It is doubtful that there was any more significant Supreme Court decision in the 20^th Century than Brown v. Board of Education. [1] Beginning in 1951, black students in Virginia and other states protested their unequal status in the state’s segregated educational system. Eventually, the NAACP proceeded with five cases challenging the school systems; these were later consolidated under what is now known as Brown v. Board of Education or “The Segregation Cases,” as Alexander Bickel refers to them in his book, The Least Dangerous Branch.[2]

Bickel had a unique understanding of the cases because he had clerked for Justice Frankfurter during the term immediately preceding the cases’ final hearing and decision by the court, and had drafted a memorandum for the justice outlining the history of the 14^th Amendment as it pertained to the case. The case is important for The Least Dangerous Branch because it was the sensitive handling of this case (urged by Frankfurter), which was potentially politically explosive, that partially inspired Bickel’s book, which is an extended essay on how the Court can wisely exercise the powers it possesses under the Constitution.

Brown v. Board of Education and the Segregation Cases

In each of the Segregation cases as they reached the Supreme Court, Black minors sought admission to their local community public schools on a nonsegregated basis. The students had previously been denied entry to schools attended by white children under laws that mandated or allowed segregation based on race. The plaintiffs claimed that such segregation violated their rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. In all but one case from Delaware, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs, citing the so-called “separate but equal” doctrine established in its earlier decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. [3] Under Plessy, the state could argue that equality of treatment existed when the races were provided substantially equal facilities, even if those facilities were separate. The plaintiffs argued that segregated public schools are not truly “equal” and cannot be made so, and therefore, they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Recognizing the significance of the issue, the Court took jurisdiction, and the case was argued during the 1952 Term. Later in 1953, a re-argument was held to address specific questions posed by the Court. This re-argument focused on the historical situation surrounding the passage of the 14^th Amendment and its intent.

Finally, on May 17, 1954, the Court rendered its decision.  Chief Justice Warren, speaking for the Court held that segregation of white and black children in the public schools solely based on race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denied to impacted children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment — even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors of white and Negro schools may be equal.

The Basis and Reasoning of the Court

As readers will recall, the 14^th Amendment reads in part:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [4]

The earlier case of Plessy v. Ferguson had concluded that separation of the races was justified and constitutional if the education received was equal. The Reasoning of the Court

In their briefs to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs argued that even where school districts provided equal resources and facilities to both white and black schools, the underlying rationale for segregation remained a belief that black students are inferior to white students, a message that detrimentally impacted Black children and their educational, mental and emotional development. The NAACP brief was a kind of “Brandeis brief,” filled with scientific and sociological evidence that supported the children’s plea. It relied heavily on historical and social science research to demonstrate the detrimental impact of segregation on black students. The Court agreed with the analysis. [5]

The Decision of the Court

Delivering the unanimous opinion of the Court In Brown v. Board of Education, Chief Justice Earl Warren seemed to accept this line of reasoning. He wrote of black children, “To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”

Two passages state the conclusions of the Court:

We come then to the question presented: does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.[6]

Again, later in the opinion:

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[7]

The Court accepted the plaintiff’s argument that it was simply impossible for separate schools to be equal in any fundamental way, and that an educational system tallowingsuch a situation would inevitably be unequal, thus depriving students of Equal Protection under the law.

All Deliberate Speed

While Brown v. Board of Education declared the system of legal segregation of the races in schools unconstitutional, there was more to be done in order that its goal might be achieved. One year after the original decision the Court issued what is known as “Brown II.” [8] In Brown II, the Court ordered the states to end segregation with “all deliberate speed.” Generally, when a court enters an order, such as “Stop doing this,” the order has an immediate effect. With school desegregation, the situation was much different. In this instance, the Court concluded that, to achieve the goal of desegregation, the lower federal courts were to “enter such orders and decrees consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to these cases.”

For nearly a century, segregated school districts existed. There were duplicate buildings, teachers, administrators, and other resources that would have to be unified, or some schools would need to close while others opened. No single party in one lawsuit was directly affected. Changes had to be implemented not only in Topeka, Kansas, but in many other places. There was a significant danger that, especially in the South, public schools might be shut down entirely. Additionally, there was almost certain legal resistance led by certain southern politicians. In fact, to some extent, all the negative outcomes considered by the Supreme Court in their judgment did occur.

The Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, used the phrase “with all deliberate speed” with some degree of thought. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used the term in his 1912 decision in Virginia v. West Virginia, stating that “A question like the present should be disposed of without undue delay. But a state cannot be expected to move with the celerity of a private businessman; it is enough if it proceeds, in the language of the English Chancery, with all deliberate speed.” [9] Virginia v. West Virginia was a case stemming from the division of West Virginia and Virginia during the American Civil War. After the war, it was necessary to determine what proportion West Virginia should pay of the indebtedness of Virginia for improvements in that state at the time of their separation. [10]

Not everyone was satisfied with the Court’s decision in Brown II. As Thurgood Marshall (who argued the case and was later an Associate Justice) and other civil rights lawyers considered the second ruling, they tried to understand what the Court meant by adding the crucial phrase “all deliberate speed” to its opinion. It is reported that after reading the decision, a staff member checked a dictionary to confirm their worst fears — that the phrase “all deliberate speed” meant “slow,” and that the supposed victory was undermined because resisters were allowed to end segregation on their own timetable.

As a practical matter, the requirement for slowness resulted from discussions in the Court and the kind of compromise needed to reach unanimity on such an important decision. Certain members of the court agreed to join the unanimous majority opinion understanding that the eventual decree would allow for gradual enforcement by local courts as they implemented the decision in specific cases before them. [11]

Justice Felix Frankfurter used the phrase several times before Chief Justice Warren made it famous in Brown II. In fact, it was Frankfurter who argued for the phrase “all deliberate speed” clause in Brown II, a clause meant to prevent states and school boards from obstructing and delaying the law’s implementation, not simply to permit delay. In Cooper v. Aaron, the court clarified this point. In many cases, district courts could order immediate desegregation. However, the court was willing to adopt exceptions:

On the other hand, a District Court, after analysis of the relevant factors (which, of course, excludes hostility to racial desegregation), might conclude that justification existed for not requiring the present nonsegregated admission of all qualified Negro children. In such circumstances, however, the Court should scrutinize the program of the school authorities to make sure that they had developed arrangements pointed toward the earliest practicable completion of desegregation, and had taken appropriate steps to put their program into effective operation. It was made plain that delay in any guise in order to deny the constitutional rights of Negro children could not be countenanced, and that only a prompt start, diligently and earnestly pursued, to eliminate racial segregation from the public schools could constitute good faith compliance. State authorities were thus duty bound to devote every effort toward initiating desegregation and bringing about the elimination of racial discrimination in the public school system.[12]

 In Cooper v. Aaron, the court clarified that “all deliberate speed” was not intended to be used as a delay tactic or to create an environment that could undermine the decision. The phrase meant committing every reasonable effort to achieve the goal of desegregation. In retrospect, it is hard to see how the Court could have proceded more wisely or quickly.

Conclusion

At each critical juncture in the Least Dangerous Branch, Bickel references Segregation Cases. Throughout his book, he seeks to show the delicate balance required between an authoritarian, unelected judiciary and a more reasonable, democratic approach, which he calls the “approach of principle.” To create a democratic judiciary, the court must be willing to adhere to principles while also accepting the limitations on those principles as they are applied over time.[13]Bickel has had his detractors. One of them famously observed that his approach amounted to advocating “100% insistence on principle, 20% of the time.”[14]

Why did the Segregation Cases cast such a heavy shadow over the author? I believe the answer lies in the allure these cases held for the Court, an allure that the Warren Court found increasingly hard to resist. The lure was to apply what the justices perceived as the underlying principles of the Constitution in a manner that assumed “every right-thinking person” would ultimately agree. Unfortunately, this was not the case, leading to unintentional division within the nation and a loss of respect for the Court. Over the following 20 years, the court repeatedly fell into this same trap—nowhere more disastrously than its forays into fundamentally moral and sexual matters. That discussion, however, must wait for another day.

As one commentator put it:

In The Least Dangerous Branch and in subsequent writings, Bickel warned progressives not to race ahead too quickly; not to press the Court to recognize rights divorced from principles rooted in national experience; and not to forget that the Court undertakes its work in the context of a broader set of governmental and societal institutions.  Progressives and conservatives alike ignore those lessons at their own peril.[15]

For the time being, it is sufficient to remember that, in many ways, the Segregation Cases marked the end of a long march toward racial equality that began in 1861. During the 1960s, additional legislation and decisions were made, but the decisive battle had already been fought in the segregation cases. America would be desegregated and intolerant of attempts to reintroduce any form of racial segregation into American life. Behind Brown v Board of Education, there lurks the figure of Felix Frankfurter and his clerk, Alexander Bickel, who worked to be sure that the Court made the correct decision and in a way that would enhance the prestige of the Supreme Court, which the Segregation Cases clearly did.

I sometimes forget that these blogs are intended to reveal something about the wise and loving life for those interested in a deeper dive into wisdom. Plessy v. Ferguson and the earlier Civil Rights cases represented a court that was acting in immediate political expediency, forgetting the longer-term results of continuing the plague of segregation in the South. Brown v. Board of Education was a long-awaited righting of an ancient wrong. Our situation is not the same, and we do not always agree on what the wise and loving course of action might be—but it is seldom right to simply follow popular opinion and embrace the prejudices of an age.

In future blogs, I will demonstrate how certain mistakes made during Reconstruction and after its end harmed both the Court and the American people. This indicates that the Court is a court of law, not a mini-legislature. When the Court uses its power unwisely to support the “spirit of the age”, it often makes serious errors. Judges are not better than the rest of us in divining the future–and must avoid the delusion that they understand the best future for 300 million people.

Copyright 2025, G, Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

[2] Alexander Bickle, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs Merrill, 1962).

[3] Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

[4] Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment XIV (1868).

[5] Makiah Lyons, & Paige Duggins-Clay, “Brown vi Board of Education—The Law in Education” (June 12, 2024) https://www.idra.org/education_policy/brown-v-board-of-education-the-law-in-education/ (Downoaded September 12, 2025).

[6] Brown v. Board of Education, cited above.

[7] Id.

[8] Brown v. Board of Education (No. II) 49 U.S. 294 (1955).

[9] Virginia v. West Virginia 222 U.S. 17 (1911).

[10] Virginia v. West Virginia, 220 U.S. 1 (1911).

[11] See John A. Powell “9. Why All Deliberate Speed?: Using Brown to Understand Brown” om  Stewart, Mac A. The Promise of Justice: Essays on Brown v. Board of Education. The Ohio State University Press, 2008. Project MUSE. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/27872 (downloaded September 25, 2025).

[12] Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).

[13] Least Dangerous Branch, 244.

[14] Gerald Gunther, The Subtle Vices of the “Passive Virtues”—A Comment on Principle and Expediency in Judicial Review, 64 COLUM. L. REV. 1, 3, 24 (1964).

[15] Adam White, “Bickel’s principled Prudence” Online Alexander Bickel Symposium August 15, 2012 https://www.scotusblog.com/2012/08/online-alexander-bickel-symposium/ (downloaded September 12, 2025).

 

 

In No. 78 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton defended Article III of the Constitution, calling it “the least dangerous branch.” In his article, Hamilton assumed that the federal judiciary would be able to declare acts of Congress invalid:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[1]

Hamilton held a traditional view of the courts as interpreters of the law. In the course of that duty, where the plain meaning of a legislative act was contrary to the Constitution, the Constitution would be controlling.

In the famous case of Marbury v. Madison, Justice Marshall, speaking for the court, established the principle that the Supreme Court has the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional if they conflict with the Constitution. [2]Soon after Marbury, this power expanded to include acts of state courts. [3]

In The Least Dangerous Branch, legal philosopher and scholar Alexander Bickel challenged the limited views of Hamilton and Marbury, offering a different perspective. He views the federal courts as protectors of specific fundamental values embedded in the Constitution, as they emerge through the nation’s political history.[4]

He states his thesis as follows:

It is, as I have argued, decidedly the Court’s function to proclaim principled goals, including some that it foresees may be incapable of immediate, full attainment.[5]

Note that Bickel’s mid-Warren Court view of the Constitution and the role of the courts differs dramatically from that of Hamilton and Marshall. The Supreme Court is not an instrument by which the Constitution is interpreted based solely on its language, but rather a source of values that the Court interprets in accordance with contemporary ideas. In this view, the courts influence public opinion and sway it by their decisions.[6] In other words, Bickel views the Court as an essentially political institution restrained not by its role as an interpreter of the Constitution, but by specific prudential rules that prevent it from losing its moral authority.

The Least Dangerous Branch

Bickel understood that traditional review poses challenges in a democracy. The idea that unelected judges should have the power to make laws, interpret laws, or interpret the constitution in ways that effectively create legislation conflicts with democratic principles. He also recognized that his theory has implications for the court and its legitimacy. [7] The current situation shows that he was right—and that the theory he advocates requires significant revision.[8]

Hamilton and Marshall derived their notion of judicial duty to declare legislative acts contrary to the Constitution from the position of the Constitution as the “supreme law” and the courts’ duty as interpreters of the law. Bickel supports a view of the judicial process as endorsing or rejecting measures of the representative branches as compatible or incompatible with fundamental principles embodied in the Constitution, thereby legitimating or condemning governmental action based on a principled decision that politics alone cannot provide.[9] To do so without undermining its own authority, the Court must proceed with wisdom and prudence.

Passive Virtues

Bickel’s central thesis is supported by his examination of “the passive virtues,” which the court uses to justify giving itself a greater role with some degree of judicial restraint. The Court’s duty to defend “the enduring values of a society” is often best served through judicial inaction or what he called “passive virtues.” Unlike the other two branches of government, which generally address immediate issues, the Supreme Court can and should choose not to decide right away and wait for a more appropriate time to weigh in. [10]

These passive virtues mean that it is wise for the court sometimes to choose not to exercise its power to grant certiorari and to conduct judicial review using various techniques, such as its right to refuse to hear a case, to reject an appeal because it is not “ripe for appeal,” or because it involves political questions, and so on. Bickel highlights the difference between expediency and principle. He believes that the Court should act to uphold certain principles, but he rejects the idea that the Court should always do so, especially when it would be unwise to do so.

While national emergencies may require the political branches to act quickly, Bickel argues that the Court should generally take time in decision-making and reserve its authority for deciding issues of significant long-term importance to American society. Even before Marbury, the Court declined to issue advisory opinions or enter into the political process by making proclamations, except in deciding cases brought before it.[11] For the Court to take jurisdiction over a matter, the plaintiff must have standing to be heard, and there must be an actual case in controversy before the Court. The Supreme Court has also taken the view that it will not take jurisdiction over a matter that is not ripe for a decision by the court.[12]

These and other passive virtues encourage the Court to avoid unnecessary decisions and to limit those it makes carefully. Both liberal and conservative Courts have sometimes made rulings that harm the Court’s legitimacy. This is especially true when the Court chooses to rule on social or political issues that are typically handled by Congress or state legislatures. Finally, as with the gerrymandering cases, the Court should steer clear of “political questions” that the Constitution assigns to the legislative or administrative branches.

There are no simple solutions to the question of when the Court should act. It is a matter of wisdom and judicial prudence born of experience. As one commentator puts it:

If passivity was at times the best posture for the Court, as Bickel argued, how were the Justices to know when a case called for principled adjudication and when it called for “the techniques and allied devices for staying the Court’s hand”? To this question, Bickel’s answer was prudence. [13]

In other words, law is essentially prudential, and the decision of the Supreme Court to hear cases is essentially one of prudential judgment.

Judicial Prudence

Bickel came to believe that the Warren Court, in its later years, became too aggressive in using the law to push social change, including changes he personally supported. He felt that the court had not developed the virtue of practical wisdom, which would help it avoid becoming involved in politically sensitive issues. Bickel believed that the court was increasingly stepping into the realm of principle, harming its higher purpose.[14] Judicial imprudence is not a virtue in defending principles—especially on highly contested moral issues. What the Court did in Brown v. Board of Educationshould not serve as a model for engaging in every possible controversial social issue—a temptation the Warren Court occasionally fell into. [15] Bickel sought to ensure the Court’s practical prudence and protect it from overextension and flawed reasoning.

It is essential to recognize that legal prudence is not the opposite of principle; instead, it’s a thoughtful approach to applying core human values to real-world situations. Due to the complexity of human institutions and the unpredictability of human nature, a prudent person knows when to stand firm and when to be flexible. Sometimes judicial prudence requires patience and a willingness to wait for the right moment, recognizing that occasionally imperfect compromises and messy solutions are the best judges can do—since reality rarely aligns perfectly with human ideals. Prudence enables judges to protect Constitutional principles while accepting the limits of what can realistically be achieved. Bickel believes his practical approach generally works better than ideological political decisions based on abstract dogmas, which often result in flawed solutions.[16]

It should not surprise anyone that this is a sentiment with which I agree, with the caveat that prudence never loses sight of the moral or ethical principles underlying the law or the negative impact on the legitimacy of the judiciary of imprudent or merely superficially pragmatic decision-making. Much subsequent criticism of Bickel and his thesis emphasizes this point. It is never moral or prudent to base a failure to address an issue merely on pragmatic or political considerations.

Conclusion

As mentioned, in the years after Brown v. Board of Education, Bickel became increasingly concerned that the Warren Court was applying judicial review too aggressively and divisively. Bickel understood that the Supreme Court is a “counter-majoritarian” force in American politics. He recognized that the Court has a role in resisting the tendency of majorities and social consensus to act unjustly against certain groups. On the other hand, fostering social change is not the primary duty of the judicial system. The primary duty of the judiciary is to defend and explicate enduring values enshrined in the Constitution. Although many argue that Bickel did not fully reconcile judicial review with democratic principles, his contributions to understanding the limits and proper use of judicial power remain unquestionably important.

Copyright 2025, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 78.

[2] Marbury v. Madison 5 US 1, Cranch 137 137 (1803)

[3] Fletcher v. Peck 10 US 87 (1809).

[4] Alexander Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962).

[5] Id, 141

[6] Id,140.

[7] Bickel understood that traditional review poses challenges in a democracy. The idea that unelected judges should have the power to make laws, interpret laws, or interpret the constitution in ways that effectively create legislation conflicts with democratic principles. He also recognized that his theory has implications for the court and its legitimacy. The current situation shows that he was right—and that the entire theory he advocates requires significant revision.

[8] Bickel can be seen as ushering in the end of “Legal Process Jurisprudence,” of which he was a major advocate. In recent years, his theory has been superseded on the left and the right by other theories. Nevertheless, his views are still relevant, and his work is one of the most read books in the field of jurisprudence.

[9] Herbert Wechsler, “Review of The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics.” Alexander M. Bickel. Indianapolis; New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1962. In the Yale Law Review, 1966 https://openyls.law.yale.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/f22c144a-5495-4eb4-952c-d680050e291a/content (downloaded September 6, 2025).

[10]  Yale Law School, “Alexander Bickel, who Defined Supreme Court Paradox, Gets Consideration” (November 7, 2024)  https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/alexander-bickel-who-defined-supreme-court-paradox-gets-new-consideration (downloaded September 8, 2025).

[11] Least Dangerous Branch, 115.

[12] Id, 123.

[13] David, Wolitz, “Alexander Bickel and the Demise of Legal Process Jurisprudence” University of Tennessee College of Law Research Paper Series (June 2020), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3531249 (downloaded September 9, 2025); See also, Alexander M. Bickel, The Supreme Court, 1960 Term, Foreword: The Passive Virtues, 75 HARV. L. REV. 40, 40–42 (1961).

[14] Id, at 144.

[15] See, J Patrick White, “The Warren Court Under Attack: The Role of the Judiciary in a Democratic Society,” 19 Maryland Law Review 3(Summer 1959); “The Warren Court and Living Constitutionalism,” 10 Indiana Journal of Law 1 (2022).

[16] David, Wolitz, cited above at 144-145.

The adoption of the Constitution on September 17, 1787, followed the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (Articles of Confederation), which was the first attempt by the colonies to create a unified government. The Articles of Confederation essentially established a union of independent states. The problem with this federation was that it lacked key elements of a strong government: it had only a limited executive and judicial branch, meaning there was no effective way to carry out policies or enforce the states’ failure to meet financial and other obligations, leading to an ineffective government. There was no method of taxation, which kept the states near bankruptcy. Additionally, there was no practical way to prevent states from interfering with interstate commerce, resulting in trade disputes. The provisions for the United States to conduct foreign relations were also inadequate, creating a risk of war. Lastly, there was no effective way to establish a consistent and strong defense, leaving the new nation vulnerable to military intervention. As a result, in 1786, the first Constitutional Convention was convened.

The convention opened on May 25, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The story of the convention is beyond the scope of this blog, but it merits study by every American. There are many fine studies of the event, the most popular of which is “Miracle in Philadelphia” by Catherine Drinker Bowen. [1] The convention is unique in history for the quality of its leadership and the experience and judgement of its members.

As its initial act, George Washington was elected its presiding officer. Washington did not talk a great deal during the convention, but his presence was important. Nearly everyone present knew that whatever form of government was chosen, Washington was its likely first leader. His prestige was such that, even without talking, he influenced events.

One of the delegates, future President James Madison, is of special note. During the course of the convention, three basic structures were suggested. Many delegates initially felt that the convention had been called to make amendments to the Articles of Confederation, and that the convention was neither authorized nor entitled to suggest the kind of sweeping change the Constitution ultimately embodied.

What is known as the “Virginia Plan” was the first presented and formed the course of the debate. Authored by James Madison of Virginia, this plan provided for three distinct branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) with the legislative branch divided into both an upper and lower house. Madison arrived well-prepared and with the basic books and materials he felt necessary for the intellectual guidance of the convention. He was the most crucial drafting force behind the final document. Madison’s notes taken as a journal during the convention are, next to the Federalist Papers, the most important primary source for interpreting the Constitution in light of the intent of its framers. [2]

Many smaller and southern states and delegates were unsure of the wisdom of the Virginia Plan.  They initially opposed Madison’s ideas. In response to Madison’s ideas, William Patterson of New Jersey submitted the “New Jersey Plan.” This plan was similar to the Articles of Confederation, with a unicameral legislature in which each state had a single vote. In fairness to this plan, it was probably much closer to what those who called the convention intended. Patterson is largely forgotten today, but he was one of the foremost intellectual figures at the convention.

Finally, the “moderate” Virginia plan and the more traditional New Jersey plan functioned to guide the debate towards a compromise. Still, it was not certain that the compromise would be practical. Alexander Hamilton then proposed “the Hamilton Plan,” which envisioned a much stronger central government along the lines of Great Britain. Under Hamilton’s plan, the national government would be supreme and would appoint state governors. There would be a strong national government with broad executive powers. It was unclear then, and remains unclear today, whether Hamilton was serious about the plan or whether its presentation was tactical to push the inevitable compromise towards a stronger central government.

In the end, two delegates from Connecticut, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, proposed a way of breaking the deadlock between the larger and smaller states on the issue of legislative representation, which became known as ” the Connecticut Compromise ” or the ” Great Compromise. This compromise proposed a system of dual representation. There would be a House of Representatives in which each state’s number of seats would be proportional to its population. There would also be a Senate in which all states would have the same number of seats. [3] In July 1787, the Great Compromise was adopted by a one-vote margin, clearing the way for the adoption of a final constitution. The Constitutional Convention approved it on September 17, 1787.

Conclusion

The adoption of the Constitution is one of the great stories of human history. We were blessed that a competent group of leaders was chosen to address the problems of the Articles of Confederation. Naturally, they were human, and mistakes were made—as they are and always will be made within the boundaries of human history. Nevertheless, they did the best they could and structured a republican democracy that has endured for centuries.

The fact that they were willing to compromise is something needed in our current situation. The “all or nothing” politics of power that have characterized our political system for decades now are not functional and prevent the kind of practical compromise that is needed in many areas, taxation and the deficit being two significant examples. We need wise statesmanship.

The Constitution was not perfect when adopted, which is why a Bill of Rights was added soon after. The cost of any union was the continuation of slavery, a moral evil that required a Civil War to end, and its consequences still affect us today. The founders did not anticipate that the nation would incur the enormous debts it has now. Even a person so farsighted as Alexander Hamilton could not conceive that the federal government would require the vast sums it spends today.  I am confident they would have demanded a balanced budget if they had known. They could not foresee that the national government would be given the powers it now holds. The project the founders started is not finished, and it never will be as long as freedom remains. Still, we are fortunate that they made such a strong start.

As Lincoln put it so well, “It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.”[4]

 

Copyright G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Catherine Drinker Bowen: Miracle in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention May to September 1787 (New York, NY: Little Brown and Company, 1966). This is a very well-done popular history. For those with a more scholarly bent, there are various others with a more academic tone. I believe her work to be unmatched, however.

[2] These notes are available both online and in printed form. See, “Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787” https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp (Downloaded June 2, 2021). Printed versions are available on amazon.com.

[3] In the end, the Connecticut compromise was amended to base representation in the House on total white population of each state and three-fifths of the black population. This provision of the Constitution is the most debated today and the most criticized. As any close student of the debate knows, it was reluctantly agreed to because without it there could be no agreement and the convention would have failed. Nevertheless, it had predicable unfortunate consequences that took the American Civil War to resolve.

 

[4] Lincoln, Abraham. “The Gettysburg Address.” 1863.

When Charlie Kirk was killed, I promised to write a blog about the importance of a healthy, non-violent political climate in our country and the way in which the assassination of any political figure strikes at the root of what a good society must be and endorse. Before I start, I must admit that I have never listened to Charlie Kirk speak nor read any of his books. I can’t say that I agree with everything I’ve heard he supported politically or theologically. These admissions do not matter because the main point is: No one deserves to be killed for expressing their opinions on religious or political issues in a peaceful way.

The Bitter Result of a False Narrative

In the past, I have written about what Walter Wink calls “the myth of redemptive violence,” or the false (demonic) idea that society can be improved through violence. [1]This mistaken belief runs deep in the American consciousness, perhaps due to the Civil War and the view that the First and Second World Wars were “just wars.” The first false narrative is that violence can create a just or stable society.

More deeply, the violence of our society, and the increasing lack of tolerance for Christians and others in the political arena, is also the result of the loss of belief in truth and justice, and the Nietzschean notion of the “will to power.” In a world in which there is a lack of confidence in the existence of truth and justice, there will always be those who resort to violence as a way of achieving their personal or political ends. The second false narrative is that the foundation of morals and society is power and the will to power.

That the political left is currently uniquely in danger of falling victim to the myth of redemptive violence is not the necessary result of its fundamental political views so much as it is because of the vulnerability of the left to revolutionary ideology and the popularity of Marxist thought in our society. However, the political right is not immune to the disease of believing that good things can result from evil means.  We live in a culture that often justifies the means by the desirability of the ends we seek to achieve. The third false narrative is that the ends justify the means.

The bitter fruit of these false narratives is the violence we seek daily in our society—a violence that threatens our culture and indeed many societies all over the world.

Conversation and Dialogue

Fortunately, many observers believe that the modern world is nearing its end, and something new is emerging. What we call “postmodernism” is just the beginning of change and could be better described as “Hyper-Modernism” or “End-stage Modernism.” The decline of modern thought into “hermeneutics of suspicion,” “deconstructionism,” and various forms of nihilism is essentially critical reasoning pushed to its limits. The false narrative of modernity must give way to something new. Hopefully, there will be a revival of reason, spiritual values, moral principles, and similar core elements in the slow development of a healthier society. The extreme corporatization of our society may change as a new form of socio-economic organization emerges. In the process, one hopes that the idea of a purely secular, materialistic, and scientifically managed state, prone to violence, will fade away until it finds its place within a more humane form of society.[2]

My understanding is that Charlie Kirk’s ministry focused on conversation and dialogue. A conversation is naturally communal and aims to build connections among people. It involves a relationship where two or more individuals share their thoughts and lives in a way that promotes cognitive, emotional, physical, and spiritual understanding, ultimately fostering a stronger sense of community. Hopefully, their ideas, thoughts, and commitments will align during the conversation, with the potential to resolve conflicts and reduce fragmentation in our culture. The word “dialogue” comes from two words meaning to reason through. The idea is that by sharing and reasoning with each other, we open the door to a deeper understanding of people, our society, and our world.

We need a national commitment to conversation and dialogue. As part of a healthy, society-wide dialogue and conversation, the community can be rebuilt, shared values can be discovered and affirmed, and a new sense of the importance of our society’s search for a just social and political system can be found. Moreover, if a sense of national conversation and dialogue exists among the various groups active in our political system, then freedom, including freedom of speech, can be maintained in a setting of mutual respect and understanding.[3]

A Better Narrative

In the past, I have written about how the materialism of the modern world and the idea of the world as a machine, rooted in Newtonian physics, has been replaced by a more relational perspective. Recently, this materialistic view has been replaced by a model that emphasizes deep interconnectedness, relationships, freedom, and inner sensitivity. It is an “organic model” that sees the universe not as a machine but as an organism or a process. In my view, and the view of others, this older way of thinking has led modern politicians, policy-makers, and intellectuals into many errors. Henry Sapp explains it as follows:

[We] are faced today with the spectacle of our society being built increasingly upon a conception of reality erected upon a mechanical conception of nature now known to be fundamentally false. … As a consequence of this widely disseminated misinformation, “well informed” officials, administrators, legislators, judges, educators, and medical professionals who guide the development of our society are encouraged to shape our lives in ways predicated on known-to-be-false premises about “nature and nature’s laws.” [4]

A worldview informed by quantum physics and relativity theory encourages us to see the world more like an organism than a machine. At a fundamental level, the world does not seem to be made up of matter and energy. Matter is a form of energy. Even more mysteriously, fundamental particles appear to be ripples on a quantum field. There is both freedom and uncertainty in this emerging worldview, both at a fundamental level (quantum uncertainty) and at an everyday level (chaos theory). Finally, all of reality is interconnected at a basic level. From a political point of view, while there is a “You” and a “Me,” you and I are also “We.” We are all part of one another. Like an organism, the world is constantly changing and evolving: In other words, it is not at all like a watch that is designed once and for all. Instead, the world is evolving, growing, and constantly changing.

The inevitable result of all this is that reason, spiritual values, moral imperatives, and similar factors will reemerge as important in a wise society. The vision of a purely secular, materially driven, and scientifically managed state will fade away until it finds its place within a more comprehensive and human-centered society. Just as the world consists of an intricately linked web of reality, governments will realize that human politics must begin with smaller units, such as the family, and naturally expand into larger organizational structures with important but limited powers.

The idea of the all-powerful nation-state that controls territory through legal, administrative, and bureaucratic force will be shown to be insufficient. A truly post-modern vision will emphasize social bonds and the development of shared values. Whether this occurs because of a major crisis and collapse of the current nation-state, world-state visions, or organically through the decisions of wise leaders, depends on the choices we all make. One thing is certain: a wise, healthy, and genuinely post-modern political order will value dialogue as much as debate and decision.

Toning Down the Rhetoric

If Charlie Kirk’s tragic death can help create a more humane and peaceful society, then he will not have died in vain. It is unhelpful to use his death to further divide and politicize our society. Sadly, on both the left and right, some people are exploiting this tragedy to rally their supporters in a way that increases polarization—and even more so if press reports are accurate. I am quite sure that Charlie Kirk would not want his followers to act this way—and I am 100 percent completely confident that the God he serves does not want any of us to behave this way.

Recently, there has been no sign that either “the chattering class” in the media or the “attention-getting and voter-mobilization class” in politics plans to make the necessary changes. This is unfortunate because we need more from our leaders, specifically a strategic and moral vision that can create profound change in our politics and help reconstruct our national community and unity.

[1] Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992).

 

[2] G. Christopher Scruggs, Illumined by Wisdom and Love: Essays on a Sophio-Agapic Constructive Postmodern Political Philosophy (Hunt, Texas: Quansus Press, 2024) 4-155. This portion of the essay is based on the argument made in that work.

[3] Id. This entire essay flows from the argument I made in this prior philosophical effort.

[4] Henry F. Sapp, “Whitehead, James, and the Ontology of Quantum Theory” 5(1) Mind and Matter (2007) downloaded at https://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/WJQO.pdf (June 16, 2020), 85. In this quote, Sapp is not speaking of the exact phenomena that I am concerned with here—the tendency to view all reality as a machine—but his quote is equally applicable to what I am saying in this essay. Sapp is concerned with the assumption of materialistic theory that our experience of human freedom and the efficacy of human thought is an illusion.

For the past several weeks, Kathy and I have been spending a good bit of time with people with whom we have been in Bible studies, Prayer Groups, and other small groups over the past many years. Some of these friendships are now nearly 50 years old. Some of them are about five years old. At least one of them is even shorter. One constant theme in our meetings has been how blessed we feel to have had the opportunity to spend time in a deep, meaningful relationship with each other.

I’ve given my testimony many times, and it is included in Crisis of Discipleship, which I wrote shortly after retirement. [1] It’s worth repeating time and time again, just as the apostle Paul repeats his own testimony, time and time again, in his preaching and writing. In 1976, nearly 50 years ago, I attended a Bible study in Houston, Texas. I was asked to do so by a young lady who worked in the same law firm. Over the next few months, I returned to church from a long absence, became a much stronger Christian, and began my life as a Christian teacher and leader.

In 1991, after serving as a deacon, elder, Sunday School teacher, and small group leader, as well as holding other responsibilities at First Presbyterian Church of Houston, Texas, I attended seminary in Richmond, Virginia. We started a small group almost immediately after arriving there. I also participated in a small group led by Matt at the seminary. After graduating in 1994, we established several small groups in Brownsville, Tennessee, one of which continues to meet today. When I moved to Richmond, Virginia, we became involved in discipleship groups, reunion groups, Salt & Light groups, and many other small groups. I often attended small groups when we lived in Bay Village, Ohio. Finally, when I retired and moved to San Antonio, we almost immediately began a small group that met in homes. Small groups have always been a part of our lives.

The Kingdom of God and Small Groups

Last evening, we attended a worship service for a new church starting in San Antonio. The reason we were there was that we had been in small groups with many of the participants in this effort. We went to support them and show our love and encouragement. Additionally, we attended because we recognize that one of the most effective ways the kingdom of God grows is through fostering genuine Christian community. Many of the leaders of this new church participate in a men’s ministry Bible study that I sometimes attend on Thursday mornings. One of the things that this group does is meet in small groups as well as in the larger group, which can sometimes number as many as 50 men. The men in these small groups come from several churches, though one of the churches that began the group historically has the most attendees. These men love and support one another, creating in these groups a little piece of the Kingdom of God.

At the very beginning of my daily prayer guide, I have the following quotation from the Apostle Paul:

As God’s holy and beloved chosen ones, put on compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another. If anyone has a complaint against another, forgive them. Just as the Lord has forgiven you, you should forgive others. Above all virtues, put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. Finally, let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which you have been called in one body. Be thankful. Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs to God with thankful hearts. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Christ (Colossians 3:12-17).

These words by the apostle Paul show us why churches must build community both within their larger fellowship and in smaller groups. The Christian church is not meant to function like any other secular organization. Instead, it should be a place where people can experience the transformative love of Christ. I have served as the pastor of both small and large churches. The reality is, it’s not possible to create a single large, loving community in a church with 1000 members. It’s even difficult in a church with 200 members. One way to expand the reach of the kingdom of God is by focusing on small Christian communities where people can personally experience the kingdom of God.

Characteristics of the Kingdom

The little text I quoted from Colossians gives us a hint as to some characteristics that should be present in these small groups. First, they should be characterized by Christian love. Small groups are places where people can be compassionate with one another, learn, show kindness, humility, and the ability to be patient with the faults of others. (And, of course, those others will be learning patience by putting up with our faults!)

Forgiveness. Anyone who has been in a small group for any length of time knows that forgiveness is essential. We are all human and inevitably do things that hurt or at least annoy others. As I’ve grown older, I like to say, “I don’t have enough friends that I can afford not to tolerate the ones that I have!” This statement reflects that we all must forgive others constantly, for minor mistakes and sometimes for major ones. People who never learn to forgive can’t fully experience the kingdom of God. After all, God brings us into that kingdom by forgiving us! It’s the least we can do to forgive others.

Harmony. The kingdom of God is a place where people are in harmony with God. As theologians often say, the kingdom of God exists wherever God rules. Wherever God’s love, wisdom, justice, and patience are present, the kingdom of God is also present. It is the wise church leader who builds a team of servant leaders capable of reflecting God’s wisdom and love in their small groups, creating an atmosphere where the larger church can also experience the kingdom of God. This harmony that God desires to establish in human relationships is called “shalom” or peace. It represents the relationship in which the self-giving love of God, demonstrated by Christ on the cross, is experienced in tangible human relationships.

Christ-like Love. As Paul recognizes when writing to the Colossians, this harmony cannot exist without agape, love. In Philippians, he writes a church he dearly loves the following famous words:

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:1-11).

Of course, creating a Christian community is impossible through our own human abilities. Those of us with above-average skills need constant reminders that we cannot build the kingdom of God on our own. Our selfish ambition, self-conceit, and human pride all interfere with creating the kingdom of God. It can only be built by those who are unselfish, humble, and willing to serve others. The kingdom of God can only be created in relationships where the love of God the Father, shown to us by Christ the Son, is experienced through the power of the Holy Spirit.

I’ve had the opportunity to work for more than one troubled church. In my experience, the trouble always begins with some kind of human ambition, self-conceit, or pride. Sometimes it’s the ambition, self-conceit, or pride of a pastor. Sometimes, it’s the ambition, self-conceit, or pride of a group of leaders. Sometimes it’s even the ambition, self-conceit, or pride of those who wish they were the leaders. All of us, and especially the most capable of us, can fall into the delusion that we are capable of doing what only God can do. I’ve learned it’s a big mistake.

Some years ago, I had the privilege of working with an outstanding Christian leader. Interestingly, he’s also the least ambitious, conceited, or prideful person I’ve ever worked with. It would be hard to completely explain how often this person forgave others, poured oil on the waters of a potential conflict, and refused to get his own way. One little illustration comes to mind. The leadership of this church was faced with a difficult decision that divided the leadership team. Some people thought one decision should be made, and others thought otherwise. Another decision should be made. They couldn’t reach an agreement.

My friend endured this for a long time. Eventually, the leadership team made a decision he personally disagreed with. Still, he supported the decision, and the outcome was successful. I am very confident that the outcome wouldn’t have been successful if he had shown hurt feelings, voiced his reservations about the leadership’s decision, or tried to undermine the result. I don’t think the church would have split, but it could have been close. I’ve watched other Christian leaders take a different approach that has resulted in conflict and even church splits. In none of these situations was the kingdom of God visible.

Conclusion

In this blog, I didn’t want to cover ground that was previously covered in Crisis of Discipleship. There are specific ideas that can be embodied in any concrete small group discipleship program. They will vary from church to church, but the fundamental thing is to start groups of around eight to 18 people and nurture Christian relationships within those groups.

Some years ago, our church hosted a series of small groups that were social events, but they also included a time of prayer, a brief Bible study, and a service to the church or community. One day, the leader of one of these groups came to see me. His group is having trouble. I asked him what they did in their group. He told me that the group met together, had a few margaritas, ate dinner, talked a while, and then went home. They did say grace before dinner. I suggested that perhaps it would be a good idea to dispense with the margaritas, have a very short Bible study after dinner, share a prayer request, and participate as a group in a Christmas program our church sponsored.

When he left my office, I wasn’t sure if he agreed. But he did. Several months later, he returned and told me how much better their group had become since making those small changes. “It’s amazing what the Bible study and prayer have done for our group!” he said later. I have told many people that a great Bible teacher did not lead the small group where I renewed my faith in Christ. It was led by a group of participants, none of whom knew much about the Bible, at least I didn’t. However, we read the Bible together, discussed the passage, shared questions, and prayed for each other and our community at the end of the meeting. That’s all there was to it.

As I mentioned, we’ve stayed pretty close together over the years. Interestingly, we now live all over the country. Most members are leaders in the congregations they now attend. The beginning of their journey into church leadership was participating in a small Bible study group in Houston, Texas. This should be an encouragement to pastors and other church leaders: You don’t have to be especially good at organization, Bible, teaching, prayer, or any other element of the Christian life to share your Christian faith with others. You just have to be willing.

Copyright 2025, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] G. Christopher Scruggs, Crisis of Discipleship: Renewing the Art of Relational Disciplemaking (Richmond, VA: Living Dialog Ministries, 2023).

The other morning, I received a message in my inbox from one of my favorite church consultants, whom we had worked with many times during my ministry. The title of his missive was something like, “The Church of the Future Will be Nothing Like the Church of the Past.” American evangelicals have a seemingly endless appetite for discovering the ancient faith by doing something new, and this particular communication was designed to tap into this desire we have for something new that will improve (or “return to the early church”) the modern church.

In the past, I wouldn’t have paused to question whether this was true. This time, I did. At the urging of one of our children, we have occasionally attended an Orthodox congregation. In this case, their form of worship is several centuries old, dating back to around 1400. At the same time, we live very close to an Anglican congregation, whose form of worship is highly liturgical and only slightly updated from the Anglican worship of the Reformation. Both churches are growing and prosperous. One is in one of the least Christian communities in Texas, and our neighborhood is one of the most progressive in San Antonio. What is going on here?

When I first attended my daughter’s church, I was struck by how young and diverse it was. There were people from all over the world in attendance, many of whom worked in the high-tech industry. The average age was younger than that of my former church, which was young for a Presbyterian congregation. As I read and visited with the priest in the Orthodox congregation (a former main-line evangelical), I was interested to hear him say that one of the things he came to realize was that the worship of the early church was considerably more like the worship in an average Orthodox church than that of the average American Bible Church. As I researched the history of worship, I concluded that he was more right than wrong.[1]

I am pretty typical of a Protestant in many ways, so when I first started attending an Orthodox Church, I found the liturgy confusing. Later, when my wife and I visited several Episcopal and Anglican congregations, we noticed that their liturgies were often eerily similar to the Orthodox worship. Sometimes, the wording was even the same. When I was asked to preach for a traditional Lutheran congregation in an emergency, I noticed the same thing. Over time, I realized that Protestants might have a lot to learn from those congregations that practice more liturgical worship. It could be that the church of the future will also resemble the church of the past.

Balancing Word and Sacrament

Most of the churches that I served had communion either quarterly or once a month. Even before I retired, I was aware that this was an anomaly. Until the Reformation, there is no known period in church history during which communion was not a weekly practice. Several years ago, my wife and I became involved in a renewal ministry where communion played a central role. Over the next several years, I began to appreciate the Catholic view of the Eucharist, as well as the importance of receiving communion weekly. In retirement, I almost always attend an evening service at a local Episcopal Church if I have not been in a communion service on that day. It may seem like a small thing, but communion is a physical action involving a physical body. We take communion. It’s a constant reminder that Christian faith is not merely a mental thing. Faith involves the whole person.

At the same time, I began to appreciate the practice of weekly communion, I also began to notice how truncated many Protestant services have become. Often, sermons can be 30 minutes or longer. If the service is timed in an hour or an hour and 15 minutes, this is a substantial amount of the entire service. To make this work, numerous traditional elements of worship must be eliminated. One enormous difference between the ancient liturgies and much contemporary worship is a minute of prayer involved and (most surprisingly for evangelicals, the many readings from scripture and prayers based on scripture.

I’ve also noticed that “Bible preachers”, of which I was one, often speak too long. My wife is known to comment about one particular preacher that “He usually says everything he has to say in 15 minutes and then repeats it for another 15 minutes.” Unfortunately, the same thing might’ve been said of me upon occasion. The preaching of the word is important, but practically speaking, the average layperson gets the most out of a good sermon. That’s about 15 minutes long. This leaves plenty of time for liturgical elements.

Prayer

One characteristic of the Orthodox liturgy is that the entire service is punctuated by prayer. In some cases, one may pray for the very same things on more than one occasion during a given service. Once again, to the reductionistic Protestant mindset, this may seem excessive until one understands that the central element of their worship is prayer. In almost every case, the congregation repeats a refrain and joins in the prayer being spoken by a priest or the deacon in charge.

This leads me to another observation about liturgical worship. Often, Protestants pride ourselves on the fact that our worship is “participatory.” Actually, our worship is less participatory because much of the praying is done from the front by a church leader, and there is little to no participation from the people in those prayers. Liturgical churches avoid this by using refrains in their worship. Since a number of these refrains are sung, the rhythm of the prayer is powerfully reinforced.

Music

There is probably no aspect of Orthodox worship that differs more from Protestant worship than the role of music. Usually, a small choir leads the congregation in certain parts of the service, especially during the refrains in prayers. Although I miss traditional Protestant hymns and praise music, I have come to understand that a somewhat different perspective guides them. The goal of the music, like the prayers, is to draw the worshiper into the harmony with God’s being—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The aim of worship is not to evoke an emotional response, but to draw the congregation into God’s presence and very being.

In one of my favorite Orthodox congregations, I’ve noticed that after the worship service, when they eat together (another characteristic of the early church), some of the younger members take out their guitars and begin singing praise songs that I recognize immediately. It’s not that the church rejects contemporary music; it’s that the role of contemporary music is not in worship. The same might be said of highly orchestrated organ music or similar arrangements. It’s not a central part of the worship because it’s not aligned with what the worship is trying to do. The worship attempts to bring the worshiper into relationship (not contact) with the being of God.

What This Has to Do with Evangelism

One of my daughter’s favorite stories involves a church member who was unconnected to God or the church in any way. One morning, he got up and thought to himself, “I’m going to church this morning”. Right at the beginning, it is worth noting that Grace is proceeding with any activity of this young man. He got up, having not been to church in forever, and began thinking, “I’m going to church this morning.”

He then had to decide which church he would attend. He remembered having been in a Greek Orthodox church, admiring the artwork. He decided to visit an Orthodox church. He happened to end up at my daughter’s church. Just like me, he walked into the room. The liturgy began, and he was a bit lost. It’s also unfamiliar. It certainly isn’t anything like what you might see flipping through channels on television. By the time the worship service ended, he was in tears.

He began to attend the church. Eventually, he decided to become a Christian. He spoke to the priest. Now, he’s a member of the church. As someone who’s been involved in the leadership of churches for nearly half a century, I can tell you that there’s almost nothing about an orthodox service that one might call evangelical. There wasn’t an altar call. There wasn’t a free cup for visitors. (There was an invitation to stay for lunch.) I’m not sure, but I would bet money that there was never a call from the evangelism committee. (At least, they’ve never called me.) But God, in his sovereignty, reached down into the heart of the young man.

The Limits of Technique

I recall taking a course in seminary where we studied the evangelism techniques of the great 19th-century evangelist, Charles Finney, a Presbyterian, of all things! Finney believed that revivals and conversions could result from the use of specific techniques in worship. He advertised. He gave long emotional sermons in the vernacular of the day. He encouraged the active role of women and laypeople. Many 20th-century American evangelists have used updated versions of his techniques.

The key word here is “techniques.” Benjamin Warfield once famously observed that “God might be eliminated from it [Finney’s theology] entirely without essentially changing its character.” I am not sure that the criticism is entirely justified. Still, Warfield is making a point that all Christians should ponder: Are we so committed to the techniques of evangelism that our congregations might explode in size that we are forgetting the role that God plays in our efforts?

Crisis of Discipleship

A few years ago, I published a book titled “Crisis of Discipleship.” I wrote the book out of a concern for the direction. The American Christian Church was heading in all denominations. It’s very obvious that the techniques and assumptions that we have been living under for the past several hundred years no longer work. For some, this is an invitation for continuous change. I would suggest the possibility that another tactic needs to be adopted as well: We need to make a return to the tradition of the church before the Reformation, before the split between the east and the west, back to the earliest Christian churches. Our Journey back to “the early church may need to include a journey to the church of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Rome as well as into our current image of the early church. I think it is a journey worth taking.

The next blog will talk about community.

Copyright 2025, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Stephen De Young, The Religion of the Apostles: Orthodoxy in the First Century (Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2021).