369AD Christian Missions History Musings (CMHM). Inspiring But Different

369AD was the approximate date of the completion of the translation of the Bible into the language of the Goths— a Germanic Language. This was completed before the Vulgate Latin translation (although Latin translation did occur before this). The Gothic Bible exists before the Armenian translation. That is kind of amazing considering that Armenia was the first “Christian nation.” Other early translations are Coptic and Syriac.

I am far from an expert in the background of the early language translations of the Bible. However, it does seem as if there is a difference between the Gothic Bible and the other Bibles. It seems to me as if the Gothic Bible was more of a missionary venture than the others. The translation was not just a translation into a new language, it was a translation into a new language group. Additionally, the translation was done fairly early in the evangelization of the Goths. Further, the language, much like Armenian, required the creation of an alphabet for written translation to occur. Again, I am open to correction on this, but I see the Gothic Bible as being the first missions translation.

Ulfilas (311AD to 383AD) lived through a time of transition in the Roman Empire. He was born in the year of the Battle of Milvian Bridge when Christianity became fully permitted, and even favored in the Empire, and lived two years beyond the date when it became the state religion.

Ulfilas was believed to be “bi-racial” at least in the sense of having one parent who was Cappodocian Greek and one being Goth. He is seen as the “Apostles to the Goths” although he spent only a few years north of the Danube. Still, his ministry to Goths within the Empire probably also included outreach beyond the borders.

The Gothic Bible is traditionally ascribed to Ulfilas as his own personal project. Many today think it was the work of a group of scholars. That is likely to be true, but it is also quite likely that he had a prominent, perhaps even leading, role in the activity.

Ulfilas is challenging for many missiologists today. Ulfilas was an Arian. That is, he believed that Jesus was a created being. As such, Jesus lacks co-eternality with the Father, and is less than deity. It seems like three responses I have seen have been (1) ignore this uncomfortable fact, (2) declare him non-Christian and so not relevant to Christian missions, and (3) look at him as being “only a little bit Arian.” It seems like (1) and (3) are the most common.

It did get me thinking. If Ulfilas was Arian, I am not sure how relevant it is to be just “a little bit Arian.” Would we listen to a missionary of Islam if he was just “a little bit Muslim”? That just seems weird.

It does seem to be part of a broader tendency to minimize the differences of people we want to find inspiring. Dietrich Bonnhoeffer was definitely not an America-style Evangelical Christian (theologically… politically), but one may not know this if one reads Metaxas’ book, or watched the Angel Studio’s biographical film. It is like we need to pretend differences don’t exist for us to find someone inspirational.

I kind of get it. I was raised up in the Christian Fundamentalist tradition. People were not generally seen as inspiring if they failed any sort of litmus test in terms of theology. The result ends up being either demonizing them and saying they have nothing to tell us… or pretend that the differences don’t exist.

I was reading “Soul Survivor” by Philip Yancey. One of the people he found inspiring was Mahatma Gandhi. This is despite the fact that Gandhi would not describe himself as a Christian. When Yancey wrote a positive article on Gandhi and Gandhi’s picture was put on the cover of an edition of Christianity Today, there were strong reactions. One reader question how it was possible to put the picture of a person on the cover who is presently “burning in hell.” The obvious question to this rather strong remark might be to ask the person “When did God give you the unique gift to read people’s hearts in light of God’s justice and mercy?” But perhaps even more valid would be the question, “Is it okay to be inspired by people who are not Christians?” Jesus appeared to be impressed by the faith of people who would not describe themselves as Jewish and perhaps not even a follower of Yahweh.

I also remember when I was very young and many people in my faith tradition considered Martin Luther King Jr. to be unworthy of listening to because he was an adulterer (sadly all too true), and a communist (a doubtful charge— classic bugaboo of cultural Christians in the US). But MLK had a message that American Christians really needed to hear. Discounting everything he said because of a (truthfully pretty inexcusable) failing is just wrong.

All of this meandering has a point. The three options I had above I think are flawed. Option #1… just ignore the differences doesn’t really honor the differences. Option #3 is perhaps even worse. One is minimizing the differences meaning that one is trying to place the other person in your own camp through deception. Option #2 is perhaps the worst. If we discount the wisdom of every person we can find fault with, we are likely to make ourselves fools, as well as those around us.

I think we can go for Option #4. We can find inspiration in people who we lack commonality with. We can find inspiration in another person while accepting, even honoring, the differences. Ulfilas almost certainly differed from me in a WIDE range of beliefs and practices. Those differences may in some ways be VERY important. At the same time, he can be a great inspiration as one of the first great cross-cultural missionaries.