More on Ecclesiology

Roughly three months ago, I had undertaken a personal writing assignment for my readers and critics alike on the subject of the Church. Up to this point I have taken a hiatus to think about what I have written so far—though I have not written much—and possibly think about other views, for example those held by Viola and the Barna group. There were other circumstances that also led me to my writing, though personal in nature. I will disclose the nature of those dialogs and hopefully draw some conclusions about my critics, and perhaps engage my readers in the discussion of the church (origins, function, and order) and its role on culture.

Pundits of the Alarming Heresy of Churchless Christianity

Many have been hurt by the church. This shouldn't be surprising given the amount of people leaving the church. I had recently stated (in a previous blog) that a great number of people have been leaving the church in droves because of a large number of unscrupulous leaders. There are other factors as well, but I wanted to point out that many people who are in leadership today really shouldn't be involved in those positions. One of my harshest critics pointed out that not every elder is going to be ideal, and I grant that point. It isn't necessarily that people are essentially "bad" but the positions and creedal limits have given non-denominational elders to practice an unprecedented amount of unmitigated power. The notion of a system of powers—think of our government, but specifically the judiciary branch—and its connection to the church at large has really been a post hoc reaction to the pietistic movement, and more specifically to the Holiness movement in the early 19^th century. One example is clearly seen in the individualism of Phoebe Palmer (1807-74). According to the Handbook of Denominations, the editors wrote that "she worked tirelessly to bring others to a similar experience of holiness."[1] This reaction towards Palmer's teaching has led many to believe that if one could churn their faith into some pure holiness, they would, in effect, be holy. The doctrine and its practice has been substituted from theology to praxiology, what Dr. R. Scott Clark calls "The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience," a quest he believes is "the most ancient impulses in Christian theology[2]." Her influence was nothing more than a pietistic enterprise to get Christians to look inside themselves instead of among themselves. Such an idea as egregious as hers has led many Pentecostals and contemporary evangelicals to begin to look inside their faith, and therefore has inoculated Christians from transforming the culture around them. The solution wasn't to transform the culture or the church but to transform ourselves. Might I add, she was heavily influenced by the radical theology of John Wesley. Students of theology know that that is saying a lot.

But it wasn't just that singular movement that has caused many Christians to form within themselves a sort of retreat-ism, but that the pietist would, in effect, turn the tides in Christianity's theology about culture and the relationship it shares with the non-believing world.

(I will deal with Viola and Barna in another blog but I at least wanted to give some of the influences that were at play before we ended up with this new "phenomena"[3] we are seeing today in the church.)

Christianity and the Church

Strictly speaking, when we [Christians] speak of Christianity we also speak of the church. One cannot speak about Christ apart from his bride just as a belief cannot be separated from its institution. I can recall, for example, Calvin's locution about the church: One cannot have God as father without the Church as mother (roughly stated)[4]. Christianity shares a long history, and though its history hasn't always been the best, it is still rooted in the documents and practices of the church. I personally don't hold to everything the church has ever produced—take, for instance, the Lateran Councils or Trent—but a large majority is held by many traditions within its ranks. We will discover many of these rich histories as we move along the corridors of church history, but let it suffice that the tradition at large is institutional and maintains a rich history, be that Roman, Orthodox or Protestant.

[1] Handbook of Denominations in the United States, 161.

[2] R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession, 71. See the entire chapter for his explanation of this strange practice among evangelicals as he critiques the contemporary church of its theology and practice.

[3] The group The Reformed Forum, which also happens to be a weekly podcast, alarmed the Reformed community that this is a fairly new phenomena. Listen to the interview with Ted Kluck of his recently co-authored Why We Love the Church.

[4]John Calvin, (Ed. John McNeill) Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV.1.(all sections).

Doubt

I haven't written in a while, so I thought I'd make a comeback with some inquisitive questions. I have been on a sort of writing hiatus, and because of it I had the time to think about religion and how it can buoy in my practical life. This isn't going to be a thorough and analytic sort of blog but more of a personal one. There are reasons for this sort of writing, one of which is the ease and enjoyment of writing. Other kinds of writing usually invites a sort of criticism, and I usually have to prepare for those criticisms ahead of time.

Anyway, the topic is doubt. We all have it, so let's face it. I doubt all the time. I doubt God, and I doubt my faith all of the time. There are advantages and disadvantages to this sort of doubt. The major advantage is that I am able to see who really is pastoral in character and caring enough to meet another person in their state of doubt. This has also caused me to be bitter. It has caused bitterness because the people who are more rigid tend to stand out as the most narrow-minded bigots I have ever met, and I am glad they are not pastors. These sorts of people could really cause some real damage and unfortunately they already have.

The advantages tend to come in waves. The one advantage I have seen the most is that people who have doubt have an authentic spirit of getting to the truth. They do not prejudice where it comes from and hence allows a free spirit of inquiry. The way I see it, if "the truth" comes to be questioned, no matter how fundamental the belief may be, it should be tested by all quarters. We should not prejudice its origins or the person judging/criticizing the belief. This is where there is a synonymous relationship with my animosity. If we shouldn't prejudice where truth comes from and there is someone who says that we shouldn't doubt this or that belief, he is prejudicing the doubt and therefore causes my animus. This is why I have a big problem with religious folk or ultra-religious folk. They tend to come off so narrow-minded that they cannot even question simple beliefs, and this sort of reasoning will lead to bad leadership.

In thinking about all of this, I have come to terms with ignoring narrow-minded people and work as best I can to relate to people with similar doubts and come to some sort of resolution.

Morning and Evenings, April 22 —My Take

Taken from this morning's devotions. I've been devoid of this practice for a while, this thing called a "morning's devotion." Having read this, though, I've taken comfort in the reality of my worth in the coronation of the King. There's much to doubt as it pertains to coronations and exaltations, namely because as Americans we find this idea primitive. This isn't going to be an apologetic case against Roseau and for a Capitalistic economic polemic. Instead my point, I believe, is more pointed in that in thinking about Medieval coronations, Americans have a hard time grasping this idea apart from some kind of Medieval coronation. I won't deal with criticisms here, but I want to point out that in this devotional section in Spurgeon, we have a king—the King—to whom all men have to do, for all of life is in covenantal relationship with this King, including the unbeliever. For temporal kings (including presidents and figure heads that take seats in governments), for the factory worker, the merchant (remember that I'm using old terms for a contemporary setting; the labor of being a merchant has ceased since the 17th century), those in advertizing, etc. Spurgeon, however, is seeking a different vein or purpose. His point is more pointedly religious. It is in the comfort that the believer has in recognizing this King as their only comfort. All other comforts are merely counterfeits to this true comfort. How many idols will we bow down to before we realize that true comfort can only be given by the Eternal King? 

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." James 1:17-18, ESV.

Thursday, April 22, 2010 This Morning's Meditation

C. H. Spurgeon

"Him hath God exalted."—Acts 5:31.

JESUS, our Lord, once crucified, dead and buried, now sits upon the throne of glory. The highest place that heaven affords is His by undisputed right. It is sweet to remember that the exaltation of Christ in heaven is a representative exaltation. He is exalted at the Father's right hand, and though as Jehovah He had eminent glories, in which finite creatures cannot share, yet as the Mediator, the honours which Jesus wears in heaven are the heritage of all the saints. It is delightful to reflect how close is Christ's union with His people. We are actually one with Him; we are members of His body; and His exaltation is our exaltation. He will give us to sit upon His throne, even as He has overcome, and is set down with His Father on His throne; He has a crown, and He gives us crowns too; He has a throne, but He is not content with having a throne to Himself, on His right hand there must be His queen, arrayed in "gold of Ophir." He cannot be glorified without His bride. Look up, believer, to Jesus now; let the eye of your faith behold Him with many crowns upon His head; and remember that you will one day be like Him, when you shall see Him as He is; you shall not be so great as He is, you shall not be so divine, but still you shall, in a measure, share the same honours, and enjoy the same happiness and the same dignity which He possesses. Be content to live unknown for a little while, and to walk your weary way through the fields of poverty, or up the hills of affliction; for by-and-by you shall reign with Christ, for He has "made us kings and priests unto God, and we shall reign for ever and ever." Oh!, wonderful thought for the children of God! We have Christ for our glorious representative in heaven's courts now, and soon He will come and receive us to Himself, to be with Him there, to behold His glory, and to share His joy.

A Public Letter to the Private Sector

Date: April 17, 2010—Saturday

I have currently been in a financial battle with my bank, Altura Credit Union. And though this "decision," which I will get into in a minute, may seem impetuous to some, I think that my concerns are authentic and reflect a truly moral decision on my part. I truly understand why people are dissatisfied with the Republican Party. For all its girth and tenacity, it just does not mete out concerns with the private citizen, and this is one of those cases. I have left the Republicans about two years ago and had joined the Libertarians for a new scene in a truly conservative ideal, but I have also found its beliefs and actions inadequate. So what does one do with these feelings? Well, I'm going to express some of them with some preliminary justification, namely through a recent struggle with the private sector.

I have been a loyal customer with Altura CU for about two years. I had left Bank of America because of corporate greed (they were charging outrageous fees for overdraft, though they assured me that I had overdraft protection), a similar charge I am laying at the feet of my current financial institution. In the two years that I have been with Altura, I did not have this problem. For a long time I felt like there was some fresh air to the already constipated financial exhaustion. Finally I wasn't afraid of my wallet conflating into an abyss…but then came the shocker. Outrageously, the charges started pouring in, causing this conflation once again. One would think, "Hey, stop spending all that money and you won't have that problem." Well, the thing is that I wasn't spending any money at all. Unauthorized transactions were pouring in, transaction after another. I even got these problems fixed, and the company responsible even sent me an email apologizing. Then it came time to face the bank. Was it my fault that these transactions took place? No. So what happens? I'm stuck with the bill. There is absolutely no power given to the consumer. "But maybe this is just a pattern you have, Julio?" you ask. No! Since I've been with this financial institution, overdraft has never been a problem. There is just nothing I can do as a consumer. This is not only unjust on a business level, but it is just a bad business sense. As I began to muse this problem, I remember all the constant battles my friends and family have had with other private institutions, like health insurance, for example. These companies have on a constant basis denied people who seriously need medical insurance but will not provide it because "it is just bad business." They cover it up with clauses like "pre-existing condition" and the like. This can't be the conservative ideal. When has the quality of life ever been reduced to the dollar? Where is the human part of business? For this reason, I have decided to join the Democratic Party for its fight against corporate greed. Now let me be clear before I get these castigations from my conservative friends and family. I am still a social conservative. I also believe in competition within a free market, but not at the expense of a truly humane polemic. How many more people will die because of corporate greed? How many kids will go hungry because banks like Altura will not give hurting parents a break? When will the Republican Party finally see that corporate greed is a real problem? There's too much power in the hands of the private sector. Hasn't the recent collapse of Wall Street been enough to be a cause for worry and attention? Don't get me wrong, I believe in the private sector—I really do—but there's just too much freedom afforded to them and the middle-class and hardworking citizen is suffering for it.

A concerned citizen,

Julio Martinez , Jr.

Calvinist Cage-stage

Courtesy of ReformedForum.org. I thought this was funny.

I once heard R.C. Sproul, Jr. speak about the Calvinist "cage stage."  This is that typical period when a young Calvinist, so zealous for the truth, starts blasting people with the more explicit predestinarian texts.  Sproul, Jr. suggested that when someone becomes a Calvinist, they be locked up for two or three years until they relax.  I couldn't help remember this comment when I saw the following comics.

Altruism? Is it Right?

There's a general question that I think Calvinists like to ignore when I talk about altruism. I'm very thankful that Herald asked this question concerning non-believers doing "good deeds" on the PuritanBoard. Here is what he asks,

Is unregenerate man capable of good? Romans 3:10-18 As it is written "There is none righteous not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside together they have become useless; There is none who does good There is not even one. Their throat is an open grave With their tongues they keep deceiving, The poison of asps is under their lips; Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their paths, And the path of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes." The above passage is often used in defending total depravity, and justly so. Still, is it accurate to say that the unregenerate man is incapable of good works? Notice that I did not ask it is possible for the unregenerate man to please God. That is a categorical difference.  There are certain things that we can classify as good works.  Looking after the welfare of widows and orphans (James 1:27)] Caring for the poor (James 2:15,16) Being a good neighbor (John 13:34) Those are just a few good works. As I read about good works in the bible, I notice that the works themselves are good; virtuous. That doesn't mean an unregenerate sinner is acceptable to God, and no work that the sinner does is done from a heart that is capable of pleasing God. Still, the works themselves are good. So, in a sense the sinner can perform good works.  Thoughts?

Here's what I wrote in response,

I think it's safe to say that they are capable of some good. I think that Christians who tend to swing the pendulum and say that man is totally corrupt—which is not the historical development of the Canons of Dort on reprobation—do mankind a disservice. Calvin himself saw a place for Seneca in his writing. Although his work on Seneca was one of his earliest works, he still gave some credence to Seneca's doctrine of clemency. (For further reading, the inquisitive reader might want to pick up Charles Partee's book, Calvin and Classical Philosophy.) Am I saying that the writings of non-believers are commensurate to "good works?" Yes and no. Both intellectual pursuits and practical concerns for the Christian fall under ethics (cf. Acts 17:29; Col. 2:8,13; Eph 2:3). I think it's safe to say that developments of "doing justice" can be both practical and intellectual, and these decisions ultimately have ethical implications. I still question, however, whether or not the attitude in which any altruistic endeavor takes place is innocuous. Practically we give individuals and their efforts approbation because it serves the benefit of mankind, but it lacks what the Heidelberg Catechism calls "any good" (Question 8). I'm just really precarious about Calvinists who want to efface God's image from man completely and say that man cannot do any good. I don't believe that's the historical Reformed approach. I like the way Francis Schaeffer puts it in his works: It's like looking at a piece of art. We know there's something there, albeit obfuscated or nebulous. 

Visible and Invisible Church

As promised, I finally posted something on ecclesiology. There has been some confusion within some Baptist circles about the subject of the Visible/Invisible aspects of the church, which are understandable for those not acquainted with the thoughts and writings of church history. In discussing key topics in ecclesiology, however, there are more than just one issue at hand when dialoging about the Visible/Invisible distinction. Most of my dialogs have been about the sacraments in the visible church and election in the invisible church. I don't think those issues are the only ones that Christians will encounter if they do not pay attention to the subject of ecclesiology. Another problem without seeing this distinction is a negligent attitude of yoking oneself to a local body. A Christian will join a church if he or she feels like it, but it is not an ethical matter if he or she chooses not to. This is clearly a problem. (I remember doing research a while back, and I had come across Calvin's Geneva and his role on ecclesiastical matters. One of the chief accomplishments Calvin made was germane to compulsory church attendance. I found this fact not only attractive but conclusive about a Reformed ecclesiology—and a biblical one! It's no wonder the Westminster Divines, speaking of the visible Church, say that "out of which [the Church] there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.") So I hope you guys will enjoy this installment of Reformed ecclesiology.

A Blog about Ecclesiology in History

I have been reading the book by McCrie and The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology, and I've been having some trouble with some of the constructs of ecclesiology in history, vis-a-vis the Independents and Romish churches. My question has more to do with the difference in the doctrine of the visibility and invisibility of the Church.

Here are some of Augustine's ideas in the book,

In the same chapter Bellarmine, borrowing from Augustine, describes the Church as a living organism, made up of soul and body, the soul being the inward graces of the Spirit, the body an outward profession of faith and partaking of the sacraments. And he distinguishes three classes of members of the Church: (1) Those who are of the soul and of the body, members in the fullest sense; (2) those who are of the soul but not of the body, excommunicates and catechumens; (3) those are of the body but not of the soul, who have only a profession without any real faith.

In the first place, I know this (1) is the classical view of the protestants throughout Europe during the reformation (see the chapter in the Westminster Confession of Faith, "Of the Church"). But for those who don't understand what I am saying here—in effect what the church has said throughout the centuries—I will explain and outline.

1. Presbyterian/Reformed view,
   
2. Separatist/Independence view (Baptist),
   
3. Papist externalism or formalism.
   

My problem is trying to make sense of (2) and (1). Some have stated that the church is not locally visible but merely invisible, much like the Separatist and Libertines of Calvin's day. My problem has a lot to do with the compulsory responsibility of "churchless" Christians to become members of a church (visible). It is my belief that one cannot be a true member of the church (invisible) without belonging to the visible church (WCF 25.2). (I would like the add that I am not making the similar mistakes that the Popish church makes when they say that joining the visible church is joining the invisible church, for the eternal Word is what gives birth. The reason I think that is largely because I, as a Presbyterian protestant, hold to the two-fold distinction of the church, as did St. Augustine. In fact, throughout the history of the church I do not believe that Roman Catholics ever held to this two-fold distinction, as noted by McCrie.)