Near Emmaus

Tag Archives: Ecclesiology


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 5 Comments

Wednesdays with Wright: Reading Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: Jeremy S. Begbie

Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays (eds) (2011). Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

This is the seventh part of a ten post series on Nicholas Perrin’s and Richard B. Hays’, eds., Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. Daniel James Levy has partnered with me to write a review of each chapter. To see previous posts scroll to the bottom of this one for a list. Today we will be discussing Jeremy S. Begbie’s contribution.

Jeremy S. Begbie, “The Shape of Things to Come: Wright Amidst Emerging Ecclesiologies”

Begbie begins by pointing out the influx of literature related to ecclesiology in the last couple of decades. Most books and articles have been characterized by a fascination with people “who may be attracted by the person of Christ and a broadly based ‘spirituality’ but who shrink at the idea of joining a local congregation’ (p. 183). These types have been characterized as the “emerging church” which “can embody and promote an effective missional engagement with late- or postmodern society, especially with the unchurched”(p. 184). What is surprising is that this group is “young”. They “challenge long-running assumptions”. They’re against anything that snacks of “professional management, centralized organizational structure, control through tight hierarchies, strong ties to places and buildings, and so forth” yet most admire Wright who was “an Anglican bishop, well past his first flush of youth, a powerful figurehead in an ancient institution many would regard a highly bureaucratic…a major land-owner with a huge commitment to buildings, able to move only with glacial slowness down antediluvian ecclesiastical valleys.” (p. 185)

So why do “emerging church” types like N.T. Wright?

This is what Begbie seeks to answer, especially as it relates to his reading of the Apostle Paul.

Five Features of Wright’s Ecclesiology:

Begbie begins by looking at five characteristics of Wright’s ecclesiology:

(1) Integral: The church is central to Wright (and Paul’s) theological vision. This matters to those thinking about the future of the church. Part of being saved is being part of the community of Christ.

Wright reacts against a Protestantism that is founded on “voluntarist contractualism”. This is how Begbie describes it:

“….a philosophically and politically shaped individualism still very much alive in our culture, fueled by the liberal ideology of choice. In this scheme individuals secure their identity prior to being part of the church by exercising a wholly unconstrained act of will in response to the gospel, a cognitive and conscious decision for Christ that ensures salvation and a place in heaven. Subsequently, and through a quite distinct act of the will, the saved person joins a church, understood in purely visible and localized terms, and as an aggregate of individual believers, related to each other (solely?) by virtue of their resolution to commit to Christ and to this particular group. Thus relationships within the church are seen as merely instrumental to the strengthening of each member’s ‘relationship with the Lord.’”

Wright connects the church to the story of Israel. This makes the church part of the story of Abraham and his greatest child, the Messiah. Since Wright grounds the church in the community that is Messiah’s he avoids false dichotomies like atonement and ecclesiology or justification and ecclesiology. To be saved is not an individual thing. It goes back into the great family of God because of Christ. This impacts his criticism of those who do not give the church, as a whole, more respect. (pp. 188-190)

(2) Eschatological: Wright’s ecclesiology is future oriented. He sees the New Creation as our hope toward which the church works. This church moves by the Spirit toward the day when what happened at Easter will happen to the cosmos. Yet in the meantime it is the church who groans (Rom. 8.18-25) with creation waiting for God’s final redemption.

Begbie sees the future looking ecclesiology as appealing to emergent groups. It gives hope and something to seek. Those in emerging churches find this as a useful model for their (social) engagement with society. (pp. 191-192)

(3) Cosmically situated: This has to do with “ecological alertness”. Since Wright follows the Apostle Paul in seeing the creation redeemed this provides grounds for creation care. Again, see Rom. 8.18-25. (pp. 192-193)

(4) Material: Wright’s reading of Paul causes him to affirm the goodness of the material world and this is something that emerging churches appreciate. It moves theology away from mere metaphysics to something tangible in history. This leads to a theology that addresses the real world. It is not merely our personal, ethereal relationship with Jesus that matters but also our physically connected relationship with others and the world around us. Our gospel doesn’t just speak to individual souls but it confronts all levels, even world politics. It is an earthy gospel that Wright proclaims and that emerging churches adopt. (pp. 193-196)

(5) Improvisatory: Since Wright’s ecclesiology promotes improvisation in our “act” of the great cosmic drama the emerging churches find it an ally as they seek to navigate the waters of where the world is going. The emergent church doesn’t seek to relive “the good ol’ days”, but it tries to be God’s people for these days. (pp. 196-197)

Forgotten Themes:

What are some forgotten ecclesiological themes that Wright addresses?

(1) Ascension: This is the doctrine that comes after resurrection (Wright will not conflate it like Borg, Crossan, or others). This doctrine reminds us that Christ still reigns over the church. He is physically present in the heavenlies. This prevents the church from thinking she is in complete control as if Christ is completely absent. (pp. 197-200)

(2) Israel: Wright wants to make sure that the church doesn’t divorce itself from Israel’s story. It began as a Jewish movement. It must not move so far away from those roots that it loses its identity. (p. 200)

(3) Catholicity:  Wright makes a distinction between “qualitative” catholicity and “extensive” catholicity. The first emphasizes that the church cannot give in to social divisions (as Paul said, there is neither Jew nor Gentiles, male nor female, slave nor free). The church shares a new humanity in Christ. The church shares the Spirit. We are radically united. The second emphasizes the “spatial extension of the church”. Wright tries to walk the line between not being overinstitutionalized while not being anti-institutional. (pp. 201-207)

Wright’s response: 

Wright says that Begbie helped him realize he has been “expounding an ecclesiology…without being aware of it.” (p. 208) Wright thinks one reason why the emerging church has come to appreciate his work is because they both share interest in the Kingdom of God motif. Wright clarifies a bit on his views on the ascension (referring readers to Acts for Everyone). He notes some of the dangers of the emerging church (e.g. cultural homogeneity, church-shopping, the overemphasis on spontaneity and authenticity when overreacting against institutionalized church, the naive misunderstanding of leadership, and so forth).

Concluding thoughts:

This chapter helps the reader understand Wright’s ecclesiology. It helps us see what he has done well and what he has wrestled with as forgotten themes. It shows why the emerging church like Wright, but also gives Wright a chance to note where he finds the emerging church lacking.

Schedule for this series:

06/01: Marianne Meye Thompson, “Jesus and the Victory of God Meets the Gospel of John” (Brian LePort)

06/08: Richard B. Hays, “Knowing Jesus: Story, History, and the Question of Truth” (Daniel James Levy)

06/15: Sylvia C. Keesmaat and Brian J. Walsh, “Outside of a Small Circle of Friends: Jesus and the Justice of God” (Brian LePort)

06/22: Nicholas Perrin, “Jesus’ Eschatology and Kingdom Ethics: Ever the Twain Shall Meet” (Daniel James Levy)

06/29: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies in the Life of the Church?” (Brian LePort)

07/06: Edith M. Humphrey, “Glimpsing the Glory: Paul’s Gospel, Righteousness, and the Beautiful Feet of N.T. Wright” (Daniel James Levy)

07/13: Jeremy S. Begbie, “The Shape of Things to Come? Wright Amidst Emerging Ecclesiologies” (Brian LePort)

07/20: Markus Bockmuehl, “Did St. Paul Go to Heaven When He Died? (Daniel James Levy)

07/27: Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation? The State of the Union with Christ in St. Paul and Protestant Soteriology” (Brian LePort)

08/03: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Pauline Studies in the Life of the Church?”  (Daniel James Levy)


by 8 Comments

We are family

For those who are worshiping with others this morning, and for those who are not because you are experimenting with a “private religion”, let me share this thought from Eugene Peterson (A Long Obedience in the Same Direction , 175):

“Whether we like it or not, the moment we confess Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, that is, from the time we become a Christian, we are a member of the Christian church—even of we do not permit our name to be placed on the church roll, even if we refuse to identify ourselves with a particular congregation and share responsibilities with them, even if we absent ourselves from the worship of a congregation. Our membership in the church is a corollary of our faith in Christ. We can no more be a Christian and have nothing to do with the church than we can be a person and not be in a family. Membership in the church is a basic spiritual fact for those who confess Christ as Lord. It is not an option for those Christians who happen by nature to be more gregarious than others. It is part of the fabric of redemption.”


by 5 Comments

The church is different, but in what sense?

Kevin J. Vanhoozer

Early in his book The Drama of Doctrine (pp. 3-4) theologian Kevin J. Vanhoozer writes these two challenging chapters:

“Each new Christian generation must grapple with the question: What has the church to say and do that no other human institution can say and do? Nature and society alike abhor a vacuum, and there are many ideologies and agendas waiting to rush and fill the hearts and minds of the uncommitted. Bereft of sound doctrine, the church is blown about by cultural fads and intellectual trends. Indeed, this has largely been the story of the church, and of theology, in the modern world. There has been an atrophying of theological muscle as a result of too many correlations and accommodations to philosophical and cultural trends.

“What the church uniquely has to say and do cannot be reduced to philosophy or politics. The church’s unique responsibility is to proclaim and to practice the gospel, to witness in its speech and life to the reality of God’s presence and action in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. The theologian’s unique responsibility is to ensure that the church’s speech and action correspond to the word of God, the norm of Christian faith and practice. A number of contemporary theologians are not sure, however, whether to invoke the notion of authority or, if they do, where to locate it:  in the history of Jesus Christ, in the biblical text, or in the believing community.”

I am interested primarily in the opening sentences of both paragraphs. In these sentences we are asked, essentially, what makes the church the church and not something else. Then we are told the church has the unique responsibility of spreading and enacting the gospel.

Yet, as Vanhoozer notes, we are often not even sure of what that means or where our definition is to be found. We are not in agreement as to where to find an authoritative answer. I am wrestling with this even now.

What does it mean to stay faithful to God in Christ? What does it mean to be led by the Spirit? Where do we find these answers?

For a few years I have tried to dig behind dogma in order to find a more pure, more original Christianity. I was not successful. I am thankful for all those studying the historical Jesus and the historical Paul, but if we stop there it has become my conviction we will forget the active, living Spirit and the Scriptures and the unity of the faith. We cannot think that our nifty historical reconstructions are a sufficient foundation for living the gospel. We can’t do this without denying, in essence, that the Spirit has been active in the church for these last two millennia and we are not the first generation to “get it”.

This doesn’t mean the church finds shape in traditionalism, but maybe a little more tradition; we are not limited to Catholicism, but maybe catholicism. The church must find her grounding and wherever that grounding is to be found there must be the impetus for mission and gospel-centered living.

The church will never be more “intelligent” than the university; more gifted in music than the world; more creative than marketing companies; better at gaining crowds than professional sporting events, but we do have the gospel. That makes us different. Now I need to go think some more on this.


by 15 Comments

What to do when a church congregation becomes “too big”?

About a week ago both Mark Stevens (see here) and Robert Jimenez (see here) wrote post on this blog discussing the danger of a church congregations growing too large. As I read these posts, and the various comments, I couldn’t help but ask myself what the next step would be for a church that has grown “too big”. What does a church do?

Does it go to multiple services? If so, how does that avoid becoming mega-church-esque? Do they go to multiple services while assigning different pastors to each service? Do they plant an independent satellite?

What do you think a church should do to make sure that people are pastored? What should a church do that thinks it has grown too large? How does this impact evangelistic efforts?


by 5 Comments

The Synoptic Confession: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God

Almost two weeks ago I asked whether or not there was a basic confession that initiated people into the Kingdom of God (here). I am not asking this in order to settle for doctrinal relativism or pseudo-ecumenism. Rather, I have two motives: (1) determining what it means, and what it has meant, to be a true follower of Christ, so that despite our differences we can journey together and (2) what it means to name heresy and error when it may be salvific so that we have some sort of taxonomy of doctrine.

If our differences are important (like the difference between the Catholic and various Evangelical views of the Eucharist/communion rite) we should acknowledge that without condemning one another. If our differences are more serious (like seeing Jesus as the risen Lord or merely a good, historical Jewish prophet) than we need to be aware of this as well because more is at stake. If our Lord prayed that we would be one (Jn. 17.20-21) we must ask what it means to be unified in spite our disagreements while also asking the hard question, “Who is actually a follower of the Lord?”

While some understand the Gospel of Thomas to be the earliest gospel because it is a so-called “sayings” gospel, most agree that the Synoptics are the three earliest, preserved narratives of Jesus that we have today. Most scholars affirm Markan priority of some sort with the Gospel of Matthew or Luke being the next, likely dependent upon Mark for much of the content, though different in some important areas where the evangelist had differing nuances that needed to be emphasized for their audience.

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke we see a lot of what these writers wanted us to know about Jesus. In Matthew we may suggest Jesus is the Shepherd-King of Israel, in Mark he is a Apocalyptic-Messianic figure who shares continuation and discontinuation with common Jewish messianic expectations (if we can say there was much in common). In Luke he is the Jewish Lord and there are implication for Gentiles who must now recognize the God of Israel. (For those who have given more time to these various gospels, please feel free to provide a different emphasis, as you see it, in the comments section.)

All three gospels ask us to affirm one thing specifically: Jesus is the Messiah of God. This cannot be disconnected from all that has come before it in the story of Israel as the various gnostic sects attempted as well as Marcion and his followers. Jesus as the Messiah is the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes. While each evangelist has his own particular approach this seems to be the common thread.

The pinnacle confession (what must be believed about Jesus) in the First Gospel is Peter’s confession: “You are the Christ, the son of the Living God.” (Mt. 16.16) In the Second Gospel we have the shorter confession upon which Matthew expounded: “You are the Christ.” (Mk. 8.29) In the Third Gospel this reality leads to Christ’s own crucifixion. The elders of Israel ask Jesus if he claims to be the Messiah and the son of God. Jesus affirms this (Lk. 22.66-71).

In acknowledging this commonality do I also suggest that the synoptic evangelists had the goal of merely seeing people say the words, “Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God.” No, each evangelist described how this tied into Israel’s story as well as what it “looked like” to make this confession.

One thing we sometimes forget when discussion creeds, confessions and orthodoxy is that it is more than the cognitive aspect. We cannot say “Jesus is the Christ, the son of God” and then live as if this is a lie. We cannot confess this and ignore the narrative within which the evangelist placed this confession. We must realize that the early Christian communities understood that once one confessed this truth (and the public manner in which this was done appears to be baptism, which leads us to a whole different discussion) there was an adjacent submission.

If a Roman citizen confessed “Caesar is Lord” and then disobeyed the laws of the Empire, one could conclude that this person did not see Caesar as Lord. Lordship includes obedience and political allegiance. To confess Christ as Lord includes obedience and allegiance. If Jesus is Lord, Caesar is not. If Jesus is Lord, the Satan is not.

One final statement: it is not as if we can say now, “Well, the Matthean community confessed this about Jesus and since they did not have what we find in the other gospels, or the Pauline epistles, this must be a sufficient confession.” Maybe this is true to some extent, but I think this is a bit anachronistic. If we have any Pneumatology at all we can expect that the Spirit would lead the church catholic to a greater understanding and unity by bringing together what we now see as the canon of the church. No, we should not see every canonized author as parroting one another (Matthew is not Luke, Luke is not James, James is not Paul), but the Spirit brought together these basic writings to provide us with a greater understanding of who Christ was and is. We are responsible to acknowledge that as the Spirit shows it to us.

At the same time, if a new convert to Christianity sits in a jail cell in Iran with only two-third of Matthew’s gospels, and the affirming conviction that he believes what he was told about Jesus by the Christians who preached the gospel to him, I have no doubt he is part of the Kingdom. Does he know the fullness of who Christ was and is? Unlikely, but he confesses as Lord the one whom he knows in part. Don’t we all do this? Don’t we all see Christ through a glass darkly? Don’t we all await the day we will be like him because we see him face to face and we know him as he knows us?


by 16 Comments

What is Wrong with “Ecclesiastical Communities”?

Pope Benedict XVI and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams

Yesterday, I wrote on this blog about my effort to be catholic though I am not Catholic. It turned into an interesting conversation and I am thankful for the participation of all those who had something to say. I want to continue from another angle.

Through the discussion it was made evident that non-Catholics are considered to be something called “ecclesiastical communities”. I found this phrase a bit odd since it seems to indicated Protestant/Reformed/Anglican, et al., are legitimate “churches”, yet different (subordinate) to the Catholic church. Esteban Vazquez noted that this is because we do not have the authority of an episcopate, therefore holy orders, therefore actual standing as a church because we are not under a bishop (does this apply to Anglicans or are Anglican episcopates legitimate?). This made me wonder what the actual downside would be for a non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christian.

When I asked this question Nick Norelli suggested that it is likely we are considered heretical. This bothered me since I had heard that Vatican II pulled back such language. As I read through Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio (here), it was a bit vague. There is a section of chapter III titled “Separated Churches and Ecclesiastical Communities in the West” which would apply to all of us Christians who derive from the Reformation in one way or another. The document does not make a general statement regarding all of these churches for the following reason:

“However, since these Churches and ecclesial Communities, on account of their different origins, and different teachings in matters of doctrine on the spiritual life, vary considerably not only with us, but also among themselves, the task of describing them at all adequately is extremely difficult; and we have no intention of making such an attempt here.”

Rather, the document list several areas of commonality that can serve as a starting place for dialog: (1) the confession of Jesus Christ as God; (2) the Trinity; (3) love and reverence of the Sacred Scriptures; (4) baptism; (5) our taking of communion; and (6) other pieties such as hearing and obeying the Word, prayer, et al. If these things are in place the move toward “eccumenical action” can occur. I couldn’t determine whether or not this means simply that Catholics have common ground with which to bring the rest of us back to Rome or if the common ground meant the reality of some sort of fellowship, as is.

So, in gist, what does it mean, from the perspectives of Catholics (and we could even include Orthodox if they would like to speak to this), for the rest of us to be “ecclesiastical communities”? What is the actual downside to this standing in your opinion? Do we not participate in the fullness of salvation in some sort of way? Do you foresee eschatological consequences for our perceived separation? Your feedback is welcome.