The Church – Vita pastoralis

Semper Reformanda: The Origins of the Slogan and Its Meaning

Today is Reformation Day. Today we mark the occasion of Luther attaching his ninety-five theses in a letter he sent to Albert Archbishop of Mainz protesting the sale of indulgences that he had authorized throughout Germany. Earlier that year Luther had been disturbed by reports of local townspeople who had visited a nearby area to hear the indulgence preacher Tetzel and purchase indulgences from him. They reported to Luther that they were able to obtain forgiveness of sins without true contrition or amendment of life. This resulted in Luther poring over the issue for several months, composing his list of theses for academic disputation and conversing with various parties via letter. In the early fall of 1517, Luther composed his treatise on indulgences and then on October 31 attached the theses to the letter he sent to Albert. A printer in Basel got a hold of the theses, started printing them, and they went viral. Truly without Luther’s direct involvement, the theses spread all over Europe and became the spark for a much needed and long awaited reformation of the church.

One of the slogans closely associated with the 16th century Reformation is Semper reformanda. It also happens to be the title of this website. It is commonly accepted that this is a reformational slogan that distills and embodies the ideals of the Reformation. Some may even be under the impression that the Reformers themselves employed the term. However both Luther and Calvin opposed the notion of continual reformation, albeit for slightly different reasons. Luther firmly believed that the medieval world and life view was necessary for the proper ordering of government, church, and society and for the godly lives of individuals. Thus for him a total reformation was not in order, only on certain specific terms that he laid out in his writings and pursued in his ministry. Similarly, Calvin did not believe that continual reformation was a good thing. He believed that the church needed reform, but once the reform was completed, no further tweaking would be necessary.

Yet, we can’t say whether or not Calvin or Luther would have approved of the slogan because it did not exist in their day. There simply is no documentary evidence of the slogan existing until the nineteenth century.

This brings up several questions that bear answering: What are the origins of the slogan? Which version of the slogan (there are several)? What does the slogan mean? Lastly, given these things, is it a useful slogan for us to employ?

The Historical Origins of Semper Reformanda

The historical origins of the slogan are a bit murky. The earliest recorded use of the phrase with both the adverb “semper” and the future passive participle “reformanda” was by The Dutch theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper, who in 1892 used the phrase “ecclesia semper reformanda.” [1] Ten years earlier Herman Bavinck used the phrase, “Ecclesia Reformata et Reformanda,” which is close, but lacks the adverb “semper.” If we combine these two phrases, we can see how the fuller phrase “Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda” came to be.

To be sure, there are older usages of the words “reformata” and “reformanda” to refer to the church, but none that put the adverb and the future past participle together into one aphorism as Kuyper did. Some have placed the origins of the phrase with one Jocodus van Lodensteyn in 1678. However, while van Lodensteyn did use both verbs “reformata” and “reformanda” to refer to the church, it was not done so in a single aphorism and the adverb “semper” is absent. [2]

From Bavinck and Kuyper the phrase took on several different forms until it was popularized by Karl Barth in 1947 as “Ecclesia semper reformanda.” [3]

How then did we come to think of it as an ancient Reformed slogan? Well, certainly the notion of the church being reformed and reforming has been expressed since the 17th c., with Johannes Hoornbeecks in 1660 and Jocodus van Lodensteyn in 1678 being the prime examples. Indeed as far back as 1610, Friedrich Balduin of Wittenburg wrote “semper in Ecclesia opus esse Reformatione, quia semper occurrunt corruptelae morum et doctrinae.” [4] Indeed when Kuyper used the phrase in 1892 he seemed to think of it as an already established expression, perhaps due to the similar usages I’ve pointed out above. Yet the biggest reason why it is considered ancient seems to be the declaration by Peter Vogelsanger, editor of the journal Reformatia, that it was an “ancient formula.” [5] That mistake was repeated by no less of a scholar than Olaf Pedersen in 2007. So we see that the notion of an ancient origin for the slogan is rather persistent and difficult to weed out.

Which Version of the Slogan?

The ideas contained in this punchy Latin aphorism are so relevant and powerful that folks have continued to add to it and tweak it over the years. Anecdotally, I’ve seen the phrases, semper reformanda, ecclesia semper reformanda, ecclesia semper reformanda est, ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda, and ecclesia reformata semper reformanda, in addition to other variations on these four words that I’m sure have been tried. Further, I’ve seen the phrase secundum verbum Dei tacked on, no doubt in order to place limits on the extent and basis of the said reforming. I’m sure there are other variations. However, it is clear that the phrase we are working with (the canonical one, if you will) is ecclesia semper reformanda.

The Meaning of Ecclesia Semper Reformanda

Now that we have settled on a version of the slogan, what does it mean? The typical translation we hear is “always reforming,” but this is simplistic. “Reformanda” is a gerundive participle in the future tense and with passive voice. The participial aspect implies a continuous or progressive nature to the reform: the Church is reforming. The passive aspect adds a sense that someone or something is doing the reforming of the Church: the Church is being reformed. The future tense combined with the participle communicates the essential nature of the continuing reform: the Church must be being reformed. Lastly, the adverb “semper” adds a temporal modification to the reforming action: the Church always must be being reformed. That’s a bit clunky, but that’s how the phrase breaks down.

What of the other additions? “Reformata” seems to be an acknowledgment that we inhabit the Reformed church and that even though that word is in our name, the church still needs to be reformed. The sometimes addition of “secundum verbum Dei,” simply clarifies that any reforming must be according to God’s word and not according to some other standard. This is likely employed because some have used the slogan as impetus for moving past the teachings of the Scriptures. Neither of these additions is essential for the aphorism.

One last matter bears attention: who is doing the reforming? I’m sure many think of human agents doing the reform, but this seems not to fit with what Jesus himself has said about the Church in the Scriptures. In Matthew 16:8 he declares, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” teaching us that King Jesus is building the church. And in John he speaks of the help of the Holy Spirit, first in 14:26, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you,” and likewise in 15:26, “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.” Lastly, according to Revelation 2:1, King Jesus walks among the golden lampstands, actively governing the Church. Indeed, the head of the Church is Christ (1 Cor. 11:3, Eph. 4:15, 5:23). So it seems best to think of Jesus Christ himself, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, as the one who is reforming the Church.

**The Usefulness of Semper Reformanda as a Slogan**

Given all of this, is a neo-Latin aphorism something we should employ in reference to the Church? Interestingly, as Perisho points out, many of the first and second generation reformers rejected the idea of the need for continual reform. For them the church was Reformata: no future reforms necessary.

Yet the idea of Semper reformanda still has great appeal to many. What rationale can be given for the need for continual reformation in the church when our forefathers taught there was no need? In the process of researching this topic I found the writings of one of the earliest theologians to speak of the idea of Semper reformanda: an early 17th century German Lutheran named Friedrich Balduin of Wittenburg. [6] He was a doctor and professor of theology at Wittenberg (Luther’s university), and a church overseer. In 1610 he wrote a commentary on the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and in his comments on Malichi chapter one, he wrote this, “Admonemur nos hac inscriptione, semper in Ecclesia opus esse Reformatione, quia semper occurrunt corruptelae morum et doctrinae,” which I’ve translated: “We are admonished by this inscription, the work of Reformation in the Church is always needed, because the corruption of morals and doctrine there always occurs.” [7] Notice the reason for reform is not out of a need for continual tweaking of the faith, but because of the continual digression of morals and doctrine. He goes on to point out the various reformations in the scriptures as proof that the church will always be in need of reform– before the Babylonian captivity: Joash, Asa, Hosea, Hezekiah, Josiah; post captivity: Joshua and Zerubabel; the reformation Malachi was instituting in his prophecy; and the Great Reformer Jesus Christ who sought to reform the church in Jerusalem.

Balduin offers a fascinating observation that shows us that the church will always be in need of reform due to continued corruption of morals and doctrine. And if the Church in the time of the Bible always needed reformation, shouldn’t we expect that the Church in our time will need it as well? Reformed Christians believe that sin and corruption will remain in us until the return of Christ. Indeed, Luther’s first of the ninety-five theses was, “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent,” he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.” Applying this doctrine more broadly, I think Balduin gives us the answer: the Church always needs reforming because the Church is always deforming. In other words, due to the sin and corruption of its members, the entire life of the Church is to be one of repentance.

Semper Reformanda!

[1] This is pointed out in a library guide by Steve Perisho of Seattle Pacific University, who cited a book review in an obscure Dutch journal named Documentatieblad nadere reformatie. The review was by J. N. Mouthaan, and the book reviewed was Hermeneutica sacra: Studien zur Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, a book of essays. The specific essay reviewed was “Ecclesia semper reformanda,” Eine historische Aufklärung. Neue Bearbeitung,” by Theodor Mahlmann. Mahlman’s main thesis was that Karl Barth coined the term in 1947, but Mouthaan disproved that. See https://spu.libguides.com/DCL2017/Reformation#s-lg-box-wrapper-18675181.

[2] See Kevin De Young, “Semper Reformanda,” https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/semper-reformanda/, and W. Robert Godfrey, “Semper Reformanda in its Historical Context,” https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/semper-reformanda-its-historical-context.

[3] Karl Barth, “Die Botschaft von der freien Gnade Gottes,” Theologische Studien 23 (1947).

[4] “The work of Reformation in the Church is always needed, because the corruption of morals and doctrine there always occurs,” https://digitale.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/vd17/content/pageview/7332325.

[5] For the above examples and more, please see the excellent library guide compiled by Steve Perisho, Theology and Philosophy Librarian at Seattle Pacific University. He has done us all a great service with his compilation: https://spu.libguides.com/DCL2017/Reformation#s-lg-box-wrapper-18675181.

[6] See: Theodor Mahlmann, “Balduin, Friedrich”, in: Religion Past and Present. Consulted online on 31 October 2022 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1877-5888_rpp_SIM_01435> First published online: 2011. See also: https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/B/balduin-friedrich.html; and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Balduin.

[7] See: https://digitale.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/vd17/content/pageview/7332324.

Visit New Life Presbyterian Church for more articles and teaching from Tim LeCroy. New Life is a church worshiping in the beautiful Finger Lakes region of New York serving both the Cornell University and Ithaca College communities.

A Biblical and Confessional Case for Requiring Background Checks for Church Officers

At last year’s General Assembly, an overture requiring background checks for church officers was defeated in the Overtures Committee. I don’t recall many of the arguments stated in the course of debate, but one I do remember was when a pastor stood up and said that we didn’t need background checks because no one knows a pastor better than his elders.

As the DASA report points out, “perpetrators are masterful at deceit and manipulation.”^[1] In the report, we specifically tackled the myth of seemingly knowing a person:

7. I know him, and he couldn’t be an abuser!

Even specially trained individuals suggest it can be very difficult to identify an abuser in public settings. Image management is “used every day by abusers throughout the world.” Abusive people are very manipulative in their relationships. Deception is how they maintain power; therefore, they are well-versed at how to convince others of their innocence.^[2]

Again, I will continue to commend the DASA report for reading and study as we consider these weighty issues.

One argument against requiring background checks that I have seen recently is another version of the grassroots argument. You can read it here. Additionally there have been some pretty extensive debates on x.com under the #pcaga hashtag.

While I do recommend that you read the article and form your own opinion, I will summarize the central argument as this: background checks are good, but we shouldn’t require them because that would be requiring a church to spend money, which is a violation of BCO 25-10. While others on x.com have adequately refuted parts of this: BCO 25 is about real property, the BCO and RAO require other expenses like paying for officers to attend the meetings of Presbytery and GA and printing and binding your minutes for review, etc.

However, here I want to briefly deal with a Biblical and Confessional rationale for why we should require background checks for not only church officers (that’s a good start) but also for anyone who will be in direct contact with children on a regular basis.

A Biblical Argument for Background Checks

Let us begin with a key scriptural mandate. Deuteronomy 22:8 states, “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.” Building a parapet on the roof of your house is a reasonable protective measure. It will not prevent any and every possibility of a person falling from your roof, including someone intentionally trying to throw themselves off the roof, but it is required in scripture because it will save lives and it is a reasonable expense to undertake.

This is also true of background checks. Like parapets, there are different kinds of checks of varying quality and comprehensiveness. Some, like running a name through a state police database, may only cost $20. A full record search of federal, state, and local databases and court records may cost around $200. In the same way there are flimsy parapets and there are very sturdy well made ones that are harder to get over.

Background checks are also similar to parapets in that a background check, even the most comprehensive one, will not identify every predator. That’s because the person hasn’t been arrested and convicted, or, if they have, they’ve pled down to a lesser offense. Thus, a background check will not identify every predator, just like a parapet can’t stop everyone who is hellbent on throwing him or herself off a roof. Nevertheless, building a parapet is a biblical mandate because it is a reasonable expense to make in order to prevent some injury and death. We can reasonably apply this biblical principle to background checks, therefore I fully support an amendment to our BCO to require them for officers.

The Confessional Argument for Background Checks

Now onto the confessional mandate for background checks. We begin with our duties and sins forbidden as church leaders under the fifth commandment:

WLC 129 What is required of superiors towards their inferiors? A. It is required of superiors according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to… protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honour to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God hath put upon them.

WLC 130 What are the sins of superiors? A. The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them… careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonouring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behaviour.

It is our duty as leaders of the church, under the Fifth Commandment, to protect those under our care and not to carelessly expose them to danger. Not obtaining a comprehensive background check for anyone who is going to be in authority in the church is a violation of the Fifth Commandment, and thus it is completely appropriate for the Constitution of the PCA to require that expense.

Lastly, we will move to the Sixth Commandment.

WLC 135 What are the duties required in the sixth commandment? A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavours, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by… avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defence thereof against violence,… and protecting and defending the innocent.

WLC 136 What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are… the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life,… and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

I focus on the Sixth Commandment here because all forms of abuse essentially boil down to a violation of the commandment not to murder, as I discuss in the DASA Report.^[3] A further confessional mandate for requiring background checks for church officers is found under the duty to preserve life, by both avoiding practices that endanger life and acting to preserve it. Further, a willful neglect or withdrawal of lawful and necessary means of preserving life is a grave sin. A comprehensive criminal background check would absolutely prevent a known predator from doing more harm. If a known predator came to your church, a background check would enable you to identify him and take proper protective measures. It’s true, as I state above, that background checks will not catch every predator, but they will identify some of them and it is unconscionable not to use that tool to protect the flock of Jesus Christ from wolves intent to do them harm.

Because I do believe that neglect of this particular measure to protect life is a sin, I also believe that our Constitution should mandate background checks for church officers.

Postscript

I have heard some say that there are people who appear on sexual offender registries that are not predators. This is where I will put in a plug for one of the DASA Report’s items of advice to churches and presbyteries:

5. That competent third parties be engaged by Presbyteries, churches, and other PCA ministries when allegations of abuse arise.^[4]

If, in the course of obtaining a background check or running a name through a registered sex offender database, your church finds out that someone has been convicted of a crime related to abuse, and that person claims that it was a misunderstanding or youthful indiscretion, or whatever, you should never take that person at their word. There is too much at stake! You should then find someone who knows what they are doing (me, for example) and let them help you navigate the process of determining exactly what happened so you can make a better judgment and set good policy going forward. If it truly was that a guy mooned someone 20 years ago, that can obviously be forgiven and the person restored. But how will you know unless you look deeper into the matter? This is the moment to obtain police reports, sentencing statements, and charging documents. These will tell the fuller picture. Then get some help determining what your next step should be. With this information and assistance your Session or Presbytery can make the best possible decision in the interests of justice and protection of the flock of God.

^[1] M49GA, p. 1139. See also pp. 962, 964, 1007, 1009, 1047, 1053, 1061, 1062, 1082, 1105, 1116, 1139 1198, 1239, and 1247.

^[2] Ibid., p. 1221.

^[3] “The locus of many sinful behaviors falling under the heading of abuse is found in the sixth commandment,” M49GA, p. 974

^[4] Ibid., p. 951.

On the use of Police Reports in PCA Church Courts

In the debate over whether non-theists should be allowed to testify in PCA courts, one of the most common objections is that the change is unnecessary because police reports can be admitted into evidence.

This response reveals both an unfamiliarity with the DASA Report and a lack of experience in real life situations of investigating and adjudicating abuse in the courts of the church.

In this essay I will give six reasons why we cannot solely depend on police reports to provide the church with evidence in our judicial proceedings and thus why we should be willing to admit the testimony of any relevant and competent person.

I will be citing statistics detailed in the DASA report. As a person with a scientific background and a PhD in the humanities that demanded rigorous documentation of all my claims and sources, I personally tracked down the source of every statistic and searched for many others that further demonstrated the claims we were making in that report. The DASA report provides documentation and links, most of which cite peer reviewed academic journals or the studies of government agencies. If there was a claim that I could not find a solid source for, it was not included in the DASA report.

1. The vast majority of assaults go unreported to police.

The DASA report points out that only 310 out of every 1,000 (that’s 31%) of sexual assaults are ever reported to police.^[1] According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, only 37% of rapes are ever reported to police.^[2] The same fact sheet states that only 12% of child sexual assaults are reported to police.^[3]

This means that somewhere between 63% and 69% of sexual assaults do not have police reports. 88% of child sexual assaults do not have police reports. For the vast majority of sexual assaults, police reports simply do not exist. We cannot depend solely on the existence of police reports in the investigation and adjudication of abuse claims in the church courts.

Somewhere between 63% and 69% of sexual assaults do not have police reports. 88% of child sexual assaults do not have police reports. For the vast majority of sexual assaults, police reports simply do not exist.

2. Police reports are difficult to obtain.

In my practical experience the police are not enthusiastic to support a church investigation or judicial proceeding. Even when a police report exists, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain. In order to obtain a police report a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request will likely have to be made, even for the reporting victim to obtain the report. I am highly skeptical of the willingness of police officers or district attorneys to hand over evidence or serve as witnesses in a church judicial proceeding. This is especially so in areas of our country that have a higher non-Christian population who are becoming more and more suspicious of the church.

3. Assaults reported to police rarely end in conviction or go to trial.

As detailed in the DASA Report, assaults reported to the police rarely result in any meaningful justice for the victim, “Statistically, 50 out of 310 sexual assaults reported to law enforcement result in criminal charges. Approximately 25 will result in conviction and jail time. One study concluded that only ‘1.6% of all complaints ended in a trial.’ Of the many studies, it is clear that statistically a sexual assault case is not likely to make it to trial.”^[4]

To state this more plainly: only 5% of sexual assaults will ever result in criminal charges. Only 2.5% will ever result in a criminal conviction. Because many of these are plea deals, only 1.6% of sexual assaults ever make it to trial.

Combine this with the fact that false reports of sexual assault fall in the range of 2%-8% and you have an enormous miscarriage of justice in our country.^[5] If the offender is a church member, or especially a church leader, it is incumbent on the courts of the church to be able to hold the offender accountable and to protect victims even when the secular authorities do not.

Only 5% of sexual assaults will ever result in criminal charges. Only 2.5% will ever result in a criminal conviction. Because many of these are plea deals, only 1.6% of sexual assaults ever make it to trial.

4. Police reports have not been adjudicated by judge or jury.

The information in a police report is the opinion of one or several arresting officers. While the witness claims made within it are usually made with under the penalty of perjury, the veracity of the police report has not been adjudicated by a judge or jury. As pointed out above, only 1.6% of sexual assaults ever make it to trial. Only 8% of police reports result in criminal convictions, meaning that a judge or jury has substantiated the report or that the defendant has pleaded guilty.^[6] That means that 92% of police reports lack any external verification beyond the opinion of the arresting officer and the threat of perjury.

The point is this, police reports do not give any official determination of the veracity of the claim. If I were the defense representative in a church court proceeding I would vigorously point out the weakness of such evidence.

5. Police reports cannot be cross examined.

Building on point six, even if a police report exists, how will the defense be able cross examine such a report? BCO chapter 35 on evidence does not envision a piece of paper alone serving as evidence to an offense. That chapter is entirely predicated on witnesses, meaning people. BCO 35-7 gives the right of the defense to cross examine a witness. How will the defense cross examine a police report? If the report is entered into evidence via another witness- a member of the church investigative committee, for example- how will that cross examination proceed? It could only proceed along the lines of how he obtained the report and so on. Again, if I were the defense representative in such a proceeding, I would vigorously protest that I do not get to cross examine the police officer who made the report!

Further, what if the police officer that made the report is a non-theist? How will I know if I cannot cross-examine him? Doesn’t that get us back in the same situation we started in? It would be better just to be able to call any competent witness and allow the court to judge his or her credibility as BCO 35-5 states.

6. Church courts prosecute offenses that the secular authorities do not prosecute.

The last reason I will present for not solely depending on police reports is this: secular authorities do not prosecute all the matters that the church court is called to prosecute. Because of our moral teachings, laid out in the exposition of the Ten Commandments in the Larger Catechism, there are a whole host of offenses that are not considered criminal in the legal codes of most civil jurisdictions. For example, the secular authorities would not currently prosecute someone for adultery or possession of pornography because these offenses are not currently crimes. As a result, no police report would exist for these offenses.

Now imagine that an unbelieving neighbor witnesses a husband repeatedly berating his wife and children. The neighbor could serve as a corroborating witness to the testimony of the wife as stipulated by BCO 35-4. But during the preparation for trial, the neighbor says that she cannot take the oath in good conscience because she does not believe in God or the existence of Hell. Since the secular authorities are highly unlikely to criminally prosecute verbal and psychological abuse, no police report will exist. How is the church court to proceed? What if the wife wants a divorce, how will the church court decide the matter in absence of a theist to testify? Surely you can see the conundrum here.

Conclusion: Non-theists with relevant information should be allowed to testify in PCA courts

BCO 35-5 states that the court must judge the credibility of any witness. Why not allow any competent witness with relevant information testify and allow each court to judge his or her credibility? I struggle to see the problem here.

Some have characterized this issue as “Admitting Atheists to Church Courts.” This is a highly prejudicial summary, which makes it sound like atheists will be granted standing in church courts to make complaints or file charges. This is not what is being proposed. Instead, we are asking that non-theists be allowed to offer eyewitness testimony when they are called by an officer of the court, their credibility to be judged by that court. If such a person were to be caught in a lie in that proceeding, the non-theist could be sued in civil court for defamation. Furthermore, God will hold that person accountable for their lies at the Final Judgment whether that person believes in God or not.

What about the following scenario? A young woman is raped by a church member, and in the course of her treatment in the hospital consents to a rape kit being performed by the ER nurse. Later, for some reason, the young woman decides not to file criminal charges against her rapist.^[7] However, because she is encouraged to do so by a fellow church member that she opened up to about the rape, she discloses the offense to her pastor. There are no other witnesses and the accused church member claims the encounter was consensual. The only other evidence is the rape kit and the ER nurse who performed it. The same problems stated above for police reports now exist: how can the report be entered into evidence, even if it can be obtained? How can the report be cross-examined? Let’s say that the ER nurse is willing to testify, however when being prepared by the prosecution she discloses that she cannot in good conscience take the oath because she does not believe in God or the existence of hell. Where do we go from there?

In absence of any judicial action by the church, the rapist cannot be expelled from membership or the church building. Where does that leave the victim? She must either continue to attend worship with her rapist, causing her to be repeatedly retraumatized by her rapist, or she must leave for another church. The Christ-honoring result should be that the rapist is excommunicated, he is expelled from the church building, and the victim is surrounded with love and support by her pastor, elders, and fellow church members.

Here is another scenario, which sadly occurs all too often today. Let’s say that a young woman is repeatedly assaulted by a church leader; and the trauma of her abuse- and the church’s lack of response to it- results in her losing her trust in God such that she declares herself to be an atheist. Let’s say another victim of that same leader surfaces, who still has standing in the church courts and wants to take the case to trial. The testimony of the first victim could offer corroborating evidence of the second victim. Yet, because she is an avowed atheist- as a result of her horrific abuse mind you- she cannot testify in a PCA judicial proceeding.

Anyone who is willing to be imaginative can continue to come up with a host of likely scenarios where it would be legitimate and necessary for a church court to admit the testimony of a non-theist.

Let us not wait for a horrible instance like these to occur before making the needed changes. Let us be proactive in protecting the sheep of the church and holding the wolves accountable.

^[1] M49GA, p. 1120. Clicking on the link in footnote 190 will take you to the fact page: https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system.

^[2] The NSVRC was cited in the DASA report, but not this particular fact sheet. The fact sheet is well documented with reputable studies supporting their figures. “Statistics about sexual violence,” National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2015, accessed here: https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf.

^[3] Ibid.

^[4] M49GA, p. 1120. There are a multitude of reasons why factual accusations of sexual assault do not make it to trial due to prosecutor discretion. As stated below in note 5, only 2%-8% of sexual assault claims are false.

^[5] M49GA, p. 1220, footnote 272.

^[6] Doing the math from the above statistic, 25 out of 310 police reports resulting in conviction comes out to 8% of police reports.

^[7] A Department of Justice study found the following reasons why victims did not report sexual assault: 20% feared retaliation, 13% believed the police would not do anything to help, 13% believed it was a personal matter, 8% reported to a different official, 8% believed it was not important enough to report, 7% did not want to get the perpetrator in trouble, 2% believed the police could not do anything to help, 30% gave another reason, or did not cite one reason. See “The Criminal Justice System: Statistics,” RAINN, accessed at https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system, footnote 5.

Five Misconceptions of Reformation Day

For many people the date October 31 is significant not only for being the Eve of All Saints (All Hallows Eve, Halloween) but as a commemoration of the day in 1517 when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenburg. These theses were a list of arguments against the abuses of the papacy as it was in the early 16th century, largely centering on the sale of indulgences by the Roman Church. The 95 theses were quickly copied and distributed with the emerging printing press, and soon became a manifesto of sorts for the reform of the church in Europe.

There is a lot of interest in the Reformation and Luther this time of year. Along with this interest and discussion comes several of the myths or misconceptions about the Reformation that have been perpetuated over the years.

As a historical theologian I am not only interested in these misconceptions for accuracy’s sake (though I do care about accuracy) but also because I believe that holding to faulty conceptions about the Reformation does harm to the actual intentions and aims of the Protestant Reformers. For this reason, I am going to briefly address 5 of these misconceptions and discuss why correcting them is important.

That Nailing the 95 Theses to the Church Door Was an Act of Protest

We have likely seen the images. The defiant young Luther in his billowing monastic robes, brandishing his hammer, brazenly nailing his protest to the door of the institution that he was fed up with. But this isn’t what happened. By late 1517 Luther certainly had issues with the Church, and especially with the sale of indulgences that was being preached in German lands by Tetzel, but his theology of justification was not yet fully formed and he had no intention yet of starting off a firestorm of reformation. What he did want to do was start a local theological reform emanating from the university he taught at along the lines of what he was reading in the writings of Augustine. So when he nailed his theses to the door, he was instigating a formal academic theological discussion, or disputatio (disputation). He nailed it to the door of the church because that’s where you put notices. It was like a bulletin board. He was calling for an academic exercise, not necessarily trying to kick off a widespread church reform, even if God eventually used it for that end.

Why does this matter? For one it helps us to see just how hungry the entire continent was for reform. Luther’s theses happened to hit a nerve. They went viral. But often, just like today, things go viral that we wouldn’t expect or could foresee. Who would think that a syllabus posted on an academic bulletin board would be what God would use to start the reform? But that’s what happened. It wasn’t the first university that God used to reform the church, and it wouldn’t be the last.

2. That the Reformation Commenced Immediately After the Nailing

First of all, the Reformation was already underway! Zwingli had already been preaching the gospel and reforming the church for several years before he heard of Luther. And for Luther, it would take 3 or 4 years before his ideas were fully formed and he started calling for widespread reform in his writings and subsequently began receiving condemnation for them by papal opponents. No one woke up on All Saints Day in 1517 thinking that the Reformation had started. One could argue that a more significant date for the beginning of the Reformation would be the Diet of Worms in 1521 and Luther’s subsequent exile. Before that, things were largely academic. After the Diet, things got real. But whatever moment we choose, the nailing of the theses has been invested with meaning well beyond warrant.

Why does this matter? It matters for a number of reasons. First of all, it leads us to discount the reforming movements that were started by earlier leaders like John Wycliffe (14th c.) and Jan Hus (15th c.). It also leads us to neglect the fact that the Reformation was a widespread grassroots movement that would have likely happened independent of Luther. Furthermore, Luther’s ideas were not even fully formed in 1517, as you can see for yourself by reading his early treatises on the sacraments. The real call for reform by Luther begins in 1520 and takes off in 1521 after his exile. Before this, not much reform had really taken place. Liturgical reforms didn’t take place until 1523. Luther was still living as a monk in 1524, and didn’t marry until 1525. Zwingli had already beaten him to that by a year.

3. That Luther Was the First Reformer

I’ve kind of already busted this myth. Luther was not the first or only reformer of the Church. Reform has always been a key element of church life going well back to the first millennium. Ambrose (4th c.) and Augustine (5th c.) were reformers. Benedict (6th c.) and Gregory the Great (7th c.) were reformers. The Carolingians (8th-9th c.) were reformers. Bernard of Clairvaux (12th c.) was a reformer. Gregory VII (11th c.) , Innocent III (13th c.) and St. Francis of Assisi (13th c.) were all reformers. They all faced significant issues in the Church that need to change and they addressed them through a combination of moral, missional, theological, and ecclesiological reforms.

But even closer to the time of Luther, he wasn’t the first or only. John Wycliffe had been writing about similar issues in England from the 14th century. Jan Hus had a very similiar program of reform in Prague in the 15th century. Ulrich Zwingli was already at work in the Swiss Churches and Martin Bucer in the Western German churches. Luther stands in as one of these great reformers, and while the most influential and important, he was by no means the first or the only.

Why does this matter? Again, we do ourselves a disservice in our appreciation and study of the Reformation if we do not also heed the events and theologies of the other reformers. Luther was building on Augustine. Hus was building on Wycliffe. Bucer had heard Luther speak, but was already well on his way. Zwingli was spurred on through study of Augustine and of the Bible. We need to both give credit to all these reformers and study their ways and means. It will help us in our modern day need to continue reforming the church and to address the issues of our day.

4. That Luther Did it All on His Own

Luther was a towering personality. And he was a great theologian and leader. But he needed lots of help along the way. We might tend to think that it was the merit of his message that caused his success and the success of the Reformation, but that would again be a misconception. There’s little separating the teachings and reforming actions of Hus and Luther. Yet the reason why Luther succeeded when Hus didn’t was that Luther had strong military and political support from his local rulers. Frederick of Saxony was interested in humanism and church reform from the 1480s. He founded the University of Wittenberg to that end and invited Luther and Melancthon to come teach there. When Luther was under threat from his excommunication, Frederick hid Luther and protected his life during his exile. He funded Luther’s translation of the New Testament into German. He and other German princes continued to support his reforms and caused them to be able to take place. The German Reformation probably doesn’t take place, at least as we know it, without Frederick of Saxony. The same can be said of Zwingli in Zurich, Cranmer in England, Knox in Scotland, and Calvin in Geneva. Without the support of their local rulers, none of it ever happens. Hus was burned at the stake and his reform was quashed because of a lack of political support. By God’s providence Luther got what Hus didn’t. But we shouldn’t think that Luther was a better man because he succeeded. He got by with a lot of help from his friends.

Why does this matter? This helps us see the grassroots nature of the Reformation. It was a groundswell, bottom up movement. The papacy was incapable of reforming at the time even though there had been calls to reform for over 100 years. The leadership was corrupt. Luther in many ways served as a mascot and leader for the reform, but it would not have happened without the enthusiastic support of so many. When the leadership is against you and threatening you with death, it shifts the movement underground. But underground movements can be the most powerful. As soon as you forbid something, everyone wants to have it. That’s what happened during the Reformation.

This is also why Calvin addressed King Francis of France with his prefatory address in his Institutes. It may not make much sense to us now because of our strict separation between church and state, but Calvin knew if he could gain the King of France as a convert, the church in France could be reformed. In fact, the only places where the Reformation flourished were places where local rulers supported it in some way. Governments can have a major effect on the flourishing or suppressing of the faith.

5. That the Reformers Intended to Split From the Catholic Church

This is the most important and often most misunderstood aspect of the Reformation. The Protestant Reformers, Luther included, wanted to reform the Church, not to split from the church. That means that they wanted to remain Catholic and reform the Catholic Church. This was their goal at the outset and remained the goal well into the 16th century. Even Calvin held out hope for a general council that would meet to reform and reunify the church. There were many who hoped that Trent would be that council, but alas, it was not able to be that. Its hardline approach drove a wedge between them and the Protesting churches, and still functions as a dividing wall to this day.

Furthermore, we should not see it as the Protestants splitting from the Catholic Church and forming a new church, with the old church remaining being the Catholic Church. Rather, we should see both the Protestant and the Roman Catholic traditions as heirs of the Western Catholic church, both having formerly been a part of it and split from it by dividing from each other. The Reformers argued this extensively, and they did not shy away from calling themselves “Catholic.”

The Reformation was very local. In local areas (cities, regions, countries) it wasn’t as if the local churches split and some of them were now Protestant. No, in local areas, all the churches continued on as they had for 1,000 years. Some were reformed according to the tenets of the Protestant Reformation. Others were reformed according to the program that Trent laid down. Regardless, both church traditions, Protestant and Roman Catholic, are properly heirs of the Catholic Church.

Why does this matter? It matters because Protestant churches today need to see themselves as the heirs of the Ancient and Medieval Church. When we look back in history, we need to understand that it is “us” that we are reading about, not somebody else. Augustine belongs to “us” as much as he belongs to Roman Catholics. Francis belongs to “us”. Anselm, Bonaventure, and Thomas belong to us. That’s our family and our tradition. We need to realize that and reacquaint ourselves with the riches of the theological tradition that is ours. The Protestant Reformers did not reject the past. Luther engaged to reform the German church according to the Bible and the teachings of Augustine. Calvin loved Augustine and greatly appreciated Bernard, Anselm, and Chrysostom. The Reformation was not a rejection of the past, but actually a return to the truth of the early traditions of the Church. Ad fontes (to the sources), meant not only to go back to the Bible, but to return to the Church Fathers. As Protestants, we need to hear this. We need to embrace our rich family story. We need to sit at the feet of our Fathers and Mothers. We are the Catholic Church.

October 31, 2022 addendum: I originally wrote this article back in 2017. As I’ve continued to study these myths over the past four years I’ve become increasingly convinced that Luther may not have actually nailed the Ninety-Five Theses to the church door on October 31 at all. It is possible that the Theses were posted on that door at some point, but the historical evidence for the significance of the October 31, 1517 date is that on that day Luther sent a letter to Albert the Archbishop of Mainz, who had employed Tetzel to preach his indulgences and was himself delivering the money to Rome, complaining of the sale of indulgences in Saxony. Attached to the letter was the Ninety-Five Theses. When Albert received the Theses he circulated it ostensibly to get help in debunking Luther’s iron clad arguments. From this, a printer in Basel got a hold of the Theses, printed the document, and the rest is history. Thus, October 31 is a significant date for the history of the Protestant Reformation, however, it may not be because Luther did any nailing of theses to doors on that day. Sorry to ruin it for you.

What Church Leaders Should Know About Responding to Abuse

I was recently interviewed by the Hagerstown, MD Harald-Mail as a part of a series of articles covering an abuse coverup at a prominent Christian school there. I spent quite a bit of time with the reporter on the phone, and she did an excellent job putting this together. The newspaper article is largely just reporting her interview with me.

In the interview, I say some things that I think all church leaders should know about responding to abuse. If you are a church leader, I encourage you to read the article and leave a comment if you would like more resources.

Thanks so much to Tamela Baker for her excellent work on this story, and to her colleague Alexis Fitzpatrick who teamed up with her on this project to break the story of abuse and coverup at the school there. In the process, they show the important role that journalists play in shining light on the truth when institutions fail to do that. The greatest recent example of this was the Boston Globe’s reporting in the Spotlight project, which blew the lid off of the clergy abuse scandal in this country. A fantastic movie was made about this that every Christian should watch. While this set of reporting will not likely end up on the silver screen, it demonstrates the vital role that local journalists play. Remember, it was the journalists at the Indianapolis Star, who were willing to run with the story that Rachael Denhollander was pitching them, that exposed and eventually took down Larry Nassar and USA Gymnastics.

Here is the article. I hope it both informs and challenges you.

Did Augustine really say, “The Church is a whore.”?

I hear this quite frequently, “As St. Augustine said, ‘The Church is a whore, but she’s my Mother.”

The problem is that St. Augustine never said that.

If you try to run down the source of the quote, the trail ends in a book written by Tony Campolo. In Letters to a Young Evangelical, chapter 6 he writes, “I would urge you to consider this carefully, and to think about the words of St. Augustine, ‘The church is a whore, but she’s my mother.’ That statement brilliantly conveys how I feel about the church.” He goes on to argue that despite all the failures and sins of the church, she is still our mother, and thus we should be a part of her. Where Campolo got that quote is a mystery because he gives no citation. But if you look further back you will not find it, because it does not exist.

How do I know? Well first off, as someone who has read an awful lot of Augustine and an awful lot about Augustine, I have never come across that quote, and that quote just doesn’t seem like something he would say. A few years back after I heard it yet again I decided to try and find the source. That’s when I discovered that the trail went dead at Campolo. Luckily, as an academic I have access to better search engines than Google.

I went to two of the best search databases for Christian Latin texts, the Patrologia Latina and the Brepols Library of Latin Texts. Between the two of them they contain pretty much everything written by ancient Christian writers in the Latin language. I searched for church (ecclesia) and mother (mater) using several different synonyms for whore (meretrix and prostituta being the main ones) and nothing came up exactly like the quote. That leaves me 99% sure that Augustine never said that.

The closest I was able to find is from Sermon 213 on the Creed. What he says there is significant so I’ve translated it for you:

Let us honor the Catholic Church, our true Mother, the true Bride of her Husband, because she is the wife of so great a Lord. And what shall I say? How great is that Husband and of singular rank, that he discovered a prostitute and made her a virgin. Because she should not deny that she was a prostitute, lest she forget the mercy of her liberator. How can it be said that she was not a prostitute when she fornicated with demons and idols? Fornication was in the heart of everyone; a few have fornicated in the flesh, but everyone has fornicated in his heart. And He came and made her a virgin; he made the church a virgin.*

Here we find the concepts mother, church, and whore, but we do not find that direct quote we are seeking. In fact there is a significant difference between the quote Campolo gave us and what Augustine actually said. Augustine here is saying that the Church was a whore because she formerly lusted after demons and idols. She is no longer a whore because her great husband, Jesus Christ, has liberated her from her thraldom, forgiven her sins, and made her his virgin bride.

Campolo is trying to make the point that although the church fails she is still the church. That is right and good. However, that is not Augustine’s point. Augustine is preaching about the glorious redemption that the great Husband of the church has accomplished. She is praised because of what He has done in and for her. She is our Mother because He is her Husband and because He has sanctified her. To make Campolo’s point resonate with what Augustine actually said, we should love and cherish the church, in spite of her failures, because she is Christ’s bride. Because she is his only bride. He found her, liberated her, sanctified her, and married her. That’s why we love her even when she is imperfect, because she is the only bride Christ has. He makes her great.

It is then grossly wrong to say that the Church is a whore. In fact that is blasphemous to say. Augustine himself says so in Sermon 10, which I found when searching for this supposed quotation:

I read in the Psalm, “The one who disparages his neighbor in private, I will destroy,” (Psalm 101:5). If it is right for [God] to destroy the one who disparages his neighbor in private, then how much more right is it for Him to destroy the one who publicly blasphemes the church of God? When he says “She is not who she is!” When he says, “What is ours is partial.” When he says, “She is a whore.”**

UPDATE: Cyprian wrote concerning this concept in his treatise On the Unity of the Church. Since Augustine cites Cyprian extensively, even from this treatise, it is likely that he learned this concept from the African great himself.

The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church.

*My translation from the Latin text edited by G. Morin: Sancti Augustini Sermones post Maurinos reperti in Miscellanea Agostiniana, vol. 1, 1930, p. 447.

**My translation from the Latin text edited by Michael Petschenig, CSEL 53, p.177, available here: https://archive.org/stream/CSEL53#page/n269/mode/2up

Infant Baptism in the History of the Church

Infant baptism was the universal practice of the church until after the Protestant Reformation. The early church was not credo-baptist.

Note: I wrote this post in response to a question I received from a fellow pastor. I like to address practical issues that pastors and Christians are facing on the ground. If you would like me to address a particular question, drop me a note!

Ancient practice in the Church sets an important precedent for present day practice. This certainly doesn’t mean that Christians are bound to only do things as they have always been done, but the principles of catholicity and unity move us not to break from historic church practice on a particular item unless there is a strong biblical rationale. Where there is not a strong biblical rationale, or, strong cases could be made on either side, the precedent of church tradition should play a factor in making the decision.

Such is the case with infant baptism. Credo-baptists and paedo-baptists both present biblical arguments that either side is fully convinced of. Thus, church tradition is often brought into the discussion to lend weight to the support of one side or another.

So what does church tradition have to say on the issue of infant baptism? What was the historic practice of the church from the earliest days?

Before we go further, I would like to make a few distinctions and give a few definitions. First of all, credo-baptism shall be defined as the conviction that only those who credibly and consciously profess belief in Christ are valid subjects for baptism. This can also be referred to as believers-only baptism. Second, paedo-baptism shall be defined as the conviction that infants of at least one believing parent are valid subjects of baptism. The paedo-baptist conviction therefore does not exclude baptism of adults who have converted to Christianity and have never been baptized. I shall also use the term infant baptism as synonymous with paedo-baptism.

Also, I would like to make two caveats. First, I am fully aware of the biblical evidence and rationale for the paedo-baptist position and can readily give it. This point of this article is to give historical evidence in the face of two positions that both claim to have biblical rationale. I am also fully aware that credo-baptists have fully developed biblical rationale for their position (though I disagree with them). The point of this post is to address the historical precedent as a sort of “tie-breaker” to the biblical stalemate. Second caveat: I fully embrace my Baptist brothers and sisters as fellow believers in Christ. This is a intramural discussion, and one I offer not with rancor, yet with firmness of conviction.

Infant baptism was the universal practice of the church until after the Protestant Reformation. At the onset of the Reformation, none of the magisterial reformers abandoned the practice of infant baptism, but began to vigorously defend it with fresh biblical rationale based on Covenant Theology. The Reformers went so far in their defense of paedo-baptism that none of them even advocated the re-baptism of those who had received baptism in the pre-Reformation church. To this day, churches that are the ecclesial and theological heirs of the Protestant Reformers have continued that practice of infant baptism. These would be Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed of various kinds, and Anglicans (which I would argue fall in the Reformed camp, but someone may protest that I left them out). In these churches there is a continuous and consistent theology and practice of infant baptism that goes back to the days of the early church.

Thus infant baptism was the universal practice of the Christian Church until some Reformation leaders began to question many of the standard practices of Christianity and the Christian life. These Radical Reformers (what scholars call the anabaptists) opposed padeo-baptism, and they advocated for the re-baptism (thus the name anabaptist, one who re-baptizes) of those who had been baptized before the Reformation. But the 16th century anabaptists can not be properly described as holding to credo-baptism as I have defined it. These radical reformers made a very high hurdle to cross before baptism, not simply allowing those who made a credible profession of faith come to the font, but only allowing those who had proven themselves over a long period of time as committed Christian disciples. The radical reformation reserved baptism for the few, a subset of Christian believers. This is not the modern Baptist position. Furthermore, there are many aspects of 16th century anabaptist movements that modern baptists do not adhere to, specificaly, pacifism, communitarianism, and mysticism. The proper heirs of the 16th c. Radical Reformation are to be found in the Menonite and Amish churches, not in modern Baptist churches. (NOTE: see James R. Payton, Jr, Getting the Reformation Wrong, pp. 160-172).

Baptists, rather, are the spiritual heirs of the English Reformation of the 16th-17th centuries. As such, the 17th century theology of credo-baptism was quite new, even by the timeline of the Reformation. There is no real historical precedent for the view before the 17th century and no place where it was practiced outside of England. In contrast, the paeo-baptist position was practiced and defended biblically and theologically from the onset of the Reformation and in every place where the Reformation spread up to the present day.

To the time before the Reformation: no one disputes that the practice of the ancient and medieval Church was universally paedo-baptist after the time of Augustine.[1] This is because Augustine’s treatment of both original sin and the doctrine of grace made a theological path for the practice of infant baptism to become universal. From the 5th century onward, there is no question as to the universal practice of the Church in baptizing the infants of believing parents.

However, in the earliest centuries of the church (before Augustine) the evidence for infant baptism is scant and many credo-baptists will argue based on this that believers-only baptism was the first practice of the church until Constantine got a hold of things. The Constantine thing is always a red herring. Almost nothing he is credited (or blamed) for in the Church is accurate. As I said above, Augustine was the one who closed the book on infant baptism. Constantine himself never weighed in on it and still evidenced the flawed early church baptismal practice in his own life (which I will talk about below).

Yet the argument for credo-baptism in the early church is not sustained by the historical evidence. It is true that the writings we have access to today give overwhelming evidence to adult baptism and to many folks delaying their baptisms well into their adult life. However, this evidence for delaying baptism does not support the credo-baptist position for the following reasons.

1) The reason why adult baptism is the focus in the early church is because everyone is converting to Christianity (it’s the same as in the New Testament). Many of the stories told in the very early church are of converts, and so many were converting from paganism to Christianity that the stories of infant baptism get lost. The story of the early church is one of conversion. Thus the baptism of professing believers is the story told. This is not therefore evidence against infant baptism or for believers-only baptism. It is evidence that people were converting to Christianity in droves and being baptized.

2) There is no writing (that I know of) that is polemical against infant baptism. If the Early Church was credo-baptist by conviction, you would expect much polemic against infant baptism. It simply doesn’t exist.[2]

3) There is evidence for infant baptism in the early church. It isn’t the only practice, but the evidence suggests that infant baptism was a normal and expected practice. One specific example is found in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (late 2nd to early 3rd c.). In this text a baptismal rite is described that includes infants. There are other examples of this in the early church. As I said above, the adult baptism of converts was the most attested practice, but there is still ample evidence that infant baptism was occurring and no one, I repeat, no one was arguing against it.

4) The reason why many Christians in the early church delayed their baptism was due to a faulty baptismal theology and a faulty soteriology. Before Augustine gave the definitive treatments, many believed that since baptism washed away all previous sin and that if you sinned after baptism there was no possibility for forgiveness, you should delay baptism as long as possible to get your sinnin’ in. This is why Constantine was baptized late in life, for example, not because he was not a committed Christian, but because he wanted to make sure to be saved (there was also a political reason for him delaying baptism). After Augustine developed his doctrine of grace and gave the definitive (and final, at least till the Reformation) argument for infant baptism, this is no longer an issue.

Here’s the payoff, Baptists point to the early church for evidence of believers-only baptism, but are they willing also to own the errant theology that was the reason for it? I think not. There were people who delayed baptism in the early church but it was not for modern credo-baptist conviction that only believers should be baptized. It was for other (faulty) theological reasons. Baptism was not delayed until a credible profession. It was delayed until the person felt they could go on for the rest of their lives without sin (or to enter the Christian ministry). This is not the modern Baptist position, nor should it be. The early church was not credo-baptist.

[1] I recently (June of 2025) found this article that refers back to this post. He quotes from Peter the Venerable who states that, “all Gaul, Spain, Germany, Italy, and the whole of Europe, for nearly three hundred or five hundred years, has had no one except baptized in infancy.” I left this comment on his post in rejoinder, “all Gaul, Spain, Germany, Italy, and the whole of Europe, for nearly three hundred or five hundred years, has had no one except baptized in infancy.” His reply was that Peter says “All of Europe.” Point well taken, though NW Europe is Peter’s immediate context. However, I will further point out that Peter does not say that no on was baptized as an infant before that time, but that since that time no one has been baptized in any other way. The reason why adult baptism persisted until around 800 is that people were still being converted all over Europe. But after the continent had more or less been converted, there were no more (or exceedingly few) adult baptisms.

[2] In a recent (June 2025) discussion on X.com I was made aware of a quote from Tertullian (On Baptism, XVIII) where he argues for a delay in baptism. Here is the full quote:

“And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary —that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfill their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.” For no less cause must the unwed also be deferred—in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom—until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.”

Here I would argue that it is clear that Tertullian thinks baptism should be delayed because of the early church belief that if you sin after you are baptized you will be damned (and also your sponsors?). He also argues that since baptism is for the removal of sins, children don’t need to be baptized in their age of innocence. This is not an argument against paedobaptism as much as it is an argument for everyone to delay baptism.

Why Pray the Hours? – Reflections on Reformation

The church throughout her history has kept regular, set times of prayer each day. Should modern Christians reacquire this ancient practice?

Note: this begins a series on my blog called Reflections on Reformation which will be running this year in commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the onset of the Protestant Reformation.

Early on in the history of the church, Christians understood that the 1st century Jewish practice of meeting for prayer at set times of the day was a good and biblical practice to continue. We find references to this in several places in Scripture. In Acts 3 we find Peter and John attending a set prayer at the temple at 3PM. Acts 10 seems to reference Peter continuing this practice in his devotional life as he was praying at the ninth hour (3pm). Later in the story he prays at the sixth hour (noon). Pentecost occurred at the third hour of the day (9 am). In Jesus’s parable in Luke 18 we find two men going up to the temple to pray. While he does not tell us the exact hour, it was a corporate prayer service they were attending. Simeon and Anna prayed in the Temple continually, it says in Luke 2. We tend to assume this is individual devotional prayer, but it would make more sense if this referred to them participating in the set prayers of the temple service. In Acts 22 we find Paul praying at the temple. In Luke 1:10 we find a multitude praying in the temple courts at the “hour of incense.” In Daniel 9 we find Daniel praying at the time of the evening sacrifice. He did this even though the temple was destroyed and there was currently no sacrificial ministry occurring.

In the Psalms there are multiple references to prayer and times of day. Psalm 88:13 says, “But I, O LORD, cry to you; in the morning my prayer comes before you.” Psalm 141:2 says, “Let my prayer be counted as incense before you, and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice!” Psalm 5:3 says, “O LORD, in the morning you hear my voice; in the morning I prepare a sacrifice for you and watch.” Psalm 59:16, “But I will sing of your strength; I will sing aloud of your steadfast love in the morning. For you have been to me a fortress and a refuge in the day of my distress.” Psalm 119:147, “I rise before dawn and cry for help; I hope in your words.” Psalm 55:17, “Evening and morning and at noon I utter my complaint and moan, and he hears my voice.” Psalm 119:148, “My eyes are awake before the watches of the night, that I may meditate on your promise.” Psalm 134:1-2, “Come, bless the LORD, all you servants of the LORD, who stand by night in the house of the LORD! Lift up your hands to the holy place and bless the LORD!” Psalm 119:62, “At midnight I rise to praise you, because of your righteous rules.” This is not to mention numerous places in the Psalms where specific times of day are referred to with relation to receiving mercy, hearing God’s word, groaning, crying out, meditating on his greatness, etc.

Perhaps this is also what is meant by the several references in the scriptures to praying night and day and praying without ceasing. This would make sense in the context of gathered set times of prayer, which we know were happening at least in the temple and also in an extension of those temple services in private prayers (see Peter and Daniel above).

Are we to take these numerous references to prayer at specific times of day as a descriptive coincidence? Or do the Scriptures intend to prescribe a practice for God’s people? Indeed, the early Christians saw these references as scriptural warrant to offer prayers at set times each day. Based on specific times mentioned in scripture (just before dawn, third hour, sixth hour, ninth hour, sunset, evening, midnight) and based on Psalm 119:164 which says, “Seven times a day I praise you for your righteous rules,” the early Christians established set times of prayer at these times.

Not everyone prayed seven times a day in the early church, although for some this was the ideal (see Hippolytus of Rome’s Apostolic Constitutions). Yet the churches called those to prayer who were pastors and workers, those with vocations within the church and those who were able and willing to do so. Eventually communities sprang up who were devoted to prayer, such were the early monasteries. In the Rule of Benedict he lays out the liturgies for the set times of prayer along with the Psalms that were to be sung at them. In the ancient practice of the Benedictine Rule, the monastery was directed to sing through the entire Psalter every week.

This may be what Paul had in mind as well when he describes that the widows who are enrolled in the church when he writes in 1 Timothy 5:5, “She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day.” Interestingly, Calvin remarked on this in his Institutes in book 4:8:18-19 where he discusses the enrollment of widows as deaconesses to “discharge the public ministry of the church toward the poor and to strive with all zeal, continancy, and diligence in the task of love.” It is interesting because he does not address the apostolic command that these widows continue in supplications night and day. His reaction against late medieval monasticism was too strong to allow him to consider that possibility. In this he was not unlike many of the Protestant Reformers who saw the services of the hours as attempts to “appease God with songs or unintelligible mumbling.”

Despite Calvin’s protestation, the church has continued these daily prayers, the hours or divine offices throughout her history. At the time of the Protestant Reformation one of the main questions that arose was whether and which practices of the ancient and medieval church should be continued. While some protestant traditions continued the daily office in some form (mainly Anglicans and some Lutherans), most of the Protestants jettisoned the daily office in favor of the teaching ministry of the church. Calvin himself taught the scriptures daily, and for that reason we have an expansive collection of his biblical teaching. We might ask though, while teaching the scriptures is obviously a very good thing, should the corporate prayer ministry of the church have been abandoned? If the answer is no, what are ways that we can reincorporate this ministry into the life our churches today?

Evangelical churches have tended to relegate prayer to the private life of the individual believer. The emphasis on alone time with the Lord is in keeping with Christ’s teaching on prayer, and this was the main influence for Evangelical piety. Yet in the 20th century, Pentecostal and Charismatic movements have reacquired this ancient emphasis on prayer, while not taking up the ancient forms. Many charismatic prayer ministries seek to be faithful to God’s word by opening up prayer rooms where there is a sign-up and a schedule to ensure that prayers are being offered around the clock.

While this re-emphasis on prayer is to be commended, it largely focuses on the efficacy of prayer (a true and good notion), but not necessarily on the formative aspects of prayer for the Christian believer. In the early church it was both the efficacious and the formative aspects of prayer that shaped the church’s practices. Could we glean from this formative aspect of prayer today?

There has been much work recently in this area. James K. A. Smith’s work on Christian formation has drawn deeply from prayer’s formative aspect and the goodness of this for Christian formation. Additionally Greg Thompson in his public teaching ministry has made this a focus. Both Thompson and Smith have drawn from the life of the ancient church in its rich liturgies and from the Rule of Benedict which prescribes prayer as a way of life for disciples of Christ. It should be noted that both Smith and Thompson are active in the Reformed context, Thompson being a pastor in the PCA and having given a series of foundational lectures at Covenant Theological Seminary on this topic.

What then are we to make of this? I’m not suggesting that every Christian should pray the seven offices every day. Yet it would be helpful if Evangelicals leaned into this rich tradition to form our congregations in some way. It is also very helpful, if not necessary, that those who are in vocational ministry participate in the daily office as a way to rest, recharge, and fulfill our callings to intercede as ministers of word and prayer.

I’ll offer several practical suggestions below.

Offer avenues for daily prayer to congregants. This could be in the form of a prayer guide that the church produces, or suggestions of various smartphone apps which fulfill the same purpose. For example, each year for Advent and Lent my church offers a daily prayer guide to all our congregants to enter into daily prayer. Mind you, this is not seven times a day, but a suggestion and resource for engaging in once-daily prayer as individuals and families. Another option is to offer a page in the weekly service bulletin with all the lectionary readings for that week and encourage congregants to use that week’s service as a prayer guide throughout the week.
Offer a mid week prayer service. Churches with access to facilities during the week could offer a mid-week vespers or matins (or both!) so that congregants who wish could attend to pray together and be shaped by these rich patterns of prayer.
Pray daily as a church staff. If you have multiple staff who office at the same location, gather for morning prayer as you start each day. Make it a priority and block the time out on your schedule.
Seminary Communities. Seminaries are uniquely positioned to enter into the richness of communal prayer. If chapels are more lightly attended than years past, perhaps a shift away from the didactic focus of a chapel sermon to the communal and formative act of prayer will reinvigorate seminary communities. Begin by exposing students and faculty to things like chanting psalms and saying the hours. Do the office for one or two of the chapel services a semester. Pick one day per semester to cancel classes and pray the hours (9am, 12, 3, and at sunset), encouraging the students and faculty to work in between the prayer services. Eventually begin offering morning prayer on a daily basis for those that desire it. Then sit back and see what the Lord does with it.
Individual pastors. I encourage all pastors to say the office at least once a day. I say the morning office every morning (even Sunday before church!) except for my day off. This has been very beneficial for me in a number of ways, which I will detail in a future post.

Won’t this require too much work and take up too much time? The great thing about the office is that once you learn how it works, you don’t need to spend time preparing and practicing like we have done for many chapel services and Sunday services these days. Find someone who can lead it well. Find someone who can chant psalms. Then just show up and do it. Take 15-20 minutes out of your day (minimum) to spend time in community before the Lord. I promise that you will begin to see tangible results in the lives of those who participate.

Martin Luther is supposed to have said, “I have so much to do that if I didn’t spend at least three hours a day in prayer I would never get it all done.” There is no written evidence that he ever said that, though perhaps it was a oral tradition that was passed down through the ages due to its poignancy. Whether he said it or not, we must remember that Luther was a medieval monk who prayed the hours. That shaped him and formed him in his knowledge of the scriptures and in his love and knowledge of God. Augustine prayed the hours. Chrysostom prayed the hours. Anselm prayed the hours. In fact, all the theological giants of the ancient and medieval church prayed them in some form. Our fathers and mothers were steeped in scripture because of this. We often think that we know the bible well and understand it even better. But are we steeped in scripture to the level that our fathers and mothers were? Who recited the psalter by heart once a week? Who read through the bible at least every three years? Who daily spent hours in prayer before the face of God?

Want me to help you learn how to chant the psalms? Contact me.

Apps for the daily office
These apps are available in your app store. Note: these apps come from various theological traditions.

Mission St. Clare
Divine Hours, Vinyard Ann Arbor
Universalis
Daily Prayer from the COE
Do you know of others? Comment below!

Ambrose’s Advice to Augustine When Visiting Other Churches

A beautiful example of Christian discipleship

When I was in graduate school preparing for my doctoral comprehensive examinations on the history of eucharistic theology, I came across an insightful passage in Augustine’s letter to Januarius (Letter 54, found here). In this letter, Augustine relays to Januarius a situation he had with his mother who was scandalized when visiting a church in a distant city that did not worship the way she was accustomed. You see, Augustine was raised by his mother, Monica, according to the Roman rite, and during her sojourn with her son in Milan she was confronted with the different practices of the Milanese rite. All that to say that when traveling, she and Augustine went to church and she was putt off by the way they worshiped (the exact details are contained in the text below).

Now when I came across this passage I was a bit younger and more strident in my opinions about worship. To be sure, I still have a developed liturgical theology, but as I have aged a bit and grown from experience, I have softened a good deal. One of the things that softened me was Ambrose’s advice to Augustine (Was Monica’s scruple really his own?), and Augustine’s advice in turn to Januarius.

Here is another example how the wise Ambrose’s shepherding helped the young Augustine to mature. I think it’s a beautiful picture of Christian discipleship. Like Augustine, my own opinions in my younger days were such that I could not truly participate in worship with any sort of true and humble spirit of unity for all the scruples my sinful heart was throwing before my eyes. I’ve had to repent of that, and this passage from Augustine helped me to do that. Perhaps it will help you as well.

Be mindful that Augustine uses some strong words at the end of the passage, but we can forgive him as he was confronted by violent schism in his native diocese of Hippo and the surrounding areas near Carthage in Northern Africa.

There are other things, however, which are different in different places and countries: e.g., some fast on Saturday, others do not; some partake daily of the body and blood of Christ, others receive it on stated days: in some places no day passes without the sacrifice being offered; in others it is only on Saturday and the Lord’s day, or it may be only on the Lord’s day. In regard to these and all other variable observances which may be met anywhere, one is at liberty to comply with them or not as he chooses; and there is no better rule for the wise and serious Christian in this matter, than to conform to the practice which he finds prevailing in the Church to which it may be his lot to come. For such a custom, if it is clearly not contrary to the faith nor to sound morality, is to be held as a thing indifferent, and ought to be observed for the sake of fellowship with those among whom we live.

I think you may have heard me relate before, what I will nevertheless now mention. When my mother followed me to Milan, she found the Church there not fasting on Saturday. She began to be troubled, and to hesitate as to what she should do; upon which I, though not taking a personal interest then in such things, applied on her behalf to Ambrose, of most blessed memory, for his advice. He answered that he could not teach me anything but what he himself practised, because if he knew any better rule, he would observe it himself. When I supposed that he intended, on the ground of his authority alone, and without supporting it by any argument, to recommend us to give up fasting on Saturday, he followed me, and said: “When I visit Rome, I fast on Saturday; when I am here, I do not fast. On the same principle, do you observe the custom prevailing in whatever Church you come to, if you desire neither to give offence by your conduct, nor to find cause of offence in another’s.” When I reported this to my mother, she accepted it gladly; and for myself, after frequently reconsidering his decision, I have always esteemed it as if I had received it by an oracle from heaven. For often have I perceived, with extreme sorrow, many disquietudes caused to weak brethren by the contentious pertinacity or superstitious vacillation of some who, in matters of this kind, which do not admit of final decision by the authority of Holy Scripture, or by the tradition of the universal Church or by their manifest good influence on manners raise questions, it may be, from some crotchet of their own, or from attachment to the custom followed in one’s own country, or from preference for that which one has seen abroad, supposing that wisdom is increased in proportion to the distance to which men travel from home, and agitate these questions with such keenness, that they think all is wrong except what they do themselves.

SOURCE: Augustine, Letter 54 to Januarius, CCEL (accessed here).

IMAGE: Gozzoli, Ambrose baptizing Augustine with the words of the hymn Te deum (Source: Wikimedia Commons) 15th c.

Hadrian of Carthage: A Medieval African Who Changed Europe

February is Black History Month, a month to pay “tribute to the generations of African Americans who struggled with adversity to achieve full citizenship in American society.” As a church historian I am particularly interested in paying tribute to those African-Americans and others of African origin who played a major role in the story of the Christian Church. There are many who have done excellent work in telling the story of early African-Americans who contributed to American Christianity: leaders like Absalom Jones and Richard Allen, and early African-American Presbyterian leaders like John Gloucester.

My interest in church history though lies further back in the annals of time. I’m a medievalist and I also dabble in the early church period. I have been encouraged at the increased awareness of just how many of the early church Fathers were African: Athanasius, the staunch defender of Nicene Orthodoxy, Augustine, the Schoolmaster of Western Christianity, Cyril of Alexandria, Origin, Cyprian of Carthage, Tertullian… I could go on. I was encouraged to see an article recently that highlighted this wonderful history as a part of a series of posts on Black History Month on the Reformed African-American Network.

The medieval period, however, has often been seen as a time without much contribution from Africans to the life and work of the Church. Part of that is due to the spread of Islam over North Africa. Part of that is due to our ignorance in knowing and telling the stories of African Christians during that time. Yet, as I was reading the article linked above I remembered one particular African who had an enormous impact on medieval Europe: Hadrian of Carthage.

Hadrian, also known as St. Adrian of Canterbury, was like St. Augustine a North African of the Berber people. He was born in Carthage in the early to mid 7th century, and classically educated. He later moved to Italy and became an abbot of a monastery near modern day Naples. Bede describes Hadrian as, “a native of Africa, very learned in the Scriptures, experienced in ecclesiastical and monastic administration, and a great scholar in Greek and Latin,” (HE IV:1). That’s a pretty impressive endorsement by Bede! Because of his experience and erudition, Hadrian was impressed upon two separate times by his friend Vitalian, the Bishop of Rome, to take the vacant see of Canterbury and engage himself in a much needed reformation and revival in the English Church. Twice though Hadrian turned him down, the last time recommending another monastic leader, one Theodore of Tarsus. Theodore accepted the appointment, but the Pope insisted that Hadrian go along, ostensibly, to show Theodore the way through Gaul to England. Yet it was not travel directions that the Bishop of Rome truly desired Hadrian to give, but to be a partner to Theodore in the reformation and revival of the English Church.

Theodore and Hadrian set off for England in 668, after a brief pause for Theodore to grow his hair out so as to be able to accept the Roman form of tonsure. They arrived in England in 669 and began visiting the churches so as to ascertain their state and begin the needed education and reform. They began to attract students whom they instructed in the knowledge of theology, church customs and rites, sacred music, Greek and Latin, and the study of sacred Scripture. Bede describes a renaissance of sorts in England that came as a result of their labors, “The people eagerly sought the new-found joys of the kingdom of heaven, and all who wished for instruction in the reading of the Scriptures found teachers ready at hand,” (HE IV:2). This explosion of learning was such that Bede remarked a couple of generations later that, “some of their students still alive today are as proficient in Latin and Greek as in their native tongue,” (ibid.).

Thus we can see that Hadrian’s impact on England and the church in England was massive. Yet what remains to be seen is just how much his contribution to the reformation and revival of England led to the foundations of Christianity in Western Europe.

Western Europe in the 7th c. was still a largely unreached place. Catholic Christianity was established in some places, while others of the Germanic tribes had been converted to Arian forms of Christianity. Still others remained pagan. There was a great need in these Germanic areas for both evangelization and Christianization. The problem was that the existing churches of Western Europe (mostly in Gaul, modern France) were not equipped to undertake this mission. This is where the English came in.

Due to the work of Hadrian and Theodore, the English were equipped to engage in this mission to the Germanic peoples. And so they did, with great vigor and success. Boniface led a wave of missionaries from England back to the continent to evangelize and establish churches. He is now known as the Apostle to the Germans. Educational leaders like Alcuin of York were brought from England by the Carolingian rulers to help establish court schools as well as cathedral and monastery schools and to lead in the Christianization and reform of the churches in Western Europe. The legacy of these English missionaries is hard to overstate: these are the fathers of the Europe we know today. They established the institutions and infrastructure upon which Western civilization is established.

And none of this would have been possible without the efforts of St. Hadrian, the African. A medieval giant who had a greater impact than any of us probably realize.

Let us give thanks for St. Hadrian and celebrate his work and ministry and its vast impact on the world we live in.