Monthly Archives: July 2009

Reflections On Corporate And Individual Salvation — It Is Not Either/Or But Both/And

A couple of weeks ago the Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, began a heated debate with these comments in her opening address to the Episcopal Church General Conference:

The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of use alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of all being.

This comment has been taken in many quarters to equate to the statement of Cyprian of Carthage:

Outside the Church there is no salvation
Part of the reason that this was taken negatively was that it seemed to be addressed at particular churches and dioceses that were departing from the Episcopal church and realigning in their own, new ecclesiastical structure. For more on how this was taken within the Anglican world as an insult or threat you can check out comments from VirtueOnline, Anglican Curmudgeon, and Sydney Anglicans. In the broader blogosphere there were comments, as much about the theology as the church politics, from Apprising Ministries, Internet Monk, and Bible Belt Blogger. Maybe most notable were comments from two seminary presidents — Richard Mouw at Fuller and Albert Mohler at Southern Baptist.

The comments got me thinking both about confessional Christianity as well as the ecclesiastical relationship to salvation. I’ll leave the former to another time and just address the latter now.

Let me state my thesis right at the beginning: Based on my understanding of Scripture and Reformed thought this is not an either/or proposition but a both/and situation. To put it in the simplest form — The Church is the bookends around individual salvation.

Part of the expressed concern is a long-standing theological tension that exists between individual salvation and corporate salvation.

On the individual side there is the ancient confession that “Jesus is Lord,” and the more modern tool – the Sinners Prayer. As Dr. Mohler nicely points out in his piece, the mechanistic use of these formulae can be manipulative and gives a simplistic representation of the meaning and depth of salvation. There is also concern for “Lone Ranger Christians” and the “Jesus and Me” situation, both of which are labeled heresies by some, where the only thing that matters is if a person has a right relationship with Jesus exclusive of the role other Christians play in that relationship. All of this presents a simple view of the rich experience of Christianity.

On the other side is the belief that all you need to do to be a Christian is to jump through the hoops to become a member of the church. The individual relationship with God is not what is important, but rather it is the relationship in the community — fidelity to the teachings of the church and participation in its sacraments. You are saved by being a member — corporate status precedes salvation. This view negates the personal call and responsibility that is involved in the Christian life.

Now most theological positions are more complex and I have caricatured the two extremes. The varying theological positions are generally found in the middle ground. Dr. Mouw in his article reflects this by saying that individual salvation is important but “that individual salvation is not enough.” (emphasis his) He also mentions the centrality of the church in salvation. I suggest that the answer to individual versus corporate lies very close to the center of this spectrum.

To begin, let us turn to the first post-ascension, and in many ways the archetype, conversion experience — the Day of Pentecost. On that day one of the men in the crowd asks Peter “what should we do?” (Acts 2:37) and Peter responds:

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

The center of the conversion story is the recognized need, individual repentance and baptism leading to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

But note the full context in the story — It begins with the believers receiving and being empowered by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:4) When the crowd mistakes their divine empowerment for inebriation (Acts 2:13) Peter preaches a sermon (Acts 2:14-36). Only then comes the question about what they should do. And the response includes baptism.

For those of a Reformed bent you probably caught where I am going with this, but for those who are not as familiar with it, the Reformed view of the marks of the church can be expressed like this:

Hence the form of the Church appears and stands forth conspicuous to our view. Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence, since his promise cannot fail, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” (Matth. 18: 20.) [Calvin, Inst. 4.1.9]

The repentance and conversion experience are bracketed by the Word preached and the sacraments administered. The individual is buttressed and supported by the corporate.

And what happens? “And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.” (Acts 2:47b)

The interplay of the corporate and individual is remarkable. The core of the experience is individual — you must repent for yourself. But the initiative belongs to God in the empowering by the Holy Spirit that produced a sermon that with the Spirit’s touch convicted those that heard it such that they were “cut to the heart.” (Acts 2:37a ) The first Great End of The Church: The proclamation of the Gospel for the salvation of human kind. But the story does not end there because with individual repentance comes the sacrament of baptism that produces new believers that are added to “their number,” that is the New Testament Church, daily and share the breaking of the bread.

Empowered by God the Church supplies the preaching of the Gospel that leads to individual repentance which through the sacraments bring those individuals into the Covenant Community that is the Church.

In fact, in John Calvin’s thinking, salvation through election and the Body of Christ found in the Church were inseparable and each presumed the other.

Sometimes when [the Scriptures] speak of the Church they mean the Church as it really is before God – the Church into which none are admitted but those who by the gift of adoption are sons of God, and by the sanctification of the Spirit true members of Christ. [Calvin, Inst. 4.1.7]

I won’t repeat the argument here that I made in my last Calvin post, but the essence is that if salvation is the act of adoption by God into His family then the Church and Salvation are two sides of the same coin. It reverses Cyprian’s statement so that “Outside salvation there is no Church.”

Now I won’t pretend that either Scripture or the writings of John Calvin are totally clean cut on the issue. There is the story of Paul and the jailer in Acts 16:25-35 where the jailer, after the earthquake, asks what he must do to be saved. And the story of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10 where Cornelius has a vision and sends for Peter. In both cases there is a divine prodding, earthquake and vision, and there is a proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is also a baptism of those present after hearing the Gospel proclaimed. The nature of the repentance or individual acceptance of the good news is a bit murkier. It is clear that in both cases the head of the household has an individual conversion experience. But the result is the baptism of the whole household. It is left as an exercise for us, the readers, to decide if all members of the household had an individual conversion experience or if the repentance of the head of the household, and maybe some others, was enough. I won’t pursue that any further except to affirm that at a basic level there was the pattern of divinely assisted proclamation of the gospel, some level of individual repentance, and the inclusion of multiple individuals into the Covenant Community through baptism.

From another perspective, Calvin includes in the Church Invisible, the true church known only to God, individuals who are not part of the visible church body but who have none-the-less not rejected Christ or the Church. (Inst. 4.1.9) While this might argue against the need for the role of the Church and the possibility of isolated individual salvation, remember that Calvin is viewing this in the context of the Church Invisible. Community and salvation form an indivisible union. From a practical standpoint, and from my reading of the Institutes, this represents a particular moment in time and does not necessarily speak of the conversion which came before or the Christian life that is to follow. And of course, this all ultimately falls in the realm of the Sovereignty of God and His perfect will.

It is probably also necessary to acknowledge that the idea of “individual salvation” takes on a nuance for the Reformed side that is not part of the view of much of the rest of the Church. This difference is not a major issue for the discussion here where the focus has been on individual salvation in the sense that salvation comes to each of us individually apart from whatever role the wider community plays in the process. Outside Reformed circles the “individual” nature of salvation also includes the idea that there is an individual choice in accepting salvation based on our human free will. The Reformed view is that our condition is far enough corrupted by our sinful nature that left to ourselves we can not make the free choice for salvation and God must do that for us. So while God saves each of us individually, as opposed to a chosen nation of the Old Testament, we can differ over what role an individual can play in that salvation.

So in summary, what scripture gives us as examples of salvation in the New Testament church is the necessity of the corporate component and the individual part, but neither is sufficient by itself. The church’s ministry of Word and Sacrament are the foundation on which in individual receives salvation — the Word to convict and the Sacraments to affirm. It is not individual salvation or corporate salvation but individual salvation through the corporate presence.

What Is Your Strategy For Mission? Some Thoughts On The Call Of Clergy In The Mainline Church

2 Replies

“Because that’s where the money is”
Quote attributed to bank robber Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks.
That quote came to mind this morning over coffee as I read an interesting article, “If cooking slowly and growing organically are in, why is rural ministry out?” by Darryl Hart on Front Porch Republic. (And a quick note – if you are not familiar with this blog but enjoy well written and thought provoking essays about contemporary culture that sometimes have something to do with religion check the blog out.) The article is about why clergy would rather pastor suburban and urban churches than rural ones.

from Wikimedia Commons

I do not mean to imply that all clergy with a preference for urban churches are there because of the salary, although it might be the case. As the article discusses, and I was running through in my mind while reading it, you could fill in the blank in the sentence “Because that is where the (blank) is/are” with any number of other things, including “people,” “resources,” “opportunities.” In fact, the article itself focuses mainly on the people and the large, urban multi-site churches.

But the problem of finding clergy for rural churches is a real one, as Adam Copeland pointed out in his blog post “The huge problem of the clergy shortage that doesn’t exist.” The problem is not one of numbers — at the end of 2008 the PC(USA) had 10,751 congregations and 21,286 ministers. The problem is that too few of them sense a call to serve in the rural areas or that rural congregations are less able to afford a full-time minister.

But the problem is a bit more complex than just saying “we have more ministers than churches so there should be no problem.” Going back to 2007, the last year that the full comparative statistics are available, and looking at the breakdown by call, we can see that there are 21,368 clergy. But of those, 7,753 are honorably retired (and for the non-junkies reading this honorably retired is a call) leaving 13,615 active ministers. To find how many are active in parish ministry as a senior pastor, co-pastor or solo pastor you can add up the categories of Pastors (6,100), Supply Pastors (626), and Interim Pastors (484) for a total of 7,210 filling some of the 10,751 pulpits. So from this viewpoint there is a clergy shortage because only 67% of the pulpits are filled.

(I would note that there a lots of other ways that a pulpit could be filled and it would not show up in this analysis including commissioned lay pastors, yoked churches, union churches, part-time interim and supply pastors who would be counted by their regular job category, and retired ministers serving in a supply or interim capacity.)

So only 53% of the active ministers in the PC(USA) are helping lead congregations as their primary call. Add to that the 1,395 Associate Pastors and the way these statistics are reported there are 8605 ministers primarily in parish ministry, or 63% of the total. (This does not include, or intend to minimize, the role of ministers in other calls who still contribute on a congregation level, whether they do so as a Parish Associate or in other ways.) (And while other validated ministries like chaplains and seminary instructors are vital, it does make me wonder when over one-third of the active ministers are not in parish ministry. Another time.)

Taking this one step further and looking at the filled pulpits geographically by synod you get the following, ranked by % filled:

Synod	No. Congregations	No. Filled Pulpits	% Pulpits Filled	% of active in pulpit	Median size of Congregation
So. Cal. and Hawaii	298	297	99.7%	41.8%	158
Pacific	463	421	90.0%	44.6%	119
Alaska-Northwest	268	223	83.2%	49.8%	107
Rocky Mountains	239	185	77.4%	51.1%	102
Northeast	1160	865	74.6%	56.2%	110
Boriquen de Puerto Rico	73	54	74.0%	63.5%	84
South Atlantic	978	680	69.5%	48.6%	125
Covenant	783	542	69.2%	61.7%	120
Lincoln Trails	661	455	68.8%	51.0%	100
Southwest	164	112	68.3%	48.9%	91
Mid-Atlantic	1450	926	63.9%	53.2%	105
Sun	883	540	61.2%	54.3%	89
Trinity	1279	783	61.2%	60.6%	108
Lakes and Prairies	908	502	55.3%	57.6%	95
Living Waters	745	391	52.5%	48.9%	65
Mid-America	468	234	50.0%	54.5%	73

Looking at this data you get the strong sense that metropolitan areas are more successful at filling their pulpits even though no single synod is exclusively urban or exclusively rural. The Synod of Southern California and Hawaii is almost certainly the most urban of all the synods covering the urban areas of Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and San Diego and the surrounding areas. And while the synods with the lower percentages of filled pulpits do have urban centers, their geographic location in the mid-continent means those urban areas are generally smaller and that there are a substantial number of small-town congregations in those synods as well.

I include the last two columns of data as possible proxies for a measure of the rural/urban blend of the synod. The median size of the congregations is an easier metric to tie to the rural/urban mix with the conventional wisdom being that rural areas have smaller congregations. Indeed, there is a strong statistical correlation of 0.77 between the % of pulpits filled and the median congregation size. My theory behind the second metric, the % of active ministers fi
lling pulpits, is that urban areas should have a lower percentage because there are greater opportunities for other validated ministry in more urban settings. And indeed, while the correlation is not as good, the -0.50 inverse correlation between % of pulpits filled and % of active ministers filling pulpits is still respectable.

Now I fully realize that there are other interpretations of these correlations. For instance, higher median size of congregation correlating with more filled pulpits could be seen as an aggressive program of consolidating churches so as to fit the available pastoral resources. Likewise, the inverse correlation between filled pulpits and the percentage of ministers serving in parish ministry may not be a sign of more and varied opportunities, but rather a greater surplus of ministers available to fill open positions.

OK, so I just set about trying to prove what we think we already know. Now, what are the implications for ministry and mission?

I would be curious if detailed numbers such as these are available for other Presbyterian branches. In my search over the lunch hour I was more successful at finding congregation statistics than clergy statistics. But the anecdotal evidence suggests that mainline churches in general, not just the PC(USA), have more ministers serving in positions outside the parish. Therefore, if we need more parish ministers we must (1) recruit new individuals with a call for congregational work, (2) convince those presently serving in other ministries that parish work is valuable, rewarding, important, etc. (3) keep ministers in the congregation rather than leaving because of financial needs, burnout, or conflict. Are the mission priorities such that we value parish ministry enough to recruit individuals to serve congregations and find ways to keep gifted individuals in those congregations, especially when it is in rural areas?

While the PC(USA) may have this surplus to try to work with other areas are not so lucky. It is a well publicized issue within the Church of Scotland that there are not enough ministers, especially for the islands. Possible solutions being discussed there include video links to island churches for worship and changing the understanding of the Scottish church so that it does not need to be a national church with a presence in every community, no matter how small. Within the last week The Herald published an article that indicated its sources say the Special Commission studying the territorial church will recommend altering that section of the Articles Declaratory. This was followed by some letters to The Herald, some of which advocated keeping the territorial church, but being more creative in providing leadership. Then today there was a letter to The Herald from the Principal Clerk of the General Assembly pointing out that if the Special Commission recommends it there is still a long process of three GA votes and two sets of presbytery votes to approve the change.

But returning to the essay by Mr. Hart — in it he makes some strong comments about our concept of mission, particularly the interests of those who call themselves evangelicals. It is not just that the big city has the population and the resources, it is the opportunity for celebrity or the brush with celebrity, the “L.A. moment” as my family calls it. Mr. Hart writes:

Of course, the reasons why evangelicals fawn over the city may stem from sources other than the obvious appeal of bright lights and big buildings. One of them may be a born-again infatuation with celebrity and the disillusionment that follows when public figures like Mark Sanford or Miss California, Carrie Prajean, fall from grace. Evangelicals are disposed to understand grace and faith in extraordinary categories and so overlook stories of ordinary believers, routine piety, and even rural congregations as insignificant. Discontent with the average and routine aspects of natural life and of grace appears to breed a similar dissatisfaction with humble ministries in places of little interest to the editors of the Times.

So what are our mission objectives and our mission priorities? Do we “go out into all the world” or just where it is easy, convenient, or even possibly exciting and rewarding? Is a big urban church better than a small rural congregation? And maybe most importantly, when a minister makes the commitment to serve a rural parish do we support that decision and find ways to encourage and help them in that ministry?

If all congregational ministry matters equally we need to be ready to support it equally.

Calvin 500 Celebration: Thoughts On The Linkage Of Theology And Polity — Part 3: Election Leads To Covenant Community

Leave a reply

from Wikimedia Commons

Still a community is asserted, such as Luke describes when he says,”The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,” (Acts 4: 32) and Paul, when he reminds the Ephesians, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling,” (Eph. 4: 4). For if they are truly persuaded that God is the common Father of them all, and Christ their common head, they cannot but be united together in brotherly love, and mutually impart their blessings to each other. [Inst. 4.1.3]

For John Calvin the conclusion is inescapable: If humankind was incapable of doing anything, anything at all, to save itself because of the taint or corruption of Sin, and if some are saved for eternity, then it must be the Sovereign God that has saved us. On the one hand this is nothing new for this argument can be found back at least to Augustine. But in the climate of the 16th century and the Protestant Reformation Calvin was the major proponent and the doctrine of election may be his most famous, or infamous to some, teaching.

But the concept of predestination is only the start of a very important logical chain, not the end-all of Reformed thought.

As the scripture quote at the top says, with our election by God comes not just salvation for eternity but adoption. God is the “common Father of them all” because in election comes adoption. And if adopted, than we are all part of God’s family, the Body of Christ with “Christ as their common head.”

Hence the Church is called Catholic or Universal, (August. Ep. 48,) for two or three cannot be invented without dividing Christ; and this is impossible. All the elect of God are so joined together in Christ, that as they depend on one head, so they are as it were compacted into one body, being knit together like its different members; made truly one by living together under the same Spirit of God in one faith, hope, and charity, called not only to the same inheritance of eternal life, but to participation in one God and Christ. [Inst. 4.1.2]

To collapse this chain down, if predestination then the Church. There can not be one without the other, at least in Calvin’s reasoning. The two are inseparable. Calvin speaks of the Invisible Church:

Sometimes when [the Scriptures] speak of the Church they mean the Church as it really is before God – the Church into which none are admitted but those who by the gift of adoption are sons of God, and by the sanctification of the Spirit true members of Christ. In this case it not only comprehends the saints who dwell on the earth, but all the elect who have existed from the beginning of the world. [Inst. 4.1.7]

And a little bit later Calvin says something very interesting about the Invisible Church:

The Church universal is the multitude collected out of all nations, who, though dispersed and far distant from each other, agree in one truth of divine doctrines and are bound together by the tie of a common religion. In this way it comprehends single churches, which exist in different towns and villages, according to the wants of human society, so that each of them justly obtains the name and authority of the Church; and also comprehends single individuals, who by a religious profession are accounted to belong to such churches, although they are in fact aliens from the Church, but have not been cut off by a public decision. [Inst. 4.1.9]

So if I understand Calvin’s words in this translation, the invisible Church is not just those that attend, but single individuals that do not attend but have at one time accepted Christ and have not subsequently rejected Christ. If that reading is correct, this has very powerful implications I will come to in a moment.

Taking the logic chain even further we are confronted with other realities that must follow from this conclusion. The Church is not just like a family — it is a family in God. Not only can we not chose our family members, we can not even chose our own family ourselves. We are placed in the Church and those around us in the church, whether we like it of not, are given to us to care for each other as charged by God and guided by Christ.

So as we consider Calvin’s doctrine of the Church, what are the implications for the Church and our polity?

One implication is that like it or not, we belong to each other. And this is not belonging in the sense of seeing each other every Sunday morning for an hour, maybe 65 minutes if the preacher goes long. This is belonging in the sense that those around us are truly brothers and sisters in a divine family that each of us has been adopted into through no merit or decision of our own. The responsibility descends from God — as He has shown his care for us we need to show that care for those around us. And it is an awesome responsibility because, whether we agree or disagree, whether we like each other or not, we are family together.

But the quote above about single individuals really shook me. The implication is that there are those around us that are part of the Invisible Church yet are not part of a local congregation — And we have no way of being for sure short of their outright rejection. The conclusion is that there are a bunch more people around us that we need to treat as brothers and sisters in Christ. Yes for the sake of the Gospel and because all humans contain the image of God we should not mistreat or dishonor any other individual. But beyond that there are others around us who are part of God’s family.

While many have considered Calvin’s model for congregational care in Geneva, the regular visitation by the elders to determine the spiritual health of each household, as controlling and prying, in Calvin’s view of the Church it was a proactive care of his spiritual brothers and sisters. In our “my business is none of your business” modern western culture how many Presbyterian and Reformed churches send out elders to visit their whole congregation on a regular basis. My church does it every few years, far to infrequently, but I was privileged to be serving on session one time when we did do it. I will tell you that it was a very inspiring and meaningful activity to go out and get to know these individuals in their own home, one that has brought me closer to them in a way that seeing them on Sunday morning never could. As the elder making the visits I was truly blessed.

You Have To Admit The Anglicans Know How To Do Schism

1 Reply

You have to admit, the Anglicans know how to do a schism. Five hundred years ago, just a couple of months before John Calvin was born outside Paris, this guy assumed the throne of England and was married to the first of his wives. Twenty five years later he would separate the Church of England from Roman authority so he could be in charge, or at least get what he wanted from the church.

from Wikimedia Commons

Fast forward to today…

Now the church that Henry wanted to control is looking more and more uncontrollable by Rowan and accusations going back and forth about groups splitting off so they can get what they want.

I don’t know what the Anglican/Episcopal equivalent of a GA Junkie is, but they must be having a great time at this moment with both the U.S. Episcopal Church General Convention meeting in Anaheim, California, and the Church of England General Synod meeting in York. And there is a conversation of sorts going on between the two of meetings.

Now I have enough going on in my life right now that I can’t keep close track of a whole different Protestant tradition, but I have been following both the Convention and the Synod at arms length because there are implications for Presbyterians in some of their actions. And as I go forward here I will put in the disclaimer that because I am not up on some of the polity and nuances of their system some of what I mention below may be a bit inaccurate. Also, as you can tell from the opening, this post may have a bit of a snarky tone so if that bothers you I apologize now.

The Anglican system of church government is at least doubly complicated compared to the Presbyterian form because they have at least two deliberative bodies, one of them being the House of Bishops. In the Church of England there is a separate House of Clergy and House of Laity while the Episcopal church blends those two together into the House of Deputies.

For some time now there has been tension in the Worldwide Anglican Communion over the Episcopal church’s openness to ordaining practicing homosexuals as clergy, and especially as bishops. Back in 2004 the Communion issued the Windsor Report which essentially asked the Episcopal church to stop doing that, at least temporarily, because there was not agreement in the Communion on those matters and it was straining relations between the member Provinces. In response, the next Episcopal General Convention in 2006 passed resolution B033 (for the Episcopalians this has the recognition status that PUP or Amendment B has for those in the PC(USA)) that stopped the practice.

Well, within both the Episcopal church and the Church of England there is concern by conservatives who don’t like the direction they see the church going and are speaking out. In fact, in North America a group has now set out on their own forming a new Anglican Province, the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA).

So with all that as backdrop the conventions began meeting…

In Anaheim the Presiding Bishop ( PB ) of the Episcopal church started things off with a bang in her opening statement by making a statement that a lot of those commenting seem to agree implies those with ACNA are heretics. (Of course, other Anglicans worldwide have labeled the Episcopal church as heretical and abandoning the communion so the feeling is mutual.) Her specific quote was:

The crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly ones in Mississippi, they’re all related. The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of use alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of all being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.

(Another time I might take this statement apart, particularly in light of the similarity is presents to the Federal Vision theology in the Reformed branches. For now, I would just express the view that in a Reformed setting covenant community and individual salvation are held in a balance and tension.)

In addition, to try to smooth things over the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) made a brief appearance at the Convention before jetting back to England for his own meeting. While there he made a plea for unity and was generally well received but things got a bit more testy when the CofE Synod started. A motion was brought to the Synod to recognize the ACNA. Before the resolution was even debated the PB made news by warning the CofE and the ABC that recognizing the ACNA would only encourage them and others and foment schism. (Yesterday the motion was tabled and it looks like it will be considered by General Synod in February.) In addition, the ABC has commented that he regrets the decision of the House of Deputies at the Episcopal General Convention to overturn the restriction on gay ordination after he had asked them not to in his Convention sermon.

Although the General Convention is still going it is clear that the Episcopal church is now headed in a progressive direction. The rules prohibiting the ordination of gay clergy have been repealed, or maybe not. In addition same-sex marriage is being debated and there are signs of support and adding appropriate ceremonies to the Book of Common Prayer has been sent to the writing committee. And it has been noted that there is a lack of conservative voices at the Convention, particularly in the House of Deputies, this being attributed to those dioceses that left to form ACNA. The Convention still has a few days to run and at ten days long they have the PC(USA) seven days topped. (Although, if you consider that their meeting is triennial and the PC(USA) is biennial, then they are about even on a pro-rated basis.) (And another thought, does this vote to go against the Windsor Report mean the Episcopal church as a body has an “individualist focus [that] is a form of idolatry”?)

With the direction that the Episcopal church is headed more and more commentators are considering schism likely, one headline calling it “inevitable.” Of course, some said the same thing about the ACNA formation. So for a Presbyterian, having gone through this a few times in the last 300 years, the parallels are interesting and it will be something to watch as this plays out. I do admire ABC Rowan Williams for the work he is doing and the effort he is making to hold the communion together.

It is important to note that the CofE has its own conservative group, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans which recently held its own meeting. While not showing signs of realigning away from the mother church, they are becoming a recognized voice in the call for orthodoxy in the Anglican Communion. They did get into a bit of a public argument over whether they have the support of The Queen based upon the reading of the tea leaves in the response from the palace to they letters. While some interpret it as support there are also indications that they may be reading too much into the correspondence.

In all the discussions going on, I did learn something about the Episcopal church that casts some of this in a new light. One of the things about Anglicans is that they are territorial — none of this non-geographic presbytery stuff for them. So one of the arguments against the ACNA and some of the churches that have realigned with Anglican Provinces elsewhere in the world is that there can (should?) only be one Province in one locality. It turns out that the Episcopal church has an international presence as well. For example Province II, mostly New York and New Jersey, also contains Episcopal Churches in Europe and one in Haiti. In all the General Convention coverage I now can not find the article that brought this to my attention but my thanks for that piece of information.

And a final word about General Convention and new media. There has been a great deal of volume on Twitter but when the General Convention began there were two hash tags advertised for the tweets – both #ecgc and #gc09. You have to check them both for info. (Another sign of schism? ) I would also comment that the official “Media Hub” is a great resource for news, information and video, but a tremendous load on my computer because of its background network activity. Wish there were a lower-overhead alternative besides Twitter.

Calvin 500 Celebration: Thoughts On The Linkage Of Theology And Polity — Part 2: Human Sinfulness And Making Decisions Collectively

Leave a reply

Article 4 – Natural Man
We acknowledge man by nature to be blind, darkened in understanding, and full of corruption and perversity of heart, so that of himself he has no power to be able to comprehend the true knowledge of God as is proper, nor to apply himself to good works. But on the contrary, if he is left by God to what he is by nature, he is only able to live in ignorance and to be abandoned to all iniquity. Hence he has need to be illumined by God, so that he come to the right knowledge of his salvation, and thus to be redirected in his affections and reformed to the obedience of the righteousness of God. [1536 Geneva Confession]

(Note: I use the 1536 Geneva Confession extensively in this post and in the other posts as well because of the concise form in which it presents many of these concepts. I should point out that it is believed the Geneva Confession was written by Calvin’s colleague Wilhelm Farel so while not directly attributable to Calvin it almost certainly reflects the thoughts and influence of Calvin.)

While the Sovereignty of God is one side of the coin in Reformed theology, the Sinfulness of Humankind is the opposite side. This is another foundational doctrine on which John Calvin built his theological framework and which influences Presbyterian polity today.

This is also one of the most controversial points of Reformed theology because of the extent to which Calvin considers humans sinful. We do not just do bad things that are wrong and sinful. We are not good at heart and can correct our ways by ourselves. We have been infected by the original sin of Adam and Eve and are born in a sinful condition. And this original sin is such that our sinful condition taints everything that we do.

(While I do not intend to do an exhaustive discussion of our sinful nature I do want to clarify for those not familiar with Calvin’s view of the sinful condition that he does not say the human beings are “totally evil” or can do nothing good under any circumstances. He does say that even the good works we do have at least some self-interest embedded in them and are not done completely out of pure and selfless motivation. As Calvin says in the Institutes of the Christian Religion:

If any are disposed to think more modestly, and concede somewhat to God, that they may not seem to arrogate every thing as their own, still, in making the division, they apportion matters so, that the chief ground of confidence and boasting always remains with themselves. [Inst. 2.1.2]

At least for me that hits a bit close to home.)

It is important to note that Calvin distinguishes between the Natural Man (as in Article 4 above) and the Regenerate Man that has received salvation through Jesus Christ (Article 8 of the Geneva Confession). Yet, while the Natural Man is blinded and “has no power to be able to comprehend the true knowledge of God,” the Regenerate Man is better but still has no hope of complete perfection. As Article 9 begins:

Finally, we acknowledge that this regeneration is so effected in us that, until we slough off this mortal body, there remains always in us much imperfection and infirmity, so that we always remain poor and wretched sinners in the presence of God.

A point here is that confession once does not clear us but we need to be aware of our continuing sinful nature and need for on-going confession and pardon.
And Article 9 also says:

And, however much we ought day by day to increase and grow in God’s righteousness, there will never be plenitude or perfection while we live here.

So as we consider Calvin’s doctrine of the Sinfulness of Humankind, what are the implications for the Church and our polity?

The most significant point from a Presbyterian polity perspective is that because of this continuing taint of sin, this lack of perfection in human beings, a group collectively making decisions will be better able to discern the will of God than a single individual acting alone. It is why Presbyterians always hold power and authority in governing bodies rather than in particular individuals. The wisdom of the group will be better than the wisdom of the one. They hold each other accountable and help to bring out the best in each other. The discernment of the group helps to cancel out individual motives and repress personal ambitions.

Does this always work out? No, for all synods and councils “may err, and many have erred.” (Westminster Confession XXXI.4) but for the most part collective decision making will do better than individual authority.

This does not negate the primacy of a minister of Word and Sacrament having the freedom to preach as they are led by the Spirit. But, within the community there is still the leadership, governance, and discipline of the ruling elders to hold the preacher accountable and assure that the Word is rightly preached. And likewise, it is the congregation’s responsibility to elect those who meet the moral and spiritual standards to be elders over them. And the higher governing bodies have the right and responsibility of review of lower governing bodies, yet are made up of commissioners from the lower bodies. In all things the different parts of the Body of Christ hold each other accountable so that together we may fight against the taint of sin to best work the will of God.

One application of this is for the officers of the church to take seriously their role in discerning the will of God. Realize that the goal and objective of the various procedures of review and approval is to help verify that what is being done is what God would be having us do. It is not to jump through another hoop or for the governing body to “show who is in charge.” It is a collective discernment and each group that is part of the process needs to take its role seriously.

Calvin 500 Celebration: Thoughts On The Linkage Of Theology And Polity — Part 1: The Sovereignty Of God And The Gift Of The Church

2 Replies

I will begin with the Church, into whose bosom God is pleased to collect his children, not only that by her aid and ministry they may be nourished so long as they are babes and children, but may also be guided by her maternal care until they grow up to manhood, and, finally, attain to the perfection of faith. What God has thus joined let not man put asunder (Mark 10:9) to those to whom he is a Father, the Church must also be a mother. This was true not merely under the Law, but even now after the advent of Christ; since Paul declares that we are the children of a new, even a heavenly Jerusalem, (Gal. 4: 26.) [Inst. 4.1.1]

Probably the most frequently cited distinctive of Reformed theology is “The Sovereignty of God.” To put it very simply, God is in charge, we are not, and God has the power and authority to do whatever pleases him in his good and perfect will. To put it another way, God created this world and God allows us to live in it. The Geneva Confession Article on God begins in 2.1 with:

Following, then, the lines laid down in the Holy Scriptures, we acknowledge that there is one only God, whom we are both to worship and serve, and in whom we are to put all our confidence and hope: having this assurance, that in him alone is contained all wisdom, power, justice, goodness and pity.

While this may seem an obvious theological principle of Christianity, in John Calvin’s theological framework the logical consequence of God being in charge leads to the conclusion that God gets to decide who is saved for eternity, the concept of predestination. But that is a very rough and brief statement, it leaves our one important logical step, and is a subject for later in this series.

But as we consider Calvin’s doctrine of the Sovereignty of God, what are the implications for the Church and our polity?

While there are a multitude of implications the one I want to focus on now is the gift of the Church. If God is absolutely sovereign then the Church is not a human institution and does not belong to us. As Chapter 25.6 begins in the Westminster Confession “VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ…” In Calvin’s Geneva Catechism it is similarly expressed:

Master. – You therefore mean nothing more than Paul says, namely, that Christ has been appointed head of the Church, and raised above all principalities, has obtained a name which is above every name. (Eph. i. 22; Phil. ii. 9.)

Scholar. – It is as you say.

And later in the questioning:

Master. – What is the Church?

Scholar. – The body and society of believers whom God hath predestined to eternal life.

So, because the Church belongs to God, God gets to decide who is part of it.

But the other side of this is that God also provides for the Church.

But as our ignorance and sloth (I may add, the vanity of our mind) stand in need of external helps, by which faith may be begotten in us, and may increase and make progress until its consummation, God, in accommodation to our infirmity has added much helps, and secured the effectual preaching of the gospel, by depositing this treasure with the Church. He has appointed pastors and teachers, by whose lips he might edify his people, (Eph. 4: 11) he has invested them with authority, and, in short, omitted nothing that might conduce to holy consent in the faith, and to right order. In particular, he has instituted sacraments, which we feel by experience to be most useful helps in fostering and confirming our faith. Forseeing we are shut up in the prison of the body, and have not yet attained to the rank of angels, God, in accommodation to our capacity,has in his admirable providence provided a method by which, though widely separated, we might still draw near to him. [Inst. 4.1.1]

Specifically, God provides leadership, particularly for the preaching of the Word, and God provides the Sacraments so that “we might still draw near to him.” The leadership and Sacraments are for our benefit and by extension the benefit of The Church.

One application of this is that the officers of the church, teaching and ruling elders as well as deacons, need to see their role as stewards or shepherds. The Church of Jesus Christ is entrusted to us, what are we doing to return that which is entrusted to us back to its true owner in better condition than when we received it?

Calvin 500 Celebration: Thoughts On The Linkage Of Theology And Polity — Introduction

Leave a reply

In case you haven’t heard, and I seriously doubt that includes any of you out there, later this week the world is marking the 500th anniversary of the birth of the great French-exile lawyer and theologian, Jean Cauvin. He is of course better known by his Anglicized name John Calvin and his majority residence in the Swiss city of Geneva.

For a couple of reasons I had originally planned to stay off this bandwagon and only make a passing reference on his birth date. The reasons included the fact that it is a bandwagon and plenty of others are commemorating the occasion, the fact that I have a tremendous backlog of blog writing as it is and thought my efforts would be better spent there, and finally that what he is best known for – the “Five Points of Calvinism” that someone else actually put in that form – is related but somewhat peripheral to my blog’s niche.

But I changed my mind. I changed it for one significant reason and that is the fact that in all the articles I have read I see little if any on the linkage of his theological ideas to his model of church government, a model that remains with us today in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches. In my understanding of the Presbyterian system of church government the form is directly driven by Scripture and Reformed theology.

So I’ll go ahead and post a series of anniversary articles this week. However, due to the limits on my time and the lack of formal training and experience in this area I need to be clear about a couple of things: These are intended to be personal reflections and not scholarly dissertations. Please accept them in that spirit but if I stray into inaccuracies or misrepresentations of Calvin’s work I do appreciate the gentle correction you offer. Along those same lines these are not intended to be comprehensive but rather representative of how my ecclesiastical thinking has been shaped by Calvin’s ideas.

So hang on as we head straight into the Sovereignty of God and the Sinfulness of Humankind.

Revolution and Community

3 Replies

“When in the Course of human events…”

When you think about it the United States’ Declaration of Independence is a really bold and audacious document. It sets out the theory and specific reasons why thirteen colonies should break ties with their mother country and govern themselves. As the lead character in the movie National Treasure says when proposing a toast to the Declaration — “To high treason.”

(And I was recently reminded by an old episode of the TV show History Detectives that not all the colonists wanted to break with the mother country. As Winston Churchill said – “History is written by the victors.” But that is a reflection for another time.)

It is a shame that most people only remember two selected phrases out of a longer sentence in the Declaration — “all men are created equal” and they are endowed with “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Now there is nothing wrong with these concepts, but rather that they are taken out of the context of the document.

First, between these two phrases comes the reminder that as all humans are created equal they are endowed “by their Creator” with the rights.

Second, the next line says “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
And so, while the Declaration is frequently thought of as a document that secures my personal right to happiness, it is actually a document that sets forth the role of God, the government, and the community in providing and securing that happiness for us as a society. Yes, the Declaration of Independence is not so much about me as it is about us.

When was the last time that you read the Declaration of Independence? Outside of the opening and closing it gets a bit less interesting. The majority of the document is the enumeration of the “repeated injuries and usurpations” that had been inflicted on the colonies. Have a look.

And after all the “whereases” comes one concluding paragraph:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. (emphasis added)

The Declaration concludes as it began, with reliance on God and a mutual pledge to the community on their sacred honor.
This was not about any one of them individually. This was not safe and easy as Benjamin Franklin is quoted pointing out at the signing of the Declaration – “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” And this example holds for the faith community as well as general society.

Now I will let John Adams have the final word. On July 3, 1776 he wrote to his wife Abigail –

But the Day is past. The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. — I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. — Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

(Note: In a rare action I am cross-posting this on both my Everything in Moderation and The GA Junkie blogs.)