Category Archives: Special day

One Day Of Giving Thanks?

1 Reply

I don’t do Thanksgiving well.

Don’t get me wrong.  On this day the American society sets aside to give thanks I can “do up” the day.  I spent much of it joyfully cooking up the feast for my family.  It is a day I can relax and do something I enjoy that I don’t normally have time to do.  (And Saturday I will defend my Dutch Oven cobbler championship, but that’s another story.)

But in the grand scheme of things I think I have problems with the complexity of the day.  I know it’s not supposed to be complex, its supposed to be simple – a day set aside to give thanks to God for His grace, mercy, provision and blessings. But every year it seems that some new layer of complexity is added to the day – usually in the form of something that has to do with the next season starting earlier and earlier.

So, among the complexities that I personally struggle with are:

  • Thanksgiving has become one of the high-holy days of American culture. (The good part here is that while commercialization for the next holiday season encroaches on, or even infringes on, the day, Thanksgiving has still mostly escaped commercial influences.)
  • By virtue of being part of our cultural narrative the holiday has been shaped by the culture.  With schools avoiding religion who do students think the Pilgrims were thankful to?  Only the indigenous people – the context of divine provision has been eliminated.
  • While one particular narrative is the one American culture celebrates today, my time living in New Mexico raised my awareness of other narratives, including earlier events.
  • Modern American culture has standardized on the one narrative, but earlier in American history a day of thanksgiving could be declared by civil governments at various times in response to some important event, including military victories.  (And likewise, days of prayer and fasting were declared in times of need.) While there was the tradition of Thanksgiving in the fall as a harvest festival, there was still a sense of cause and effect, or call and response rather than a date that could be placed on the calendar a decade in advance. (That is of course still acknowledging the Biblical parallel Feast of Sukkot which was part harvest festival which was also tied to a specific day on the calendar, Tishri 15.)
  • And finally, I probably dread and fear the sharp transition from a day of giving thanks to the mass celebration of materialism that the day following Thanksgiving has become.

So, since I don’t do Thanksgiving well I want to give you stories from two people who do.  These are both about thanksgiving when that seems like the last thing a person would be inclined to do.

The first is from pastor Mark D. Roberts who has a couple of very good Thanksgiving reflections on his blog.  But I want to highlight the story of pastor Martin Rinkart.  Rinkart ministered in Germany during the very difficult and devastating period of the Thirty Years War, but also wrote the hymn “Now Thank We All Our God,” a hymn that is now almost exclusively associated with Thanksgiving in our worship.

The second one if from elder Jody Harrington and her wonderful blog Quotidian Grace .  (And I take the time to plug hers since she has the job at Presbyterians Today of plugging everyone else’s blogs and should get some recognition as a blogger in her own right.)  As a nice antidote to Black Friday she has a post today about Bless Friday, but I wanted to highlight her previous post about “Thankfulness with a Heavy Heart.”

So I hope all my American readers had a good day of giving thanks and to all of you, wherever you may be, may we remember daily to whom we owe the greatest thanks.

Be filled with the Spirit, as you sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts, giving thanks to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[Eph 5:18b-20]

The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.’
[Job 1:21]

How Bright These Glorious Spirits Shine! — Reflection On All Saints Day

Leave a reply
How bright these glorious spirits shine!
Whence all their bright array?
How came they to the blissful seats
of everlasting day?
Lo! these are they, from sufferings great
who came to realms of light,
and in the blood of Christ have washed
those robes which shine so bright.

Once again I observe the Commemoration of All Saints.  In my reflections last year it struck me that the year was an “easy” one, if there is such a thing when remembering those that have gone to join the Church Triumphant.  That was not the case this year as there were more friends than past years that went on to their heavenly reward, and more close friends than any previous year. 

Now, with triumphal palms they stand
before the throne on high,
and serve the God they love, amidst
the glories of the sky.
His presence fills each heart with joy,
tunes every mouth to sing:
by day, by night, the sacred courts
with glad hosannas ring.

So this year I remember the following saints who left their mark upon my life and for whom I give thanks that I could share the spiritual journey with them.

  • Jim – A gentleman, in the true sense of the word, who well into his 90’s was in worship on the Lord’s Day almost every week and who had a smile on his face that reflected Psalm 122, “I was glad when they said to me, ‘Let us go to the House of the LORD'” He loved to be with the community in worship and it showed.
  • Melissa – A childhood friend. I did not know the quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer at the time, but in retrospect I recognize that she was the first of my peers to reflect what he writes in Life Together: “Therefore, the Christian needs another Christian who speaks God’s word to him… The Christ in his own heart is weaker than the Christ in the word of his brother(/sister); his own heart is uncertain, his brother’s(/sister’s) is sure.”
  • Sally – Who struggled with trials for several years but kept the joy of the LORD in her life.
  • Randy – A faithful servant of God who worked hard to spread the Kingdom.
  • Irwin – Another faithful servant, elder and leader who showed many of us the great wisdom in a simple word well and timely spoken.
  • Scott – A friend who loved music, and loved to play music to God’s glory.
  • Myrna – A people person who loved those in her care deeply and was deeply loved by them.  She left a very big hole in many lives.
  • Lillian – One of the quiet, faithful members who doesn’t attract attention but when they are gone their absence is felt.
  • Fred and Leonard – Two gentleman who were both members of “the Greatest Generation” and who both spent an incredible amount of time working with young people.  Although they lived a continent apart they both had the same big hearts, unselfish giving of their time, were an inspiration to many that they worked with, and passed away with a week of each other.

I add to that list a friend of many of us, the Rev. Howard Rice.  I had the great pleasure of getting to know Howard when he joined our presbytery, saw him regularly and in getting to know him had several stimulating discussion with him. We agreed on many points of Reformed theology and worship and we disagreed on a bunch as well.  But I will always treasure Howard’s smile and the deep respect he showed for every individual.

Finally, in an unusual step for me I would also add someone I did not know personally, I only met him once, but even at a distance his life radiated so much of the gospel.  When UCLA basketball coach John Wooden died a bit short of his 100th birthday we lost not just a great philosopher but a great role model, especially when it came to his marriage to Nellie and how he worked at it.  While much of his life was inspirational, the effort he put into his marriage impresses me the most.

So a word of thanks to all these saints who in big ways and little, for a short time or an extended period, whether known or unknown to them, have touched my life and shaped my faith and life in positive ways.  As you have gone on to your heavenly reward this past year we are the poorer for your absence.  Thank you and I look forward to the great reunion before the Throne someday.

Hunger and thirst are felt no more,
nor suns with scorching ray;
God is their sun, whose cheering beams
diffuse eternal day.
The Lamb who dwells amidst the throne
shall o’er them still preside,
feed them with nourishment divine,
and all their footsteps guide.

‘Mong pastures green he’ll lead his flock,
where living streams appear;
and God the Lord from every eye
shall wipe off every tear.

How Bright These Glorious Spirits Shine!
Words by Isaac Watts, 1707
Versified from Scottish Paraphrases 1781
As used at the Church of Scotland 2010 General Assembly Closing Worship

Celebrating The Reformation… And A Couple Of Important But Less-Known Players

2 Replies

The Protestant church likes to have a day they can nail down to celebrate the Reformation. (pun intended, as if you had to ask)  Today is that day commemorating Professor Martin Luther posting an invitation to debate some theological points on a public bulletin board.

But I keep reminding myself, and others, that the Protestant Reformation was a very complex movement and while our celebration today of a public challenge that was a very major event in the Reformation and the life of Martin Luther, it is one event among many remarkable ones.  Over at Reformation21 Carl Trueman has an interesting piece where he makes the case that maybe a better event to mark was the actual realization of a public academic debate on some of Martin Luther’s theses that occurred on April 26, 1518.  And Luther’s were not the first steps in the Reformation but the likes of Jan Hus and John Wycliffe preceded Luther by over a century.

Another part of the complex history are the individuals that surrounded Luther and critical roles they played.  We are commonly aware of fellow academics and reformers like Philipp Melancthon, but today I want to lift up two others without whom, I would argue, Luther would not have been as successful as he was.

Frederick III
[Wikimedia Commons]
Frederick III, Elector of Saxony
Frederick the Wise
(1463-1525)

I think it could be argued that without the help of Frederick, Martin Luther’s cause would have been lost, and maybe his life as well.  Frederick was Luther’s protector in the early years of the German Reformation.

His first move was to make sure that Luther got a hearing at home and he arranged to have Luther tried at the Diet of Worms rather than being extradited to Rome.

The second move was his having Luther kidnapped and put into protective custody in the Wartburg Castle after he was condemned by the Diet.

Frederick had little personal contact with Luther, and it is not clear from my reading how sympathetic Frederick was to Luther’s theological perspective (I have seen arguments both ways), but he had a concern for his subjects and used his diplomatic savvy to take care of Luther as one of his own.  It is widely recognized that Frederick was a fair and just ruler who avoided conflict, hence the the title “the Wise.”

Johann von Staupitz
Vicar general of the German Congregation of Augustinians
(ca. 1460 – 1524)

Where Frederick was Luther’s political protector, von Staupitz was Luther’s theological and ecclesiastical enabler.  Again, Luther probably could not have done what he did without the actions taken by von Staupitz.

Interestingly these also came in two different steps, but this time several years apart.  The first was his pastoral care and spiritual direction of Luther as a young monk under his care.  One time Luther spent six hours in confession to von Staupitz.  Counseling Luther in his spiritual desperation, it was von Staupitz that pointed him to the means of grace and the saving blood of Christ.  Beyond that, von Staupitz encouraged Luther to pursue an academic career, and we all know where that led.

The second action, taken several years later after the theological dispute arose, was von Staupitz releasing Luther from the Augustinian order.  This was one of the “it seemed like a good idea at the time” moves whose immediate consequence was a win-win.  Luther got more ecclesiastical independence and the good name of the order was no longer tied to a potential heretic.  Long term however, the “powers that be” would have preferred to have had control over Luther and von Staupitz did come under suspicion and accusation for aiding Luther.

 

Johann von Staupitz
[Wikimedia Commons ]

Ignatius Loyola
[Wikimedia Commons]
An Interesting Conjunction

One more interesting point to emphasize the complexity of the Reformation…

Based upon the historical timelines, it appears that the great reformer John Calvin overlapped with the great Counter-Reformer Ignatius of Loyola, at the Collège de Montaigu of the University of Paris.  This happened in 1528 as Ignatius was arriving and Calvin was about to depart.  There is no evidence that they met, or knew each other there, but it is interesting how the same school would produce two great minds on opposite sides of the Reformation.

John Calvin
[Wikimedia Commons]

So, a happy Reformation Day to you, if you are so inclined.  But in a larger sense take a moment to marvel at the sovereignty of God and how he uses many people with many different skills and talents, and for that matter different perspectives, to work out his purposes. Soli Deo gloria – To God Alone Be The Glory!

Presbyterian Government And American Government — The Same Only Different

2 Replies

It is common among American Presbyterians, when trying to explain our system of Presbyterian Government, to appeal to the structure of our Federal government to help explain how we do things.  This is for good reason because the two governmental systems have strong similarities in their elected representative forms, the presence of checks and balances, and the appearance of different branches of government.  The parallels are not coincidental — while it is often said that the U.S. Government was patterned on the Presbyterian system, several authorities I have consulted prefer to say that the two systems developed at the same time in the same cultural and philosophical climate.

It can not be denied that there is a strong tie between the two.  James Madison was one of the most influential members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, possibly the individual having the greatest single influence on the government structure in the Constitution.  He was also a graduate of the Presbyterian College of New Jersey, now Princeton University, and following his graduation in 1771 he remained there for another year or two as he studied with the college president, the Rev. John Witherspoon, who had recently arrived from Scotland to serve as the college’s sixth president.  While Madison himself seems to have affiliated with the Episcopal Church, his education clearly included heavy influence by Presbyterians.  (For reference regarding timing, the Presbyterians instituted multiple synods and brought them together in the first General Assembly in 1789 in Philadelphia.)

However, while I have used the analogy between the Presbyterian and American systems of government in the past I have moved away from that because the differences between them are just as important to our polity as the similarities.

One of the big differences is that Presbyterianism is a different sort of representative government.  When a teaching or ruling elder participates in the deliberations of a governing body they may be there as the representatives of the members that elected them to that position, but they are not there to represent the views of those people.  The Presbyterian church is not a democracy or a republic, it is a theocracy.  The very first thing the PC(USA) Book of Order says is:

All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body. [G-1.0100a]

And lest you think they are alone the PCA Book of Church Order begins in a very similar way.  Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and those in governing bodies are there to seek God’s will and do it, not to follow the opinion of the people.  I would first note that this Book of Order section is a constant reminder to me of what the purpose of church government is and this probably explains why I really don’t like that the new revised PC(USA) Form of Government has moved this away from the opening lines of the Foundations section.  My second note here is to clarify that I am not saying that the opinions and views of those we represent are not important — they are very important.  But they need to be considered as part of the discernment process and possibly held in tension with the leading of the Holy Spirit.  As the Book of Order says “Presbyters are not simply to reflect the will of the people, but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ.” [G-4.0301d]

Maybe the most serious error frequently made in trying to explain Presbyterian government is to describe it as having three branches like the Federal system.  It is tempting to equate the full Assembly as a legislative branch, the judicial commission as the judicial branch, and an executive as the executive branch.  The truth is that a Presbyterian governing body has only one branch and that is the body itself.  We have single bodies which are mostly legislative, or deliberative, and the executive or judicial functions exist not to be branches in their own right but as parts of the governing body to assist the body in carrying out its mission.  Not to put too fine a point on this, but remember that judicial commissions are just that – commissions.  They are empowered or commissioned to act on behalf of the governing body with the full authority of the governing body, within the limits specificed by the governing body.  A commission is an extension of the body to do a particular job, not a separate body.

And this brings me to a third difference, the system of checks and balances.  In the Federal system the primary system of checks and balances is between the three coequal branches of the U.S. government.  Another system of checks and balances exists between the Federal government and the state governments but how strong a system of checks that should be is a matter of discussion by constitutional scholars.  In the connectional Presbyterian system the checks and balances are in “governing bodies (traditionally called judicatories or courts) in regular gradation.” [G-4.0301c]  Our governing bodies are not independent but each sends representatives to the higher one and each higher one has the responsibility of review on the lower ones.  Governing bodies are not independent and autonomous but have come together to be the Body of Christ together in this time and place.

And so, on this 234th anniversary of the Rev. Witherspoon and his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress affixing their signatures to the Declaration of Independence, with a Presbyterian General Assembly underway, we acknowledge the deep connections in history and philosophy the two systems of government share. But we also recognize that these two governments have two different purposes and serve two different ends and so there are also structural and philosophical differences between the two reflecting how their purposes diverge.

So where every American Presbyterians find themselves today, be it in Minneapolis or somewhere else, have a very good Fourth of July.

National Day Of Prayer — And A Tiny Bit Of History From The PC(USA)

Leave a reply

Today is one of those days when civil religion intersects with the church calendar in the National Day of Prayer.  This year the event is embraced in an official way in the PC(USA) by the Mission Yearbook and the Presbyterian Peacemaking Program.  Unofficially we have contributions from Presbyterian Devotions, Presbyterian Bloggers, and a word of caution in a commentary from the Aquila Report. Over on beliefnet Mark D. Roberts talks about it being viewed with different opinions. But there is a commentary on Religious Dispatches by Elizabeth Drescher that gave me a good chuckle.  The piece is titled “Forget Right of Wrong: Why the National Day of Prayer is Obsolete” and as you might be able to guess her point is that with the trend in demographics with segments of the population of the United States shifting from “religious” to “spiritual” the National Day of Prayer no longer is relevant.  She sums it up with this:

In this world, a government-sponsored National Day of Prayer may not be
appropriate or Constitutional, but it fails most because, as a civic and
as a spiritual event, it’s about as culturally relevant to the
developing mainstream of American believers and non-believers alike as a
National Day of Butter Churning.

Maybe she is right as this is viewed from the civic perspective, which it must be in part because of the government endorsement and participation.  But while cultural relevance may be a civic consideration it does not make sense as a spiritual one in this case — I could see it being argued that the event is even more important from a religious/spiritual perspective because it is not culturally relevant. And from a religious perspective the organizers would argue that she has the cause and effect reversed – it is not that we are religious there for we pray, it is that we are called to prayer to make the country more religious.  But I digress…

What caught my attention, and which I can speak authoritatively to, is her opening line:

The Constitutional
issues around a National Day of Prayer endorsed by the federal
government are significant, and the political stakes are high (or hyped,
depending on your perspective), but the controversy also reflects the
continuing failure of mainline religions to grasp a dramatic cultural
change in what constitutes religious or spiritual “practice.” (emphasis mine)

Now maybe what she means here by “mainline religions” is better expressed as “traditional western religions” or maybe even “evangelical Christians.”  I have trouble making it mean “mainline churches.”

In my experience, and the examples I cite at the beginning not withstanding, the mainline denominations have not been the driving force behind the National Day of Prayer.  I can’t speak for other denominations, but at least in 1997 it was not listed on the Presbyterian Planning Calendar of the PC(USA).  (And I can not tell you if at any point before that it was listed.)

In 1997 as an Elder Commissioner to the 209th General Assembly I was on the Theological Institutions and Issues Committee.  One of our “routine” tasks was the approval of the church calendar for 1998 and the tentative calendar for 1999.  In my usual way I started asking question about the calendar and why certain things were on there and some were not.  (It turns out that it really helps to have program materials ready to promote your “special Sunday” if you want to get it added to the calendar.)  Anyway, the commissioner a couple of seats down from me asked about the National Day of Prayer and then made the motion to include it in the calendar.  The committee approved the addition as did the full Assembly as part of our Consent Agenda.  Don’t believe me?  Here is  the applicable section of the minutes (p. 73) of our Consent Agenda report:

A.

31.0151


That the recommendation is approved with amendment:



Amend the “Special Days and Seasons 1998 Lectionary Year C”
calendar, in the “MAY 1998” section to read as follows: [Text to be
deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is
shown as italic.]

“MAY 1998 


3
Fourth Sunday of Easter

7
National Day of Prayer

10
Fifth Sunday of Easter

17
Sixth Sunday of Easter

21
Ascension of the Lord*

24
Seventh Sunday of Easter

31
Day of Pentecost*+”

 So, the National Day of Prayer is now included in the PC(USA) calendar not because it came from the standing committee of the General Assembly on worship, but because some commissioners started asking questions of their report and the committee amended it.

God’s Love Made Visible

Leave a reply

Believe it or not, this is a General Assembly post…

Back in 1997 I was a commissioner to the 209th General Assembly of the PC(USA).  The outgoing Moderator of the 208th GA, the Rev. John Buchanan, arranged for jazz musician and composer Dave Brubeck to lead a performance of his Christmas choral piece La Fiesta de la Posada one evening. (Yes, this was in June.)  It was a great break from the intense business of a GA.  Furthermore, while the whole piece was inspiring, one of the sections in particular, “God’s Love Made Visible,” really moved me in the unity of the words and music, it has stuck with me for these 12 years, and listening to the CD is now part of my regular Christmas discipline.  So on this day of the celebration of the Incarnation, I give you the opening of “God’s Love Made Visible”:

God’s love made visible!
Incomprehensible!
He is invincible,
His love shall reign!

From love so bountiful,
blessings uncountable,
make death surmountable.
His love shall reign!

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!

Happy Reformation Day 2009

Leave a reply

In honor of Reformation Day I spent yesterday and today doing something really, well, Reformed.

The annual Assembly meeting of the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii PC(USA) happened this weekend.  Appropriate to fall on Reformation Day 2009. 

And while in Reformation Day we commemorate a specific event — Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church door in Wittneberg on this day in 1517 — that event is remembered by a wide range of Protestants as a defining moment in church history that would shortly include a number of other reformers around Europe.  (With due recognition of Luther’s predecessors like John Wycliffe and Jan Hus.)

From that we of the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions get our concept of clergy and ordained laity ruling jointly with parity in all the courts of the church.  Not a synod, conclave or conference that calls only the high level clergy together to make decisions.  Not a bicameral body where the clergy meet together in one room and the laity meet separately in another room.  But a meeting where those of us without formal theological training participate side-by-side with church professionals on equal footing to make ecclesiastical decisions.

And the really radical part is that serving on an equal footing means that the ruling elders can lead the meetings.  A geologist and computer tech like me can be the one called and elected by the governing body to plan and chair the meeting.  This is radical — the thought that someone without formal theological training could run the meeting of a church governing body.  Sure, I have a whole bunch of church experience and am well versed on church polity and some aspects of theology.  But in few places do you see the person up-front without a clerical collar, robe, or staff.

So on this Reformation Day we remember what the Reformers brought to the Christian church — bringing the Church to all the people.  This includes the Holy Scriptures in the common language.  The opportunity to pray directly to God without an intermediary.  The responsibility of those chosen from among the congregation as leaders to serve as the shepherds of the flock.  In short – the idea that the clergy in the church are not inherently closer to God than the people in the pews.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.  As it was in the beginning is now and every shall be.  World without end. Amen.

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.