John Woodhouse on The Church - 3

In the third lecture, John Woodhouse discusses the relationship of Christian unity to denominations.  How does unity affect our relationship with those outside of our local gathering, both within an association of like-minded churches and beyond.

There are many good quotes from this article, but I’ll leave you with just these two:

The scandal of denominationalism (which is neither inherent in the concept, nor necessary in practice) is the creation of barriers
to fellowship with those who do not belong to that denomination, based
on the traditions of men. The denomination exists to foster the
Christian fellowship of member churches, not to create barriers to
fellowship with other churches!

and then this…

Once the distinctives of your denomination become part of your
religion, your denomination has become a sect. Once the distinctives
(of dress, liturgy, polity, or other practice) become hindrances to
relating to believers who do not share these distinctives, then the
distinctives must be challenged.

This is very interesting reading as I consider it alongside the book The Baptist Way: Distinctives Of A Baptist Church by my friend Stan Norman.

Read the whole article here.

John Woodhouse on The Church - 2

In the second lecture Woodhouse gave he discusses our unity in Christ and how that relates to the ecumenical urge and specifically what it means for the local church.

A few quotes:

This church is real, and our membership of it is as real as our
relationship with God. However it is not a physical, or visible
reality. It is known by faith. This church is not to be identified
with, and is in no way dependent upon, any institution in this world.
Jesus is building this church on the foundation already laid.

and this…

The scattered believers did not belong to any physical gathering or
organization in this world, but they belonged together by virtue of
having come to Christ, the living capstone. Many of them may never have
met, but they were being built into the one “spiritual house”.

and this…

This church does not therefore have a ‘mission’. It is the outcome of
God’s mission. This church is where the unity of mankind, which was the
purpose of the creator from the beginning, is re-established on its
proper foundation.

and this gem…

Only when we see and believe in the unity that is not under threat can
we understand properly the fact that the unity is under threat.

You can read the article in its entirety here.

John Woodhouse on The Church

David Rogers has linked to some lectures from John Woodhouse, an Anglican and the Principal of Moore College in Sydney, Australia.  The lectures were on the church, unity and denominationalism.  I’m in the middle of preparing for a trip to Spain next week and will pick up my own thoughts on the church when I return.  In the mean time, check out his first lecture, "When to unite and when to divide," on the meaning of oneness and unity in the church.

A quote:

There are two kinds of unity.

The unity that matters to us supremely must be the unity of the new
humanity God has created by the death of his Son, and that he is
bringing into being by the one true gospel. This gospel unity is unity in the gospel, unity in the Christ of the gospel, unity in the Father and the Son by the Spirit.

The other unity is what humans in their pride and arrogance create.
It is worse than worthless. It is unity in Babylon, and will fall under
God’s judgment.

Read the whole article here.

The Church - Autonomous?

Those churches that are a part of the "free-church" tradition have, for several hundred years, advocated a principle called "local church autonomy."  I can hear those words ringing in my head all the way back to my childhood in the Baptist church.  But it isn’t unique to Baptists.  John Hammett notes that there are more than 50 Christian denominations in America that practice "local church autonomy" and/or some form of congregational rule - a form of government in which the local congregation has the final say in doctrinal and practical matters.

Interestingly, James K. A. Smith suggests that the language of "local church autonomy" didn’t appear until after the philosophy of Immanuel Kant gained notoriety.  Kant advocated the "autonomous self" as a foundation for human experience.  It is this Kantian idea of autonomy that provides a common foundation for both liberal and fundamentalist streams of the theological spectrum.  It’s true.  There isn’t a fundamental difference in the fountain from which sprang John R. Rice and John Shelby Spong.  It was the fountain of autonomy.

Hammett qualifies local church autonomy with the phrase "under the authority of Christ."  But he then goes on to explain that the foundation of this notion is rooted in a belief that every believer possesses the Holy Spirit and that the Spirit speaks through each one, not some privileged number out of the group.  Now, I’m very much inclined to agree with him, but what I wonder is why we stop at the local church?  Isn’t the Spirit present in believers outside of that one local church?  Does the Spirit not also speak to/through those believers?  Is there a good reason we limit the "authority" of the Spirit’s voice spoken to/through those other believers other than that our names are on different local church rolls?

Hammett stipulates that there is no external ecclesiastical body outside of the local church to which the local church is answerable in an authoritative way, but I’m not talking about ecclesiastical bodies.  I’m talking about individual, Spirit-filled believers.  Yes, the New Testament shows us examples of local churches choosing their own leaders, determining doctrinal matters and administering their own church discipline.  But what is often ignored (or glossed over) is that the writers of the New Testament (some apostles, others not) don’t appear to be writing nice suggestions to the churches they addressed.  On one occasion the apostle Paul writes about a "rule" of his that applies to "all the churches."  As mentioned in an earlier post, the apostle John indicates that Demetrius erred because he was not submitting to John’s authority (and possibly the authority of others) and that when John arrived on the scene he would take appropriate action (3 John 9-10).  Yes, these two are apostles, but in a striking admission even Hammett acknowledges that Titus (a non-apostle) had a similar authority (the authority to appoint church leadership in a church to which he did not personally belong) and notes that he had such an authority due to his close relationship to the apostle Paul.

Is it just me or did we just take a step toward something very much like "apostolic succession?"  I mean, what about Titus’s close relationships?  Is it that far removed to suggest that the authority conferred upon Titus via his relationship to Paul might be conferred upon others because of their close relationship to Titus who had a close relationship to Paul?

No.  My point is that I don’t believe the New Testament is nearly so clear on "local church autonomy" as it might appear to some of us free-churchers.  Hammett notes that early Baptists were drawn to "associational" ties with one another and that early on the association existed to help advise the church in matters of doctrine and practice.  That function of the association has all but disappeared these days in favor of even greater "autonomy."  The church culture of our present day is not even all that opposed to practically thumbing their nose at such connections.  But as I’ve noted previously, I believe this is unwise.  Alone we are much more prone to error in both belief and practice.  Alone we shut our ears off to a good bit of not only what the Spirit is saying to other believers in other churches, but what the Spirit has been saying to the church for centuries and millennia.

We need to figure out how to recover our ability to hear the Spirit speak through others.  This doesn’t require formal denominational ties as long as we can maintain our connection to the larger church without falling back into some sort of self-reliant place of autonomy when we hear something we might not like or may be difficult to hear.  It also doesn’t mean that every pronouncement of an ecumenical council is authoritative for the church today.  But it means that we recognize that we are organically connected even if we are not organizationally connected.  To thumb our nose at other believers because they are not of the same flavor or brand as us is to thumb our nose at another part of our own body - which is a really odd picture.  I don’t believe we can maintain a position that says we are both organically connected and at the same time autonomous from one another.  The body metaphor that the apostle Paul uses for the church seems to me to require an organic view of the church and renders "local church autonomy" as something that begins to make little Biblical sense.

Providence and God’s Presence

Most days I’m oblivious to the fact that there is such a thing as 5:30 AM.  I’m not a morning person.  Never have been.  Never hope to be.  But a ringing phone will awaken even me at such an hour.

It was the police department.

One of our church members had died.

At 5:30 AM I have enough trouble finding my pants, much less finding God’s presence.  If I can’t find it, though, how will I hope to take it with me as I visit with the family?

I learned a long time ago in Clinical Pastoral Education that those of us in ministry tend to put too much pressure on ourselves to say and do the right thing in a time like this.  Reality is that there is no "right thing" to say or do.  What’s done cannot be undone and the grief and loss will not go away with a well-crafted sentence or two.  Often the simple fact of being there is more than enough.  We do not want to be alone in our grief.  That would heap pain on top of pain.

So I go.  At 5:30 AM I don’t think about taking my Bible with me.  I’m hoping I remembered to brush my teeth.  I’m hoping I can find the apartment in the dark.  My old eyes aren’t what they used to be and they are about half of what they presently are when it’s 5:30 AM and dark.

But now that it’s later in the day I’m reminded of a couple of things I’ve read recently that will help me today.  One came from reading Walter Brueggemann’s Finally Comes The Poet.  In it he mentions that as we look at the history of Israel in the Bible we often notice that, in the midst of their pain and despair, God comes to them nearly always after they have given words to their pain.  They have cried out for help.  In her slavery in Egypt Israel cries out and God says that he has heard the cry of his people, and before long Moses appears on the scene as God’s messenger to bring deliverance.  In smaller ways this scene is repeated time and again as God’s people cry out for help, give voice to their pain, and God hears.

And so this morning we sat around and gave voice to the pain.  There will be many more words and sentences and paragraphs spoken and unspoken that will give voice to the pain in the days and weeks ahead.  Barbara was loved by the children in our church.  She had worked with them in Sunday School and VBS for years upon years.  Many of the children she taught are not children any longer.  Some of them had grown up to work alongside her with succeeding generations.  We will tell our own children today after they get out of school and we expect that they will struggle with what it means and how to voice their own pain.

The second thing I read is the reading from the Psalms in the Book of Common Prayer that is given for this coming Sunday: Psalm 139.

As we struggle with Barbara’s absence and in the midst of it try to find God’s presence it seems Providential that Psalm 139 begs us to read it this week.  And to speak it as our own.  Even today.  Especially today.

Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
If I take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me.
If I say, "Surely the darkness shall cover me,
and the light about me be night,"
even the darkness is not dark to you;
the night is bright as the day,
for darkness is as light with you.

Even so, Lord, be present with us today.
Amen.

Picture This

Due to the December weather our children’s Christmas program at church was rescheduled to this past Sunday night.  It was more exciting than this may make it appear.  I guess even Gabriel gets tired now and then.

This second pic was taken in Jenks, Oklahoma looking back to the west in the evening sky.  Our daughter (the one pictured above) was playing basketball at a fancy new rec center there and this is what we saw as we pulled into the parking lot.

That precise scene will never, ever, be recreated just like that.  We may be blessed by our Creator with others that are similar, but never again will we see this one just as it is.  It is an amazing privilege we have in our day to be able to capture scenes like this and see them again and again.  As I look out the window right now all I see is gray.  But I’m reminded that there is also blue, pink and orange and beauty untold.  Of course, it’s never as beautiful as it is at that moment and in person.  As I got out my camera to take this shot a lady in the parking lot said, "Isn’t it just beautiful!  I hope your picture turns out."

Book Reviews

Below you will find links to various books I have reviewed here at Caught In The Middle and elsewhere.

Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism, by James K. A. Smith

Colossians Remixed: Subverting The Empire, by Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat

The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming The Mission Of The Church From Big Business, Parachurch
Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism and Other Modern
Maladies, by David E. Fitch

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5

How [Not] To Speak of God, by Peter Rollins

I’m OK, You’re Not, by John Shore

On The Move, by Bono

Wait Until Then, by Randy Alcorn (also reviewed Heaven For Kids, by Randy Alcorn in the same post)

Confessions of an Amateur Believer, by Patty Kirk

Heretic’s Guide To Eternity, by Spencer Burke

• Part 1
• Part 2

Quotable

I’m taking a breather in my series on the church until next week.  There have been a number of books I have that quote George MacDonald in them somewhere.  In fact, I recently read where C.S. Lewis considered MacDonald to be his "master" and Lewis was greatly moved by the writings of MacDonald, stating that there wasn’t a book he’d written where he did not quote George MacDonald.  What follows is from Creation In Christ.

"But I do not know how to awake and arise."

I will tell you.  Get up, and do something the Master tells you; so make yourself his disciple at once.  Instead of asking yourself whether you believe or not, ask yourself whether you have this day done one thing because he said, Do it, or once abstained because he said, Do not do it.  It is simply absurd to say you believe, or even want to believe in him, if you do not anything he tells you.  If you can think of nothing he ever said as having had an atom of influence on your doing or not doing, you have too great ground to consider yourself no disciple of his.

But you can begin at once to be a disciple of the Living One - by obeying him in the first thing you can think of in which you are not obeying him.  We must learn to obey him in everything, and so must begin somewhere.  Let it be at once, and in the very next thing that lies at the door of your conscience!  Oh fools and slow of heart, if you think of nothing but Christ, and do not set yourselves to do his words!  You but build your houses on the sand.

Authority - Finally, The End

Let me wrap up this discussion of authority and try to pull it all together. The ultimate, absolute, inerrant authority for the church is Jesus Christ. The Spirit and the Scriptures and the church all testify of him, point to him, bring him to us in living color. God has spoken to us in various times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us in his Son. Those who persistently want to add a “but” to that sort of statement have their argument with the writer of Hebrews and the Spirit who inspired that book, not with me. If it needed a “but” I am confident it would have received one.

Everything else points to Christ. The Spirit points to Christ (though I need to be careful to affirm that the Spirit is co-equal with the Father and the Son and is on a level far above the other witnesses to Christ). See, for example, John 16:7-15 and 1 John 5:6. The Scriptures point to Christ. The witness of the church points to Christ.

I also believe that the Scriptures are authoritative for the church. But the question is, how do we understand the Scriptures? I have mentioned that the apostle John believed he had some measure of authority over the church to which he was writing in his third letter (3 John). The apostle Paul also appears to have believed the same thing about his relationship to the various churches to which he wrote. In Acts 14 we read that he, along with Barnabas, appointed elders in the churches in Lystra. He wrote to various churches believing that what he wrote carried some measure of authority. Twice in 1 Corinthians he mentions what is true “in all the churches.” In one of those instances he goes so far as to say “This is my rule in all the churches.”  And yet, not only was the apostle Paul not the pastor of any of those churches, he was not even a member of any of
them.

I’ve said that I don’t believe in apostolic succession, but I do believe in apostolic witness and I believe that witness is carried out in and through the church throughout time and space. Historically. In other words, I believe the church helps us to interpret the Scriptures. I don’t mean by that that only bishops or preachers or professionals are capable of giving authoritative interpretations of Scripture. I still believe in a “flat” church – one where each is a priest. But I believe that we are priests together, not simply individually. How the church as a whole receives and understands Scripture is important.

I believe that in gospel matters the church is bound together, and must be bound together. I believe this is true regardless of the label on our church signs. Baptist. Presbyterian. Assembly of God. Episcopal. The gospel and those things that are essential to it give us an organic connection that we should honor and even consider authoritative. If someone says they believe the gospel, but it is a gospel which does not believe in Christ in the ways the church has believed in Christ for 2000 years, then that is not just some other gospel, but that is no church. What I mean is that if Jesus was not fully God and fully man, if God is not Father, Son and Spirit, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then that is not the gospel of Jesus Christ as witnessed to in Scripture and affirmed by the church. What you have may be religious, but it is not a gospel church. The local church is not “autonomous” in that regard. She cannot deny who Christ is and still be “the church.”

There are, however, secondary matters that are not central to the Christian faith. In those things it is still important that we weigh the witness of how the church has understood Scripture in those things. Tradition
is a guide to interpretation. Nevertheless, we may disagree about those things and still be the church.

Yet the church needs accountability. If it is organically connected then each local expression should seek a greater connectedness, not a lesser one. This is one of the reasons I do not believe truly “independent” churches are a good idea. I’m not saying they are not churches. I am saying they practice church in ways that seem contrary to the spirit and intent of Scripture and the sort of kingdom community/assembly that the Scriptures envision. It is likely that the “church” to which the apostle Paul wrote in Rome consisted of many “house” churches. Yet he wrote to them as if they were one. It is likely (and in my mind certain) that they understood that they were not “autonomous” from one another, but that they were vitally connected.

This connection does not require formal “denominational” ties. It is a connection more in spirit than in official organization. However, it should result in some sort of practical outward expression, most specifically in ways that the church works together for the cause of the gospel in the world. It also means that if a local expression of the church begins to believe or do something aberrant (in terms of the historic Christian faith) that local church should sense an obligation to hear from the larger body of Christ. They shouldn’t simply take an approach that, “we’re an autonomous church and we can do whatever we want and rain on you.” That sort of independence seems more at home in the rugged western frontier of yesteryear than it does in the historic church of Jesus Christ.

This is not a renewed call to enliven the ecumenical movements as seen in the NCC and WCC. Those organizations appear to seek unity regardless of the gospel. Rather, this is a gospel unity among all churches who hold fast to the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Authority - Part 3

It seems to me that it is impractical, unwise and also unbiblical for the local church to be its own authority – just as I also believe it is impractical, unwise and unbiblical for an individual to claim to be his/her own authority. I realize that those two statements at least somewhat cut into the cherished Baptist and free-church principles of the autonomy of the local church and the priesthood of the believer. So be it.

As I stated earlier, a church that gives away its organic (as well as historic) connection to the rest of the body becomes a religious Thing. Perhaps it can still perform some basic functions for the family, but in the end it is a grotesque and frightening disembodied member.

To separate the local church from its historic roots implies (if not outright states) that God’s work in the world is a-historical. God’s work in the world is most often carried out through his people, the church and is always carried out in time and space - history. For free-churchers to despise the vast majority of church history, then, is to deny God’s activity in those days. One formerly popular Baptist way around this problem was to argue for “Baptist” succession. Though almost entirely abandoned these days, it really seems to be the only viable alternative to an a-historical approach. The only problem is “Baptist” succession cannot be historically supported.

At this point I need to back up and correct myself on a statement made in Part 2 (see, I’m still thinking through a lot of this). I said that I assume the priority of Scripture. Actually, I assume the priority of Christ. It is at this point the debate tends to get hot and heavy. “How can we know anything of Christ apart from the Scriptures?” Well, actually we both can and do know something of Christ not only from Scripture, but apart from it as well.

Most commentators agree that in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 the apostle Paul is giving a formulaic summary of the gospel. If that is true then he not only testifies that Christ died for our sins, was buried and raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, but also that his vindication in his resurrection was attested to by Peter, the twelve, five hundred others and last of all to Paul himself. Thus, there are realities about Christ that were known and confirmed through the witness of believers. On top of all of that we now have two-thousand years of the witness of the church and we simply cannot dismiss that as irrelevant.

In addition, we know about Christ through the witness of the Holy Spirit. Now, even good heirs of the Protestant Reformation would agree with St. Augustine that what we know of God we know because he has revealed it to us – not only in the words of the Book of Scripture, but through the enlightening of our minds that only comes from the Spirit. Apart from the Spirit of God the Bible is just a dead book of words. If a person reads the Bible and the Spirit does not enlighten her heart and mind then the reading of the Bible is fruitless. And if we have confidence that the Spirit can really show us the one true God through the pages of Scripture then can we not have the same confidence that the Spirit can really show us the one true God in other ways without automatically charging those ways as being “too subjective?”  Has the Spirit been at work in the church for the last 2000 years? Does the Spirit confirm the witness of the church? Has the Spirit been at work in the lives of individuals as well? Can he not confirm that witness to us?

I know that there is a lot of downright goofy and even destructive things that are said, believed and done in the name of the Spirit. There are also a lot of downright goofy and even destructive things said, believed and done in the name of the Father and the Son as well. And when those goofy and destructive things come about the church, through the Spirit, stands against them. When some flake who thinks he’s a prophet announces that an airliner is going to crash because the Spirit revealed it to him it’s not only the Bible that stands against him but the larger church calls that a bunch of nonsense as well. This is the work of the Spirit.

So do you want to know who Christ is? Well, you will certainly find out plenty from the Scriptures. You will also find out plenty from the enduring witness of the church through time.

Next Page »