by Jerry Huerta
copyright 2024
Historicism holds the seven churches as literal, symbolic, and prophetic. In the prophetic sense, knowing the ethos or the defining spirit or mood of the Church in a particular historical period corresponds with the letters to the churches. The ethos of specific eras of the Church is not ignored by those who value knowledge and understanding,
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction… How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? (Proverbs 1:7, 22)
Church history follows the letters to the churches. Respectively, we live in an ethos of a commercial society, and according to the prophetic sense, the Church in our day is market-driven, influenced by our market-driven society,
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God… Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. (Revelation 3:14, 17)
Seeking God and pursuing knowledge allows us to discern the characteristics of different church eras, which affirms the letter to the Church in Laodicea reflects our current ethos.
Understanding the ideal ethos of the Church, often referred to as the city on a hill, is crucial, insomuch Christ praised the church in Philadelphia. Philadelphia represents a brief but true restoration of the Church before entering the era of the Laodicea in modern times. Most historicists and even futurists agree that Sardis represents the Reformation based on the interpretation of the name. Historicist David Wilcoxson explains the meaning of Sardis,
is the “escaping one,” or those who “come out,” so it’s an excellent symbol of the church era during the Reformation period when the Protestants preached the Gospel.[1]
The ethos of Sardis was outlined in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians,
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
Protestantism escaped the ecclesiocracy of the Papacy, only to be caught in the unholy union again, as documented by former associate editor of Ministry Magazine, Orley M. Berg,
The letter to Sardis is strikingly appropriate to the post-Reformation period of the church, a period fittingly described as “the age of dead orthodoxy.” Appropriate dates suggested for the Sardis period are from the close of the Council of Trent in 1563 to the beginning of the great religious awakening in 1734.
Instead of continuing its work of restoration, the Reformation committed the great error of submitting the church to the protection and support of civil authorities. Although separating from the established church, Protestants became subject to the state. In so doing, the church was forced to compromise some of the basic tenets of evangelical Protestantism and to protect her creeds in endless controversies.
This greatly contributed to spiritual deterioration. Church life largely became little more than form and ceremony; preaching centered on promoting right thinking, with little regard for the condition of the heart. According to Newman, the church historian, personal conversion, even in the case of ministers of the Gospel, seems not to have been expected.[2]
Only Christ lawfully possesses the authority residing in both miter and crown, authority over matters in church and temporal affairs, and the latter consummated at his return (Psalm 110). The Papacy’s attempt to wield power in both jurisdictions as an ecclesiocracy is what made it blasphemous, fulfilling Daniel 7:8 and Revelation 13:5. Protestantism separated itself from the blasphemous power of the Papacy but then held intercourse with the princes of the earth, which is why Sardis is judged almost dead, and many arrayed in defiled garments,
And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. (Revelation 3:1)
Historians such as sociologist George M. Thomas concur,
The Reformation found its first alliance with the territorial prince, partly because of a mutual interest in undermining imperial church authority, but basically because of a similar ontology based on rationalizing principles and a common acceptance of a rational central authority (Walzer 1965). The spread of the Reformation throughout the town councils must be interpreted in the larger political context of its isomorphism with the prince as well as with the town’s increasing dependence on and incorporation into the central authority.[3]
Berg goes on to verify that “there were faithful ones in Sardis,”
Truly it could be said of the church in the Sardis period, “Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.”
But, as in every period of the church, there were faithful ones in Sardis. God declared, “Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy” (verse 4).
During this time, a third force was at work, in addition to both Rome and the established churches of the Reformation. Known as the Radical Reformation, it advocated the principle of a free church in a free state.[4]
Berg comments further on the Radical Reformers,
The hallmark of the Radical Reformers was their zeal for New Testament Christianity and their emphasis on complete freedom for each believer to worship God according to his own conscience…
History testifies that the basic principles of American democracy had their roots, not in the established churches of the Reformation, but in the so-called “sects” of the third force, or Radical Reformation. Through these groups the true spirit of the evangelical Reformation was preserved and advanced.[5]
Berg verifies the origins of the movement that led to the Philadelphian era. The spirit or ethos of a free state abides where “rulers are the servants and the people,” which Benjamin Franklin and the founders of the United States held.[6] This is the ethos of the Philadelphian era, which Christ affirmed,
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:25-28)
The rules of the unbelievers cannot resist the carnal nature to subjugate and exploit the people under them. However, a free state is founded upon the principles of a more perfect union, one of the common good, a pledge to domestic tranquility, the common defense, and the general welfare to posterity. This was the pledge to the people of the United States and why it was in America that the Philadelphian ethos flourished for a brief interval. American evangelical author Nancy R. Pearcey documents this time as one in which the people briefly held the ethos of the common good, as opposed to self-interests,
In the colonial period, the husband and father was regarded as the head of the household— and headship had a highly specific definition: It was defined as a divinely sanctioned office that conferred a duty to represent not his own individual interests but those of the entire household. This was an extension of the classical republican political theory discussed in chapter 10, in which a social institution (family, church, or state) was regarded as an organic unity where all shared in a common good. There was a “good” for individuals, but there was also a “good” of the whole, which was more than the sum of its parts— and this latter was the responsibility of the one in authority. He was called to sacrifice his own interests— to be disinterested— in order to represent the interests of the whole. 12 Husbands and fathers were not to be driven by personal ambition or self-interest but to take responsibility for the common good of the entire household.[7]
The ethos of the Philadelphian era is one of promoting the common good, in which the rulers are the servants to the people, which was held for a brief period at the founding and colonial period in America, lasting into the mid-nineteenth century. The era culminated with the rise of the merchants, who were fostered by Protestant factions bent on self-interest. It was this latter faction that held intercourse with the princes, fulfilling the illustrations of the harlot Babylon,
And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. (Revelation 18:1-5)
We are called to come out of an ethos of self-interest and into one in which we uphold the common good, which is the ethos of the Philadelphian Church and the 144 thousand.
[1] David Wilcoxson, Revelation Timeline Decoded, Independently published (January 14, 2021) 257.
[2] Orley M. Berg, Sardis The Dead Church, Ministry Magazine, November 1978, 17.
[3] George M. Thomas, Revivalism and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press; Revised edition (January 19, 1998), 147.
[4] Berg, Sardis The Dead Church
[5] Berg, Sardis The Dead Church
[6] July 26, 1787: A Last Debate before Adjourning, July 26, 1787: A Last Debate before Adjourning (U.S. National Park Service)
[7] Nancy R. Pearcey, TOTAL TRUTH Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, Crossway; Study Guide edition (February 28, 2008), 328.
