poor people with more disposable income to spend on the higher end merchandise made in the United States.  Americans, however, know that something, much, with this is out of whack.  How can someone be free if one competitor is wearing a ball and chain around his ankle?  Free trade very often is also just a form of utopianism.  Financial ties bring everyone together.

In this age, God wants nations. They provide another means of slowing the advancement of sin in the world.  A nation can be among those which God blesses.

When I talk to most others about our church, I characterize it with the Lord Jesus Christ, His identity. We deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Jesus.  I might explain the Trinity.  I could talk about a Christian worldview, where God is separate from and not part of His creation.  The world has been ruined by sin, but redemption is found in Jesus Christ and our lives and future are wrapped up in Him.  God is loving, but He is also holy and just, and sin must be punished.  Jesus died for us.  We can’t be saved by works, but through faith in Christ.

Our church has unity around the truth.  We love God and we love our neighbor.  We want to obey the Great Commission, making disciples, true worshipers of God.  We are a congregational form of church government with authoritative, not authoritarian leadership, building up the people in the faith through careful exposition of scripture.  The pastor leads, feeds, and protects.  We are historic Baptists.  We believe in the sufficiency of the Word of God. Those are what characterize our church, how our church could be described.

In response to my first post of last week, entitled, “Reports of Revival in America,” someone wrote, who was critical of this one question, “Can we stop looking for revival across America?”  The critic thought that question or statement to be very, very bad, not good at all, terrible.  So the question follows, should believers be praying for revival?  And perhaps previous to that question, one must answer, what is revival?

For revival being such a big deal according to many for those in the church, the New Testament doesn’t once use the word “revival.”  Actually, the English word “revival” doesn’t occur once in the King James Version of the entire Bible.  If “revival” were so important for Christians, and something they should expect and be praying for, one would think, it seems, that it would appear in the Bible one time.

On the other hand, the English verb “revive” (revive, revived, and reviving) does appear in both the Old and New Testaments.  Here are the usages:

“Revive”

Nehemiah 4:2, And he spake before his brethren and the army of Samaria, and said, What do these feeble Jews? will they fortify themselves? will they sacrifice? will they make an end in a day? will they revive the stones out of the heaps of the rubbish which are burned?
Psalm 85:6, Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee?
Psalm 138:7, Though I walk in the midst of trouble, thou wilt revive me: thou shalt stretch forth thine hand against the wrath of mine enemies, and thy right hand shall save me.
Isaiah 57:15, For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
Hosea 6:2, After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
Hosea 14:7, They that dwell under his shadow shall return; they shall revive as the corn, and grow as the vine: the scent thereof shall be as the wine of Lebanon.
Habakkuk 3:2, O LORD, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid: O LORD, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known; in wrath remember mercy.

“Revived”

Genesis 45:27, And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them: and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their father revived:
Judges 15:19, But God clave an hollow place that was in the jaw, and there came water thereout; and when he had drunk, his spirit came again, and he revived: wherefore he called the name thereof Enhakkore, which is in Lehi unto this day.
1 Kings 17:22, And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.
2 Kings 13:21, And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.
Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Romans 14:9, For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

“Reviving”

Ezra 9:8-9, And now for a little space grace hath been shewed from the LORD our God, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a nail in his holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in our bondage.  For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem.

The only time any form of “revive occurs in the New Testament is in Romans 7:9 and Romans 14:9, the Greek word anazao, which means, “to come back to life.”  That Greek word is also found in Luke 15:24, 32 and Revelation 20:5.  Here are those usages:

Luke 15:24, For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
Luke 15:32, It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
Revelation 20:5, But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

The Hebrew word translated “revive and revived” is always the verb, hayah.  It is very common, found 357 times in the Old Testament, translated first “living” in Genesis 1:24, and then “beast” in Genesis 1:25 (living thing).  Sometimes it is translated “lived,” as in Genesis 5:3, “And Adam lived.”

In the few times the King James Version translates hayah, “revive,” it is found in each instance the piel, except for Isaiah 57:15, where it is in the hiphil.  The qal form of hayah translates “revived” in all four instances.  Hayah means “to be alive” in the qal, the piel is “to cause to be alive,” and the hiphil is “to cause to live.”

The two usages of “reviving,” both in Ezra 9:8-9 translate a different Hebrew term, mihyah.  It is not a very often used word, only eight times in the entire Old Testament, always a noun and in addition to “reviving” translated “preserve life,” “quick,” “sustenance,” “victuals,” and “recover” in those instances in the King James Version.

I want to look just at the English usages, because those are the ones from which the critics are receiving their doctrine.  The only times the word surely means something spiritual, whether “revive,” “revived,” or “reviving” are in Psalm 85:6, Isaiah 57:15, Habakkuk 3:2, Ezra 9:8-9.  Neither of the two in the New Testament are a spiritual reviving.  Two of the four in total are in prayers, both of course in the Old Testament.

First, of the two that are not prayers, God speaks in Isaiah 57:15 and promises that He will preserve the humble and contrite, as Matthew Henry writes,

He will give them reviving joys and hopes sufficient to counterbalance all the griefs and
fears that break their spirits. He dwells with them, and his presence is reviving.

Second, Ezra 9:8-9 do not use the same Hebrew word, as I referenced above.  Nonetheless, the “reviving” is encouragement from the Lord to keep going, despite their opposition to completing the task God has them to do as returning captives.  Neither these first and second examples correlate to the almost exclusive idea of revival especially promoted by revivalists.

The two classic “revival” texts, to which are most commonly referred, come from Psalm 85:6 and Habbakkuk 3:2.  They are both prayers, the former the request of God to revive people and the second to revive God’s work.  They are quoted above, but here are the two again:

Psalm 85:6, Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee?
Habakkuk 3:2, O LORD, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid: O LORD, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known; in wrath remember mercy.

It is important not to superimpose over these two usages what someone already thinks or perceives about revival.  The wording of Psalm 85:6 reads as lamenting a condition.  It is a request, but spoken in a negative way:  “Wilt thou not revive us again?”  Is this the state in which we will be left?  Do we have no hope?  It is not so much a prayer for revival as it is a prayer to be informed as to whether this present state is going to end.  Yes or no, are things going to end this way or are You going to give us some hope that would bring us joy in this desolation and discouragement?

Psalm 85 looks to have been written concerning an exilic or post-exilic Israel, who seemed herself to have been left for dead with no hope of future restoration either to the land or to her former state. Israel was under God’s wrath and was looking to be returned to her former condition. This psalm could allude to any period where Israel would be brought back to the place of God’s original intention for her.  No doubt, Israel’s poor state as a nation related to her faithless departure from following the Lord.  She suffered under God’s chastisement and she cried to God to return her to her former condition.

Israel had a basis for a prayer of restoration.  At the dedication of the temple, Solomon prayed to God in 2 Chronicles 6 for the right or privilege to pray to God during times of judgment or chastisement. He asked God if Israel could pray toward this temple with hope of restoration.  In answer to this prayer, God gave him the familiar promise of 2 Chronicles 7:14:  “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”  The United States of America does not have the same promise given to it.

Habbakuk 3:2 is similar except for the obvious.  Habbakuk does not pray for the reviving of the nation itself, but of God’s work.  If you consider the model prayer of Jesus in Matthew 6 and Luke 11, you read the request, “Thy will be done.”  If you replaced “will” with “work,” it would read, “Thy work be done.”  Men need and desire the work of God.  Israel was defined by the work of God. Without the work of God, she was nothing.  God had promised Israel a future, so Habbakuk had a biblical basis for praying it.  God’s desire for Israel was also Habbakuk’s desire.

I don’t see a New Testament equivalent to the above mentioned prayers in the Old Testament.  God gave certain promises to Israel and the psalmist and Habakkuk prayed according to those promises. God would return Israel to its former place.  God had promised.  They were requesting according to the will of God, which is what every believer should do when he prays, that is, pray for the will of God.

Believers should not be praying, like revivalists, for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit or that the Holy Spirit would come down and meet with them in a special way — those types of prayers.  They are praying for some event accompanied by some indication that something amazing is occurring, a quasi-sign of some sort.  Then they produce the cause for the effect with the music and the style of speaking.  This was nothing like the great awakening with Whitefield in the colonial period.

No one should pray for the Spirit to come, since He’s already here.  No one should pray for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, because He has already been poured out.  These are second blessing prayers.  These are Keswick prayers.  They are actually faithless prayers.  Why would someone pray for something that already occurred?  Why not just believe that it occurred?  They want more of these events, these signs, these occurrences as a validation.  They are seeking after signs.

God’s Word is powerful.  The Holy Spirit will work through God’s Word.  God has promised.  We should, like the apostles, pray for boldness in preaching the Word of God.  Pray for doors of opportunity.  Are these two prayers, boldness and opportunity, big events?  They are obedience to God.  We should look at obedience to God as a big enough event for us.  God is already working providentially all around and all over.  God’s power is immense and He wants us already to acknowledge it, not seek for more.

Instead of praying what the revivalists pray, believers should pray like what the Apostle Paul did for the church at Ephesus in Ephesians 3:16:  “that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man.”  Believers have all the power of the universe within them in the Person of the Holy Spirit.  However, there is still the struggle to sin that Paul reveals at the end of Romans 7.  Believers have the Holy Spirit, but they need to be strengthened by the Spirit in their struggle over sin.  Prayer is one of the ways they have that victory not to sin.  This is parallel with the request in the model prayer in Matthew 6:13 and Luke 11:4:  “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.”  This is a prayer believers ought to pray for themselves and for others.

To obey the Bible, I don’t know how a church isn’t an unaffiliated Baptist church.  Maybe churches that aren’t unaffiliated haven’t considered it, but if they did, they too would become unaffiliated if their concern was obedience to the Bible.  Before our church became an unaffiliated Baptist church, there was always conviction for me that we were doing something wrong.  We couldn’t obey all of scripture.  It was impossible.  I knew our church wasn’t right.  Once we became unaffiliated it brought great peace, and never was I happier, because we could obey all the Bible.When I write “unaffiliated,” do I mean “independent”?  I could answer “yes,” but I would know that was a wrong answer.  Before our church became unaffiliated, it was an independent Baptist church.  At that time, we could probably also be characterized as an independent, fundamental Baptist church.  I knew we were not truly independent.  I realized that very early on.  Churches that called themselves independent were not independent.  I didn’t know of one independent Baptist church that was actually independent.  Those churches are still called “independent,” but they aren’t independent.“Unaffiliated” is a title, but it also means something to me if I were to see that label.  What characterizes unaffiliated Baptists truly, as I see it, is that they are churches that fellowship with other churches of like faith and practice alone.  That’s what “unaffiliated” means.  When I say “fellowship,” I mean it in a technical sense, a biblical sense, as cooperation.  Our church cooperates only with churches, and only with churches of like faith and practice.   How can a church do that?Unaffiliated churches do not cooperate with mission board missionaries.  They do not cooperate with mission boards.  Independent Baptist churches are independent in a sense.  They are not in a convention or association of churches.  However, independent Baptist churches, I’ve noticed, still cooperate at least with mission boards, most often with parachurch Bible colleges or universities, and then with parachurch Christian camps.  Those associations disallow them to fellowship with churches of like faith and practice alone.I could break down for you the problems of mission board and these parachurch organizations, as well-intentioned as they might be, but that is not the primary purpose of this post.  For all the readers to understand what I was writing, they had to know what an unaffiliated Baptist church was, compared to an independent Baptist church.  One huge breath of fresh air, I had and have thought and witnessed about being unaffiliated, has been the absence of Baptist or fundamentalist politics too.In addition, I’m also not talking about what I believe it means to be a Baptist.  I’m glad to talk about that, but it isn’t what I’m writing about here.  In short, however, I see being Baptist to mean, distinguished by the marks of a historically biblical church.With everything that I have written so far, I would still only be an unaffiliated Baptist church.  It is still the only designation and practice for obedience to all of scripture.  However, just because one church calls itself unaffiliated doesn’t mean that our church will cooperate with it.  In my travels, I have noticed that sometimes the unaffiliated Baptist church is not the best church to visit or even be a member in a given area.  Unaffiliated Baptist churches I have begun to notice some problems that are a concern to me.  Even with saying that, our church could only be an unaffiliated Baptist church and our church could only fellowship with other unaffiliated Baptist churches.I’ve noticed four ways that unaffiliated Baptist churches cooperate.  I’m open to the possibility that there are more than four occurring.  One, an unaffiliated Baptist church will send out a missionary, and other unaffiliated Baptist churches will cooperate by sending support to the sending church in order to financially support that missionary.  That’s the main one.  Two, unaffiliated Baptist churches might do a project together, such as publish a book or a paper.  Three, unaffiliated Baptist church pastors will preach for each other, and something related to that is the unaffiliated preacher conference.  Individual unaffiliated Baptist churches invite in other unaffiliated Baptist pastors to preach for what is called a “preaching conference.”  Four, an unaffiliated Baptist church will invite certain other unaffiliated Baptist churches to cooperate in a camp or retreat.With quite some time now, maybe about fifteen years, to assess unaffiliated Baptist churches, I have some criticisms.  I’m going to use this post and perhaps one other to list what I see to be the problems for unaffiliated Baptist churches.What bothers me most right now about unaffiliated Baptist churches in general is what I see as an unsound list of primary distinguishing factors for unaffiliated Baptist churches.  I would love to be disabused of this perception.  However, I believe what I’m writing is true, while attempting not to broadbrush completely.  Let me explain.Like perhaps every other unaffiliated Baptist church, our church practices closed communion, is local only in ecclesiology, and uses the King James Version of the English Bible.  Maybe one other characteristic might be added to these three, but that one might be conservative dress standards.   It seems that if an unaffiliated Baptist church is marked by these three or four qualities, it passes as very acceptable to most unaffiliated Baptist churches.  Those four factors might be common, but they should not be the most notable distinctions at the shortcoming of other more significant ones.If a man preaches out of the King James Version, but he messes up most of what it says, that should be unacceptable.  What I’m saying is that your preaching should be what the King James Version actually says, not just be out of the KJV.  If a man preaches out of the King James Version, but he does not preach what the King James Version says, then it really doesn’t matter what version of the Bible he uses.  He’s messed up every possible version he could use.  Merely using the King James Version of the Bible should not insulate a man from rejection.  I’ll leave this criticism right there, but I could say it in a much harsher way.

For regular readers, I’ve started on certain series, that I think I will finish, especially speaking of the one, French Protestants and the Waldenses: The Church and the Text of the New Testament (parts one and deux).  I’ve definitely not come to a conclusion there.  There are a lot of subjects I’m wanting to cover, based on reading I’ve done, but I’m going to go to a continuation of a dealing with some sessions from the recent Shepherd’s Conference.

In one session, Phil Johnson reported that one evangelical preacher tried to attract interest by starting his sermon with a zipline to the platform and in another he began with the following disclaimer:

This is the seminar titled, Young, Restless, But Not Reformed.  They’ve asked me to evaluate the New Calvinism, and if you read that title and came to the session thinking that I’m going to deliver a scathing critique, you might be disappointed.  And I also noticed that a lot of the books that deal with the New Calvinism, and I’ve read several of them — almost all of them have quite a lot to say about music and worship styles — and so if you’re hoping that I’m going to say something either positive or critical about worship and music styles, I’m not.  I’ll leave that to others.  I really have enough to say without firing a salvo into the worship wars, but most of what I’m going to say is in the affirmative.

Johnson, the executive director of Grace to You, John MacArthur’s radio program, gave two of the sessions at the 2016 Shepherd’s Conference in Southern California.  His two addresses dealt with similar subject matter that concern him in evangelicalism.  In his previous general session, Johnson took the first five verses of 2 Corinthians 4 as a text, especially parking on v. 2, what he calls “a very potent one sentence manifesto in which defines how biblical preaching should be done.”  He continues:

[T]here is a lot of really bad advice offered to pastors these days.  Preachers are constantly being told that they need to spice up their preaching.  You can’t just explain the scriptures and expect people to obey, and just exhort them and rebuke them and — you can’t do that.  You have to add gimmicks and attention getters to your messages.  We actually have preachers nowadays who are so desperate to grab attention or impress young people that they will make their entrance into the pulpit on a zipline.  Seriously, look it up on youtube.  And it’s not just one guy.  This is apparently a thing.  I don’t know how much that costs either.  I didn’t even consider it.  I imagine it’s expensive.

I agree with Johnson’s assessment about using a zipline on Sunday in church for a sermon.  Johnson charges the zipline gimmick with the violation of Paul’s teaching, which says in the King James Version:

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

He quotes the English Standard Version, which reads:

We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

Johnson is sure enough to preach in this session that the Word of God is being subjugated to human cunning with these methods in preaching.  He next refers to the Purpose Driven Church by Rick Warren:

Rick Warren was telling us, “You cannot start with a biblical text.”  These were his words.  “You cannot start with a biblical text, expecting the unchurched to be fascinated by it.  You  must first capture their attention.”  And today that approach is regarded as received wisdom.

Johnson refers to Rick Warren as a bad example with a bad reason.  In the same book, Warren though wrote about choice of music in a church plant:

The style of music you choose to use in your services will be one of the most critical (and controversial) decisions you make in the life of your church. It may also be the most influential factor in determining who your church reaches for Christ and whether or not your church grows. You must match your music to the kind of people God wants your church to reach.

You’ve got preaching and you’ve got worship.  Phil Johnson is sure, very, very sure, that ziplining preachers violate 2 Corinthians 4:2.  I don’t see “zipline” in 2 Corinthians 4:2.  He won’t say anything critical about music styles or fire salvos into worship wars.

In 2010, Phil Johnson wrote the following:

Let me say this plainly: It is a sin to impose on others any “spiritual” standard that has no biblical basis. When God gave the law to Israel, He told them, “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you” (Deuteronomy 4:2). And, “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32). 

The same principle is repeated in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 4, Paul was rebuking the Corinthians for their sectarianism, saying “I am of Paul”; “I am of Apollos,” and so on. His rebuke to them includes these words in 1 Corinthians 4:6: “I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written.” 

That is a good guideline for how we should exercise our Christian liberty: Don’t go beyond what is written in Scripture. Don’t make rules to impose on others; don’t devise rituals and forms of worship that are not authorized; and don’t speak on such matters where God has been silent. That’s the whole principle of Sola Scriptura applied to Christian living. If we really believe Scripture is a sufficient rule for the Christian life, then we don’t have to add anything to it.

Something Nathan Busenitz, on staff with Johnson, wrote at Pulpit Magazine in 2008 about music parallels what Johnson wrote in 2010:

The Bible does not prescribe a particular style of music as being solely acceptable to God, nor does it condemn any particular styles. But it does contain principles that we can apply to any situation and ascertain what course of action will please God. . . .  Some churches and Christian schools teach that any music with a drumbeat or electric guitar is worldly and sinful. We do not do so at Grace Church because the Bible tells us “not to exceed what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). We cannot add to the Scripture without subtracting from its effectiveness in our lives. If we elevate personal preference and man-made tradition to the level of God’s Word (Mark 7:6-15), we risk entangling people in the bondage of legalism and diverting them from the true issues of sanctification (Romans 14:17).

I don’t see “ziplines” in scripture and yet Johnson’s application, according to him, does not violate sola scriptura.  In that case, he “does not “exceed what is written.'”  Take Busenitz’s first sentence and use “preaching” instead of “music.”

The Bible does not prescribe a particular style of preaching as being solely acceptable to God, nor does it condemn any particular styles.

Johnson and Busenitz both pervert the doctrine of sola scriptura.  The reason music can be judged is because of scripture.  Scripture does apply to music, sans lyrics.  Scripture does apply to style of preaching too.  Ziplines violate scripture, even though ziplines are not written in scripture.

Johnson sounds quite proud of himself for not firing a salvo into the worship wars and criticizing musical styles, but he squeezes every bit of rhetorical flourish and style to repudiate ziplines.  The impression one might take from the contrast is that worship is less important to Johnson and Busenitz than preaching.  They aren’t very picky about the worship God hears, but very picky about the preaching people hear.  People take a high priority.

Here’s my take.  Johnson defends John MacArthur’s preaching.  I applaud that.  Johnson defends the musical styles of his church.  He contradicts himself in doing so, but the common ground here is his defense of himself.  To do so, he and Busentiz and his church twist sola scriptura, pervert the meaning of 1 Corinthians 4:6 in its context, greatly harm the discernment of Christians, and offend God with their worship.

Phil Johnson and others have learned something that Rick Warren did before he wrote the Purpose Driven Church:  music is very important to numerical growth of a church.  No salvos will be fired on music — message to New Calvinists:  you’re safe with us.  It’s going to be risky, but they just have to cut down their ziplines and all will be well.  Rock and roll trap set stays; zipline goes.

Rock music violates numerous biblical passages.  This is not an arbitrary interpretation or application of God’s Word.  God hates rock music.  He doesn’t accept it as worship.

The experience of the rock music is the threshold through which victims enter the massive lie and fraud of the Charismatic movement.  It’s like someone said in 2013:

I’m convinced that the contemporary style of charismatic music is the entry point for Charismatic theology into churches.

Whoever said that seems like someone could and should judge styles.  Later he said:

The contemporary evangelical church has very little interest in theology and doctrine, so you’re going to have a tough sell. It’s about style. And style is the Trojan Horse that lets Charismatics in the church. Because once you let the music in, the movement follows. It all of a sudden becomes common. We sound like the Charismatics, sing like they do, have the same emotional feelings that they have. It’s a small step from doing the same music to buying into the movement. So the tough thing is you’re going back to a church that is thinking like that. It’s hard to make sound doctrine the issue when style is much more the interest of the leaders of the church.

At the same time, he said:

I would go so far as to say that evangelical noncharismatic churches are using music that is unacceptable to draw people in. They’re using the music of the world to suck people in as if somehow people would get saved through the music. The two have no connection. This is so close to what’s in a normal evangelical environment that it’s a very small step to getting sucked in, because the style is the same.

Those quotes come from John MacArthur at the Strange Fire Conference.   The New Calvinists won’t be judged for their music, even if it is a thoroughfare to Charismaticism, even if it is a pragmatic cunning, Finney-esque new measure, to lure people in to hear their Calvinistic expositional preaching.

You are who you worship.  Who you worship is how you worship.  People don’t know God as seen that they think He’s fine with rock music.  He isn’t.   This continues the mumbo jumbo of evangelicals.  How cunning.

Theodore Beza was the assistant to and the successor of John Calvin among the Protestants with a high view of the Word of God.  When I thought of French Protestantism, I thought of the history of Christianity in France and then Europe.  I thought of the relationship of the persecuted Protestants in France, the Huguenots, and the Waldenses.   Their Christianity cost them most highlighted by the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.  The 16th century is an amazing and colorful period in France and in many ways.  I want to explore them here.

In 1864, J. H. Merle D’Aubigne had published his The Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin. In volume three, he wrote the chapter, “The Waldenses Appear (1526 to October 1532).”  It’s public domain, so read this chapter below.  The origination of and then budding of this relationship means something — quite a bit.

On Friday, 12th July, Farel came from Morat to Grandson, where a quiet conference was to be held. Four disciples of the Gospel begged to receive the imposition of hands. Farel and his colleagues examined them, and, finding them fitted for the evangelical work, sent them to announce the Gospel in the neighbouring villages of Gy, Fy, Montagny, Noville, Bonvillars, St. Maurice, Champagne, and Concise. But the conference was to be occupied with more important business.

For two or three years past a strange report had circulated among the infant churches that were forming between the Alps and the Jura. They heard talk of christians who belonged to the Reformation without having ever been reformed. It was said that in some of the remote valleys of the Alps of Piedmont and Dauphiny, and in certain parts of Calabria, Apulia, Provence, Lorraine, and other countries, there were believers who for many centuries had resisted the pope and recognised no other authority than Holy Scripture. Some called them ‘Waldenses,’ others ‘poor men of Lyons,’ and others ‘Lutherans.’ The report of the victories of the Reformation having penetrated their valleys, these pious men had listened to them attentively; one of them in particular, Martin Gonin, pastor of Angrogne, was seriously moved by them. Being a man of decided and enterprising character, and ready to give his life for the Gospel, the pious barbe (the name given by the Waldenses to their pastors) had felt a lively desire to go and see closely what the Reformation was. This thought haunted him everywhere : whether he traversed the little glens which divided his valley, like a tree with its branches, or whether he followed the course of the torrent, or sat at the foot of the Alps of Cella, Vachera, and Infernet, Gonin sighed after Wittemberg and Luther.  At last he made up his mind; he departed in 1526, found his way to the reformers, and brought back into his valleys much good news and many pious books. From that time the Reformation was the chief topic of conversation among the barbes and shepherds of those mountains.

In 1530 many of them, threading the defiles of the Alps, arrived on the French slopes, and following the picturesque banks of the Durance, took their way to wards Merindol, where a synod of Waldensian christians had been convened. They walked on, animated with the liveliest joy; they had thought themselves alone, and in one day there had been born to them in Europe thousands of brethren who listened humbly to the Word of God, and made the pope tremble on his throne. . . . . They spoke of the Reformation, of Luther, and Melanchthon, and of the Swiss as they descended the rough mountain paths. When the synod was formed, they resolved to send a deputation to the evangelicals of Switzerland, to show them that the Waldensian doctrines were similar to those of the reformers, and to prevail upon the latter to give them the hand of fellowship. In consequence, two of them, George Morel and Peter Masson, set out for Basle.

On their arrival in that city, they asked for the house of Oecolampadius; they entered his study, and the old times, represented by these simple-minded worthy barbes, greeted the new times in the person of the amiable and steadfast reformer. The latter could not see these brave and rustic men standing before him and not feel an emotion of respect and sympathy. The Waldenses took from their bosoms the documents of their faith, ‘and presented them to the pious doctor.  ‘Turning away from Antichrist,’ said these papers, and Masson and Morel repeated the words, ‘we turn towards Christ. He is our life, our truth, our peace, our righteousness, our shepherd, our advocate, our victim, our high-priest, who died for the salvation of believers.  But alas! as smoke goeth before the fire, the temptation of Antichrist precedeth the glory.  In the time of the apostles Antichrist was but a child; he has now grown into a perfect man. He robs Christ of the merit of salvation, and ascribes it to his own works. He strips the Holy Ghost of the power of regeneration, and attributes it to his ceremonies. He leads the people to mass, a sad tissue of Jewish, pagan, and christian rites, and deprives them of the spiritual and sacramental manducation.  He hates, persecutes, accuses, robs, and kills the members of Jesus Christ.  He boasts of his length of life, of his monks, his virgins, his miracles, his fasts, and his vigils, and uses them as a cloak to hide his wickedness.  Nevertheless, the rebel is growing old and decreasing, and the Lord is killing the felon by the breath of his mouth.’ Oecolampadius admired the simplicity of their creed. He would not have liked a doctrine without life, or an apparent life without doctrine, but he found both in the Waldensian barbes.  ‘I thank God,’ he told them, ‘that he has called you to so great light.’

Ere long the doctors and faithful ones of Basle desired to see these men of the ancient times. Seated round the domestic hearth, the Waldenses narrated the sufferings of their fathers, and described their flocks scattered over the two slopes of the Alps.  ‘Some people,’ they said, ‘ascribe our origin to a wealthy citizen of Lyons, Peter de Vaux or Waldo, who, being at a banquet with his friends, saw one of them suddenly fall dead.  Moved and troubled in his conscience he prayed to Jesus, sold his goods, and began to preach and sent others to preach the Gospel everywhere.  But,’ added the barbes, ‘we descend from more ancient times, from the time when Constantine introducing the world into the Church, our fathers set themselves apart, or even from the time of the apostles.’

In the course of conversation, however, with these brethren, the christians of Basle noticed certain points of doctrine which did not seem conformable with evangelical truth, and a certain uneasiness succeeded to their former joy. Wishing to be enlightened, Oecolampadius addressed a few questions to the two barbes.  ‘All our ministers,’ they answered on the first point, ‘live in celibacy, and work at some honest trade.’  ‘Marriage, however,’ said Oecolampadius, ‘is a state very becoming to all true believers, and particularly to those who ought to be in all things ensamples to the flock. We also think,’ he continued, ‘that pastors ought not to devote to manual labour, as yours do, the time they could better employ in the study of scripture. The minister has many things to learn; God does not teach us miraculously and without labour; we must take pains in order to know.’

The barbes were at first a little confused at seeing that the elders had to learn of their juniors; however, they were humble and sincere men, and the Basle doctor having questioned them on the sacraments, they confessed that through weakness and fear they had their children baptised by Romish priests, and that they even communicated with them and some times attended mass. This unexpected avowal startled the meek Oecolampadius.  ‘What,’ said he, ‘has not Christ, the holy victim, fully satisfied the everlasting justice for us? Is there any need to offer other sacrifices after that of Golgotha? By saying Amen to the priests’ mass you deny the grace of Jesus Christ.’ Oecolampadius next spoke of the strength of man after the fall.  ‘We believe,’ said the barbes modestly, ‘that all men have some natural virtue, just as herbs, plants, and stones have.’  ‘We believe,’ said the reformer,’ that those who obey the commandments of God do so, not because they have more strength than others, but because of the great power of the Spirit of God which renews their will.’ ‘Ah,’ said the barbes, who did not feel themselves in harmony with the reformers on this point, ‘nothing troubles us weak people so much as what we have heard of Luther’s teaching relative to freewill and predestination. . . .  Our ignorance is the cause of our doubts: pray instruct us.’

The charitable Oecolampadius did not think the differences were such as ought to alienate him from the barbes.  ‘We must enlighten these christians,’ he said, ‘but above all things we must love them.’ Had they not the same Bible and the same Saviour as the children of the Reformation? Had they not preserved the essential truths of the faith from the primitive times?  Oecolampadius and his friends agitated by this reflection, gave their hands to the Waldensian deputation:  ‘Christ,’ said the pious doctor, ‘is in you as he is in us, and we love you as brethren.’

The two barbes left Basle and proceeded to Strasburg to confer with Bucer and Capito, after which they prepared to return to their valleys. As Peter Masson was of Burgundian origin, they determined to pass through Dijon, a journey not unattended with danger. It was said here and there in cloisters and in bishops’ palaces that the old heretics had come to an understanding with the new. The pious conversation of the two Waldensians having attracted the attention of certain inhabitants of Dijon, a clerical and fanatical city, they were thrown into prison. What shall they do? What, they ask, will become of the letters and instructions they are bearing to their coreligionists? One of them, Morel, the bearer of this precious trust, succeeded in escaping: Masson, who was left, paid for both; he was condemned, executed, and died with the peace of a believer.

When they saw only one of their deputation appear, the Waldenses comprehended the dangers to which the brethren had been exposed, and wept for Masson.  But the news of the reformers’ welcome spread great joy among them, in Provence, Dauphiny, in the valleys of the Alps, and even to Apulia and Calabria.  The observations, however, of Oecolampadius, and his demand for a stricter reform, were supported by some and rejected by others. The Waldensians determined therefore to take another step:  ‘Let us convoke a synod of all our churches,’ said they, ‘and invite the reformers to it.’

One July day in 1532, when Farel was at Grandson, as we have seen, in conference with other ministers, he was told that two individuals, whose foreign look indicated that they came from a distance, desired to speak with him. Two barbes, one from Calabria, named George, the other Martin Gonin, a Piedmontese, entered the room. After saluting the evangelicals in the name of their brethren, they told them that the demand that had been addressed to them to separate entirely from Rome had caused division among them.  ‘Come,’ they said to the ministers assembled at Grandson,’ come to the synod and explain your views on this important point. After that we must come to an understanding about the means of propagating over the world the doctrine of the Gospel which is common to both of us.’  No message could be more agreeable to Farel; and as these two points were continually occupying his thoughts, he determined to comply with the request of the Waldensian brethren. His fellow-countryman, the pious Saunier, wished to share his dangers.

The members of the conference and the evangelicals of Grandson gazed with respect upon these ancient witnesses of the truth, arriving among them from the farther slopes of the Alps and the extremity of Italy, where they would have had no idea of going to look for brethren. They crowded round them and gave them a welcome, overflowing with love for them as they thought of the long fidelity and cruel sufferings of their ancestors. They listened with interest to the story of the persecutions endured by their fathers, and the heroism with which the Waldenses had endured them. They were all ears when they were told how the barbes and their flocks were suddenly attacked by armed bands in their snowy mountains during the festival of Christmas in the year 1400; how men, women, and children had been compelled to flee over the rugged rocks, and how many of them had perished of cold and hunger, or had fallen by the sword.  In one place the bodies of fourscore little children were found frozen to death in the stiffened arms of their mothers who had died with them. . . .  In another place thousands of fugitives who had taken refuge in deep caverns (1488) had been suffocated by the fires which their cruel persecutors had kindled at the entrance of their hiding-place.  Would not the Reformation regard these martyrs as its precursors? Was it not a privilege for it thus to unite with the witnesses who had given glory to Jesus Christ since the first ages of the Church?

Some of the Swiss christians were alarmed at the idea of Farel’s journey.  In truth great dangers threatened the reformer. The martyrdom of Peter Masson, sacrificed two years before, had exasperated the Waldenses of Provence, and their lamentations had aroused the anger of their enemies. The bishops of Sisteron, Apt, and Cavaillon had taken counsel together and laid a remonstrance before the parliament of Aix, which had immediately ordered a raid to be made on the heretics:  the prisons were filled with Waldensians and Lutherans, real or pretended. Martin Gonin, one of the two Waldensian deputies, was in a subsequent journey arrested at Grenoble, put into a sack, and drowned in the Isere.  A similar fate might easily happen to Farel. Did not the country he would have to cross depend on the duke of Savoy, and had not Bellegarde and Challans laid hands on Bonivard in a country less favourable to ambuscades than that which Farel had to pass through? That mattered not: he did not hesitate. He will leave these quarters where the might of Berne protects him and pass through the midst of his enemies.  ‘There was in him the same zeal as in his Master,’ says an historian; ‘like the Saviour, he feared neither the hatred of the Pharisees, nor the cunning of Herod, nor the rage of the people.’ He made every preparation for his departure, and Saunier did the same.

Just as Farel was about to leave Switzerland, he received unpleasant tidings from France, and thus found himself solicited on both sides. He wrote to his fellow-countrymen one of those letters, so full of consolation and wisdom, which characterise our reformers.  ‘Men look fiercely at you,’ he said, ‘and threaten you, and lay heavy fines upon you; your friends turn their robes and become your enemies. . . . . .  All men distress you. . . . Observing all modesty, meekness, and friendship, persevering in holy prayers, living purely, and helping the poor, commit everything to the Father of mercies, by whose aid you will walk, strong and unwearied, in all truth.’

Towards the end of August, Farel and Saunier took leave of the brethren around them, got on their horses, and departed. Their course was enveloped in mystery:  they avoided the places where they might be known and traversed uninhabited districts. Having crossed the Alps and passed through Pignerol, they fixed their eyes, beaming with mournful interest, on the lonely places where almost inaccessible caverns, pierced in the rugged sides of the mountains, often formed the only temple of the Christians, and where every rock had a history of persecution and martyrdom. Their place of meeting was Angrogne, in the parish of the pious Martin Gonin. The two reformers quitted La Tour, and following the sinuosities of the torrent, and turning the precipices, they arrived at the foot of a magnificent forest, and then reached a vast plateau abounding in pastures : this was the Val d’Angrogne. They gazed upon the steep ranges of the Soirnan and Infernet, the pyramidal flanks of mount Vandalin, and the gentler slopes upon which stood the lowly hamlets of the valley. They found Waldenses here and there in the meadows and at the foot of the rocks; some were prepared’ to be a guard for the ministers of the good law;’ and all looked with astonishment and joy at the pastors who came from Switzerland.’  That one with the red beard and riding the white horse is Farel,’ said John Peyret of Angrogne, one of their escort, to his companions; ‘the other on the dark horse is Saunier.’ ‘There was also a third,’ add the eye-witnesses, ‘a tall man and rather lame:’  he may have been a Waldensian who had acted as a guide to the two deputies.  Other foreign Christians met in this remote valley of the Alps. There were some from the southern extremity of Italy, from Burgundy, Lorraine, Bohemia, and countries nearer home. There was also a certain number of persons of more distinguished appearance: the lords of Rive Noble, Mirandola, and Solaro had quitted their castles to take part in this Alpine council.  Clergy, senate, and people were thus assembled; and as no room could have held the number, it was resolved to meet in the open air. Gonin selected for this purpose the hamlet of Chanforans, where there is now only one solitary house. There, in a shady spot, on the side of the mountain, surrounded by an amphitheatre of rugged cliffs and distant peaks, the barbe had arranged the rude benches on which the members of this Christian assembly were to sit.

Two parties met there face to face. At the head of that which was unwilling to break entirely with the Roman Catholic Church were two barbes, Daniel of Valence and John of Molines, who struggled for the success of their system of accommodation and compliance. On the other hand Farel and Saunier supported the evangelical party, who had not such distinguished representatives as the traditional party, and proposed the definitive rejection of all semi-catholic doctrines and usages. Before the opening of the synod the two ministers, finding themselves surrounded by numbers of the brethren, both in their homes and under the shade of the trees where the assembly was to be held, had already explained to them the faith of the Reformation, and several of the Waldenses had exclaimed that it was the doctrine taught from father to son among them, and to which they were resolved to adhere. Yet the issue party was strong, and described the reformers as foreigners and innovators who had come there to alter their ancient doctrines. But Farel had good hopes, for he could appeal to Holy Scripture and even to the confessions of the Waldenses themselves.

On the 12th September the synod was opened ‘in the name of God.’  One party looked with favour on Farel and Saunier, the other on John of Molines and Daniel of Valence; but the majority appeared to be on the side of the Reformation. Farel rose and boldly broached the question:  he contended that there was no longer any ceremonial law, that no act of worship had any merit of itself, and that a multitude of feasts, dedications, rites, chants, and mechanical prayers was a great evil. He reminded them that Christian worship consists essentially in faith in the Gospel, in charity, and in the confession of Christ.’  God is a spirit,’ he said, ‘and divine worship should be performed in spirit and in truth.’  The two barbes strove in vain to oppose these views, the meeting testified their assent to them. Did not their confession reject ‘all feasts, vigils of saints, water called holy, the act of abstaining from flesh, and other like things invented by men?’  The worship in spirit was proclaimed. Farel, delighted at this first victory, desired to win another and perhaps more difficult one. He believed that it was by means of the doctrine of the natural power of man that popery took salvation out of the hands of God and put it into the hands of the priests:  ‘God,’ said he, ‘has elected before the foundation of the combat appeared doubtful;  for the semi-catholic the world all those who have been or who will be saved.  It is impossible for those who have been ordained to salvation not to be saved. Whosoever upholds free will, absolutely denies the grace of God.’  This was a point which Molines and his friend resisted with all their might.  But did not the Waldensian confessions recognise the impotency of man and the all-sufficiency of grace? Did not they call the denial of these things ‘the work of Antichrist?’  Farel moreover adduced proof from Scripture. The synod was at first in suspense, but finally decided that it recognised this article as ‘conformable with Holy Scripture.’

Certain questions of morality anxiously occupied the reformer. In his opinion the Romish Church had turned everything topsy-turvy, calling those works good which she prescribed though they had nothing good in them, and those bad which were in conformity with the will of God.’ There is no good work but that which God has commanded,’ said Farel, ‘and none bad but what He has forbidden.’  The assembly expressed their entire assent.

Then continuing the struggle, the firm evangelical doctor successively maintained that the true confession of a Christian is to confess to God alone;  that marriage is forbidden to no man, whatever his condition; that Scripture determines only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper ; that Christians may swear in God’s name and fill the office of magistrate; and finally, that they should lay aside their manual occupations on Sunday in order to have leisure to praise God, exercise charity, and listen to the truths of Scripture.  ‘Yes, that is it,’ said the delighted Waldenses, ‘ that is the doctrine of our fathers.’

Molines and Daniel of Valence did not, however, consider their cause lost. Ought not the fear of persecution to induce the Waldenses to persevere in certain dissimulations calculated to secure them from the inquisitive eyes of the enemies of the faith?  Nothing displeased the reformers so much as dissembling.’  Let us put off that paint,’ said Calvin, ‘by which the Gospel is disfigured, and let us not endeavour slavishly to please our adversaries; let us go boldly to work. If we permit compromises in some practices the whole doctrine will fall, and the building be thrown down.’  Farel thought as Calvin did. Perceiving this loophole for the two barbes, he urged the necessity of a frank confession of the truth.  The members of the assembly, pricked in their consciences by the remembrance of their former backslidings, bound themselves to take no part henceforward in any Romish superstition, and to recognise as their pastor no priest of the pope’s church.  ‘We will perform our worship,’ they said, ‘openly and publicly to give glory to God.’

The two barbes, who were no doubt sincere, became more eloquent. The moment was come that was to decide the future. In their opinion, by establishing new principles they cast discredit on the men who had hitherto directed the churches. No doubt it was culpable to take part in certain ceremonies with an unworthy object, but was it so when it was done for good ends?  To break entirely with the Catholic Church would render the existence of the Waldenses impossible, or at least would provoke hostilities which would reduce them completely to silence Farel replied with wonderful energy maintaining the rights of truth.  He showed them that every compromise with error is a lie. The purity of the doctrine he professed, his elevated thoughts, the ardent affection expressed by his voice, his gestures, and his looks, electrified the Waldenses, and poured into their souls the holy fire with which his own was burning. These witnesses of the middle ages called to mind how the children of Israel having adopted the customs of people alien to the covenant of God, wept abundantly and exclaimed: ‘We have trespassed against God!’  The Waldenses felt like them, and desired to make amends for their sins. They drew up a brief confession in 17 articles, in conformity with the resolutions that had been adopted, and then said:  ‘We adhere with one accord to the present declaration, and we pray God that, of his great charitv nothing may divide us henceforward, and that, even when separated from one another, we ‘may always remain united in the same spirit.’  Then they signed their names.

The agreement was not however universal.  During the six days’ discussion several barbes and laymen might have been seen standing apart, in some shady place, with gloomy air and uneasy look, talking together on the resolutions proposed to the synod.  At the moment when every one was affixing his signature to the confession, the two leaders withheld theirs, and withdrew from the assembly.

During the discussion, and even before it, Farel and Saunier had had several conversations and conferences with the Waldenses, in the course of which the barbes had displayed their old manuscripts, handed down from the twelfth century, as they said: the Noble Lesson, the Ancient Catechism, the Antichrist, the Purgatory, and others.  These writings bore the date of A.D. 1120, which probably was not disputed by Farel.  One line of the Noble Lesson seems to indicate this as the period when it was composed.  Since then, however, more recent dates have been assigned to the other writings, especially to the Antichrist, and even to the Noble Lesson.  In any case, however, these documents belong to a time anterior to the Reformation.  The Waldensians displayed with peculiar pride several manuscript copies of the Old and New Testament in the vulgar tongue.  ‘These books,’ they said, ‘were copied correctly by hand so long ago as to be beyond memory, and are to be seen in many families.’  Farel and Saunier had received and handled these writings with emotion; they had turned over the leaves, and ‘ marvelling at the heavenly favour accorded to so small a people,’ had rendered thanks to the Lord because the Bible had never been taken from them.

They did not stop there: Farel addressing the synod, represented to them that the copies being few in number they could only serve for a few persons:  ‘Ah!’ said he, ‘if there are so many sects and heresies, so much trouble and confusion now in the world, it all comes from ignorance of the Word of God. It would therefore be exceedingly necessary for the honour of God and the well-being of all christians who know the French language, and for the destruction of all doctrines repugnant to the truth, to translate the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek tongues into French.’

No proposal could be more welcome to the Waldenses; their existence was due to their love of Scripture, and all their treatises and poems celebrated it:

The Scriptures speak and we must believe.

Look at the Scriptures from beginning to end.

Thus spoke the Noble Lesson. They agreed ‘joyfully and with good heart to Farel’s demand, busying and exerting themselves to carry out the undertaking.’  The proposition was voted enthusiastically, and the delighted reformers looked with emotion and joy at this faithful and constant people, to whom God had entrusted for so many ages the ark of the new covenant, and who were now inspired with fresh zeal for his service.

The hour had come for them to separate.  John of Molines and Daniel of Valence went to Bohemia, and joined the Waldenses of that country; the pastors returned to their churches, the shepherds to their mountains, and the lords to their castles.  Farel mounted his white horse, Saunier his black one; they shook hands with the Waldenses who surrounded them, and descending from Angrogne to La Tour, bade adieu to the valleys.

Where should they go? What would be the next work undertaken by Farel ? . . . . Geneva had long occupied his thoughts, and as he crossed the Alps he had before him in spirit that city with its wants and its inhabitants, especially those who were beginning to ‘meditate on Jesus Christ.’  Already, before his departure for Italy, Farel had conceived the plan of stopping at Geneva on his return, and with that intent had even received from my lords of Berne some letters of introduction addressed to the leading Huguenots.  ‘I will go to them now,’ he said, ‘I will speak to them, even if there is nobody that will hear me.’

This idea, which never quitted him, was the beginning of the Reformation of Geneva.

D’Aubigne is a Swiss Protestant and might tend toward a Protestant bias, but you read his admission of the existence of a people, of churches, separate from Roman Catholicism, the Waldenses, who followed the Bible as their authority for faith and practice, with a history back before Constantine and the state church.  Here is a Protestant historian, (1) speaking of the perpetuity of a true church with biblical doctrine and practice separate from Roman Catholicism, (2) perpetuating a trail of blood, and (3) debunking English separatism for either landmark or spiritual kinship belief.

To Be Continued