Spiritual Profiling: Missionary Toolbox #8

According to leading strategy trainers within the International Mission Board of the SBC, one of the best ways to understand an unreached people group is by building a Spiritual Profile. This happens to be the final tool in the missionary toolbox for creating a people group profile. Here are some good questions to ask:

1. What is the predominant religion of your people? when did it start? how did it start?

2. What calendar events does this religion influence?

3. What are the life events celebrated through this religion? how?

4. Is religion a choice or coerced?

5. How does this religion view family? outsiders?

6. Who is in leadership within this religion? How did they get there?

7. How does this religion interact with Christianity? how many Christians are there?

8. What is the ration of Christian churches to the population?

9. Do the people have access to the Bible? gospel presentations in media? mission organizations?

10. Are the people oral learners or literate?

11. What has been the growth of evangelism within this people group in recent years? why?

Orthodoxy & Evangelicalism: Comparative Theology

Ok, so my buddy Larry brings up an interesting point about Eastern Orthodoxy's basic theological framework. To the Orthodox, God is defined in two aspects–the aspect of God’s essence, or who He is on the inside, and the aspect of His energies or His outworking, the things that he does. Even this mystery involves God being present in His energies or His outworking. James Payton, the author of Light from the Christian East I've been recommending in my previous two posts, attempts to define the Orthodox presentation of God by saying that there are two categories of existence. There are things that have been created and things that have not been created. Anything never created is God, whereas anything defined as never having been created is God, including all godly attributes like love and justice. The actions of God are not created things, because He inhabits his energies or His actions.

Eastern Orthodoxy’s theology can be divided into two categories. Positive or cataphatic theology is what can be affirmed about God.  Negative or apophatic theology is saying what God is not. Eastern Orthodox theology has developed due to a understanding that our words about God are “inadequate to contain him” (Payton, 76). “Thus, in Orthodoxy, theology- ‘talking about God’- done rightly leads to silence before God, to serene contemplation of God” (78). Eastern Orthodoxy takes a very skeptical view of the rational mind and its capabilities. This is what Payton says is exhibitive of the differences between how the East and West historically developed.

What can be said about God is limited according to Eastern Orthodoxy. “Since he is God, there is no way that we as mere human beings, as his creatures, can understand him” (73-74). Payton explains this Orthodox limitation to human speech:

In all this, God speaks truly as he reveals himself to us, but he does not speak exhaustively and penetratingly, such that we could comprehend him. Thus, God’s revelation in Scripture is true, although it does not say everything about God. It is adequate for God’s purposes and for our needs, but not sufficient to enable us mere limited human beings, his creatures, to obtain discursive knowledge of him (74).

Historically, the Orthodox Church would much rather err on the side of not saying something

untrue about God than naively espousing small truth statements.

This historical development of doctrinal differences can be seen further in how God relates to his creation. The West saw the development of an understanding of the ad intra interrelationship in the Trinity as opposed to how God relates to his creation ad extra. But the East created other categories. God’s essence is unknowable, reflective of the East’s distrust of rationality. God’s actions are knowable. Although these are distinct categories, God inhabits both.

            There is yet another distinctive and more personal experience based on God’s energies. Orthodoxy contends that we can only know God in his energies, never in his essence. It is not possible for mortals to know or understand God completely in his being only in what he does. And this is only possible through a corporate relationship within the Eastern Church. So, I guess the bigger question is: can knowing God only in his energies be sufficiently salvific?

            There is a big distinction in Orthodoxy between the Creator and his creation. Our “human inability to conceive of and speak appropriately about God in his relationship to the creation” (88) is what defines this distinction. Orthodoxy places parameters around what was created and what was not created. Time did not exist prior to creation. Yet there was existence prior to creation. The Creator is “totally other than his creation” (89). Orthodoxy developed a belief that humans cannot truly understand the Creator, therefore they can never truly speak about him.

The way that Orthodoxy describes intra-trinitarian relationships is different than the way it describes the relationship between Creator and creation however. The internal essence of God cannot be understood, but the external energies are God’s divine will. It says that “in creation we are not confronted with the divine nature, but with the divine will” (90). God necessarily exists, while creation does not. Creation was made ex nihilo. Orthodox believers hold to God’s utter transcendence in his essence, but they insist that “he is absolutely immanent in his energies” (91).

Payton points to the first chapters of Genesis and John to explain the Orthodox differential between God the Logos, or the ultimate purpose, and our logoi, or God’s purposes within us. With a uniquely Eastern stance, Payton says that “each created nature has that logos within himself, herself or itself ” (95). Creatures must “live up to [our] divinely implanted logos” (95).

Payton shows various potentials whereby the western church can be informed by the Eastern Church. He says that “Western Christians can learn more measured respect for ‘positive’ theology” (85). He also says that “we might sense the futility of some of our western Christian wrangling about Scripture” (85) if we will allow Eastern Christianity to inform our theology. If somehow the Western Church might “appropriate negative theology in some measure as it practiced within Eastern Orthodoxy, we would end up with a richer sense of who God is, on the one hand, and a greater humility for what we say about him, on the other” (85-86). But what about the reverse? Within the Eastern church, would there be any redemptive value in western evangelicalism's emphasis on man-God intimacy that leads to enlightened understanding of God the Creator?

The Problem of Pastoral Training in Russia

The issue of the best place to train pastors came to my attention first when I was a missionary in Russia. There are some common complaints voiced in Russia regarding the lack of Russian leadership, such as the lack of young men in church in general, the expense related to receiving education, the lack of opportunity for seminary training, the western leaning of modern theological institutes, or the overall rejection of formal academic training by local churches. In the US in the previous decade, there was an upward trend in enrollment in seminaries and bible colleges (especially considering the bachelor's level). “After 20 years without a net increase, enrollment at 118 Bible colleges climbed 1 percent in 2008 and 3 percent in 2009.” [1] But in Russia, the trend is reversed. Over the past decade, student enrollment in both bible colleges and seminaries has fallen drastically.[2] This could be perhaps because of the strong dependence on western financial support that has tapered off in recent years. At Moscow Baptist Theological Seminary, for example, “Since 2004 the seminary has been run in collaboration with Russian Leadership Ministries (RLM) in the United States, which provides 90 percent of the support for its needs.”[3] Moreover this financial issue is exacerbated by the fact that the average Russian student may expect to earn a monthly salary equivalent to two hundred dollars[4] while the average cost of seminary is twice that amount.[5] Because of poor economic conditions, most Russian churches could not afford a full-time pastor.[6]

There is a truly disproportionate under-representation of men in Russian Baptist churches. Mark Harris notes,

A great deal of this problem can be traced to WWII, when a major percentage of the

Russian male population died. During communist times, preachers were considered to be "active believers" and therefore dangerous to the regime. Being a preacher was risky, and many spent time in prison for it.[7]

Because of the leftover negative attitudes about non-Orthodox religious expressions, a “minute number of men were supported for ministry, and the vast majority of preachers held full-time jobs elsewhere.”[8] Under the communist regime, each person filled a government-directed vocation whereby she contributed her part back into society. Communists, therefore, “viewed any man receiving his salary from religious work as a parasite on society.”[9] Under communism, even the most basic educational opportunities were often withheld from Baptist adherents.

As a result, “few methods of formal training were thus available to preachers. There was a course offered in an extension school, but apparently few took the course. Therefore, by necessity, informal training was the dominant method.”[10] This problem is further complicated when local Baptist churches in Russia harbor animosity toward seminaries or bible colleges or refuse to re-integrate seminary graduates back into their local church life.[11] This is important, because evangelical institutes have been established. The first Evangelical Bible School was instituted in St. Petersburg in 1913. According to Peter Penner, former rector of St. Petersburg Christian University,

its operation was disrupted in 1914 when the First World War and later the Russian revolution put an abrupt end to most religious activity, irrespective of denominational affiliation. From 1925-1929 the school was able to continue with a one year programme preparing pastors and preachers for the Evangelical Christians and Baptist churches.[12]

Within the Russian mindset, education is necessary. However, many Russian students

“tend to see education as a way to gain prestige, and the receiving of some sort of diploma will become the basic issue for them.”[13]

      It is for this reason that there are some recent initiatives “to seek public recognition for church leaders, and in the opinion of many this is dangerous to the spiritual training of young Russian men and women.”[14] However, this had tended to lead toward the adoption of any western approach most readily available. Harris notes that “Russian training programs have been heavily dependent on Western teachers, and this has had some negative effects on the attitudes of Russian pastors and students.”[15] This is in conflict to Russian Baptist identity as Penner notes, “evangelicals in the [Former Soviet Union] are not a more or less contextualized continuation of western culture and history. They are a reform movement that grew out of the Russian Orthodox Church.”[16]

      Western models and methods for theological education have come under public fire in recent years in Russia. Noting the “lack of systematic teaching in the [Russian Baptist] Church,” Alexander Negrov, current rector of St. Petersburg Christian University, claims that Russian evangelicals have not made adequate progress toward localized theological inquiry.[17] Penner cites persecution as a possible cause, noting that Baptists “were persecuted by the Russian Orthodox Church and the Czarist regime, then persecution came from the side of the Soviet communist ideology.”[18] Under persecution a theology of suffering did indeed develop as did

a Bible oriented theology which helped them to survive as a movement, but which is not explicitly formulated. Cultural and historical elements have caused the Bible to become the foundation of all theological thinking for the evangelicals in the [Former Soviet Union], while the hermeneutic key for the interpretation of Scripture is their experience and the specific context.[19]

Perhaps this is why some Russian Baptists see suffering within their doctrine of the local church as a process through which true disciples are refined.

---

[1] G. Jeffrey MacDonald, “Seminary: Not Just for Pastors,” Christian Century 127 (Jan 26, 2010): 12-13. Cited 21 February 2010. Online: http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=8155.

[2]  Hunter Baker, “Is Church Attendance Declining?” Christianity Today (November 2007): n.p. Cited 6 March 2010. Online: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/novemberweb-only/145-42.0.html.

[3] “History of the Moscow Theological Seminary of Evangelical Christian-Baptists,” n.p. [cited 12 February 2010]. Online: http://www.moscowseminary.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32

&Itemid=57.

[4] “Average Monthly Earnings Hit All-Time High in Russia,” Pravda, August 4, 2005. n.p. [cited 11 February 2010]. Online: http://english.pravda.ru/russia/04-08-2005/8687-salary-0.

[5] According to Sasha Tsoutserov, Director of the Moscow Evangelical Christian Seminary, “The cost of training a student at the Moscow Seminary is an equivalent of US$4,000 per year (full ride).” Quote on “Sponsors,” n.p. [citied 12 February 2010]. Online: http://www.moscowseminary.ru/en/sponsors/sponsors.htm.

[6] Mark Harris, “Toward an Understanding of Russian Baptist Preaching,” Paper Presented to Mission Consulting Group, (Pasadena, Calif.: Mission Consulting Group, 1996), 7.

[7] Ibid.

[8]Ibid.

[9] Ibid.                                  

[10] Ibid, 8.

[11] Throughout the past twelve years, this writer has personally witnessed the refusal of some local Baptist churches to accept or ordain graduates from Moscow Baptist Theological Seminary, even if those graduates were originally from the congregation. Various reasons were cited in associational meetings throughout the years 1998 – 2002, the most frequent of which was the fear that seminary training was dangerously outside the theology of the local church.

[12] Peter Penner, “Contextual Theological Education among Post-Soviet Protestants: Case Study 1: The Development of a Masters Degree at St Petersburg Christian University,” Transformation 18:2 (2001), 124.

[13] Mark Harris, “Proposal,” 2.

[14] Ibid, 9.

[15]Ibid, 10.

[16] Peter Penner, “Contextual Theological Education,” 116.

[17] Alexander I. Negrov and Miriam Charter, “Why is There No Russian ‘Protestant’ Theology in Russia? A Personal Outcry,” Religion in Eastern Europe 17 (1997), 33.

[18] Peter Penner, “Contextual Theological Education,” 121.

[19] Ibid.

Patterson & Scoggins on CM Discipleship

As mentioned in the last blog entry, George Patterson and Richard Scoggins present a case for church multiplication in their CM Guide. Last week, I discussed their approach to evangelism, but a look at their view of discipleship is also warranted. Patterson and Scoggins present a basic model of discipleship that consists of twenty-four lessons forming a sort of chronological Bible storying series from creation to the second coming of Christ (p. 98). They believe that discipleship is based on the highest level of Christian authority, namely the commands of Christ found in the Bible. Therefore these twenty-four lessons are obedience-based instruction to new believers to love God, love men, obey immediately, give, pray, and participate in a local church. Although traditions and church preferences play a positive role in Christian development, the Bible is nonetheless to be obeyed immediately above all else.

In terms of church planting, Patterson and Scoggins are advocates of cultural segregation. In other words, they believe that discipleship groups (even churches) should be culturally segregated to allow for more rapid integration of biblical teaching without any unnecessary cultural baggage. They believe that “when we form two cultures to mix in one church, they never integrate” (italics in original, p. 123). They do not break this down into specific categories, but they are careful to distinguish racial and economic strata in a given society. Whether this line of reasoning could be extended to even smaller subdivisions or subcultures is not explored. Nor do they address the separation of genders, as is the secular norm in some societies. Instead, in broad strokes they paint a picture of similar classes and races reaching their own peers. The question that stands in my mind is the case of the urban church with such an amalgamation of cultures that there may be no clear or dominant culture. 

Discipleship is more than a one-on-one training process in this manual. For Patterson and Scoggins, discipleship is presented as the task of the entire church and, by extension, the church church planter for an entire population. They believe that a missionary or church planter should understand his calling to “disciple a people group, no matter how long it takes or what sacrifice God requires” (p. 127). For the authors, discipleship is to “disciple the people [group]” (p. 127).

Perhaps this is why discipleship takes place on two levels. In the local church, discipleship is presented as the training of other potential church planters, whereas outside the local church it is a discovery process whereby a new local church is born. They make a clear distinction between house churches and gathering meetings. There is a difference in function between the two. Whereas the house church exists to be the local body of believers in covenanted discipleship, the gathering meeting is the evangelistic outreach of that body. Is this distinction warranted?

Their approach sends a mixed ecclesiological message about church polity. They warn that individual house churches need outside accountability, thus calling into question the concepts of local church autonomy, cooperation, and government. Without outside accountability, according to Patterson, an isolated house church will “easily develop cultic tendencies that go unchecked” (p. 170). However, Patterson and Scoggins seem to promote the immediate obedience discipleship model as the basis for dealing with potential heresy and therefore encourage house churches to be planted in networks for ongoing external accountability. Perhaps this is one of the stronger points in this model, because obedience and accountability beyond the local church can ensure self-theologizing in dialogue with the larger cross-cultural church. Is it a vague area, though, when we draw such a stark dividing line between communication and accountability. Perhaps, accountability just needs to be defined more clearly.

Review of Justin Martyr's First Apology (How It Relates to Missions)

Justin (Martyr). The First Apology of Justin. Cited in Roberts, Alexander, James

Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., The Apostolic Fathers with Justin

Martyr and Irenaeus.Vol. 1 of Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers

Down to A.D. 325. New York: Cosimo, 2007.

At first glance an apologetic book (a treatise of defense of Christianity) would not be a missions book, but Justin’s Apology gives a glimpse into a historical time period of Christian persecution as well as has serious implications for Christian missions. Justin’s book is a defense against the injustice that Christians are experiencing at that time, largely due to their association with the name Christian. Therefore, it is a call for Antoninus to stop these persecutions.

Christians are being unjustly condemned and even charged with atheism and treason, the equivalent of modern date hate speech. Justin, however, points out that Christians above all are good moral people and that all of the elements of Christianity are widely accepted in other forms of cultural mythology. Justin says that Christian beliefs are to be found even in heathen religions; however, the clearer form of those beliefs is evidenced in Christianity. As propaganda circulated in the first century AD about Christians as being cannibals and committing incest, Justin also has to counter those accusations. Justin’s apologetic work raises several cross-cultural issues that relate to missions today.

            First, Justin’s claim that Christians demand a higher moral standard than most is at question in modern missiological circles. His claim is based on the evidence of morality prevalent in the lives of those who adhere to the faith. From a modern western perspective, Christian missions has to constantly readdress the issue of morality. The role missions plays in seeking out justice for the oppressed, liberating those in chains, and demanding a moral standard for society has been infused into the cultural mandate. Justin, it seems, would have had no problem with addressing these modern issues.

            Second, his interaction with a pluralistic or even polytheistic society is still representative of the missions endeavors of some Christian workers today. Justin plainly labeled these indigenous gods as “demons” (p. 164). He frankly commented that “in obedience to Him, we not only deny that they who did such things as these are gods, but assert that they are wicked and impious demons, whose actions will not bear comparison with those even of men desirous of virtue” (p. 164). This brings to light our modern missionary methods of pluralist interaction and interfaith dialogue. Perhaps we have become too uncomfortable in naming false gods and demonic spirits at ecumenical tables. Justin clearly would not have been shy about that.

            Third, the missions mandate of Christians is evidenced in his statement that not only proper legal defense but Christian duty demands verbal witness. For Justin, “it is our task, therefore, to afford to all an opportunity of inspecting our life and teachings, lest, on account of those who are accustomed to be ignorant of our affairs, we should incur the penalty due to them for mental blindness” (p. 163). He believed that missions should occur naturally as an outgrowth of the Christian life. Failure to be intentionally missional is to participate in the spread of ignorance about Christ and his followers.

            Perhaps Justin’s apologetic work has more to say to us in the area of contextualization than it may seem at first glance. The church’s mission is more than a historical activity of spreading the gospel. In a much larger way, missions should involve the outworking of the gospel in every aspect of Christian life. 

Varied Ecclesiastical Perspectives on the Holy Spirit's Role in Missions

When it comes to the subject of the Holy Spirit, different denominations have been formed to handle how a group views or expresses the active relationship the believer has with the Third Person of the Trinity. Accordingly, different church traditions have unique understandings about the active role of the Holy Spirit in missions. The church has experienced various traditions in its expression of ecclesiology and pneumatology. This has led to varied emphases on the role of the Holy Spirit specifically in building the church. Surveying Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Pentecostalism with broad strokes can help to reveal how the church has viewed the actions of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the ecclesiastical perspectives reveal a startling continuity in relation to the active role of the Holy Spirit in fulfilling the mission of God.  

            I found Veli-Matti Karkkainen’s work in his Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002) to be a useful tool to format ecclesiastical and theological categories. Specifically, his categories from chapters 4 and 5 of that book are adopted to form the framework for those headings here, so I'll just reference the page number. I will attempt to give an accurate reflection of each perspective's missiological framework without passing judgment.

Eastern Orthodoxy - Not "I" But "We"

The Eastern Orthodox Church acknowledges the active role of the Holy Spirit in Missio Dei, but much of the pneumatological language used within Orthodoxy relates to the Holy Spirit’s activity within the corporate body of the church as opposed to individuals. Karkkainen sees western theology as "built on Christological concepts rather than pneumatological ones" (68), so Eastern Orthodoxy claims to place a higher priority on their pneumatology. Because the Orthodox tradition is “more experience-based and concrete than Latin theology” (68), there is a ready acceptance of the Holy Spirit’s activity in the church. “The role of the Spirit according to this understanding is to make the ‘first contact’, which is followed by a revelation of the Son and, through him, the Father” (69).

Accordingly, “the mystical tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church sees the ministry of the Spirit differently than does the Lutheran Church” (67) because of its Orthodox emphasis upon corporate behavior. Whereas the protestant tradition might place an emphasis on the Holy Spirit’s personhood, the Orthodox tradition sees the Holy Spirit’s role mainly in terms of his activity related to soteriology and ecclesiology for the larger global and cosmic church. An active pneumatological role in the doctrine of salvation produces an Orthodox accent on His sanctifying and anointing work (ie. Deificiation), while the Holy Spirit’s role in the doctrine of the church stresses His filling and unifying work throughout all time.

In the Orthodox understanding of soteriology, the Holy Spirit plays a large role in the sanctification of the believer than what other denominations emphasize. It is a requisite role as “many Eastern fathers’ texts – from Simeon the New Theologian, whose view is always toward a pneumatological orientation, to Maximus the Confessor and the Cappadocian fathers – highlights [sic] the necessary connection between the Spirit and salvation” (69). Other Orthodox theologians highlight the Holy Spirit's work in theosis in "that persons to be deified, though they retain their own identity (i.e., do not overstep the distinction between God and humans), are all filled with the Holy Spirit” as an expression of communing with God's energies (69).

            Orthodox ecclesiology reveals the church’s accent on the Holy Spirit’s filling at Pentecost as an advent with ongoing implications. To them the Holy Spirit expresses Christ through the church even today. Orthodox theologians see "the church as the body of Christ and the fullness of the Holy Spirit” (71). According to Vladimir Lossky in The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976), Pentecost is not a “continuation” of Jesus’ life “but rather its sequel, its result” (72). Timothy Ware, or Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, writes in The Orthodox Church (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990), “In the church of later days, these charismatic ministries have been less in evidence, but they have never been wholly extinguished.” (249-250). It is this ongoing filling that unifies the church amidst diverse gifts. These thoughts are reflective of Lukan presentation of the Holy Spirit as the promise to which Jesus alluded, but it is also the very aspect to which Orthodoxy claims spiritual continuity with the early church and therefore a part of the current mission of God in the world.

Roman Catholicism - How We Get

Even if the Roman Catholic church was never totally without some teaching on the Holy Spirit, Vatican II brought an active view of pneumatology to the forefront. It was that event that “emphasized repeatedly the Spirit’s sovereign freedom in dispensing the charisms” (76). Roman Catholic pneumatology was evidenced in the way its theologians saw the Spirit’s active work in salvation and revelation. Roman Catholics view the Spirit’s soteriological activity in saving, giving, advocating, and guiding in the salvation process. Yet they also see a pneumatological role in revealing and communicating truth.

            Roman Catholic soteriology cannot be divorced from pneumatology. Many catholic theologians “identify God’s Spirit as the quintessence of the experience of salvation” (77). Even today, “the charisms of the Spirit play an indispensible role in the life of the church because they create the shared faith consciousness of the Christian community” (78). Some theologians invoke the paraclete image to “speak about a true ecumenical theology as a healer, a consoler, an advocate” (78) in salvation. Even Pope John Paul II “placed the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit” (78) as He guides the church into salvation truth. The Spirit is God with us on mission.

            The Holy Spirit’s active role in revelation comes to light in Roman Catholic doctrine “as God’s own self-communication to human beings through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit” (77). “Revelation is primarily the personal communication of the Spirit, that is, God’s own life, not the disclosure of divinely privileged information about God” (77). Therefore, it is largely within the ongoing dispersal of spiritual gifts and the action of illumination within the global framework of expanding the church that Catholicism finds its continuity with Lukan pneumatology. For the Catholic, the Spirit is still the Great Dispenser of gifts to fulfill the mission.

Lutheranism - What We Get

Historically, protestants have tended to place more missiological emphasis on the Second Person of the Trinity over the Holy Spirit. Lutheranism was a protestant reaction to the Roman Catholic church, but Luther acknowledged some active pneumatological behavior in Missio Dei. Some argue that “whereas the Eastern Church has more consciously built its theology on pneumatological foundations, the whole of western theology has emphasized Christology” (79). But Luther’s own “study of the Holy Spirit is part of his theological corpus, which includes more than twenty Pentecost Day sermons” (80). Luther seemed to compartmentalize his own pneumatological understanding of the Holy Spirit as a Person and the Holy Spirit as a gift.

            Traditionally, the Lutheran church has seen the Holy Spirit’s expressed role as God the giver, “so we distinguish the Holy Spirit as God in his divine nature and essence from the Holy Spirit as he is given to us” (81). His work as giver is observed inwardly in the church through his active role in communicating the Word and sacraments to the church and outwardly through the spiritual gifts given for the edification of the church. But for Luther there was also an element of the Holy Spirit as the Gift to the church. As a gift to the church with external activity, he moves hearts, reminds men of their sins, and fulfills the law’s requirements. Luther saw the Holy Spirit as mediating Christ’s work to the church specifically but also making that available to all who are yet outside the church.  Luke’s presentation of the Holy Spirit’s active soteriological and missiological applications is the Lutheran hallmark for continuity with the early church. 

Pentecostalism - When We Get

Pentacostals put an emphasis on the body of Christ. With their traditional acceptance of subsequent blessings or grace by the Holy Spirit as evidenced in sign gifts or speaking in tongues, Pentacostals make up approximately 20% of the Christian church today. Usually they accept a regenerative or conversion work of the Holy Spirit as the primary entry into the Christian’s life, but early Pentecostals would often separate a second work of sanctification. While often referred to as the second blessing, the baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues would be considered by some to be a third blessing. Some Pentecostals might argue that empowerment to witness would be yet another separate blessing.

            Although there is unity in the Pentecostal acceptance of subsequent blessings, there is some diversity in how the Holy Spirit actuates these blessings. For sacramental Pentecostals, the Spirit-baptism is a breaking through of the Spirit in a person who already possesses the gift from conversion. For non-sacramental Pentecostals, there is a “new imparting” of blessing or gift (97). But regardless of that distinction, the Pentecostal tradition embraces an active role of the Holy Spirit as giver, gift and guide. His role as facilitator or sender is usually bound up in the idea of that individualized work that is experienced through koinonia or fellowship with him. These new experiences might not necessarily have precedence in Scripture, but Pentecostal theological praxis usually dictates interpretation in light of Scriptural truth. 

Typical Russian Urban Family Views on Religion

Although the term cult sometimes carries negative religious connotations, our present use of cult refers to mainstream religious practice within a cultural unit. The terminology is often linked “to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding population considers to be outside the mainstream” (see Wikipedia on "Cult"). However, there are also a varied religious practices that can fall under that same category. Both religious structures and the communication within those structures make up the definition of cult in this sense. In Russia, anything outside the spectrum of the official Russian Orthodox Church was considered a "sect" or a "cult," so I wanted to find out more about how Andre, Olga and Daria thought through these issues (see previous posts to get up to date about this interaction in our home).

Religious Structure

Andre said he considered himself to be a staunch Russian Orthodox. Olga said she was Orthodox but was more open to other religions. Daria had no thoughts on the issue, but Andre wanted her to show her adherence to the faith. When I asked Andre about Moscow's religious structures, he said the biggest religious system in Russia is Russian Orthodoxy, but Islam is growing very rapidly. In Moscow now, Muslims make up about 25% of the population, according to some statistical studies (which are often unbalanced because they don't take into consideration the masses of unregistered illegal residents of Moscow). Even though Russian Orthodoxy is a predominant religious system, many people are Orthodox in name only. Many of them are not practicing Orthodox. Some of them only go to a temple on a holiday.

Andre helped me understand that the Russian Orthodox Church is led by a Holy Synod with the patriarch as a permanent member located in Moscow. This head of the church is the equivalent to a Roman Pope, but of course Eastern Orthodoxy does not accept the Pope’s papal authority. This patriarch infallibly leads the church as an apostolic leader, but his authority is one of leadership and not necessarily revelation. All revelation to the church is validated by councils and accepted by 135 million adherents. Large cities have other authority figures as well, like metropolitan archbishops. Smaller cities also have bishops who render rulings on local matters. The churches are governed by priests. Andre was quick to point out that the Great Schism between the Catholics and Orthodox might have been a thousand years ago, but Russians have long memories.  

Russian Orthodoxy’s primary document is the Bible, with Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha. Having equal authority with the Bible are the writings of the church fathers. In regard to its dogma, Russian Orthodoxy uses liturgy, icons, and candles even in homes as well as temples. Olga said that there was a special place for the monastic order in the Russian Orthodox Church, as they helped to build the beautiful cathedrals in the forests and glens throughout old Russia. These traditions, as they are called, make up the generally accepted dogma of the church. Accordingly, they are as infallible as the Bible itself.

Russians are religiously paradoxical. It is interesting to note that most Russians might accept that Jesus is God’s Son, but at the same time they may doubt the existence of God. According to Andre, about half of the population is atheist and accept a scientific explanation for man’s origin, while the other half hold to a creation story. Religion, for Olga, is a way to help children live better; salvation is a secondary question. There is a deep spirituality throughout Russia and a wide acceptance of evil spirits at work.

Women especially are open to this strong adherence to both religious dogma and strong male leadership in the church. The Orthodox Church draws upon this to dominate the active role over women who must in turn accept a supportive role. Although the Orthodox Church does not allow women leadership in the church, it does offer its blessing to women leaders in the secular society. When asked about the potential of having a woman serve in an elected leadership position, Andre was favorable, but Olga was against it.

Russian Orthodoxy plays a huge role in society both socially and politically. It is a blended relationship between state and church whereby government functions are blessed by the church and church functions are governed by the state. As such, many do not see the difference between the two.

Religious Communication

The year 2008 was named the "year of the family" in Russia. As such, the Orthodox Church placed a big emphasis on family health last year. Priests offer family advice. Churches offer books and other resources to help families grow together. Public radio and television announcements by the church also encourage family togetherness and fight abortion.

The role of the individual is downplayed in the religious structure, perhaps because the church is reflective of the society. In the East, corporate decision outweighs any individual desire. Individualism is lost in the masses. Accordingly, the church sees itself as a corporate gathering of true church worshippers, both past and present.

Russian Orthodoxy can be accused of syncretism at some points. When Prince Vladimir made Russian Orthodoxy the country’s only accepted religion in AD 988, he made a blanket imposition of Christian beliefs upon a pagan people group. Accordingly, some Russian priests and bishops allowed for some concessions in relation to old superstitious and even barbaric beliefs. These became mixed with Christian elements to form what is Russian Orthodoxy in praxis, although at its deepest roots Orthodoxy claims to be pure religion passed down from the early church.

For both Andre and Olga, religion is a deeply personal thing and at the same time a deeply corporate expression of nationalism. This dichotomous mental model was even more firm in the way that Andre described creeds and beliefs (I'll post more on that later).