I had an interesting e-mail this past weekend. I have been a bit under the weather, so I did not have a chance to respond. Now that I think about it, I believe a public response would be very appropriate. Here is the questions I was asked:
I am reading the letter of Paul. He refers to the church. When is this term first used? Why? How did he understand its meaning? Why didn't he call the followers of The Way the synagogue? What's the difference between "church" and "synagogue"? Did he coin the word "Church"? I don't remember seeing it in the Old Testament. Did the "church" exist before Pentecost and the Spirit's filling? Which leads to another question dealing with the Holy Spirit that I won't ask at this time.
I find there is much confusion regarding the nature and structure of the church. There are major traditions, such as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, who emphasize the church as the means of grace. In other words, the church is the vehicle through which we come to know God. In many ways, I agree with this statement!
The problem comes when "the church" values its tradition as the only lens through which to interpret scripture so as to overrule scripture as the revealed Word of God. When this occurs, it is time for revival and renewal. At its best, this is exactly what the Protestant tradition attempted to do. It was a movement challenging the true Church to return to its roots of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, revealed in scripture alone and all to the glory of God alone.
Before my RC and Orthodox friends object too loudly, let's confess that Protestantism also has issues. The primary with Protestantism is that we live in a fallen world! While these principles are excellent, it is possible to use them in harmful and dangerous ways.
How so? Well, too many Protestants have used the critique of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy as an excuse to promote "private interpretation" as the proper means of understanding scripture. In other words, many Protestants, particularly in the West, have made Christianity about God and me: my faith, my life, my interpretation of scripture, my thoughts, and my feelings are what truly matter. After all, we all have our right to our own opinions!
The result of this thought is thousands of slightly and some not so slightly different Protestant sects and denominations. Furthermore, this view also leads to very immature believers who have no appreciation or even acknowledgement of the Universal Church. Such a view is not the official position of Protestantism! It was the view of some within what is now known as the Radical Reformation. As Protestantism began, these folks were seen as a small and dangerous minority. Unfortunately, today in the West, at least in New England, this view is dominant. It is dangerous to churches and to individuals, but it is a popular understanding of "true" faith.
This view also ties in easily with another cultural phenomena that continues to grow in the West. Increasingly, I encounter many who have been hurt by folks within the church, so they desire a life without "church." They prefer to have a personal relationship with the Lord without the confines and fallenness they have found in the church.
While I feel for these hurt individuals, I still must warn them of the dangers of "going alone." I have never met a "going it alone" believer who is not a bit strange and errant in their life and doctrine. I do not believe my experience is odd. I think that the Christian life was meant to be lived in community. What type of community? How about the church! Without such a community and the assistance of called and educated clergy who teach and live the Word of God, individuals go astray.
So now to the questions asked above. What is the true church? As I have argued before, "The true church is the congregation of saints in which the gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments rightly administered." (Augsburg Confession, Article 7) Could this have happened in the Old Testament? Is such a place only a NT occurrence?
In the Protestant landscape, there was a minority view that arose (again) and became popular in the 1870s. This view argued that the Old Testament was too Jewish, too hard to understand, and too different from the NT, particularly the teachings of Paul, to be relevant today. It understood the OT as the Law, and it taught that the era of the gospel began at Pentecost. For some within this camp, even the teachings of Jesus were too Law focused and too Jewish for the gospel age.
This view was brought to a largely uneducated and socially marginalized segment of Christianity in the West. In this seedbed, it took root and flourished! It emphasized evangelism, personal salvation, the imminent second coming of Christ, and a "literal" interpretation of scripture, particularly the book of Revelation and other apocalyptic literature. Through an ardent mission emphasis, it took this message around the world! I praise God for all of the people who have come to know Jesus through this witness.
The problem is that this view offers a very limited and damaging view of the Church. It often emphasizes the local congregation while ignoring and decrying the Universal scope of what God has done through His bride, the true Church. The primary reason for this mistake is that this view buys completely into the Enlightenment emphasis on the individual. In the process, it denies the effects of the Fall and sin on individuals and our churches.
I also believe this view does not do its homework on understanding the Word of God. The idea of the Church is not coined by Paul, but it has strong OT background. Why? Well for starters, the OT is not merely about the Law, but about God's redemptive work and plan being worked out in time and space. Even a proper interpretation of Paul would illustrate his building upon the OT foundation to explain the true Church.
This post is getting very long, so tomorrow we will pick up on this OT teaching and how it relates to Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the NT. What a great question to think about!
How so? Well, too many Protestants have used the critique of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy as an excuse to promote "private interpretation" as the proper means of understanding scripture. In other words, many Protestants, particularly in the West, have made Christianity about God and me: my faith, my life, my interpretation of scripture, my thoughts, and my feelings are what truly matter. After all, we all have our right to our own opinions!
The result of this thought is thousands of slightly and some not so slightly different Protestant sects and denominations. Furthermore, this view also leads to very immature believers who have no appreciation or even acknowledgement of the Universal Church. Such a view is not the official position of Protestantism! It was the view of some within what is now known as the Radical Reformation. As Protestantism began, these folks were seen as a small and dangerous minority. Unfortunately, today in the West, at least in New England, this view is dominant. It is dangerous to churches and to individuals, but it is a popular understanding of "true" faith.
This view also ties in easily with another cultural phenomena that continues to grow in the West. Increasingly, I encounter many who have been hurt by folks within the church, so they desire a life without "church." They prefer to have a personal relationship with the Lord without the confines and fallenness they have found in the church.
While I feel for these hurt individuals, I still must warn them of the dangers of "going alone." I have never met a "going it alone" believer who is not a bit strange and errant in their life and doctrine. I do not believe my experience is odd. I think that the Christian life was meant to be lived in community. What type of community? How about the church! Without such a community and the assistance of called and educated clergy who teach and live the Word of God, individuals go astray.
So now to the questions asked above. What is the true church? As I have argued before, "The true church is the congregation of saints in which the gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments rightly administered." (Augsburg Confession, Article 7) Could this have happened in the Old Testament? Is such a place only a NT occurrence?
In the Protestant landscape, there was a minority view that arose (again) and became popular in the 1870s. This view argued that the Old Testament was too Jewish, too hard to understand, and too different from the NT, particularly the teachings of Paul, to be relevant today. It understood the OT as the Law, and it taught that the era of the gospel began at Pentecost. For some within this camp, even the teachings of Jesus were too Law focused and too Jewish for the gospel age.
This view was brought to a largely uneducated and socially marginalized segment of Christianity in the West. In this seedbed, it took root and flourished! It emphasized evangelism, personal salvation, the imminent second coming of Christ, and a "literal" interpretation of scripture, particularly the book of Revelation and other apocalyptic literature. Through an ardent mission emphasis, it took this message around the world! I praise God for all of the people who have come to know Jesus through this witness.
The problem is that this view offers a very limited and damaging view of the Church. It often emphasizes the local congregation while ignoring and decrying the Universal scope of what God has done through His bride, the true Church. The primary reason for this mistake is that this view buys completely into the Enlightenment emphasis on the individual. In the process, it denies the effects of the Fall and sin on individuals and our churches.
I also believe this view does not do its homework on understanding the Word of God. The idea of the Church is not coined by Paul, but it has strong OT background. Why? Well for starters, the OT is not merely about the Law, but about God's redemptive work and plan being worked out in time and space. Even a proper interpretation of Paul would illustrate his building upon the OT foundation to explain the true Church.
This post is getting very long, so tomorrow we will pick up on this OT teaching and how it relates to Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the NT. What a great question to think about!
No comments:
Post a Comment