Depending your perspective is appears something went terribly wrong with Christianity.
If you are a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox it may appear that historically the Church was plodding along just fine until the rebellious "Reformers" like John Wycliffe, John Huss, Martin Luther, & Ulrich Zwingli came along & messed it all up thus resulting in what appears to be a hopeless mess of fractured Christianity.
It looks like something went terribly wrong.
If you are a child of Protestants it may appear that the Church was finally getting back to its roots before the introduction of everything that had permeated the Roman Catholic Church. But I wonder if Protestants ever consider that for nearly 1300 years, the Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox churches WERE the earthly representation of THE Church. How could that be if God is in control?
It looks like something went terribly wrong.
Perhaps if you are like the denominations of Baptists or Church of Christ, you pretend you were never part of either the Roman Catholics or the Protestants. You are fooling yourself if you believe your own propaganda, for there is plenty of evidence that the Baptists were simply offshoots of the Reformation. As for the denomination of Church of Christ, they too can easily be traced to their roots with the Campbells.
Further, if you are part of the Charismatics/Pentecostals who think (as do the CoC), that they were "restoring" the Gospel & the New Testament Church back to its foundation (hence, a time often called The Restoration period), then you too have a problem because you are actually advocating that what Christ, the apostles, & the early Church established was somehow so corrupted that it had to be "restored".
It looks like something went terribly wrong.
Today, we have many continuations of groups trying to figure out what went wrong. There is the so-called "Emergent Church" that advocates "emerging" from the "traditional", "modern" church & into a "post-modern" age (I don’t think even they know what in the world they mean, they just despise ANYTHING "traditional" that they want to get as far way as they can.) The "emergents" view themselves as as emerging from a bombed out shell, half dazed trying to get their bearings straight while looking for others emerging from the destruction.
It looks like something went terribly wrong.
There are the house church types who may be closer to getting it right than all, except that some of them are falling into another error. Some are attempting to duplicate the first-century Church complete with all of its offices (see Ephesians 4:11). They figure that somehow the "apostolic church" was corrupted, that people stopped using the "gifts of the Holy Spirit" & that if we could just return to that structure all would be well again.
It looks like something went terribly wrong.
Such thoughts could undermine the faith of any Christian; I mean if Christ could not keep His Church from completely corrupting, can He even keep the souls of any person? No wonder we have had all sorts of "cults" throughout the centuries pretending they are the correct representation of true religion – be it the Mormons or the Muslims.
It looks like something went terribly wrong.
But
the frustration of all these groups is wrapped around one premise,
which is that God (via Christ for the Christian) is not presently
dwelling with mankind. For the Christian, they typically will say
Christ went away in the first-century, leaving His apostles to continue
to guide the Church. For the Roman Catholic, the apostles passed on
their office to a new generation of apostles, even more specifically
they claim Peter was the "keyholder" apostle & that every "pope"
since has been holding that "key".
To the Protestants, they
wrested control from what they consider an "apostate" version of the
Church (The Roman Catholic Church), & took it upon themselves to
set up what in essence are "mini-popes" – protestant pastors. While
they hold out for Christ to return, some say the world is going to
become increasingly evil & "fall away" from the truth (hmm, I
wonder what the Roman Catholics thought about the Protestants during
the Reformation?).
Among the Protestants is also the fatal flaw
that somehow "the kingdom" wasn’t established with Christ & the
apostles (even though Jesus & the apostles constantly preached the "soon coming kingdom",
which would come without observation but dwelled within & among
men), so either we have to wait until He comes back or we can try to
re-institute the apostles & the entire five-fold ministry & do
it ourselves. (Vanity!)
It looks like something went terribly wrong.
So, are we left without hope? Is Christianity a fighting mess until Christ comes & straightens it all out? Rather, what if we were to realize what the Church really is? What if we were to realize the kingdom WAS established WHEN & HOW Christ & the apostles said it would be – soon, within that first-century generation. What if we were to realize Christ HAS come just as He said He would – soon, within that first-century generation.
What if the only reason we haven’t been seeing THE Church is because we kept trying to mimic that first-century Church that was waiting for the Chief Shepherd to appear?
Nothing went wrong, but everything is right on schedule. The Roman Catholics, the Protestants, the pretended non-Protestants, & all others simply need to realize THEY aren’t that first-century Church, nor should they try to be. That Church was the "infant church", being built up into maturity by the "foundation" apostles (& the rest of the five-fold ministry) that Christ left to complete that work. The Church matured under their oversight & the Bride was delivered to the Bridegroom without spot or wrinkle just as Christ has said.
This does NOT mean the Church is gone, but that WE, post first-century Christians are the REALIZED CHURCH, dwelling directly with the Bridegroom. We aren’t hapless sheep being looked after by a supreme "keyholding" apostle who sits on golden thrones & has people kissing his hand. We aren’t hunkered down in our bunker-like churches while the evil world rages around us, waiting for Christ to return. We aren’t scattered flocks of "local churches" that each has their own mini-pope pastor feeding us until the day they give an account for our souls at the appearing of the Lord. We aren’t a group of dazed & confused people emerging from a giant multi-generational conspiracy of "modernism".
Rather, all those people, all those representations of THE CHURCH that have gone before were ALSO THE CHURCH, they simply needed to realize they weren’t the duplication of the first-century Church. It is time to realize who we really are in Christ.
It looks like everything is going perfectly right!
AMEN & AMEN
Re: The Realized Church
What I do not undestand about Protestants (even pseudos) who make this argument is - why they don’t they also acknowledge their own limits? I mean, in their aruments that we’re all so very similiar, they never seem to want to include Mormons, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or the LRA, or even amongst the 30,000+ Protestant denominations, what about the various KKK-influenced, or moonshine-gulping snake-handling churches, or etc….? Is everything going perfectly right with them as well? Is there anyone who even vaguely in some offhanded way mentions Christ NOT doing well?
Ie, the argument made in this post is weakened without the acknowledgment of limits that the author himself *seems* to *almost* assume, all the while seeming to implicitly claim that contradictory & schismatic expressions of ‘church’ are all (at least politically!) ‘equal’.
What’s so wrong with limits? Difference? Tension?
+ s
www.nowandever.be
Re: How far is too far?
Excellent observations + S, but being on an "emergent" friendly site you are on dangerous ground asking how far is too far :-) since it is part of their mantra to question everything, to deconstruct everything, to allow everything in to be sorted out as they go.
I am NOT "emergent", though I am interacting with the concept via the article "The Realized Church".
I guess to answer your question directly, that even in the errors of men (such as when Joseph’s brothers threw him into a pit & sold him off to Egypt), God’s true plan can be seen — that is, the contrast of the errors show what is true. Light shines brightest in darkness principle.
The Mormons, the JWs & other such groups are outside the frame of Christianity because they have created alterior "mouthpieces" instead of Christ, the apostles, & the completed canon.
Islam & modern Judaism are also outside the frame of true religion because they both deny the ONLY WAY to the Father — they make/allow for other ways, often rejecting Christ altogether.
This "limiting" is often repugnant to some of the "emergents" because as I said, they see themselves & others (even other religions) as "emerging" from a type of multi-generational conspiracy they often label as "modernism" or "traditionalism", or "fundamentalism". They see themselves as "unfinished Christians", even though Christ said IT IS FINISHED, the only thing we Christians need to do is realize HOW it is finished.
I don’t say these things pejoratively, but only as factually from what I’ve read by the "emergents" & their counterparts among my own camp — the preterists emergent who would like to "enter the space Brian McLaren introduced" to a few of them. I am NOT part of the group that is trying to enter McLarenism.
Indeed, there are limits that make groups outside the frame of Christianity & true religion.
In Christ, the Only Way,
Roderick
www.thekingdomcome.com
Re: How far is too far?
In a couple of weeks’ time, I am going to speak to a Catholic group about ‘diversity of faith’ - which is really addressing people who had not realised that there are expressions of the church outside the three main Catholic/Orthodox/Reformed traditions.
What line do you think I should take? I am somewhat tempted to be provocative, and suggest that the Catholic church which emerged under Constantine was never the apostolic church, and that this was rather to be found in all the various persecuted groups which persisted throughout the era leading up to the protestant reformation(s). But as the Catholic church wrote the history, the persecuted groups were presented as schismatic heretics. (I have in mind groups like the Donatists, Montanists, Paulicians, Bogomils, Albigensians, Waldenses, Cathars, etc.). It’s fascinating to be a conspiracy theorist in church history.
In the light of your comment, I should be saying that most expressions of ‘the church’ were part of a broad rainbow of expression, which included the Catholic and Orthodox and Reformed churches. I’m tempted to adopt Luther’s point of view, that the apostolic church is the one which practises apostolic teachings, rather than a structure which claims ‘apostolic succession’ as by divine right.
If Christ has returned and is living as the bride with his church, as you seem to suggest, and if everything is on target, I’m not sure we should have been persecuting each other for the best part of 1800 years. I think the church constantly needs to be renewing itself in the light of its failures in character and task. It’s a mess - yet through it all, I do have a basic agreement with one aspect of thrust of your message - that almost despite itself, God’s purposes seem to move forward through the church.
But what should I say to these Catholic people - as a representative of an independent, evangelical, charismatic, new church harbouring covert connections with deconstructive emergent thinking, who fequently feels closer in spirit to his Catholic compatriots than to protestant colleagues with whom he shares the same stable?
Re: How far is too far?
Mr. Wilkinson,
I just want to say what an exciting opportunity you are going to have addressing this Catholic group. I look forward to hearing how it goes.
Obviously there are several approaches you could take, some that would get you invited back & some that wouldn’t — ;-)
I appreciate your dilemma. Having interacted with both American contemporary Catholics & with Latin Rite Catholics, I can tell you there is a distinct difference. This difference is probably similar to the difference between the generation X church & the so-called fundamentalists among the Protestants.
I guess what I’m driving at is your approach will depend upon your audience. I sensed (from your writing style) that you are non-American & will be addressing non-American Catholics – is this true?
Thinking of what the typical perspectives are between these various groups, I would say the first question to ask your audience is, WHAT IS THE CHURCH? Start with elements that almost all mainline Christians would say WASN’T part of the Church. Are Muslims part of the Church? It may seem like a silly question at first, but there are actually some Christians that would entertain that “anyone who is faithful & believes in God is a person of faith” but that wasn’t the question. Continue with the questioning of other groups; Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses & perhaps end with the shocking question:
Are Protestants part of the Church? Are Catholics part of the Church?
Remind them that at one point the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church was NO, the Protestants are not. Advise them in contrast, many Protestant denominations teach that the Roman Catholic Church is an “apostate” form of Christianity that only came into being through the political & military exploits of Constantine (as you pointed out).
This will allow you to launch into your discussion about the Donatists, Waldenses, & the others.
I would then bring it back into focus, surely there are some of these groups from the Mormons to the Donatists who are NOT within the frame of the Church? But who gets to decide this? Majority rule? An individual man, be he pope or German monk? What makes them outside the frame?
There must be an intrinsic definition of the “Church”. This might be a good time for your reference to the “apostolic church” being apostolic because it holds to the teaching of the original apostles & not simply because it claims to have modern day apostles – the Roman Catholic Church is not the only group that claims apostolic guidance – many Pentecostal groups & even the Mormons claim this as well.
Personally, it is here where I would begin to introduce the concept of the “Realized Church“.
I don’t know if I helped any Mr. Wilkinson but as I said, I am extremely excited about your opportunity & would love if you kept us posted about it.
In Christ, the Chief Shepherd returned & sitting on His throne among men,
Roderick
www.thekingdomcome.com
Re: How far is too far?
This is really helpful - thanks. In fact I should be able to form a whole presentation from contributions on this site to my question. I’m of the UK in the UK, and the RC group is on a university campus.
I think I’ll take your advice - on the grounds that I’d like at least to have the opportunity of being invited back. One takes one’s opportunities wherever one can.
Emergent church and its theology though - how does that fit into this scenario? Are there any approaches I can adopt which would steer the conversation towards the subject which is, after all, meant to be the topic of this site?
Re: How far is too far?
Peter, I think you would be well served to take the approach of focusing on Jesus’ "kingdom of God" rather than the church. The kingdom includes all churches and all religions and all of creation. Churches are catalysts for the kingdom but no church or group of churches is the kingdom. Brian Mclaren shows a wonderful diagram about the church and the kingdom in "A new kind of Christian".
I think that Roderick misses the point in his original post. He seems to suggest that we shouldn’t try and steer the boat even though it is off course because God is driving the boat. I disagree. For whatever reason, God has given us the ability to steer the boat. Actually, you could easily argue that God gave us the ability to build, launch, and steer our own boats. God built the lake and the materials for the boats, but he charged us with building the boats and helping everyone stay afloat.
What if the goal is not to drive the boat to a particular location, but instead the goal is to stay afloat and enjoy the ride? What if we stop focusing on which boat to get in and just help everyone find a boat or build their own boat so they don’t drown? Ah! The wonders of metaphor.
Re: How far is too far?
Peter again, in light of what danutz wrote here, I submit this paragraph from my original article:
Today, we have many continuations of groups trying to figure out what went wrong. There is the so-called "Emergent Church
" that advocates "emerging" from the "traditional", "modern" church & into a "post-modern" age (I don’t think even they know what in the world they mean, they just despise ANYTHING "traditional" that they want to get as far way as they can.) The "emergents" view themselves as as emerging from a bombed out shell, half dazed trying to get their bearings straight while looking for others emerging from the destruction.
They use really vague metaphoric language. They see themselves drifting along in life in separate boats (not One Body & One Church). Press them for firm answers. Are Muslims in these boats a valid expression of truth? To the emergents everything is adrift, & thats just fine with them. Oh happy day!
My point is, to be able to STEER the boat, we have to understand the workings of the boat — we have to understand the character & nature of God via His Word. We can’t go around mingling it with all manner of pop-psychology & other religions, otherwise what we have is no longer Christian, but something "other" emerging from the fog laden murky waters of McLarenism.
Anyhow, let me know how the speech goes.
In Christ, the Captain of our salvation (Heb 2:10)
Roderick
www.thekingdomcome.com
Re: How far is too far?
The reality is that the bible itself is already mingled with pop culture, ideas, and other religions. I’m all for a "someting other" to emerge. If Christianity can’t evolve with our new knowledge and new experiences then a new boat is not out of the question. You won’t find a shortage of finite answers in the emergent conversation when and if finite answers are in order, but the reality is that most questions are not finite and are not offered in a single context so the question has to be evaluated before an answer can be offered.
This depends on what you mean by "valid expression of truth".
Does that mean that muslims have true experiences with God? I would say yes.
Does that mean that muslims are in some way part of the Kingdom of God that Jesus spoke about? I would say Yes.
Does that mean that everything that every muslim has ever said and done is for the good of the kingdom of God? I would say no and I would say the same about Christianity.
Re: How far is too far?
This response from danutz is the case in point about the emergents. It requires no further comment by me.
www.thekingdomcome.com
emerging
Roderick. Perhaps some of your frustration with the ‘emergents’ comes from your hastiness in lumping all of them into one category. As McLaren has mentionned, it may be better to speaking of an emerging conversation between various factions of the historical Church, rather than an emerging church… If danutz confirms all of your suspicions about ‘the emergents’, please keep in mind, danutz speaks for himself—and I speak for myself.
While danutz has chosen to latch on to Jesus’ teachings of the Kingdom in a general sense (not a bad thing to latch on to!), I am perfectly comfortable with a much narrower definition of the Church as the missional body aligned with Christ in his death and resurrection through baptism and communion for the good of the world and the manifestation of the Kingdom (I would say ‘advancement’, but I’ve been listening to andrew too much…). My picture of the Church has more to do with a dedicated group of men and women, actively communing, actively serving, actively praying, manifesting God’s Reign on Earth, than it does with Sunday services (or with danutz’s vague moving of God’s love throughout humanity for that matter). If you want to stereotype ‘emergents’, why not use me? Please don’t… of course. The point is that we’re talking and we’re finding common ground (which usually has to do with the Reign of our Lord and what that looks like in terms of how we live… and this is concretely related to holiness). To that extent we are seeing an emergence from old shells, old ruts, and old grudges. That emergence is something worth celebrating.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Re: emerging
Those are good points Daniel. But please realize that my general statements about "the kingdom of God" are not meant to replace the more narrow statements about the church. I see the 2 as different things and agree with both. The church is a "part" of the kingdom of God but is not identical or "all of it". I’ll agree to your narrow definition of the Christian Church but can we agree about a larger definition of the kingdom? I think we make mistakes when we apply biblical messages about the church to the kingdom and biblical messages about the kingdom to the church. That is often how our theology gets off course. In the same way that some people assume every reference to "salvation" or "saved" is always speaking about eternal life. Through more involved exegesis we can try to understand the true meaning. For example Andrew constantly tells us how important it is to set these stories in the context of the story of Isreal. Jesus message of the kingdom was told before there was an established Christian church so it seems hard to imagine that is what he had in mind when he speaks about the kingdom. However some of Paul’s letters are were directed at "the Church" and even at specific individual Christians and individual communities.
Re: The Realized Church
Sorry for the long silence Daniel,
I really appreciate what you have said here. I am pleased to see your perspective & indeed influence upon the “emergents”. But using danutz’s “boats” analogy coupled with your last sentence (“To that extent we are seeing an emergence from old shells, old ruts, and old grudges.”) my original premise of the emergents emerging from bombed out shells & trying to get their bearings straight, still stands.
danutz & the typical “emergent” line would simply see you adrift in your boat along with them, perhaps gathering along the shores with others in their boats, even Muslims & all other manner of non-Christians. As if you’re all just trying to figure out who & what you are. (Didn’t that happen before around a certain tower? & the people eventually united & thought they could make their own way to God?)
There is something I agree with danutz on, The Kingdom & the Church are NOT one in the same. The Church is the Body, the Bride (now Wed Wife) of Christ, DWELLING in New Jerusalem which is located in the Kingdom. Where I disagree with danutz is that he seems to think even non-Christians are in the Kingdom. As Jesus told Nicodemus, people not only can’t enter the kingdom unless they are “born again” — they can’t even see the kingdom in their dead Adamic state. Jesus’ message was “behold! the kingdom of Heaven is AT HAND” — the non-Christian Jews were NOT in the kingdom that Christ was bringing, nor is anyone who is not “in Christ”.
My hope is, that people like you Daniel can impact the “emergents” so that their boats don’t spring a leak & sink (if its not too late already).
Thanks again.
In Christ — a FINISHED Christian (not because I have it all worked out, but because Christ worked it all out for us)
Roderick
www.thekingdomcome.com
Re: The Realized Church
Roderick, I have a major problem with your image of the kingdom. If the kingdom is a "group of people" and it is "..at hand" as Jesus suggests, then wouldn’t WE be excluded since we were not "at hand" when Jesus said that?
Doesn’t it make more sense to view the kingdom as the vision of what God is transforming us all into that Jesus announces during his life, and right then it began to become a reality (i.e. "is at hand").
Also, please don’t confuse my liberal views or non-literal interpretation of biblical passages with the emergent church. The emergent church is neither liberal or conservative. It is "both and". If you are participating in the conversation and are reading some of the books/articles/websites that are circulating (which is seems you are) then I would consider you a part of it even if you think you are not. The EC is a conversation that similar to the church is intended to be a catalyst for the kingdom not the kingdom its self. Conversations are not usually agreements.
Re: emerging evidence
As can be seen from the Re: religion? thread, there is more evidence that the "emergent" simply views Christianity as another "religion" among many & that we must "emerge" from the "modernist" mindset into a new day where point A & point B are meld together to make a new religion — the "emergent religion".
www.thekingdomcome.com
Re: emerging evidence
Yes, something brand new that is beyond point A and B! Great idea. Lets call it….hmmmmm… how about… THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
Re: emerging evidence
Roderick, if you weren’t in such a hurry to slam the whole emergent thing, you might have given yourself the time to read these posts more carefully. Danutz is simply a participant in a conversation that is broadly labelled ‘emergent’. He has carefully stated on a number of occasions that he does not consider his views to be representative of the emerging church, and many of the comments he has made have drawn disagreement from other contributors. You are also a participant in this conversation though you approach it from a very different theological direction, and I imagine that you also at times have felt yourself misunderstood.
Whatever else this emergent conversation is, it is taking place in a very complex theological space, and if we are going to make progress, we will all have to exercise considerable patience and demonstrate a willingness to listen carefully to what people are trying to say. At any point you are free to say, these guys have lost the plot, I don’t want anything more to do with this. But as long as you stay engaged, whether you like it or not, you are significant (and welcome) contributor to a re-examination of the grounds, character and purpose of Christian faith provoked by a real or perceived crisis in modernism - and in modern evangelicalism in particular.
If you really believe that the emerging church is bent on constructing some sort of homogenized universal religion, you should produce some evidence that is more representative of the main stream of the emerging movement. I regard Danutz’s contribution to this site as invaluable. I don’t happen to agree with the way in which he characterizes the relationship between Christianity and other faiths, but I think it rather idiotic to pick up on certain remarks he has made, strip away some rather careful argumentation about how religious language works, and make the resulting caricature representative of emerging theology. It’s not, and Danutz never intended it to be.
Re: How far is too far?
Roderick
I did actually refer to your advice when I went to the Catholic group earlier this evening (about which line of approach to take - the governing principle being whether I wanted to be invited back or not!). It raised a laugh; they were intrigued about a theology website giving me guidelines on how to handle a meeting with the Catholics.
Basically I covered about 1700 years of church history in 40 minutes - addressing the issue of diversity of faith, and what we have in common. With the latter, I had plenty of stories about times when I have felt closer to my Catholic brethren than my protestant brothers and sisters. In fact I had sat next to a Catholic priest in a prayer meeting that very morning. (The same priest, who in a previous meeting of the same protestant group, had prayed to Mary - though I think I was the only one who heard him do so).
My mishievous wild-card was the thought, introduced with a ‘what if?’, about whether the church God wanted was a very diverse, multi-faceted, flexible, mobile kind - and that this was the ‘true’ church which had always existed alongside the monolithic, centrally organised ‘official’ church, both before and after the Reformation - throughout church history, in fact. The church that the ‘official’ church had done its best to suppress, in varying ways.
My main purpose in posting this is to highlight the many difficulties, on the Catholic side, which prevent unity between the churches, notably: the meaning of the eucharist; the role of Peter and the apostolic succession (in which true authority is vested); the role of the priesthood; the indissolubility of marriage (from a Catholic viewpoint - I didn’t realise this was still held to be the case); and increasingly - the church’s position on pro-life issues.
These are ‘central’ in a Catholic version of ecumenical dialogue; from my point of view, important as they are, they are peripheral to the key issues - which are to do with an understanding of the central events in the history of Jesus, and koinonia through the Holy Spirit.
In one or two instances I found I knew more about Catholic dogma than the Catholics - such as that the ‘immaculate conception’ refers to the sinless conception of Mary, not the conception of Jesus.
What does this have to do with a site dedicated to emergent theology? Well, it’s part of the discussion which Roderick started, and it illustrated to me how far the Catholic church is from being able to see that while it makes a contribution to the body of Christ, it is not the ‘true’ body of Christ in itself. Anything outside the Catholic church was, from this group’s point of view, not a genuine reflection of ‘the church’ as Christ intended it.
Also a major source of ‘offence’ to Catholics is the multi-faceted nature of ‘protestantism’. When I mentioned that there are some 746 denominations within the reformed branch of the church alone, this was proof positive to them of the protestant church’s inherent corruption - the only hope for the church being a return to the true unity of the Catholic church.
My response to this sort of thinking is where I started out: "His (Christ’s) intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God might be made known to the principalities and powers" - Ephesians 3:10. "Manifold" meaning ‘multi-coloured’ - with many facets - just like the church outside the Catholic church - and within the body of Christ as a whole, including the Catholic church.
The protestant church would do well to take on board the serious thinking which has taken place in the Catholic church to do with the sanctity of life, and the place which sexual expression takes in making up our true human identity and Christ-likeness.
Thanks for your help. The meeting went on for twice its allotted length. I’ve no idea if I’ll be invited back, though.
Re: How far is too far?
It appears that my original question has gone unanswered. Peter, your talk sounds very interesting, and I with I could of heard it (especially the historical bits). However, I still am wondering what limits you might place on your thesis. If your premise is indeed the case, that the ‘Church’ is made up of multi-faceted and various schismatic disagreeing denominations, then when does the ‘Church’ cease to be the ‘Church’? Does it have anything to do with what a community affirms or practices? Ie, is an Episcopal or even an Emergent church community that would disavow a literal, physical Resurrection still Christian and part of the ‘Church’? Since most Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox seem to mostly be ‘ok’ with the Nicene Creed (the filioque controversy notwithstanding), would you accept the Nicene Creed as the primary point of convergence? Or is it a mystical body and as such limits must not be placed?
Also, I still don’t understand the ‘Emergent’ rejection (or at least unwillingness) of naming limits, tension, difference. It seems most often that deconstruction, as a method (which really is an intent towards a kind of play), gets confused with mere critique and questioning. Actually, I must be honest and say that I am asking this question rhetorically. I also ask this question bowing to the One who is present everywhere, and who fills all things. In otherwords, our limits are not His limits in the same kind or way. But that does not mean that we cannot affirm what Chirst and His Apostles affirmed, and deny what Christ and His Apostles denied. And yes yes, granted/caveat: faith does not primarily or even inherently consist as the mere expression of mere concepts, etc.
+ swww.nowandever.be
Re: How far is too far?
Thanks, seraphim - am I right in thinking that your background is orthodoxy? The very question you raised is one that was brought up by a Catholic seminarian at the meeting. There do have to be limits and boundaries - which I think Roderick acknowledged in his reply to your question. Protestant churches are, on the whole, vociferous about their boundaries, but no less schismatic than the ancient churches. (1054 AD?). For me, as I mentioned in my post, the boundaries are the history of Jesus and koinonia in the Spirit - rather than interpretations of the eucharist, Peter, the priesthood etc.
I doubt if there is such a thing as an emergent church voice on the issue of boundaries - but there may well be a tendency towards a non-questioning ultra-inclusiveness of ‘spiritualities’ - and a tendency to avoid challenge - precisely the opposite of what the gospel does. However, reading the ‘health and safety’ document from Cedar Ridge church (on the link provided by Daniel D Farmer in a previous post), this being a beacon ‘emergent’ community, there are plenty of boundaries in their view of holiness - down to non-attendance at meetings! A highly non-deconstructed view of ethics, at least.
Re: How far is too far?
hello peter,
yes, i’m an orthodox christian. thanks for responding. and yes, roderick did acknowledge my question, but I’m still wondering about a specific answer. at least for you guys (knowing you’re not ‘representative’), what ARE the limits, specifically? i’m not sure i know what the "history of Jesus and koinonia in the Spirit" means. and i’m not asking so i can then pummel you with Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology…i’m genuinely curious!
+ s
www.nowandever.be
Re: How far is too far?
Seraphim - I’m very non-representative of the emergent church - but that’s the nature of being ‘emergent’ - it is in the process of discovering what its identity is. Some might say that it is in the process of obscuring its identity.
I could personally tick the box of the Nicene creed, except that those who framed it were able to tick other boxes which seem to me to deny the very basis of Christian character and behaviour: eg suppression of the Donatists 317AD, establishment of the Inquisition 1292 AD, and the general character of the ‘established’ church down to the present day - which seems to me never quite able to throw off a tendency towards imperialism and control (this would include its reformed state-church offspring).
Definition of Christian identity is a subject fraught with risk - because it could be said to rest on an experience rather than a statement of faith. At least, that’s the kind of conclusion I draw from Peter’s observation of Cornelius and his household. The audio-visual reception of the Spirit validated for him their inclusion in the people of God. To balance this out, Christian identity elsewhere is said to rest on a confession of Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9), but as reflected in lifestyle and tested before the persecuting tribunal , rather than the confession-by-rote of church liturgy.
Definition of Christian identity rests for me in a belief in the person of Jesus as given by his history in the gospels, Acts, NT epistles, and apocalypse. Or I would sum it up more simply as belief in the Jesus of the cross, resurrection, ascension and outpoured Spirit. These, to me, are the shaping motifs of the Christian faith. Where they are included but marginalised, as with Jehovah’s witnesses, church of the latter day saints, or any version of church, emergent or traditional, they cease to have a central shaping function.
The seminarian mentioned at the meeting I attended seemed to think that key boundary marker issues for the Catholic (which separate them from protestants), such as eucharist, priesthood etc, would have been explained by Jesus to the disciples during the 40 days of his earthly resurrection appearances. Boundaries for committed Catholics seem to work only one way: they are the boundaries created by non-Catholics which prevent them from returning to the fold of Catholic dogma.
Speaking about the Realized Church
Amen Peter,
I’m glad it went so well. As you saw, the Roman Catholic system’s insurmountable wall is its “apostolic succession”, “key holding” pope/pastor.
Breaking down this barrier will go a long way in getting both sides to see themselves as the “The Realized Church”. We have not been part of a grand conspiracy from which we are emerging but rather One Body & One Church, & those first-century Christians were entering the “about to come kingdom”, which is fully here now as of the end of the old covenant “kingdom”.
Sorry, getting off on a sermon there :-)
I’m glad you had such an exciting time. I hope you get invited back & please do tell us any other curiosities that may come from that meeting (which will indeed come whenever the truth is taught — it never comes back void)
In Christ, who FULLY EMERGED from the Holy of Holies, delcaring the Atonement complete for all time (compare Lev 16:17 with Heb 9:28)
Roderick
www.thekingdomcome.com
Re: Speaking about the Realized Church
Your message, Roderick, directs us back to your original suggestion, which was that (a) Christ has already come (in the 1st century) to live with his church, the bride; (b) the kingdom has already come, accompanying, but not co-terminous with the church; and (c) church history, far from illustrating failure through disunity and diversity, illustrates success - things are right on target, if we can accept that this is how God intended things to be.
So my questions would be: (a) when did Christ come to dwell with his church - and how does this fulfil scriptures like 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 which seem to speak of a ‘return’ which is an as yet unfulfilled event? (b) If the kingdom has already come, does this mean there is no future instalment of the kingdom yet to be delivered - and in that sense, what does it mean for the kingdom to have already come? and (c) If church history shows things as they are meant to be, with a ‘mature’ church growing out of its infant 1st century roots, how does this account for historical corruption and current scandal (paedophile abuse) in the Roman Catholic church, financial and sexual scandal amongst leadership in the ‘free’ church, and a history of infighting, oppression and judicial killings between churches of all descriptions throughout its history?
The evidence seems to be against this kind of ‘realised’ eschatology - and in favour of an eschatology in which there is a consummation yet to come.
And yet, I would agree with your view of the church which accommodates variety and diversity, and I would also argue that there is in fact incremental progress over the centuries - despite the litany of failure, and that the ‘church’ does not need to be reinvented with no regard for its historical development. I would argue that (a) there has been a consistent diversity of expression in the church throughout the centuries from very earliest times, and the ‘church’ has been foolish to attempt to suppress this diversity - mistaking uniformity for unity; (b) there has been incremental progress, during the pre-Reformation period, through the Reformation, into the evangelical awakening of the 18th and 19th centuries, into the Pentecostal phenomenon of the 20th century - which built on the supernatural expectations of the great revivals of the 19th century.
One of the great challenges of the 21st century is to let the church adapt to the culture(s) in which it finds itself, without losing the cutting edge of its message. The next great challenge is to catch the wave of what God has already been doing in the previous century and before that, and to avoid the misconception that there is no tradition of what God has been doing in the church which is worthwhile retaining in the present era.
The Final High Priest
Hello again Peter & those following along with this thread. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify answers to your questions. You asked:
a) when did Christ come to dwell with his church - and how does this fulfill scriptures like 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 which seem to speak of a ‘return’ which is an as yet unfulfilled event?
First off, lets look at 1 Thes 4:13-18. You will note it is a letter by Paul to the Thessalonians. They were apparently worried that there already dead loved ones would not be resurrected when they who are alive are. Paul assures them:
Notice the constant use of the pronoun WE. Paul is not seeing this as some far off future event but an event that would soon come to pass. An event that his audience would more than likely experience. If Paul had understood it as an event far into the future, he could have simply told them they need not be worried about it because they too would have “fallen asleep”.
We quote the rest of the text:
Note again the use of WE, as Paul expected some of his audience to be alive at the return of the Lord. But what is even more pointed is Paul tells them to “Therefore encourage one another with these words.” If Paul knew this event was far into the future, then this would be false encouragement. Paul would have just been stringing them along. I’ve actually heard some preachers say Paul knew this & was just keeping them on their toes – Hmmm, so we start our Christian faith out with deception? I don’t think so.
So, then you might ask – how did the Lord return then? How is it the He dwells with His Bride-Church?
I had referred in a previous post to compare Leviticus 16:17 with Hebrews 9:28. These are very pivotal verses. As you know the Bible is a book of typology & fulfillment. Christ said all the Bible speaks of Him. This is no where more true than Christ’s role as the final High Priest that need not go into the Holy of Holies once a year to make atonement, but He has went in once & for all. Let’s compare the texts.
This is the picture of the earthly High Priest who goes alone into the earthly Holy of Holies to make the atonement on behalf of the people. Outside are the people who eagerly await the High Priest’s appearance. There is even legend that they would tie a rope around his leg so if he didn’t emerge, the people could pull him out.
Now, let us compare Heb 9:28:
Here we see Christ as final High Priest who bore the sins of many & would appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him. This is the perfect fulfillment of Christ’s High Priestly office. He has emerged from the true Holy of Holies, Heaven where the earthly Temple was merely a copy. This is the reason it is significant to point out the desolation of that earthly house as Christ so foretold in Mt 24, Mk 13, & Lk 21. The passing away of the old covenant system had to be complete so that the institution of the eternal new covenant could come. When the Bible talks about THE LAST days & the LAST DAY, what is it talking about? Some have concluded it is the “end of time” but no where does the Bible speak of the end of time, but merely the “time of the end” – the end of the old covenant age.
Simply, if Jesus HAS NOT COME, no one is “saved” – we are merely awaiting salvation/atonement just like those earthly people waited for the High Priest to emerge.
This is the reason I have said Christ has FULLY EMERGED from the Holy of Holies & has wed His Bride who was delivered up without spot or wrinkle by Her “bridesmaids” – the apostles & elders of the first-century Church. We after that time dwell directly with Christ for all eternity.
We aren’t waiting for Him to emerge, Christ has come. We need only realize who we are in Christ – the wed Wife of Christ – The Church.
This has run long. I’ll get to your other questions soon. Thanks again for the opportunity to discuss this issue.
Here are some links about this topic in more detail:
The Eschatology of Jesus Christ
Conversing with Controversy (in progress)
www.thekingdomcome.com
The Realized Kingdom
Peter, sorry I haven’t gotten back to your questions as quickly as I had hoped. There are some other things going on in my theological circle that distracted my attention.
Your next question was:
As you can see, it’s actually a 2 part question. I guess I’d have to answer with proofs that the kingdom has indeed come & been completely “installed”.
Please forgive me if I go over anything in a pedagogical manner, I do not mean to belittle the question or anyone else. It is just important that we lay out the various views so we can see how they contrast with what the Bible actually says. By the way, Peter, I admire how on the “religion” religion how you kept driving the focus back to the Bible as truth & how much of the discussion that was going on was mere speculation & thinly veiled humanism. Even though not every “emergent” individual is like that, most are. A friend of mine & I are reading the 15+ books by Brian Mclaren & will either write an extensive series of articles or possibly even a book. So, Andrew’s accusation about my lack of “knowledge” of the “emergents” is unfounded. Now, back to the subject.
Christ preached a “soon coming” kingdom.
Actually this was the heart of Christ’s message. It was not “Jesus loves you & has a wonderful plan for your life”. (Do I need to supply all the verses where Jesus & the disciples preached a soon coming/about to be/shortly coming/at hand/within this generation kingdom?)
So, if Jesus’ main message was this coming kingdom, we must ask ourselves 2 questions:
This is where we contrast some of the prevalent views.
America was solidly post/amil until about the Civil War & the 2 World Wars – that most preachers saw the world as getting better & better until Christ would come again once the world was sufficiently “dominated” by Christian influence. After those wars, it looked like things weren’t really getting better. The advent of dispensationalism with John Nelson Darby & C.I. Scolfield (& the Scolfield study bible) supplanted the triumphant theology of America & replaced it with a fatalistic theology where any moment the world would be destroyed in a blaze (after the “rapture” of course) & the end would come.
But let’s get back to the Bible. What kind of “kingdom” was Jesus & His apostles talking about? Was it really going to be an earthly kingdom manifested by Jesus sitting on a tangible throne? Indeed, some from the dispensationalists say that had the Jews accepted Jesus as king, He would have ushered in the kingdom right then & there but since they rejected Him (more about that in a moment), God had to postpone the kingdom & put in a gap called “the Church age”.
Wow! Here I go again writing a long response. I don’t like writing such long replies. Please interact a little with what I’ve written thus far & then I’ll write more.
In Christ, the King of His Present & eternal Kingdom,
Roderick
http://www.thekingdomcome.com
Re: The Realized Kingdom
Roderick - I don’t think I have anything particularly original to bring to your comment (or any other comment really). I don’t see that your proposal precludes an incremental advent of the kingdom, to be completed by Jesus’s return. In fact I think that the realities of history and our current times almost demand such a view - as opposed to the view that what we have is all that we are going to get. I do personally think there is something incremental about church history - but I don’t think this requires a return to a postmillennial eschatology. (I’m actually allergic to most millennial schemes).
I also think it’s worth asking what, exactly, the kingdom means (especially in an age when talk of ‘kingdoms’ has an archaic ring).
To Andrew, the coming of the kingdom was an event which took place when the power & authority was handed over to the saints with Jesus’s ‘coming’ into the presence of the Most High. This was in AD 70. Or maybe later - I’m not entirely sure where the downfall of Rome fits into this picture.
To me, there is a close connection between ‘Spirit’ and ‘kingdom’ in the NT - which keys into Isaiah’s picture of the coming of the kingdom - Spirit and kingdom being twin interconnected Isaianic themes. So the kingdom came with Jesus’s earthly ministry; it advanced powerfully with his resurrection, ascension and outpoured Spirit - indeed the ‘ascension’ and Pentecost are events which should be seen in the light of each other - the one appealing to the other in Peter’s Pentecost address.
Since then, the kingdom has been advancing wherever the Spirit has been moving, on the face of the earth, and across the earth. The Spirit allows for and releases a whole range of creative expressions of ‘the kingdom’. Wherever the Spirit is moving, Jesus is reigning.
Yet even this is not the complete package: the Spirit is still only a ‘deposit’ - guaranteeing a full payment yet to come.
So it seems to me that we do indeed live in a tension between the now and the future. Yet this way of looking at things makes sense of Jesus’s promise of the Spirit coming in power. In that sense, the coming of the Spirit was a coming of Jesus - in that the Spirit brings the presence and reality of Jesus on earth today. But this is distinct from a future fulfilment of the presence of Jesus across the earth. So it’s a threefold coming of Jesus (and therefore of the kingdom): in his earthly life and ministry; by the Spirit, and by his return in glory.
This makes sense, to me, of important data which the preterists, such as yourself, wish to incorporate into the overall explanation of the biblical story.
Christ has come
Hello Peter,
Whew! Sorry my posts are so sporadic these days. Many things are going on in my theological circles. Before I touch on the last question in your series of questions, I wanted to follow up on this comment from one of your replies:
You said:
As much as I can appreciate what you are trying to say, that statement is completely unqualified, meaning it is subjective. Where do you get the idea that the “full payment is yet to come”? Before you made this comment, you like the rest of us had difficulty explaining what the kingdom actually is, thus I wonder how we could deny whether the full payment is here or not, seeing how we can’t really grasp what the kingdom entails.
Ok, I’ll leave that topic alone for now. Now, to your last question.
You asked:
I believe this has a great connection to how the “kingdom” seems to operate as well. World events often occur & we can’t understand it. Sometimes things happen, apparently so suddenly it is amazing. The fall of the Soviet Union seems to be one example. I know there was a long struggle called the “Cold War” (I’m grew up during that struggle) – but as the USSR began to crumble, in a bloodless way – it was amazing. As you said about the kingdom advancing, you supposing it is only a deposit, rather biblically it would seem Christ & His apostles were expecting & ushering this “about to be” kingdom during the first-century & then as Christ said, it would grow like a mustard seed, it would increase like a rock into a mountain to fill the earth. (Luke 13:19) We seem to apply a terminus to that growth wherein the Bible speaks of no such end. The kingdom grows & grows eternally, yet outside the gates of the spiritual city (New Jerusalem) shall always be “dogs, whoremongers, liars” & such (Revelation 22:15) It is not so much the quantity of the kingdom but the quality. Look at how people are constantly saying “We have to get back to the N.T. church” – REALLY? Do we want to be like the Corinthian church? Which N.T. church do they want to be like? Paul was constantly writing admonitions to them, why? Because they were babes, they were drinking milk, they were just at the beginning of all this. And so are we relatively speaking. But we should be further along & with retrospect, better able to understand & have a more solid faith. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, some people have turned that faith into a religion or a business even. They have turned it into a social organization with all sorts of officers of which the N.T. never had. The N.T. “officers” – (as shown in Eph 4:11-14), had a specific purpose of “founding” upon the Cornerstone. Of building up the Body into Oneness whereafter this Bride (the Church) would be delivered to the Bridegroom without spot or wrinkle. Why do most non-Catholic/Greek Orth Christians believe there are no more apostles or prophets, yet they inconsistently retain the other 3 offices of the so-called “five-fold ministry” of Eph 4:11? Because, they inconsistently try to have one foot in the first-century & one foot in the eternal age that was “about to come” upon those first-century Christians. It was THEY who were expectant of Christ’s return. It was THEY who were “eagerly awaiting” (Heb 9:28) for the High Priest to emerge from the true Holy of Holies – Heaven.
We are NOT THEM, nor should we try to be them. We are the wed-wife of Christ, We are the REALIZED CHURCH.
For more on this topic, please see:
A Case for Consistent Cessationism
To Endure & Overcome: What the Early Church Expected
www.thekingdomcome.com
Re: Christ has come
Roderick - as to your first point: I didn’t know that I was having difficulty explaining what the kingdom is. I was relating it to that aspect of Isaiah’s vision of the kingdom which was picked up by Jesus in his response to the messengers from John the Baptist - Matthew 11:4-6, bringing together kingdom and Spirit, which also provides the interpretive key to Acts 1 and the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost. In short, the manifestation of the kingdom today is associated with the manifestation of the Spirit in its richly varied forms. Wherever the Spirit is, Jesus expresses his kingly reign - just as Peter proclaimed at Pentecost. (This is why I cannot accept that the kingdom’s primary manifestation was at the downfall of Jerusalem and Rome, as per Andrew’s interpretation. Such an interpretation seems to me to be significantly shifting some key boundary markers).
Continuing with your first point: the ‘full payment yet to come’ is described in the two passages where the Spirit ‘as deposit’ is mentioned. In 2 Corinthians 5:5 it is ‘guaranteeing what is to come’. In Ephesians 1:14, it is a guarantee of an inheritance which will take place at ‘the redemption of those who are God’s possession’. There is a significant future emphasis here - linked with the ‘spirit of adoption’, also linked with the spirit which cries out within us - Romans 7:15, Galatians 4:6, which is also linked with the creation waiting ‘in eager longing for the sons of God to be revealed’ - Romans 8:19. That this is future, and has not already occurred is emphasised by Paul in verse 23 of the same chapter. You in your own way, and Andrew in his, have to explain in what possible historical sense this can be said to have occurred between the time Paul wrote the letters and now, and what possible historical evidence there is for saying that these things have already been fulfilled in history. Apart from the obvious demise of the ‘Judaising’ question within the church, and the removal of Judaistic persecution as an external pressure, it is not clear what historical shifts were made possible or became evident through the downfall of Jerusalem, and the downfall of Rome never ocurred as an event or practical reality - the persecution of Judaism being replaced with a more intense persecution from Rome, which continued, through Diocletian (303 - 305 AD), to the very ‘dawn’ of Constantine’s new world order (312 AD), when the persecution became that of the ‘church’ against its own people (319 AD and onwards) for the next 1500 years and beyond.
I have read your article ‘A case for Consistent Cessationism’, and I have to agree that the CEO model of ‘the pastor’ in today’s megachurch, or any church for that matter, bears little relationship to the gift as described in the NT, either in Ephesians 4, or 1 Peter 5:2, (where all the ‘elders’ were charged to be ‘shepherds’ or ‘pastors’) or anywhere else. I share your aversion to ‘offices’ with titles. The church needs to be given back to the people - but that does not, to me, mean that any role of leadership is ruled out. On the contrary, the ‘equipping’ roles of the ministries of Ephesians 4 are precisely the roles that are needed in the church - where each member is helped to operate in the gift and calling which they have been given. This is also, to me, a very strong argument for asserting that all the gifts of the Spirit are needed today - including gifts such as serving, caring, helping - and all the practical expressions of the Spirit as well as the gifts which are more overtly supernatural in flavour.
Undoubtedly there was something unique about the apostolic gift which was shared by those who had seen Christ, either in his earthly ministry, or following his resurrection (Paul). But Romans 16 shows that the apostolic gift continued beyond this, and ‘apostolic’ is to be defined by function - wherever the gospel is taken to new territory, and territory is broken open for the church to be planted and grow. There is still a need for the prophetic ministry - again, defined by function: where issues are brought to a clear head by the clarity and force of the prophetic: where God breaks through by the activity and expression of the prophetic. The distinction between apostolic and prophetic is partly that the apostle is more of a builder than the prophet - 1 Corinthians 3:10. Wherever the church needs to be planted, the apostolic gift is needed, as well as all the other gifts - Ephesians 4 and the whole spectrum of gifts throughout the NT. Indeed, if we still have the Spirit in our midst, wherever the Spirit works, we find the expression of the gifts. What an odd church it would be if there were no expression of any gifts at all because they had all ceased in the 1st century. It might just as well be dead!
I’m bemused by your position. Once you have taken away everything you have consigned to the 1st century (most of the NT, it seems to me!), I’m hard pressed to see what you are left with. Where is this mature expression of the body of Christ with a fully realised return of Jesus living in the midst? If you can find it, please let me know.
[Comment moved to new thread]
Re: The Realized Church
I am paging through a book right now called, "What has Christianity Ever Done for Us?" It takes a look at the arts, education, arctiecture, the hospitality industry and others and highlights the role that Christianity has played in their development. Which, quite often, has been quite significant. I think that’s an important point.
I don’t think the church is ever supposed to be realized. There is no ideal church, but only a sign, instrument, and foretaste of God’s kingdom. Much of what we see in the world: hospitals, hotels, hostels, public schools, civil rights, human rights, etc. resulted from a devotion to Jesus. Much of these same are now carrying on without any mention of Jesus. It’s a kind of plagarism, I suppose. I don’t think Jesus has any problem with that. God’s kingdom is being realized.
It’s the church’s job to continue pushing the envelope. I don’t think it’s doing a very good job at that anymore. Especially here in America where much of religion is civil rather than…spiritual(?) We’re more apt to celebrate the 4th of July than Easter! The boom of Christianity in other parts of the globe is another story.
In the end, I guess I would say that the church is "realized" when it calls the surrounding culture to be more Christ-like, regardless of whether it’s always Christ-like itself. God works in mysterious ways. So, maybe, the church is realized.