The First Rednecks

On this day in 1638 the National Covenant was signed in Edinburgh, Scotland. It was one of many covenants adopted by the Scots regarding the liturgy and polity of the Church of Scotland. Liturgy refers to the manner in which a worship service is conducted. Polity refers to the how the business of the church is conducted and by whom. The King of England, Charles I, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, wanted the Church of Scotland to conform to the Church of England. Scotland was under the authority of King Charles, and he was in charge of the church. The King preferred the Episcopal structure with a hierarchy of bishops. It made sense for the church to be uniform across the kingdoms. The Scots disagreed. They favored a system that would become the Presbyterian Church (To my church history friends: I know this is an oversimplification).

Many of the Scots preferred the liturgy and polity of the Calvinist Reformers. They signed the covenants to show their dedication to their vision of the Church of Scotland. It was a serious matter tying religion and politics together that didn't always work well. Some of the Covenanters, as those who signed the National Covenant were known, also rejected the authority of Charles I. They tied the covenant to Scottish Nationalism. However, there were many Scots who wanted to remain loyal to Catholicism. Violent conflicts would eventually break out between Scottish Separatists and Loyalists as well as Protestants and Catholics. The entire event demonstrates the danger of state churches.

Eventually, the Covenanters did establish the Presbyterian Church as the dominant church of Scotland.  Predominantly drawn from the poor and lower classes, the Covenanters were criticized as unruly and uneducated by the Loyalist upper classes. The Covenanters were dedicated to their cause and put their lives on the line for their faith. Many of the Covenanters signed the National Covenant and the covenants that followed it in their own blood. To show their convictions, they wore red cloths tied around their neck. The Loyalists started calling the Covenanters "Rednecks." Though intended as an insult, the Covenanters adopted the name with pride. For many years in Scotland, Redneck became synonymous with Presbyterian. The first Rednecks were Scots who boldly proclaimed their faith as Reformed Protestants.

Happy Saint Patrick's Day!

I always enjoy St. Patrick's Day. I try to eat my share of corn beef and cabbage. I listen to Irish music and enjoy reading the history of Ireland. St. Patrick is also a remarkable figure. We actually do not know a great deal about Patrick. Most of the reliable information comes from his own Confession. Beyond that his story has become shrouded in legend and myth. You can check out http://www.timothypauljones.com/2014/03/12/church-history-who-was-the-real-st-patrick/?utm_content=buffercf3a4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer or http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2014/03/17/happy-saint-patrick-2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+between2worlds+%28Between+Two+Worlds%29&utm_content=FaceBook to separate the fact from fiction. 

What we do know is that Patrick was a missionary. He was not the first missionary to Ireland, but he was the most successful. He understood Irish culture and knew the language better than previous missionaries. Patrick trained indigenous pastors and teachers. He also kept cultural elements that were not detrimental to the Gospel. Many traditional Irish symbols and concepts were essentially baptized to further the spread of the church. 

So, there are two things that I keep in mind about St. Patrick's Day. First, it is a day to celebrate a missionary. I pray that our current missionaries are as successful as Patrick and we should certainly appreciate their service now. 

Second, it is an immigrant holiday. In Ireland the day has primarily been a religious holiday. The crazy shenanigans were created in the United States. The first St. Patrick's Day parade in New York actually occurred before the establishment of the United States! It was a celebration of Irish immigrants. St. Patrick's Day is a celebration of Irish culture and the impact of Irish immigrants on the US. The first generation of Irish immigrants were integral in building the colonies. However, successive generations fleeing famine in Ireland were met with disdain and hatred. Poor peasants seeking a new life wore clothing styles a century old and spoke a strange combination of Gaelic and archaic English. Signs were placed around major cities declaring no work or vacancies for Irish. New York and Boston eventually closed their ports to Irish ships. Politicians decried the crime brought with these immigrants and newspapers declared that the Irish should go back to Europe. But the Irish did not go home. Instead they stayed and did the jobs that no one else wanted. They worked the mines, built the railroads, and fueled the industrial machine until the next wave of immigrants arrived. Irish Americans now comprise the second largest ethnic group in the US. Several presidents of both parties have Irish ancestors. It is the story of America. Immigrants building and blending into the country while contributing something unique to the American culture. As a descendant of Irish, Scot, and German immigrants I find that worth celebrating.

Change and the Church

Every decade there is some new movement that seeks to revitalize the local church. Some of these movements are a welcome relief while others are a wicked poison. Often the movements are not anything new, just a repackaged version of an older attempt at reform. Change is often the mantra of these movements and they are proclaimed as a panacea for the church. The doctrines of such movements should always be the first thing examined. The popularity of a movement is not an indicator of validity. Fascism has been very popular at times, but that does not mean it is a correct political approach. Animism has had more adherents than any modern religion, but we know it is not the correct religious approach. After theology, practice should be the next thing examined. Does the movement practice what it preaches? Does it encourage correct ethical behavior among its adherents? These would seem to be obvious concerns, but it is amazing how many people follow modern pied pipers who publish and profess lies.

We are constantly told about how we can better do church. Often the methods do not require any change of theology and only minor changes in practice. However, there are still troubling elements that often emerge from these movements. Why do modern churches feel the need to criticize traditional churches? Emergent and missional churches are quick to call traditional churches judgmental and insincere. Is the name calling not an indication that they are no different? They are quick to judge those who prefer to dress well for church - apparently sloven dress is intended to bring us closer to God. The problem is not the style of worship, but the aim and source of worship.

The goal of any church service should be to glorify God. Ultimately this cannot be done by human methods and means. The Holy Spirit must be the source of true worship. Only when God enables us to worship can we truly worship. If God is not the object of our worship, worship becomes a deluded form of entertainment. If God does not initiate worship, then we end up pursuing our own ideals of God and create idols in our image. These dangers exist in all churches, whether they are traditional, emergent or missional. Change is not the solution nor is it necessarily the problem. We must worship God in Spirit and in Truth.