Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Lutheran


by 41 Comments

Wrestling with the ecclesiology of Ignatius of Antioch (or, do I need a Bishop?!)

ignace

Bishop Ignatius of Antioch

I’ve been a low church evangelical for many years now. I entered Christianity through a sectarian Pentecostal group (some doubted we should celebrate Christmas because it was of “pagan origin”, so you imagine the type of ecumenism I was taught). I have thought about the teachings of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism/Episcopalianism and there are times when I find these groups quite attractive and other times when I find these groups to be concerning. Currently, I worship with a (modern, not Amish-like) Mennonite church, which I like because of their commitment to serious discipleship, and their emphasis on the Kingdom of God and the reconciling hope of their eschatology. Yet I worry at times that Mennonites are similar in some ways to my Pentecostal friends in that there is a lack of catholicity with little emphasis on the Lord’s Supper/Communion/Eucharist tradition that has enriched the church for hundreds of years.

As I have mentioned (see here) I have decided to participate in a group called “Read the Fathers”. One figure whose writings are listed early is Ignatius of Antioch (CE 35/50-98/117), a Bishop in the early church who is said to have been one of the more immediate successors of the Apostle Peter and a student of the Apostle John. I haven’t studied this figure enough to have an opinion on such claims, but that he was writing not too long after documents like the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation were composed demands attention.

Is this gathering of U.S. Catholic Bishops the assembling of "the church"?

Is this gathering of U.S. Catholic Bishops the assembling of “the church”?

There have been several statements made in his epistle that seem to foreshadow the teachings of the more developed church, the ecclesiology to which aforementioned groups like Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans appeal. As someone who is worshipping with Mennonites, who has been educated by Baptists and Reformed thinkers, who has taught in churches with roots in Lutheranism and Pentecostalism, and who (admittedly) prefers “low church” Christianity (though I have grown fond of some form of liturgy and practices such as following a form of the liturgical calendar), I thought I’d post some excerpts here for conversation.

The first to grab my attention is from Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians (V) where he writes:

“Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, “God resists the proud.” Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.”

This seems Eucharistic (though I am trying to avoid anachronism). The Bishop performs the rite at the alter providing the bread to the people, and to deny the assembly is of grave concern. He writes later (XIII):

“For when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end.”

And then (XX):

“…breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.”

What we have in this epistle is the need to gather with the church, the importance of the Bishop, and the centrality of the Eucharist in worship. I struggled even more with a statement he made in his Epistle to the Magnesians (II):

“Since therefore I have been permitted to see you in the person of Damas, your godly bishop, and the worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, and my fellow-servant, the deacon Zotion, of whom may I have joy, because he is subject unto the bishop as unto the grace of God, and to the presbytery as unto the law of Jesus Christ.”

The Bishop of one church represents the whole local church to the other church through that local church’s Bishop. Later in the epistle he writes (XII):

“…that in everything which you do, you may be prospered in flesh and spirit, by faith and love, in the Son and Father and in the Spirit, in the beginning and in the end, along with your bishop who is worthy of all honor, and the fitly-woven spiritual coronal of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to the mind of God.  Submit yourselves to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ [was subject] to the Father [after the flesh], and the Apostles to Christ and the Father, that there may be union both of flesh and spirit.”

Submitting to the Bishop brings unity, and it models Jesus’ submission to the Father, and the Apostles to Christ and the Father. He writes in his Epistle to the Trallians (II), “For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death.”

Subject to the Bishop as to Jesus Christ? 

Submit to the Bishop as to Christ? Always?

Submit to the Bishop as to Christ? Always? What if my Bishop was John Shelby Spong?

Now, as I said, I want to avoid anachronism. I realize that a “Bishop” doesn’t seem to be as authoritative as it might come to be later. There doesn’t seem to be Archbishops. It could be argued that at this stage in the history of the church a Bishop was like the “Sr. Pastor” over the church in a city. There was no acknowledgement of anything like denominations, so you wouldn’t have a Lutheran pastor, a Presbyterian pastor, and so forth and so on. You’d have one, single pastor (Bishop) who oversees other leaders (Presbyters and Deacons). We know from the emergence of groups like the various gnostic sects that this idea is challenged, and that catholicity is “in flux” for the perspective of historicism, but for those of us who affirm that Spirit’s guidance in developing the church to become what most of us would consider “orthodox” (e.g., Trinity, deity of Christ, nature of Christology, function of canonical books) what do we say to this (and other statements by Ignatius in other epistles)?

Also, for pragmatic purposes, in light of Ignatius’ words, what do you think he would have said if someone said, “My ‘Bishop’ is John Shelby Spong! Should I remain under his authority?” How would Ignatius have advised people under the episcopal rule of Spong? or Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori? or an Arian Bishop or a gnostic Bishop?

Your thoughts on this subject are welcome, whether you be of a tradition with Bishops or without Bishops. What do you think of the need for Bishops today? What do we do if we think Bishop lead churches have strayed from the Gospel? 

About these ads


by Leave a comment

James D.G. Dunn Critiquing the ‘Lutheran’ Paul and the E.P. Sanders’ Paul

In an article titled ‘The New Perspective on Paul’ (1983) [1] James D.G. Dunn addressed E.P. Sanders’ ground breaking work Paul and Palestinian Judaism. After complementing Sander’s work for giving “us an unrivalled opportunity to look at Paul afresh, to shift our perspective back from the 16th century to the first century, to do what all true exegetes want to do–that is, to see Paul properly within his own context, to hear Paul in terms of his own time, to let Paul be himself”, Dunn states, “The most surprising feature of Sanders’ writing, however, is that he himself has failed to take the opportunity his own mouldbreaking work offered.” (100)

Dunn was not satisfied with Sanders’ assumption that Paul must have characterized Second Temple Judaism (hereafter STJ) as legalistic when in fact STJ was not a legalistic religion. In fact, according to Sanders STJ was a election and grace based religion. Paul’s defaced STJ because it was not Christianity; Paul was against STJ because it did not acknowledge Jesus as Messiah.

Dunn sees this as wrongheaded. Although Dunn was not willing to go back toward Luther he was not willing to allow Paul to appear to be either ignorant of the Judaism of his own day or deceptive of it in his criticism. Dunn writes this,

The Lutheran Paul has been replaced by an idiosyncratic Paul who in arbitrary and irrational manner turns his face against the glory and greatness of Judaism’s covenant theology and abandons Judaism simply because it is not Christianity.

Hence, we see the starting point of Dunn’s own perspective within the New Perspective(s) on Paul. Dunn, unlike some, bought into Sanders’ Judaism but not Sanders Paul. Those like Heikki Raisanen bought into Sanders’ Judaism and therefore rejected Pauline thought.

__________________________________________

[1] Dunn, James D. G. “The New Perspective on Paul.” BJRUL (Manchester, 1983). Pp. 95-122.


by 12 Comments

Gregory Boyd Responds to John Piper Regarding the Tornado

I think Gregory Boyd has written a fair-minded response to John Piper regarding the Minneapolis, MN, tornadoes, which Piper understood as a warning from God, to the ELCA, regarding homosexual ordination here. I will quote his final two paragraphs:

Far from supporting John’s speculation about why a tornado broke a church steeple, it seems to me this passage directly assails it! It makes me want to ask John, “do you think that the folks at Central Lutheran church are more guilty than you or any others living in the Twin Cities?” And the only answer this passage allows us to give is an unequivocal “no!” In the fallen world in which we live, towers sometimes randomly fall; bridges sometimes randomly collapse; and tornadoes sometimes randomly do property damage – even to churches. That’s all there is to be said about it.

Rather than speculating about how God is judging others through natural calamities, Jesus tells his audience they should be concerned with their own relationship with God. “Unless you repent,” Jesus said, ” you too will perish.” Jesus boldly confronts our tendency to find a speck in another’s eye and our temptation to assume God is involved in their misfortune as we overlook the two-by-four sticking out of our own eye (Mt. 7:1-3). Instead, we should follow Paul’s example and consider ourselves worse sinners than others (1 Tim. 1:15-16) and concern ourselves with the judgment we ourselves will receive if we don’t repent and throw ourselves on God’s mercy.

It’s a warning I think we all do well to adhere to.


by Leave a comment

Are The Lutherans Following the Episcopalians Regarding Homosexual Clergy?

On July 17th, 2009, the Episcopal Church voted in favor of resolution C056 at the 76th National Convention. This resolution included the following:

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm its financial commitment to the Anglican Communion and pledge to participate fully in the Inter-Anglican Budget; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm the value of “listening to the experience of homosexual persons,” as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through our own listening the General Convention has come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships “characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God” (2000-D039); and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God’s call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, and that God’s call to the ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge that members of The Episcopal Church as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.

Then there was this update today on Twitter:

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America voted 619-402 in favor of “Resolution 2″ which adopts “Step 1″. According to ELCA’s website this includes the following:

Step one asks the assembly whether, in principle, this church is committed to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support and hold publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships.

It will be interesting to see how this effects evangelicalism in the United States. The decision of the 76th National Convention of the Episcopal Church has already threatened the unity of the world-wide Anglican community and it likely made Archbishop Rowan Williams lose several nights of sleep. Bishop N.T. Wright said that the American church knows that such a decision can only end in schism. Now evangelical denominations in the United States will be discussing this very serious subject. The PC (USA) appears to be one of the next denominations to debate the subject. Will C056 split the Anglican church? Will resolution 2, step 1 split the ELCA? How would the PC (USA) handle a similar outcome?

UPDATE: Christianity Today’s Ted Olsen weighs in here.

UPDATE: The ELCA had adopted all four steps to the resolution opening the door for committed, monogamous homosexuals to serve as clergy.


by Leave a comment

Does God Use Nature to Judge? Scot McKnight Discusses John Piper

I wrote yesterday about some comments made by John Piper through Twitter and on his ‘Desiring God’ website that have upset some people. Piper equated the small tornado that occurred in Minneapolis, MN, as a warning from God to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA). The ELCA was meeting for a national convention in Minneapolis and one of the subjects being discussed was the validity of ordaining homosexual clergy. When an unexpected and rare tornado did some damage nearby this led Piper to claim that is is “…a gentle, but firm warning to all of us: Turn from the approval of sin”.

This led to several bloggers writing against Piper. Adam Walker Cleaveland said that Piper is contributing to a culture of fear. Drew Tatusko said that Piper’s statements are, “…not theology, it’s insurance to justify one’s own ideology.” Jenell Williams Paris wrote a bit of satire critiquing Piper. And there were others who wrote on the subject as you can imagine.

Scot McKnight has joined in today as well. He asked these questions:

The issues here involve these questions: How do we know these things? How consistent are we in making such discernments? And this: Have you ever seen a calamity or a disaster and truly believed you knew why that event happened or why God made that event occur? How did you know that sort of thing?

To join the discussion on McKnight’s site go here.

I think this is a good series of questions to ask. Does God use natural disasters to judge? Did God use Hurricane Katrina to judge New Orleans? If an earthquake occurred in San Francisco is that the judgment of God as some have “prophesied”? What about natural disasters in other parts of the world? Or does God no longer use nature to judge?

And what about Romans 8:19-22 that suggest that nature herself groans in angst because of our current fallen status as humans?

UPDATE: Greg Boyd weighs in here.


by Leave a comment

Twitter Opinions on Minneapolis Tornado During ECLA’s National Convention

It appears that John Piper is of the opinion that the tornado that formed in Minneapolis, MN, yesterday during the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America’s national convention was the result of participants discussing whether or not to ordain active homosexuals. Yes, Piper is suggesting it is a literal act of God. Piper explained on the ‘Desiring God’ website why he thinks this was a message from God that he interpreted as “…a gentle, but firm warning to all of us: Turn from the approval of sin” (see article here). Here is one of several of his Tweets on the subject:

On the other hand, emergent church personality Tony Jones did not take so kindly to Piper’s suggestion. In fact, he posted a few times on the subject as well. Each time he linked the aformentioned article by Piper.

Jones has recently posted a handful of videos on his YouTube page defending the concept that a Christian can be actively participating in homosexuality (see here). Piper sees it as something warranting the immediate judgment of God. This is one of those debates that can turn ugly, fast. It seems that the topic of homosexuality will be something evangelicals struggle to address for some time. Let us only hope that Twitter doesn’t complicate the matter any further!

UPDATE: Adam Walker Cleaveland writes that, “John Piper Contributes to a Culture of Fear”. Drew Tatusko criticizes Piper as well here.