"No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother"
- St. Cyprian Evangelical Catholics?
Provocative, eh? Let me quote John Calvin for you just in case you think this is a "Roman" thing:
Provocative, eh? Let me quote John Calvin for you just in case you think this is a "Roman" thing:
“But as it is now our purpose to discourse of the visible Church, let us learn, from her single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels,(Matth. 22: 30.) For our weakness does not permit us to leave the school until we have spent our whole lives as scholars. Moreover, beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for, as Isaiah and Joel testify, (Isa. 37: 32; Joel 2: 32.) By these words the paternal favour of God and the special evidence of spiritual life are confined to his peculiar people, and hence the abandonment of the Church is always fatal.”
In fact Calvin has a ridiculously high theology of the Church in his Institutes, going so far as titling the fourth book "Means of Grace: Holy Catholic Church." So here's the deal - if you want to be an orthodox and traditional Christian, you have to have a high view of the Church as the "body of Christ." That's it. No way around it.
Continuing on then with my Evangelical Catholicism I think the issue of the Church is one of the most important notions that needs to change if we evangelicals want to serve Jesus. I was recently doing a study on Church discipline and was shocked to find out how low a view of the Church there was amongst my fellow ordinands. Let it not be true! I think we have been fed lies about what the Church is for the last two hundred years in evangelical circles and it is about time we found out what the Church is really about. First a discussion of the 'popular' conception of Church I find someplaces among evangelical Christendom and why I find there faulty, then a more positive view of the Church from an evangelical perspective. Important: I am not putting forth a uniquely Roman Catholic position here, I am defending the historic view of the Church as Mother which finds itself even in John Calvin, who was as Biblical as a theologian gets.
Evangelical conceptions of Church
I hesitate to even capitalize Church when using it in evangelical terms because most of us were taught to view Church in the same way as we view the sacraments: something we kind of do but we know nothing really happens. Are you serious? When asked what the Church is most evangelicals will probably have no idea what the question means. More appropriate is "who is the Church", not what. That's because they don't think it actually exists. I think this is a product of the incredible Enlightenment focus on the individual and loss of the sacramental union and presence of God on earth. So the Church is really just the name for a group of people who cognitively assent to certain ideas and who may (or may not) show up together to sing songs and listen to someone talk for an hour. The question of why you do this from an individualist evangelical perspective still needs to be asked, but I imagine it is the same as the aforementioned sacraments: "It's always been this way." But if you don't think there is a metaphysical presence and participation that is more than just a bunch of individuals, why bother? Some groups in America I think are realizing this and have decided to ditch the whole Sunday service thing ('service' way to make it meaningless) in favour of 'actually' doing something. Why sing hymns and listen to the Word when we could be doing something useful like feeding the poor or building houses? That question has to be asked by evangelicals who have lost the sense of a high theology of Church.
More to the point, I think this makes practical matters in the Church community impossible to deal with. The Church is seen not as an elect people of God trying to redeem the world through its own community that is centred on the presence of Jesus Christ, it is a bunch of likeminded people who are glad to have people show up and leave whenever they like. "Whatever gets them saved" is the cry of the day, but what does salvation mean if it is not an ingrafting into the body of Christ? And isn't that body defined totally by some cognitive facts laid out by Rick Warren in the evangelical framework? The idea of Church discipline (one of the traditional marks of the Church along with the Word and Sacraments) is nonsense because there is no such thing as 'the Church'. There is just an everchanging and never confident collection of people who assent to roughly the same things but don't know what to do about them. I'm I being unfair? I really don't think so.
Positive Aspects of the Church
So the question is then "What is the Church?" Well that is a insanely difficult question and a perfect definition is probably impossible to give in a fallen world, but something we could get our teeth on would be the same thing Calvin and St. Cyprian have been saying throughout Christian history: the Church is themystical union of Christ, the space where humanity participates with God through the mediation of the Holy Spirit, the community of God's faithful which is ever increasing and has the final goal of conquering the entire earth in the name of Jesus - through martyrdom and evangelism with the Holy Spirit. Working this out a bit, the Church is:
1. An actual reality which is more than just individual believers who assent to things; it is the presence of Christ on earth. When God set about restoring order after Gen 11 he didn't just go to individuals, he found Abram and started a nation, one which had a particular identity and physical embodiment. It is a lie of modernity that when Jesus came he gave up on Israel and decided to seek individual souls. He actually finally opened Israel to the rest of the world – the Church becoming the wider expansion of the nation of Israel. There is an organic unity here which says that the whole is more than just the sum of the individual parts. I think this is true of marriage as well - when two are united together it is more than two people - they are made one flesh, but it is a different flesh, with the creational participation in the goodness of God.
2. The Church is sacramental. We need as evangelicals to get back to the Church as sacrament (mysterious presence of Christ) and as the mystical body of Christ. Paul says this all the time - why don't we believe him! The Church is united not (just) by the cognitive assent to Creedal beliefs, but also in the union that comes about through baptism and the Lord's Supper. These are high mysteries where the Holy Spirit brings us into communion with the Lord Jesus and thus makes us one as he and the Father are one. I am tempted to say that if a 'Christian group' does not have the sacraments then they do not have Christ - this is the view of all Christian history up until the radical reformation, which somehow became the evangelical position! We are done with modernity's emasculating desire to render everything as cognitive truth, we can speak once again about participation and revelation, lets get back the physical and spiritual dimension to the Church, as opposed to the mental which we have been force fed for so long (you can try and argue that there was a spiritual dimension but it really came down to the Spirit giving you truth, not actually indwelling in you like Jesus says in John 14).
3. The Church is evangelical. That needs to be said. The Church is formed around the canon of Scripture and the Holy Spirit's witness in and through it. He makes us known to the Father through the Church but the Church is exactly what we find in the NT and the continuation of the nation Israel in the OT. You don't need to get rid of the Bible to be 'high Church.' In fact, you need it more than ever. The Church is supposed to transform the entire world, it is a community that is to draw the world into it by the Holy Spirit so that all may be one through the participation with Christ in worship of the Father. As I have said before, the personal relationship with Jesus is wonderful, but there is more to being a Christian than me and my Bible. I can never figure out why evangelicals are so scared of the high Church position. Have you read the Church Fathers? Do you know how highly they view Scripture? We got our committment to Scripture from them, not the other way around.
The Church is what Jesus initiated through his ministry and his death and resurrection. I am worried that we are turning our backs on him by denying his kingdom on earth in the form of the Church. The historic teaching has always been that there is no salvation outside of the Church - and they weren't talking about a social club that met on Wednesday evenings; they were talking about the physical and spiritual presence of Jesus Christ with his people in the prayers, the Word, and the breaking of bread. It definitely didn’t have Matt Redman.
19 Comments:
I really tried to format this better so paragraphs were actually seperate, but blogger is not cutting me any slack today. Sorry about that.
Hallelujah and Amen!
Last term I did some bible studies in Ephesians: now there's a very high view of the church. Christ is seated at the right hand of God with all power which he uses for the sake of the church (Eph 1:22). It is a foretaste of the New Creation and thus proclaims God's wisdom to the heavenly realms (3:10). Why is it that I'm training for ordained ministry but my college gives no teaching on church discipline, dealing with false teachers etc, when that's part of the presbyter's job description?
Amen to that Tim! Good points about Ephesians. Maybe we can gently nudge...
For once (or maybe twice?) I completely agree with you. Since evangelicals have pushed the privatization of faith and tried to prove that you can have a real, fulfilling relationship with God alone in a room, church is seen as something optional or fun, like your brand of jeans or a hobby. What church really is like is your family--something that you don't pick and that you have to love and be involved with no matter what. As a Lutheran, I of course agree with you about the sacraments--I think baptism and communion are crucial to connect ourselves not only with the saints who have gone before us but with Christ himself. (I'll leave soteriological questions alone for now.)
Good post.
Well, for once (maybe a billion times) I don't really agree with you.
I think you have a point to make, but I think you've set "the rest of us" up as some sort of enlightenment-crazy straw man. For instance, I think you know my particular emphasis on "actually doing things", and at the same time know that I really can't stand Rick Warren. You're setting up a false dichotomy of "everything else" vs. "people who love high church." If anything, I think you need some sort of continuum, with the people who want no conception of high church on one end, the people who love Rick Warren and want to sing David Crowder songs all day in the middle, and you anglican robe wearers on the other. Or something like that.
As I said, I think you have a point to make, but I think there's more to church than sacremental holiness. I think that this is a very important aspect of church, and one that you're right to call attention to, as it's been lost and continues to be lost on people like myself. But I think I've got a point to make also: the Church is boring and useless, doing mostly nothing to be the body of Christ doing his work. We can listen to Augustine and Calvin, but let's listen to James a little too: faith without action is worthless. I'm all for revering the sacrements, but can we please require our parishoners to go feed the poor, cloth the homeless, and volunteer with CASA as well?
On a different subject:
"So here's the deal - if you want to be an orthodox and traditional Christian, you have to have a high view of the Church as the "body of Christ.""
Why on earth would I want to be an orthodox and traditional Christian?
You're really starting to sound a lot like Manning and Newman...are you sure Oxford's not converting you back to Rome as well?
Rednewss - solid comments and I agree that I may have been characaturing a bit. Also the low church here is a bit different than in the States, so context is important. Two points:
1. I agree that the Church is more than just sacramental sweetness, but if we make it less than it is nothing. So it is about action and healing a broken world, but it must be a sacramental precense and worship of God first and foremost, with the action of continuing the outworking of Christ's reconcilliation as a consequence.
2. It is interesting that James was actually known for his unswerving devotion to prayer and worship at the temple more than any Jew. In fact he was known for having 'knees as horny as a camel' because he was praying so much. So again works are wonderful and necessary, but we can not lose the focus on worship and praise of God. I think in America (or evangelicalism) we tend to let Pelegianism creep in too much and think our work is what makes the difference. Not true, it is a part but certainly not the major part.
As far as going to Rome is concerned, I don't think so. I am just trying to come to grips with the fact that the evangelical Church today looks nothing like what Christianity has looked like for 1900 years. That means there is some explaining to do. As concerns Manning, not a huge fan. You can't be a Roman Catholic and decide to marry someone as a priest, it doesn't work like that.
An excellent point about James. I take issue with your focus on worship and sacrement "first and foremost." I'd be willing to assent to some sort of equal union between works and praise, because the two seem like they should feed off of one another and work in concert. You've unfortunately labeled me correctly with pelagianism, and while I'd like to work on that, I simply can't deal with a chuch that does nothing to materially serve others, regardless of how sacremental and worshipful and holy and highminded it might be.
I believe service should be a sacrement.
Without the works, your praise is just a lot of hot air, and generally I'd question whether or not you really believe the praises your sniging. Without the praise, I question your motives in service, and say that you're probably just experimenting with the nihilistic tendancy to replace God with other people. So I'm halfway there - just give me a sacremental church that isn't insanely boring and maybe I'll go orthodox with you.
I also wanted to address this:
"the evangelical Church today looks nothing like what Christianity has looked like for 1900 years."
Has the church every really looked "the same?" The church for the last 1900 years has contained amazing and varying degrees of divergance from the early church, for better or worse, so I'm again taking issue with your misguided notion that tradition and orthodoxy are essentially the same. The church has been and continues to be a diverse group of people working through diverse methods for diverse aims. There's tons of very good and very evil in our history, and to wholesale claim that the church today looks different than it used to doesn't mean much. I for one am glad that the church looks nothing like the Spanish missions in colonial America.
Narrow this down. Say something like, "The evangelical American church has lost touch with a valuable degree of reverence for sacrement that was more or less consistent throughout church history", and I'll agree with you.
Yeah, I agree with your comments and correctives, your last statement is much better than mine.
Again, I am not saying works are bad, just that we have to balance it out and spend time in praise. I think works are an outflowing of praise, but works run the risk of 'me doing things' as opposed to 'God doing things.' That is what a sacrament is: God doing something, offering himself to us. Works are not sacramental because they aren't a grace in the same way - we are working. Now we are doing it for God, but that is the wrong side of the equation for a sacrament. A sacrament is something God does for us.
As far as a sacramental Church that isn't boring, I don't think you wait around for it - then it will never happen. I bet if you went for this sacramental theology bit you would make Church not boring. I certainly don't intend Church to be boring, but I understand we come from different backgrounds on this. So if you aren't into the sacrament stuff in a serious way it probably won't be exciting. But if you start to see Jesus being present in a different way in the sacraments, and our praise and worship and prayer as being important to him than it can't help but be exciting. I think J. Morg's can ascribe to this. But you probably won't run into a sacramental Church that is 'exciting' in the way modern evangelical churches are, they have no intention of being that frenzied consummeristic way.
I'll give it a shot - I think it's something worth persuing.
I agree that the dichotomy between us or God doing things is dangerous, but can we agree that it's false? As Christians, as the Body of Christ, we're literally the hands and feet of God, and so God doing things SHOULD sometimes be US doing things. It can also be the sacrements, but then we're talking about a holistic view where it's always God doing things, and neither those for us or others is deemed more important or worthy of more emphasis. How's that sound?
Yes, I think you are right in talking about God doing things through us as the Body of Christ. That is an important point and works into the participationist ontology I have been talking about (RO). But there is a Creator/creature distinction and we need to maintain that lest we fall into either process theology or pantheism (or panentheism).
So we need to maintain some distinction and sacraments are one practical outworking of that distinction. Plus the whole Holy Spirit regenerating believers, if he works internally than we can't technically be working, right? But your holistic view is a good corrective.
Redhurt:
I wanted to make two quick comments. I don’t want them to be divisive, but I do want to press two points a bit. I hope you don’t mind:
“Why on earth would I want to be an orthodox and traditional Christian?”
Because, as simply as I can put it, there is not a distinction between “orthodox” and “Christian.” In other words, insofar as we are orthodox, we are Christian and vice versa. Now, I want to be careful, because I want to distinguish “Christian” from “adopted” or “atoned” or - God help me - “saved.” God in Jesus through the Holy Spirit has made himself known and has given grace beyond his Church. That said, to practice Christianity is more than “gettin’ saved,” and I don’t think there is such a thing as practicing Christianity apart from orthodoxy. I think there are millions of redeemed humans “working out their faith in fear and trembling” who are not practicing Christianity.
“The church for the last 1900 years has contained amazing and varying degrees of divergance from the early church, for better or worse, so I'm again taking issue with your misguided notion that tradition and orthodoxy are essentially the same.”
I think that is absolutely right and I think it allows for an important distinction: despite wild mood swings in our tradition, orthodoxy has been definitive through it all. The creeds, sacraments, scriptures, and church have been integral to Christianity. Now they are not. So it isn’t tradition that has been rejected, it is orthodoxy. That is the rub.
Ironically, though, in Christianity, because of orthodoxy, we are forced to claim tradition for better or worse. In other words, the Crusades are as much a part of our authoritative past as Augustine is. So we are bound to our tradition; we do not have the authority to slough it off. Now, we do not have to consider it all good and we do not have to give equal weight to it all, but we cannot excise it.
That leads, then, full circle. The rejection of tradition signals a rejection of orthodoxy, which is an unprecedented development among the faithful. Something has happened and we shouldn’t just assume that it is okay.
Sure! I also remember Ketler hall, although not Charlie Company much, and otherwise I can't think of who I know who's gone to OSU for law, unless you were signing your name "hans" and not referring to Adam, and I also didn't think he went to law school, so who are you?
j. morgan: thanks for the response. I absolutely agree with your admission that we recognize and square ourselves with our tradition. I just think that the term "traditional Christian" brings in a lot of tradition that we need to admit to and work from but not necessarily repeat. I think some of this tradition has incorrectly influenced what Hans considers orthodoxy, so I've got to take issue with it as well.
Everything you've said about Orthodoxy is great, but it's rather abstract at the moment. In contrast, I'd say that Hans sees orthodoxy very much as the practices of high church and traditional forms of religious service. I'm not saying these things are bad, but I disagree with the notion that this is the only way to be a Christian. I won't make this too long, but I think we can rule out strict "orthodox" worship as necessary for Christianity because Jesus himself never practiced it. I'm not saying that we can throw away the sacrements - only that I believe there's a lot more tradition and subjective style in what Hans is calling orthodoxy.
holy crap, that WAS long.
Jesus under the old covenant, you say? I disagree first that this is true and second that it matters to my point. My point is just that Jesus is never seen putting sacrement or ritual above people, and frequently shows the opposite. It's not that these things aren't important - I was just taking issue with Hans's method of making it so subversive to sacrement. I want a church that's serious about holiness, but not if it's still useless.
I'm not trying to make distinctions between "the church" and "every day life." I think the themes of sacrement and service can flow very well together and don't need to be at odds. The church should be the inspiration and edification, through the things Hans is calling for, for the staging and organization of service. It all goes together and you can't and shouldn't emphasize either over the other.
Irish - wow! Thanks for joining the discussion and the great comments and correctives. I think you strike a necessary balance (in some senses) between the redness and I.
1. I think the missional Church idea is perfect. Looking different is radical with neon signs and everything, and this is quite difficult. Have you been reading Graham Tomlin's book on Provocative Church? He is teaching a class on it here and it is really good so far. All about the Church as community changing and transforming the world through peaceful conquering and assimilation. The Church is supposed to be a unified organization which stands in contrast to secular organizations, persuading and challenging people to live with the Church's story and not the world's. Instead of going out and individually saving people it is about being a community which expresses the love of Jesus first to itself and than naturally spreads to others around. But first and foremost the Church needs to be a unified community - hence the emphasis on Catholicism.
Redness I agree with you that good works are necessary for Church, but it is not a symmetrical relationship as such. The Church is the base and foundation from which good works naturally spread. It is not in doing good works that we form Church. Think faith and works. Works come forth from faith, and are a necessary component of faith, but they are not in symmetrical relations. Faith is a gift of God and works our the appropriation and outworking of that faith. In the same way Church (sacramentally) is a gift of God and our service (community service and such) is the appropriation (along with much praise and worship) of that gift, but it is not symmetrical. Acts of service are necessary but not sufficient in a different way. Reasonable?
2. I think we get into trouble with the Old vs. New Covenant hardline distinctions. I know they are there, but the New Covenant is not something entirely new in Jesus, he just inaugurates it in his death and resurrection. But the threads of New Covenant are seen throughout the OT (Jeremiah for one). But I am not really a fan of doing Lutheran law/gospel stuff as you know. So I don't think we need to describe Jesus as living under different covenants in some ways - that seems kind of dispensational. I would agree that the WWJD thing is tougher to apply in some senses because of various reasons, most of all being that Jesus was a first century Jew as well as God incarnate. Better to me is What Would Jesus Want You To Do. Not as straightforward, but that is what everyone does with WWJD anyways. Otherwise we would only eat fish and wear single threaded garments.
Okay.
Iris - I would definitely check out The Provacative Church by Graham Tomlin, but it is only available in the UK I think. I will work on it for you. It is in the same ilk as Blue Like Jazz, except with a more orthodox and traditional theological framework. I think it is pretty great as far as emerging church stuff goes, which I am not totally keen on but certainly need to be reckoned with.
As to the "being unequally yoked' passage, it is talking about marriage as you pointed out, but there is certainly some application to be taken according to a 'theology of the body' perspective I have been trying to advocate. I think the Church is missional, but it is not evangelical in the sense that we tried to do in the mega-church movement. The Church has been missional in the sense of persuading people to come and join, not to dabble in this and that. I think the market model of church is still very powerful in evangelicalism today, making everything 'relevant' and such to the surrounding culture. This means that we need to be as inclusive as possible in Church, but that has not been the traditional line nor should it be, I think. Remember that the early Church only allowed people in for part of the service and than non-Christians had to leave for the Lord's Supper and the Thanksgiving. I am not necessarily advocating that kind of fellowship today, but taking the Church as body more seriously means we might rethink how we approach worship and meeting together. Is it just another opportunity to evangelize or is that secondary to the main purpose of being a unitive time of worship for the body as a whole? This needs more work but part of the destablization of Church might be due to what you are bringing up - a participation in Christian fellowship for people who aren't part of the body.
Going down this line may sound unduly exlcusive, but I think it might be the price to pay for a 'holy fellowship' which Paul seems pretty keen on keeping in first Corinthians (some are dying because they are taking the Lord's Supper unworthily?). Just some thoughts, but I think you are right to flag up a holiness issue in the Church today. Not that we are perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but how can committed Christians look and show a different life if there is no seperation for difference to be seen?
As to the Old/New Covenant thing, I have blogged on this before more or less, but basically it comes from the Reformed stress on the continuity of the theme of covenant in Scripture. This plays out in the fact that although certain parts of the old covenant have been fulfilled (sacrificial and such) there is still the moral obligations of the covenant (ten commandments and such) which train us to follow God's character. So it is not like on passed away and then the other was brand new or reminds us of the old one, it is the outworking but not rejection of the old covenant. So many parts of the 'old covenant' are still applicable to us today (ten commandments, moral law) while others are not. Likewise we have new covenant markers and obligations brought on through Christ, but these function in the same way as the old. God is God of both testaments and we don't find him working in radically new ways in the new. This radical discontinuity is most appreciated in law/gospel extremes (not the extremes so I don't offend Lutherans) where we can throw out all of the old and just rely on grace. There is grace in the OT all over (Abraham, Moses, David, etc.) and there is law in the NT (Ephesians, Galatians 5, etc.). So I try and see the two covenants are very connected in one covenant of grace, which follows Calvin and most of the reformed tradition (some differing on whether the Adamic covenant was a covenant of works or not). If one doesn't buy into the reformed reading of Scripture (essential unity and such) this won't work as well, but then you have other problems which I find too difficult to overcome (why have the OT? Can we throw books out? Are some books more important than others? Does God change how he works? How do we understand Jesus and kingdom if we don't have OT background via Kline and others?)
As far as applying Jesus' model I think in many ways it is pretty straightforward, but I have been learning to be more cautious since we all come to the texts with presuppositions which may not be sound, so one obvious application to us might not be obvious to someone else at all. The Scriptures are still clear but they are not always obvious (for instance, praying in tongues. What would Jesus do? I have no idea.). So I would be more in line with your applications from Jesus but I just try to be a little more careful due to the historical distance and hermeneutical gaps and such. Still doable in a meaningful way, but not nearly as simple as most evangelicals who wear WWJD wristbands think it is. Seriously.
Okay, time to write on Revelation.
Plus Jesus on divorce. Does the Matthean exception count or do we follow the hardline Jesus of Mark's gospel. Tricky.
I much prefer Real God Is the Indivisible Onoeness of Unbroken Light via:
1. www.dabase.net/noface.htm
and Transcend Meaning at:
2. www.dabase.net/meaning.htm
John
Post a Comment
<< Home