Category Archives: commentary

All Saints Day 2009

Leave a reply

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.  [Hebrews 12:1-2]

As is my custom every year on November 1 in my daily devotions I give thanks for those that have touched my life and who have joined the Church Triumphant in the past year.

On this Feast ( or Commemoration or Solemnity ) of All Saints I remember the saints that I have known.  Those whose life was an inspiration to me in some way and have now gone on to their heavenly reward.  I am grateful for the way they have touched my life, inspired me, and enriched my faith.

This year I remember…

  • Marjorie – who sat behind me in church every Sunday, was so quick to offer me the handshake of Peace, and who was almost never without a smile.
  • Bob – a gentleman (in the best sense of the word) who had seen much in his many years and was so faithful in attendance to church and family as his strength allowed.
  • Stan – who struggled with illness and other issues for years and now finds his rest with God.
  • Ken – who regularly shared his musical talents as a member of our church choir and went to be with the Lord at much too early an age.
  • Billie – who was quiet but faithful and encouraging.

As I look back on the year I am struck by two interesting aspects.  The first is how many around me in the Church Militant have struggled with health issues, particularly cancer, and who have to date been weakened and injured by the illness but who have prevailed against it so far.  The second is the number of infants in our church family, newborn and unborn, that have departed this world and we trust, through God’s steadfast love, now reside in his care.

So to all the saints that have inspired me and encouraged me in my own race, thanks and I am sure that you have heard from the Lord “well done, good and faithful servant.”

O blest communion, fellowship divine
We feebly struggle, they in glory shine;
Yet all are one in Thee, for all are Thine.
Alleluia!  Alleluia!

Exit Strategy? Parallels In Institutional Realignment And Consequences

3 Replies

The parallels are very interesting, if not striking…

For the past week the big news in religion circles has been the Roman church establishing a structure to bring into full communion Anglicans that are now at theological odds with their own denomination and are looking for a more conservative church.

But consider this Anglican-Roman possibility compared to the PC(USA)-EPC situation.

At the top level there is the structural similarity.  In each case the receiving church has created a specific auxiliary structure within the church to accommodate the beliefs, polity and practices of the immigrants.  While Rome is still ironing out the details, it has been announced that the post-Anglican branch will have a “personal ordinariate” (read bishop or other episcopal type person)(update: a good note on personal ordinareates from Called to Communion) for that branch.  The EPC has of course set up the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery.

Now, yes, I am fully aware of a couple of points where these two cases are reversed.  First in size, the larger Roman church is offering to receive from the smaller Anglican church while it is the other way around for the PC(USA)/EPC relationship.  But there is a historical relationship in each of these cases with the smaller denomination braking away from the larger at some point in the past.  One other important difference in this situation is the speed that each developed.  While the founding of the New Wineskins Presbytery was not immediate, it did happen relatively quickly by church history standards.  The reunification of the Roman and Anglican branches has probably been a goal of Rome for, oh, say 500 years, and this most recent move should be viewed as something specific that has been in the works for a while, maybe a couple of decades.

But beyond the structural parallels there are at least two dynamics in this where we may see parallel activity as well.

The first is the effect on the receiving institution.  Interestingly, in both cases the receiving institution will have to make accommodation for women serving in ordained positions.  While the EPC had this as a local option, we have seen some question about how former PC(USA) churches would be integrated into EPC presbyteries that do not currently have women ordained to church office.  For the Roman church, it will have to accommodate not only women serving as priests but the reality of married clergy.  And while Rome has previously accepted married clergy that have realigned to them from the Anglican church, this will require a whole new level of accommodation.

But what this really does is raise the possibility of questions from the established side.  “If they can be part of us and have women clergy, why don’t we?”  “If they can be part of us and the priests can be married, why can’t we?”  I have previously spoken of the PC(USA)-ization of the EPC, it will be interesting to see what the ramifications are for the Anglican-ization of the Roman church.  How much interest will there be in members and clergy drifting from the established side to the new branch?

(Correction:  After multiple contacts about my line above about women priests (see the comment below) I did some more looking and 1) can not now locate my original source for that and 2) located a lot of commentary that implies no women priests.  Accordingly, I have struck that comment.  If I can locate my original source I will reinstate the above line and cite a reference.  Until then it is not an issue. Sorry about that.)

The second parallel is the one of pragmatism and practicality — The idea looks good on paper, but will they come?  Put another way — How much will this be viewed as the better of two imperfect options?

Within the PC(USA) the situation is still developing.  The church has, for the moment, retained the ordination standards but the majority view seems to be that when in all likelihood the PC(USA) presbyteries vote on it again a year from now there is the distinct possibility that G-6.0106b will be modified or removed.  At the present time not all of the churches who are part of the New Wineskins Association of Churches have moved to the EPC New Wineskins Presbytery — many see their calling to remain with the PC(USA) for the moment.  And Presbyterians for Renewal has proposed a non-geographic synod for churches to be able to remain in the PC(USA) while holding differing views on ordination standards.  While the EPC option is available it appears that so far a minority has viewed it as the appropriate way forward.

There is a similar situation in the Anglican Communion even without the offer from Rome.  In the U.S. there is both the Anglican Church in North America that broke away from the Episcopal Church as well as some dioceses that are looking at staying, but just barely.  The Diocese of South Carolina has a special convention this weekend where it will consider five resolutions that would keep them in the church but withdraw from many of its functions.  Similarly, within the Church of England there are groups within the church that are eying the announcement from Rome, but seem to be leaning towards the loyal opposition route.  And then there is the Global South where the “liberal trajectory” in parts of the Communion is an issue, but not for them at home.

One area which does not seem to be a parallel is the politics of the exit strategy.  In the PC(USA) the EPC option seems to really be viewed as just that, an option.  Despite charges of recruiting PC(USA) churches, and the effort by the PC(USA) to hold onto property, it has seemed to be something that churches consider for the sake of their ministry.

Now maybe I am reading too much into some of these stories (or the media is writing too much into these stories), but over the last week I have gotten the impression that many of the conservatives in the Anglican Communion see the offer from Rome in political terms and a development to be used as a bargaining chip.  Maybe it is just me, but from the comments welcoming the new option (e.g. ACNA) it almost seems like some members of the Communion are using the Roman Church as a “white knight.” They are not so much interested in joining Rome as to use its offer to put pressure on the Anglican Communion to reinforce conservative views.  But maybe this is just me reading some conspiracy theory into all this.

If you are interested in more of the practical realities of this offer to the Anglicans from Rome I would suggest a piece by Diana Butler Bass on Beliefnet and Peter Smith at the Louisville Courier-Journal.  And of course, one of my favorite reads, GetReligion, has five different articles analyzing the coverage of the announcement.  (One, two, three, four and five)

Now, if you are regular readers of my blog you probably realize that I have an analytical interest in church realignments.  It will be interesting to see how this develops.  I think that my first Ph.D. degree is probably enough so I won’t be doing the comprehensive research and analysis, but there are probably a couple of good dissertations about church structure and realignment that will come out of this and I look forward to that research.

In addition, it will be interesting to see what develops in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America over the same issues after this past summer’s Churchwide Assembly.  So far about ten ELCA churches have had a first vote on realigning with the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ.  But I need to start closely following another denominational branch like I need…

Anyway, it is interesting to see how both the structures and practicalities of these realignments are developing.  We will see what the actual outcome of all this will be.

Law And Gospel

2 Replies

It has been an interesting week in the Law and Gospel department.  The Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has been meeting in Minneapolis and the high-profile topics have been related to same-sex relationships, both regarding the church’s role in civil union and marriage as well as serving in church office.  It is interesting to listen to the Lutherans work through their business and note the similarities (getting hung up in parliamentary procedure, standing in line for microphones, the arguments on both sides of the same-sex relationships issues) and the differences (bishops, technical terminology, theological distinctives). 

One of the most interesting things to me is that in their arguments regarding same-sex issues there was a recurring theme of Law and Gospel.  While this argument always comes up in a variety of forms in these debates and discussions, my impression is that it is more prominent here than in Presbyterian discussions, probably because it was a major emphasis of Martin Luther‘s work.  We Reformed deal in Depravity and Election, Lutherans appear to wrestle with Law and Gospel.  We talk about translations and confessions, New Testament passages and Old Testament patterns.  They were discussing the various categories of Levitical laws and how they have been superseded or replaced by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of God.

At the bottom line there is nothing really new in the arguments.  But what struck me was how our slightly different theological perspectives change the emphasis and focus of the arguments we make.

Maybe the most exciting (not necessarily in a good sense) external event at the Churchwide Assembly was a tornado touching down next to the convention center and damaging the far end of the building as well as the Lutheran church across the street.

Got to love the City Pages blog that writes:

So what happens when you crowd thousands of Lutherans in a convention center and a tornado comes along? Nothing. The humble folk of Scandinavian heritage took news of the storm as calmly as one would take news of a church potluck.

(Actually, Lutherans go nuts over potlucks. So that comparison is off a bit.)

But there was a predictable response, or at least the Twitter crowd predicted it, from certain quarters that this tornado was a sign or punishment from God related to the same-sex topics. (So PC(USA) be warned for your meeting there next year, although there was no such sign for the Presbyterians last year in San Jose or the Episcopalians this year in Anaheim.)  The most prominent of those declaring the possibility of God’s warning was Minneapolis Baptist minister John Piper writing in his blog.  And because of his high profile it did get news coverage in both the regular as well as religious press.  (And with 492 comments to that post, at the moment, it struck a nerve with readers as well.)

So another variation on Law and Gospel — The message of punishment is a message from God that His Law has been transgressed.  There is still a place for Law in the Law and Gospel tension.

But in the Law and Gospel debate this week there has been an even more widely and hotly discussed topic — the release of the Lockerbie bomber from Scottish prison on compassion grounds.  The Church of Scotland was in favor of the release and issued this statement:

The Church of Scotland today praised the decision that meant Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was released today on compassionate grounds by Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill.

Rev Ian Galloway, Convener of the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland said:

“This decision has sent a message to the world about what it is to be Scottish. We are defined as a nation by how we treat those who have chosen to hurt us. Do we choose mercy even when they did not choose mercy?

This was not about whether one man was guilty or innocent. Nor is it about whether he had a right to mercy but whether we as a nation, despite the continuing pain of many, are willing to be merciful. I understand the deep anger and grief that still grips the souls of the victims’ families and I respect their views. But to them I would say justice is not lost in acting in mercy. Instead our deepest humanity is expressed for the better. To choose mercy is the tough choice and today our nation met that challenge.

We have gained something significant as a Nation by this decision. It is a defining moment for all of us.”

I found it interesting that it was about being Scottish and not distinctly being Christian.  In an interview with CNN Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill echoes this.  Some of his responses:

MacAskill: Well, each and every compassionate release that has been granted, and there have been 30 granted since the year 2000, is done under individual circumstances. And as we were seeing, in Scotland, justice is equally tempered with mercy. Those who commit an offense must be punished and have to pay a price.

Equally, we have values that we seek to live by, even if those who perpetrate crimes against us have not respected us or shown any compassion. Here is a dying man. He didn’t show compassion to the victims, American or Scottish. That does not mean that we should lower ourselves, debase ourselves, or abandon our values.

He was justly convicted, but we’re allowing him some mercy to return home to die.

[snip]

And certainly this atrocity was a barbarity that we have never experienced before in our small country. And it’s a barbarity we hope will never be replicated here, nor would we wish it anywhere else.

But equally, the Scottish justice system is predicated upon justice being enforced, but mercy and compassion being capable of being shown.

Many around the world were not in favor of the release, including the U.S. Government, victim’s families, and airline pilots.

Scanning the news reports I see more objection from this side of the Atlantic.  But again, it challenges us as to how we hold Law and Gospel, judgment and mercy in this case, in tension.  This compassionate release appears to be a more accepted in the U.K. than in the U.S.  But it is not unheard of here as a California news item today shows.  Very different crimes, but both releases on compassionate grounds for terminally ill prisoners convicted of murder.

Update: T
here are now posts from or about Scottish pastors who have weighted in on the release.  There is a piece about Fr. Patrick Keegans,  who visited the prisoner in jail, believes he is innocent, and welcomes the release.  On the other side, there is a post by Church of Scotland minister the Rev. Ian Watson who argues that forgiveness and compassion are the place of the individual and not the state.  Maybe most interesting are his comments about how his thinking changed over the days following the release.

While you may come down on one side or the other of each of these examples, each is a strong reminder that our God is a God of both Law and Gospel.  God has set down laws and requirements for us to meet.  There are definite rules to be followed and consequences if we don’t.  But in the end, we as humans are incapable of fulfilling the Law and our only hope of salvation and eternal life is the Gospel.  Now, as the people of God, how do we model and balance the Law we are under and the Gospel that has ultimately saved us in our everyday lives.

Good luck and let’s be careful out there.

Vacation Reflections – Big Picture, Big Question, Big Churches

2 Replies
 Yes, I am still around.  I have just been gone on vacation.

Having grown up in New York I have a great affection for the Adirondack Mountains, but that was last year’s vacation.  This year it was the High Sierra Nevada at the highest campground that you can drive into in California.  For the record, that campground is almost twice the elevation of the highest point in New York.

People ask if I prefer one to the other.  The answer is no, because each has its own personality and distinctive and each holds its own memories in my life.

For vacation this year I did not take a lot of reading material.  No plane trips to do reading on and I had to pilot the truck.  My vacation reflection this year was more digesting information than ingesting it. Much of what I reflected on still needs to be fleshed out, but here is the broad sweep of what I considered and will be working on in the coming months in this blog…

  Sierra Nevada Lake

Big Picture:  Over the last couple of years more than one person has commented that I have a hole in my coverage of Presbyterian Politics.  That hole is the Uniting/United Churches, those of Canada and Australia in particular.

In a sense they are right since those branches are part of the Presbyterian tradition in those countries.  For example, when the United Church of Canada (not to be confused with the other UCC) was founded 70% of the Presbyterians joined that branch while 30% went with what is now called the Presbyterian Church in Canada.  So I’ll try to find time to study up on the polity of those two branches to see if their polity is Presbyterian enough to include in the branches I follow.

But in thinking about these churches another big-picture concept really dominated my thinking — the “missing branches” in all those family tree diagrams.  You know the type of diagrams I’m thinking of.  There is the United Church of Canada diagram that shows all the branches coming together, but leaves off those churches that elected not to unite, such as those now in the Presbyterian Church in Canada.  And the diagram for American Presbyterianism is no better.  If you check out some of the family trees for the American Presbyterian Churches (example 1, example 2) they include the formation of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in 1810, but leave out other related Restoration Movement branches, specifically the Stone-Campbell Movement that came straight out of the Presbyterian church.  (It is mentioned in the Presbyterian History Center narrative time line.)   The Rev. Barton Stone was one of the leaders in the Cainridge, Kentucky, area that signed the 1804 Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery.  And while Stone and the Campbell’s were all Presbyterian ministers who began at similar times but in different places on the frontier without knowledge of each other, their movements joined in 1832 to form the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). (Two notes:  1. As you can see in the history the Disciples have not been without their own splits.  2. It is also interesting to note that another leader and denomination that came out of this time period of the Second Great Awakening and Restoration Movement thinking was Joseph Smith Jr. and the LDS (Mormon) Church.  Unlike the Stone-Campbell Movement no direct Presbyterian connection or influence is claimed there.)

So the Big Picture questions include thinking about not just the obvious Presbyterian branches but the more diverse spin-offs.  And in my very scientific manner I started thinking about quantifying theological diversity.  I now have the start of a statistical scheme to ask the question “How Presbyterian are you?”  This does beg the question of how to define Presbyterian to measure everyone against but I am hoping that will become clear as the project develops.  Maybe I’ll use John Knox as the standard.    This project is just getting started but my initial experiments suggest that quantifying denominational DNA could produce some interesting results.

Big Question:  In pondering the extended family trees of Presbyterians in North America, the U.K., and Australia the big question that is really bugging me now is “What is the line between schism and other division or realignment?”  And don’t say “when property is involved” because the Scottish court recently had to decide on a case where theological differences between the Free Church and the Free Church (Continuing) were not a factor.  No, the question really is whether the rules to call something a schism are clear?  When is it schism and when is it Reformed and Always Reforming?  Do we use the term schism when we want to cast the differences in a negative light?  Can a schism be good? John Calvin and Martin Luther didn’t see it as schism but restoring the True Church to New Testament standards.  Hold that thought and I’ll return to it in the coming months.

Big Churches:  One topic that I have been struggling with for well over a year now is whether “big churches” can be truly Reformed in nature.  The issue here boils down to this: If the Church is the Covenant Community called together by God with Christ as its head, and if a particular church is the Body of Christ in a particular place and time, does a (fill in the blank) church preserve the concept of the local Covenant Community?  Now, fill in that blank with some sort of “big” church, be it a multi-worship-service church, a multi-congregation church, a multi-site church, or the church in the virtual world.  If all of the members are not worshiping together is it one particular church or individual churches using the same leadership, infrastructure, or name?  This is one topic that I am not sure I’ll actually address very much in the coming months.  While I’ll keep musing on the Church Virtual, I’m still not sure that thinking about big churches is the best use of my blogging time since several
other people have been thinking about it as well.  But time will tell what I do with this topic.

There has been another interesting development in the news media concerning big churches and that involves leadership transitions in one Reformed and one Presbyterian church with high-profile senior pastors.  At the Crystal Cathedral, which as a member church of the Reformed Church in America could be thought of as the Reformed Church of Garden Grove, California, there has been some questions about leadership with the senior pastor the Rev. Robert Schuller apparently removing, or encouraging the departure of, his son from leadership and placing his daughter in leadership instead.  (news article)  In another high-profile succession, the Rev. W. G. Tullian Tchividjian was recently called by the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (PCA) to serve as senior pastor, filling the pulpit previously occupied by the Rev. D. James Kennedy.  Now the media has jumped on a disagreement between the Rev. Tchividjian and the Rev. Kennedy’s children which has apparently led to some vocal dissenters being banned from the church and a judicial proceeding being initiated. (news article)

The interesting thing in both cases is that there is little mention of the church governing bodies in these disputes.  Now, recognizing that the news media does not really understand Reformed and Presbyterian polity, it could just be a lack of good reporting on the part of the media.  After all, being good connectional churches I would expect the consistory and classis, in the case of the Crystal Cathedral, and the session and Presbytery of South Florida, in the case of Coral Ridge, to be working together to work through these differences decently and in order.  Or because of their sizes are they working through them internally?  It will be interesting to see if we have church government done decently and in order.

So there you have a summary of my thinking from the past week.  I expect that some of this will be making it into blog posts in more developed form in the near future.  Stay tuned…

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

Leave a reply

from Wikimedia Commons
 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.

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.

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.

Honor To Whom Honor Is Due

Leave a reply

As my readers probably know I occasionally drift into the realm of civil politics when something happens that really hits my Reformed theology button, usually when it has to do with Total Depravity.  Well as you are probably aware U.S. Senator John Ensign admitted this week to an inappropriate sexual relationship.  On the one hand it is easy to attach the label of hypocrite to him after he has previously condemned the inappropriate sexual activities of President Clinton and the alleged sexual improprieties of U.S. Senator Larry Craig.  This label is further boosted by his activities with the Promise Keepers para-church organization.

I have not followed this particular story very closely, I have had better things to do with my time this week.  I mostly know what I found in the headlines as I really don’t care who he was fooling around with when.  It is generally enough to know that once again a politician has confirmed the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity.  That is old news.  But after reading the piece on GetReligion I thought I would riff on a couple of their points.

First, one of the major criticisms of the Promise Keepers movement from the Reformed angle is that their theological approach does not take into account the doctrine of Total Depravity.  Some see their teaching as “repent and now be good by keeping these seven promises.”  That may be a major simplification of their message but as the GetReligion piece points out and I have seen myself there is an emphasis on confession and repentance in Promise Keepers.  Concern comes when men have trouble keeping the promises and fell like they have failed.  While the doctrine of Total Depravity does not excuse this it does account for it.  However, Promise Keepers and the Reformed approach to discipline are both based on repentance and restoration.  The news to me in the GetReligion piece was that Sen. Ensign appears to have publicly confessed under the weight of his conscience not under the threat of exposure.  Sure, you can attach political motives to it if you like, but it appears he attached the political consequences himself by resigning his Senate leadership position.

I will leave it at that but the GetReligion piece brings out a lot of good, subtle and positive details to the story and Sen. Ensign’s accountability from the religion perspective that not every news source would include.

On to one of his Senate colleagues and “status.”

In preface it is probably useful for me to point out that one of the reasons this really grated on me is because I am not one to stand on formality.  Yes, I could attach some letters to the end of my name or titles at the beginning but almost never do.  I am grateful when in an appropriate situation someone acknowledges me as “Mr. Moderator” or another title suitable to the setting, which sometimes is “Coach Steve” or “Hey Ref.”  But I have numerous stories about comments people have made when they have discovered my academic credentials and reacted with surprise.  One of my favorite that has happened multiple times is “You have a degree from that school?  You are the most normal person I have met from there.”  I like the cliché “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”  The bottom line is that the title is a means not an end.  (Addendum:  I’m not perfect at this.  Right after posting this whole reflection I went and non-verbally “asserted” my numerical position in an airline boarding queue.)

With that background I turn to the junior U.S. Senator from my state, the Honorable Barbara Boxer.  You may have caught this exchange preserved for us on YouTube.  In this clip from a Senate hearing she is questioning Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh.  Gen. Walsh is responding in a very courteous, professional and military tone and addressing her as “ma’am.”  It is not technically correct, and Senator Boxer lets him know by asking him to address her as Senator.  OK, I guess that is her right, that is the title of the office she holds, and that by itself does not really bother me.  What really got me was the Senator’s next sentence: “I worked so hard to get that title.”  She has now moved from the office to the person possessing the office.  (The really funny part is that the General responds with “Yes ma’am.” and then catches himself and starts addressing her as “Senator” the next time around.)

One take is that we have here the “self-made woman,” someone displaying the Protestant work ethic.  Look where I got myself!  It kind of ignores the thousands of people who have worked on campaigns for her.

But on another level we have the religious dimension.  Numerous comments could be made.  As my post title implies there is the “honor to whom honor is due.”  But there is also the it is legal but is it beneficial angle.  The last shall be first and the first shall be last.  They who are least in the Kingdom shall be the greatest.  Glory is not something to be grasp.  But since Senator Boxer self-identifies as being Jewish I will leave you with a passage from the Torah, Deut. 8:12-14:

When you have eaten your fill and have built fine houses and live in them, and when your herds and flocks have multiplied, and your silver and gold is multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied, then do not exalt yourself, forgetting the LORD your G_d, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery,