Category Archives: Ecclesiology

The Holy Spirit “in” Apostolic Succession

Posted on by

Latin ecclesiology and authority is really just the institutionalization of the Holy Spirit. A circumscription of the hypostases of God the Holy Spirit, by the raw claim that an ecclesial institution, based on sociological and legal phenomenaā€”and thus a natural theologyā€”have been given the rite to enclosure the Spirit of Liberty for its own self-acclaimed ā€œApostolicā€ purposes. Of course, when the Holy Spirit is contained by such institutionalizing means, He becomes depersonalized, and only an instrumentalized particle by which spiritual authority is presumed upon, by an ad hoc claim to an apostolicity that ostensibly holds the Spirit for its own self-perceived purposes as the one true Church on earth. But this acclamation rings hollow when in fact, the Holy Spirit isn’t allowed to be the third person of the triune God. He is not a ā€˜particleā€™ of an ecclesial machine, but the Spirit of God who blows and hovers where He will. Not my will, but thy will be done, Father.

The 20th Century Swiss Evangelical Church in Concert with the 21st Century North American Evangelical Church

Posted on by

A Church in Basel, Switzerland

As an evangelical (at least thatā€™s my pedigree from birth), here in the 21st century, things have become rather dire, in my opinion, with reference to finding sound so-called ā€œevangelical churches.ā€ This is no abstract thing for me, but an ongoing reality. We have literally been churchless for quite a while now (we watch a home church of ours back in Southern California online every Sunday morning, which isnā€™t ultimately sufficient; as far as real life in-person fellowship etc.) We have tried multitudes of ā€œevangelical churches,ā€ and not to be reductionistic, they are all almost exactly the same. They still have 1990s seeker sensitive programs ongoingā€”with 21st century technologyā€”and/or personality cult driven pastorates that only stay viable until said pastor dies or retires (which such pastors rarely do). But the actuality of Christ is really nowhere to be found; in name only. Bibles are nowhere present, not in the hands of the people (some of that is tech related, but not really, I donā€™t think), and the sermons mostly mimic bad Ted Talks. The worship/music part of it appears to be something more like American Idol tryouts than it does actual leadership to worship of the triune God. Beyond that, and based on a relatively recent poll of evangelicals, most donā€™t even believe that or know if Jesus Christ is fully God. The sound doctrinal body of teaching is lacking to the point that it is non-existent; which then that vacuum only leaves room for bad doctrine. This is a lamentable thing.

And yet the aforementioned, unfortunately, isnā€™t unique to the 21st century evangelicals. Here is Karl Barth discussing his own experience of the ā€œchurchā€ in his early to middle 20th century context in his native Switzerland:

It hardly needs to be said that we are dealing here with a point of view which has been most flagrantly neglected in modern Protestantism since the 18th century. From the visible standpoint our Protestant national Churches are little more than great unions, or communities of interest, of individuals who are Christian or are called Christian, individualists, each of whomā€”like the people of Israel in the time of the Judgesā€”does that which is right in his own eyes, so that although some may act together in particular ecclesiolae [churches] called movements, we cannot inquire too closely what it really is that unites them. Even less can we inquire what these Churches are as a whole, a question which would yield the most gratuitous and to a large extent unconvincing answers. If we will and can and must maintain the form revealed in them, then we can only sigh: Kyrie eleison. Destroying as they do the relationship between the community and its members, they are hopelessly a-catholic Churches, hardly distinguishable, if at all, from heretical sects, or sects which verge on heresy, in the matter which now concerns us.

The most obvious example is the 1911 Constitution of the Evangelical Reformed Church of the City of Basel. It begins with a kind of hymnal introit to which a conscientious exegete could hardly give any but an Arian sense . . ..[1]

What is the common identifiable theme that holds Barthā€™s early to middle Evangelical Reformed church together with the North American evangelical church of today? Embedded in the passage from, where he notes, ā€œIt hardly needs to be said that we are dealing here with a point of view which has been most flagrantly neglected in modern Protestantism since the 18th century. . ..ā€ It is the Enlightenment tentacles, and its anthropology of turn-to-the-subject that has helped to tie the whole modern and postmodern churches together (there are other factors, as well). A spirituality where individualism reigns prime, romanticist feelings cajole the heart-strings, and personal interest sublimates the interests of the living God. Kyrie eleison indeed!

Are there exceptions? Always. In fact, we are looking for an exception currently; so please keep that in prayer if you would. Note: I am not implying or presuming that we are looking for a ā€œperfect church.ā€ Nein. We are simply looking for the church in its local expression. An environ wherein the church is being the Church by genuinely bearing witness to her reality in Jesus Christ and the triune God.

I am remaining charitable in my language throughout this post. The so-called evangelical church has already gone right by the impasse, and she doesnā€™t even realize it. She indeed functions as a series of social clubs with the name of Jesus Christ splattered all over her programs and multimedia presentations. Good intentions, and smiles are not enough to gloss over the tragedy of it all. Only repentance, as if ancient Israel before God, will do. Kyrie eleison.

[1] Karl Barth,Ā Church Dogmatics IV/1 Ā§62 [521ā€“22] The Doctrine of Reconciliation: Study Edition (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 195.

PS. I also work on call 24/7 which makes “church shopping” that much more difficult. But I know we will eventually find something.

The Primacy of Christ: Ecclesiology and Protology

Posted on by

Some brief interactions Iā€™ve recently had on X with reference to a question on the relationship between Christ and creation, and another question on how I view the institutional church on earth. These questions were posed by two different interlocutors. The one on the institutional church has some further interaction behind it that I wonā€™t share here. Interestingly these two loci are not unrelated; i.e., a doctrine of creation and an ecclesiology. A genuine Christian dogmatics sees the taxis, the order and interrelationships that all inhere and cohere in and through, we might say, their Archimedean and primordial point in Jesus Christ; who is the triune God for the world in his being in becoming, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in whose works are indivisible from his reality as God.

Interlocutor 1. Trying to understand what you’ve written here… Are you saying that no institutional church exists on earth?

My response. No, Iā€™m saying that the institutional church on earth only becomes that by her active union with Christ; who in fact, in his Theanthropic person, in His vicarious humanity for the world, is in fact constituently, in himself, the institutional churchā€”ā€œfor as He is so also are we in this world.ā€ 1 Jn 4.17

Addendum: Christoph Schwƶbel, writes, with reference to Barthā€™s conception of the visible and invisible church (and this is what my thinking reflects as well):

For Barth, the visible Church is also an article of faith. The church is believed both as invisible and visible Church. ā€œVisibleā€ and ā€œinvisibleā€ are not two species of the same genus, he emphasizes, but one and the same subject in two respects. In order to explain the dialectic, Barth points to a parallel in his doctrine of the Word of God. Just as Godā€™s revelation is the Word becoming flesh in Christ, this Word becoming Scripture and Scripture becoming a human word in proclamation, so the invisible Church is where the visible Church is. However, the visible church can never by itself be an object of faith; the visible Church belongs to faith as pointing to its ground in God. By itself, it is a creature in which one cannot believe, because one can only believe in the creator. Everything else is idolatry. Therefore Barth can say: ā€œOne believes in God when one believes in the visibility of the Church that falls from above into historyā€”because that is He, that is His work of reconciliationā€”just as an individual human person believes in God by believing in the grace falling from above into his boundless unholiness.ā€ Believing in the Church means to believe in God as God creates, preserves, and perfects the Church. For Barth it is therefore clear that the visible church witnesses to the invisible church and in doing so witnesses to God as the only object of faith: ā€œThe glory of the church is to give all glory to God.ā€[1]

Interlocutor 2. Does Christocentrism deepen the reality of created, historical existence, or does it end up quietly dissolving it into something more like a single, seamless divine act?

My response. There are many versions of ā€œchristocentrismā€ out there. The one I follow sees Jesus as the whole reason for creation (see Col. 1.15 and the primacy of Christ therein). Also, following Barth, the external creation is really just the inner relation of Godā€™s covenanted life of triune grace, given expression as the effulgence of who He has freely chosen to be for and with us in Jesus Christ. So, yes, contra a torpid pantheism, or panentheism, the created reality, in the account I follow, is charged with Godā€™s triune being in becoming for us in Jesus Christ. Which would entail that He is closer to us and all of creation than we are to ourselves. David Fergusson rightly opines: ā€œthe world was made so that Christ might be born.ā€

As usual my own thoughts, idiosyncratic as they are, are indeed mine. They require greater clarification and ā€œfleshingā€ out than my off the top responses have rendered. But that does not mean that type of work or thought hasnā€™t or cannot be done. Time and space restraints are always a factor when engaging in a communicative act. In other words, I recognize my responses require further explication, but since they are brief responses intended for social media consumption, they will remain as currently stands. That isnā€™t to say I am not willing to hash things out further; or that Iā€™m not open to further interrogation. It just means that these responses represent a running commentary on where I am at myself in the developments of my own thinking on these matters.

Interior rerum creatarum natura in foedere gratiae trina est.

[1] Christoph Schwƶbel, ā€œā€™The Kingdom of Christ Now Present in Mystery,ā€™ and the Question of the ā€˜Distance between Christ as Lord, King, and Judge and His Church,ā€™ā€ edited by Matthew Levering, Bruce L. McCormack and Thomas Joseph White, OP,Ā Dogma and Ecumenism: Vatican II and Karl Barthā€™s Ad Limina ApostolorumĀ (Washington D.C., The Catholic University of America Press, 2020), 104-05.

On the Novices Mixed Up With Digital Theology

Posted on by

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to theĀ office ofĀ overseer, it is a fine work he desiresĀ to do.Ā 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach,Ā the husband of one wife,Ā temperate, prudent, respectable,Ā hospitable,Ā able to teach,Ā 3Ā not addicted to wineĀ or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable,Ā free from the love of money.Ā 4Ā He must beĀ one whoĀ manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignityĀ 5Ā (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care ofĀ the church of God?),Ā 6Ā andĀ not a new convert, so that he will not becomeĀ conceited and fall into theĀ condemnationĀ incurred by the devil.Ā 7Ā And he mustĀ have a good reputation withĀ those outsideĀ the church, so that he will not fall into reproach andĀ the snare of the devil. I Timothy 3:1ā€“7

ā€˜. . . and not a new convert. . ..ā€™ This reference has nothing to do with biological age, but spiritual age. Young Timothy was biologically young, but spiritually mature nonetheless. Even so, Timothy is something of a spiritual prodigy in certain ways, and wouldnā€™t necessarily constitute the rule, but more of an exception. To be spiritually mature typically requires time. The Apostle Paul himself spent years of time growing and spiritually maturing before he presented himself before the Apostles in Jerusalem. As such, as a general rule, I think it is safe to note that getting beyond the ā€˜noviceā€™ label, the baby Christian stage and into adulthood from there, is a condition for being an elder and/or more generally a teacher in the church of Jesus Christ.

Even so, the learning curve is different for everyone; and only the Lord can ultimately confirm or deny those He would place in the role of an elder or even teacher in His church. The church itself is left with the task of discernment; and this itself is not an abstract action, but one in full dependence on the same Holy Spirit who raises up and puts down the would-be leaders in the church. Clearly, the ā€˜Pastoral epistlesā€™ go on and give lists of attributes that ought to be present in those men who are recognized as elders in and for the church; and these attributes can generally be extrapolated out to any teachers in the church (men or women).

Yet, enter the digital online ā€˜Christianā€™ world. There are novices galore. They have no recognized training, and even if they do, they have anonymity to do as they will (even when using their real names). These novices are easy to spot; they foment division among the brethren and sistren; they engage in sectarian ways that elevate adiaphora to levels of essential and thus required doctrines in order for there to be unity among the churches in the Church. And in this elevation, they spread the yeast of disunity among the saints. A chaotic mood that comes from a sense of vaingloriousness that the would-be teacher (who in fact turns out to be a novice) moves and breathes in and from in all of his/her activities as ā€œtheological educators.ā€ In the end, such novices donā€™t foster the unity already referred to, but an us versus them attitude that punctures the unifying ground that all Christians share in the singular person of Jesus Christ; the Churchā€™s concrete esse (being) and res (reality).

Conversely, the aforementioned ought to evoke a sense of sobriety and seriousness as any of us attempt to ā€œteachā€ others the Word of God; particularly as that is undertaken online. Whether that be through written or audible media. There ought to be the realization that when we portend to bear witness to Christ in ā€˜authoritativeā€™ ways, when we set ourselves up as teachers, that we will entail a ā€˜stricter judgmentā€™ in the End. And to me, what this means is that what the would-be theologians and Bible teachers ought to strive for is to ā€˜rightly divide the Word of God, which is truth.ā€™ Further, what this ought to entail is that the teacher does their due diligence in constantly learning; learning from the teachers and doctors and evangelists that Christ has provided His Church with; for purposes of her edification. This requires that the theologian, the Christian in general, operates from a humble, teachable spirit. Clearly, given the eschatological nature of theology and theological knowledge, in regard to theologia nostra (ā€˜our theologyā€™), none of us will ever ā€œarriveā€ this side of the Eschaton. We all, inclusive of the teachers, elders, evangelists et al. see the reality as if looking at a puzzle; with greater vantages of clarity or lesser, as the case may be. If internalized in an unhealthy way, this might cause a paralysis; it might cause the teacher to wonder how they can speak God at all. And so, we walk humbly before our God in Christ.

Doing ministry, especially teaching ministry, ought to be a sobering thing. But when we enter places like Twitter, and other like online forums where professing Christians congregate, the exact opposite of sobriety is on display. What dominates such spaces is the novice way. And thus, as the Apostle Paul warned Timothy, there are many operating in the ensnarement of the devil himself. This ensnarement cultivates an atmosphere deoxygenated by the spirit of antiChrist. A wisdom from below rather than above, and as such, all that is demoniac and topsy-turvy becomes the prevailing marker of the ostensible discourse. In fact, it isnā€™t a coherent discourse that obtains under such pressures, but a baby-like gibberish and drooling, that ultimately calls for a naptime; and beyond, some requisite discipline that disallows or discounts what is being gibbered until some level of coherent and sober speech that actually bears witness to the risen Christ and triune God can be produced.

Kyrie eleison

On Being a Theologian In and For the Church

Posted on by

There is no necessary disjunction between being a so-called academic theologian and a pastor (evangelist, whatever). In fact, for me I donā€™t really recognize the academic casting. Surely, there are academic theologians (for whom the doing of theology can be purely reduced down to an intellectualist ejaculation). But that makes no sense to me, categorically. I have ā€œbecome a theologianā€ not for intellectual reasons, per se, but doxological ones. Being a worshipper of the triune God entails the whole life, the whole being of a person. As such, at least in my disposition, ā€œbeing academicā€ can never eclipse being a worshipper (and witnesser) of the triune God in Christ. It is an organic unfolding, at least for me, of how best worshipping God gets expressed; through inhabiting Scripture, and all of its entailments. And this includes, right at the center, being studiosis. Muslims refer to Christians as people of the Book, and this for a reason.

The Mediatrix Between the World and Jesus, The Blessed Virgin Mary

Posted on by

The mediatrix theory of the Virgin Mary being a co-mediator with Jesus between God and humanity (i.e., Maryā†’Jesusā†’Father) has a very early pedigree in the Latin or Western Catholic church. Jaroslav Pelikan makes clear that someone like Thomas Ć  Kempis (1380ā€“1471), a middle medieval Catholic mystic, became a popularizer of the Marian mediatrix theory. He wrote and spoke in ways that had appeal to the masses. As Protestant Christians we shirk, we shrink back at such thinking, in regard to the Mariocentrism present within the Catholic mind; as we should (biblically). Even so, it remains the case that within Catholicism the cult of Mariology remains a radically present reality for the Churchā€™s faithful. Pelikan writes,

The absolute necessity for a qualitative distinction between Christ and Mary served as a restraint on a tendency that had already become visible in the attribution to her of the title ā€œmediatrix,ā€ which during this period found an eloquent spokesman in Thomas Ć  Kempis. He called Mary ā€œthe expiator of all the sins I have committedā€ and ā€œmy only hopeā€; it was through her mediation that all mercy was granted, and through her intercession that all prayers were heard. Although Christ in his final hours of need had not sought her solace, mortals were to do so. Therefore, he said, ā€œdo not seek only Jesus,ā€ but ā€œJesus at your right hand and Mary at your left.ā€ Various titles, prerogatives, functions, and scriptural passages that had originally belonged to Christ were now by extension being ā€œtransferredā€ to Mary. One of the most important proof texts in the early debates over the Trinity had been Proverbs 8:22ā€“31, who designation of personified Wisdom as supreme among Godā€™s creatures had been a crux for orthodox doctrine; but now this passage was a reference to Mary, who was the crown of creation. Transposing the words of John 3:16, a thirteenth-century theologian could say: ā€œMary so loved the world, that is, sinners, that she gave her only Son for the salvation of the world.ā€ The words of Matthew 20:28 about Christā€™s giving his life for the redemption of many pertained also to Mary as, for that matter, christological proof texts such as Philippians 2:5ā€“11, Hebrews 1:1ā€“2, and even Matthew 11:27, pertained to Francis.

Nor was it only the function of Christ that Mary took over, but after his ascension into heaven ā€œthe Virgin remains on earth, and, together with the Holy Spirit as Comforter and Teacher, she herself becomes the comforter and teacher of the disciples.ā€ She had been the teacher of Joseph about the details of the incarnation; and at the crucifixion, when all the disciples wavered in their faith, she alone had been ā€œthe total church and the total faith of the Christian church.ā€[1]

The Protestant might wonder how anyone could ever arrive at this type of Mariological doctrina. This has to do with a theory of authority and ecclesiology. Catholics, of course, maintain that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true and visible body of Christ on earth, and the Pope as her vicar. Obversely, as Protestants, it is maintained that Christ alone, along with his incarnate and glorified body, has taken His bride, His Church with Him to the right hand of the Father. The Catholic maintains, in keeping with their notion that the Catholic church is the prolongation of the incarnation on earth, that the Church receives supplemental revelation as that is provided for by the Popeā€™s ex cathedra representation of Christ (and Mary, for that matter) on earth. And so, Scripture is not the only or primary source of authority for the development of Catholic doctrine. Contrariwise, since the Protestant maintains that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father, along with His body, the Church, it is the case that Holy Scripture becomes the primary witness or attestation for the Churchā€™s reality as it instrumentally serves as the ordained spectacles by which the Holy Church encounters her authority and head in Jesus Christ (viz. in a radical theology of the Word).

There are other developments that have led to the Mariology of the Roman Catholic church (and more recent). But the primary vector that allows for it is the space the Papacy provides for the ā€˜development of doctrineā€™ (that goes beyond Scripture, which the Catholic might soften by saying: ā€˜in a supplemental wayā€™). Mary for the Catholic mediates for the sinner between herself and Christ (the judge), and the Christ for us before the Father. For the Catholic, Mary becomes the lynchpin between heaven and earth, as Pelikan so perceptively noticed for us. The centraldogma, it could be said, for the Roman Catholic church, is the primacy of Mary rather than the primacy of Christ. Is this to overstate things? I donā€™t really think so.

5Ā ForĀ there isĀ one God andĀ one Mediator between God and men,Ā theĀ Man Christ Jesus,Ā 6Ā who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,Ā 7Ā for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostleā€”I am speaking the truthĀ in ChristĀ andĀ not lyingā€”a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. ā€“1 Timothy 2:5ā€“7

[1] Jaroslav Pelikan,Ā The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300ā€”1700), Volume 4Ā (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1977), 40.

The Church as Prolongation of the Incarnation or as Witnesser: The Catholics and Protestants

Posted on by

Ecclesiology for people in the churches is an underdeveloped, and even undeveloped teaching for most. Unless a Christian person is self-motivated to pursue study of this important doctrine they will most likely live their Christian existence within the darkness of absence (of teaching). I think this, in fact, has a lot to do with many so-called Protestant Christians swimming the shallow end of the Tiber River; i.e., to become members of the Roman Catholic church. In nuce, Roman Catholic ecclesiology entails the notion that the Roman church itself prolongates the incarnation of Jesus Christ. That is to say, that the Roman ecclesia, for proponents of Roman Catholic theology, believe that its church is the visible embodiment of Jesus Christ Himself; thus, their reference to the mystici corporis Christi (ā€˜mystical body of Christā€™). Here is a snippet of a longer encyclical that Pope Pius XII wrote for the Catholic church with reference to understanding just what the Roman Catholic understanding of the Church is:

But if our Savior, by His death, became, in the full and complete sense of the word, the Head of the Church, it was likewise through His blood that the Church was enriched with the fullest communication of the Holy Spirit, through which, from the time when the Son of Man was lifted up and glorified on the Cross by His sufferings, she is divinely illumined. For then, as Augustine notes, [39] with the rending of the veil of the temple it happened that the dew of the Paraclete’s gifts, which heretofore had descended only on the fleece, that is on the people of Israel, fell copiously and abundantly (while the fleece remained dry and deserted) on the whole earth, that is on the Catholic Church, which is confined by no boundaries of race or territory. Just as at the first moment of the Incarnation the Son of the Eternal Father adorned with the fullness of the Holy Spirit the human nature which was substantially united to Him, that it might be a fitting instrument of the Divinity in the sanguinary work of the Redemption, so at the hour of His precious death He willed that His Church should be enriched with the abundant gifts of the Paraclete in order that in dispensing the divine fruits of the Redemption she might be, for the Incarnate Word, a powerful instrument that would never fail. For both the juridical mission of the Church, and the power to teach, govern and administer the Sacraments, derive their supernatural efficacy and force for the building up of the Body of Christ from the fact that Jesus Christ, hanging on the Cross, opened up to His Church the fountain of those divine gifts, which prevent her from ever teaching false doctrine and enable her to rule them for the salvation of their souls through divinely enlightened pastors and to bestow on them an abundance of heavenly graces.[1]

The Roman Catholic church maintains, as indicated by Pope Pius XII, that the Holy Spirit, as the enlivener and Creator of the Church has so mystically tied Himself into the visible manifestation of the Roman See, along with all of her sacraments, hierarchy of pastors, so on and so forth, that the only ā€˜placeā€™ union with God in Christ can obtain is if someone is brought into union with the mystical body of Jesus Christ; or, in the Roman view, with the Roman Catholic church herself. This union is supervened by the bishops and priests of the Catholic church, not least of which, is the Pope himself. Once inducted and confirmed into the Catholic church, through baptism and partaking in the Mass of the sacraments, it is at this time that the Catholic convert becomes a ā€˜feederā€™ on and mystical participant within the visible body of Christ on earth; or the Roman Catholic church. In this sense, and per Pius XIIā€™s aforementioned words, there is a real sense wherein the Roman ecclesiology, with its insistent assertion on their status as the visible body of Christ on earth, that the Church itself becomes a prolongation of the incarnation. That is, for the Roman, the Church has become and is so entwined with the notion that Roma is now the apple of Godā€™s eye, that she alone is Godā€™s visible body on earth; that in order for communion with God to obtain for humanity, would-be Christians must come into, again, union with the mystical body of Christ; which is none other, according to Roman doctrine, but the Latin Catholic church.

Protestants, on the other hand, rooted in a radical theology of the Word of God, maintain that the body of Christ is fully present within the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ; indeed, even as Christ has resurrected with that body, ascended with that body, intercedes in priestly session at the right hand of the Father with that body, and will come again with that body; His glorified body. For the Protestant, thusly, there is no prolongation of the incarnation of Christ as a mystical body of Christ, but rather its concrete existence in the flesh and blood of Imannuelā€™s veins as He has freely elected to be for us, with us, and not God without us in Jesus Christ.

Hence, Protestants are not burdened with the notion that we must present some type of mystical body of Christ to each other and the world writ large, as if that body is constituted by a physical address in Vatican City, Italy. On the contrary, Protestants understand that the esse of the Church is constituted by the literal body of Christ Himself for us. Resultantly, the Protestant doesnā€™t seek to point a would-be or already Christians to a particular iteration or expression of the Church in the world as the Roman does. The Protestant understands that their respective Christian existence is constituted, indeed by the Holy Spirit, by way of union with Christ immediately, directly. The Protestant bears witness to the finished work of God in Christ as the reality (res) of the Church in the triune God. Karl Barth writes on this status of the Protestant Christian similarly,

. . . Their existence in the world depends upon the fact that this alone is their particular gift and task. They have not to assist or add to the being and work of their living Saviour who is the Lord of the world, let alone to replace it by their own work. The community is not a prolongation of His incarnation, His death, and resurrection, the acts of God and their revelation. It has not to do these things. It has to witness to them. It is its consolation that it can do this. Its marching-orders are to do it.[2]

Barth rightly notes that the work of the Church is absolutely finished in the work of Jesus Christ. It is His work of salvation, of building His Church, that He has already accomplished; the Churchā€™s task, by the Spirit, is to bear witness to this, her reality, in her Head and reality, Jesus Christ. The Roman church, alternatively, believes that it constitutes itself by re-presenting the Mass, the death of Jesus Christ, through the primary sacraments of baptism and the eucharist. There remains an unfinished work within the Catholic ecclesiology which makes the prolongation of the incarnation of Jesus Christ the most organic outcome. That is, because their remains a proving ground, so to speak, of the Christianā€™s worth to inherit eternal life through the treasuries of Christā€™s merits, over and beyond the work of Christā€™s atonement. And so, for the Catholic Christian, the Mass and its sacraments remain the portal whereby salvation might be constantly offered, affirmed, reaffirmed, over and again, as the Christian seeks to establish a level of sanctification whereby they are found worthy enough to in fact become real and ultimate participants within the mystical body of Christ. If the Church, as it is for the Roman, is a prolongation of the incarnation, then the incarnation, logically, requires further re-establishment and curation by the faithful; if in fact, the body of Christ can be shown to be the true body of Christ in the world today.

This requires further fleshing out. But hopefully there has been enough provided for the reader to start to digest.

[1] Pope Pius XII, MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI: ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON THE MISTICAL BODY OF CHRIST TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN, PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE, published by, The Holy See, accessed 05-05-2026.

[2] Karl Barth,Ā Church Dogmatics IV/1 Ā§59 [318] The Doctrine of Reconciliation:Ā Study Edition (London:T&T Clark, 2010), 312.

On Ryan Hurd’s Babylonian Captivity

Posted on by

Iā€™ve ā€œknownā€ Ryan Hurd for many years now; through online engagements and personal correspondences. Iā€™ve only known Hurd in his classical Reformed context as that has taken place during his time at New Saint Andrews College, and then as he has been an instructor for Davenant Hall. My last correspondence with him was quite a few years ago; he and I were discussing his entrance into the PhD program in theology at the University of Kampen (he was just getting started then). There was no indication that he was wrestling with the types of ecclesiological matters that have now finally bubbled up in his recent announcement. In case you donā€™t follow online theological matters closely, Ryan just wrote a post for his Substack that announced his (and his wifeā€™s) movement into Roman Catholicism. If you donā€™t know of Ryan his primary theological interlocutor over the years has been the ā€˜Angelic Doctor,ā€™ Thomas Aquinas. Indeed, it was this hook that finally captured Hurdā€™s total intellectual and spiritual development. I have always contended that if youā€™re going to be a Thomist (follower of Thomas Aquinas), then for consistencyā€™s sake you ought to be a Tridentine Roman Catholic (a Catholic after the Council of Trent). Ryan clearly arrived at that same conclusion. Here is a piece of what he wrote for his Substack announcement:

This occurred in my case. And here is where we findĀ theĀ reasonĀ for me becoming Catholic. Of course, there are always many reasons for a thing like this, a whole host and all very different. Actually, it is my impression that people often cannot point to reallyĀ a singleĀ reason within the mass of them; but in my particular case, I can do so easily.Ā TheĀ reason, for me, is precisely what initially determined me to the Catholic part on these contradictions. The name of that reason is Thomas Aquinas, and particularly his auctoritas.

Auctoritas is a condition of a person comprising both his knowledge in a science, as well as his moral goodness. The former is how you know that he is not deceived; and the latter is how you know that he does not deceive when he testifies as to which part is true. When such a person does testify, you assent to that part merely on account of that personā€™s condition (propter auctoritatem)–and then you proceed from there.

Over time, it happened that Thomasā€™s auctoritas became supreme in my intellectual experience. Obviously, it is not supreme absolutely speakingā€“Thomas would be the first person to tell you that. But it is so in myĀ experienceā€“especially as I have undergone the confirming process of (1) assenting initially merely because Thomas said so; (2) eventually found rationes; and then (3) locked the proposition down in a demonstration and achieved scientia. All throughout this, my learning process, I have never found Thomas wanting, not even close. He has never steered me wrong. And over time, my intellect has become habituated to proceed about contradictions in precisely this mode (I have articulated this elsewhere as simplyĀ what it means to be a Thomist).

As I became intellectually obliged to follow Thomas wherever he leads me, so withholding my assent became intellectually unjustifiedā€“even regarding those contradictions where, initially, I had no reasons for the Catholic part, or even my remaining Protestant doubts. Remarkably, I became obliged to conclude Catholicism, merely because Thomas had told me to do so. And in the end, I listened.[1]

Why have I maintained that to be a Thomist most organically leads to being a Tridentine Catholic? Primarily because of the hierarchical chain-of-being and theory of causation present with Thomasā€™ appropriation of the Aristotelian categories and causation. Steven Ozment writes,

The assumption that real relations existed between God, man, and the world made possible Aquinasā€™s confidence inĀ a posterioriĀ proofs of Godā€™s existence; finite effects led necessarily to their origin, because they were really connected with it. The same assumption underlay Aquinasā€™s distinctive views on the ā€œanalogicalā€ character of human knowledge and discourse about God. According to Aquinas, one could speak meaningfully of oneā€™s relationship to God by analogy with oneā€™s relationship with oneā€™s fellow man because a real relationship existed between the values of people shared and those God had prescribed.[2]

It is this theory of real hierarchical relations finding their causal and actual force from the Unmoved Mover, God, that in my view entails an ecclesiological theory wherein the Catholic church fits best. Why? Because it makes sense that if there is One God, One primary cause, that in a chain-of-being movement from highest to lowest, that within that chain there be one Church, one people of God. And on analogy even within the structural framework of the said Church, there be a hierarchy of one (like the Pope represents) that works its way down into diffuse levels of leadership out into the various priests, so on and so forth. Indeed, just as in Thomasā€™ theory, he sees the angels with a similar hierarchical structure within the angelic structure itself. And again, this all starts with the actus purus (pure act) or Pure Being of the singular God.

Does this mean that the hierarchical theory of Godā€™s being in action must necessarily lead to the Roman Episcopy? No. But the most organic iteration of it, I would argue, given the Dominicanā€™s ecclesial space for reasoning, is in fact the Roman Catholic church. And of course, this is why the Nominalists and the via moderna posed such a problem for the prelates within the Roman city. For sure, as the nominalists maintained, there were no real or necessary relations between God and the world. If the ā€˜modernsā€™ were right about this we can see how the authority of the Roman church could easily be called into question. If God merely related to the world through covenants and ad hoc words (think of the potentia theology), then the centrality and the necessity for the Roman church to mediate God to the world, could not theologically make an argument for the authority of the papacy. But then this is why I think that to be an ecclesiological Thomist is to be Roman Catholic. Aquinas constructed his theory by deployment of and synthesis with the Aristotelian categories toward buttressing the authority and reality of the Holy Communion of Roma in view. Even if early on his theology wasnā€™t as enthusiastically endorsed as it finally became post and contemporaneous with Trent.

To draw this back in: Hurd, as I have briefly sketched, I think, is being consistent with the aims of Thomasā€™ ecclesiology and its coherence with the Roman ecclesiology and theory of church government and authority therefrom. There was once another Reformed fellow, in his case, a Presbyterian, named Jason Stellman; he too, within his Presbyterian (Aristotelian) theological commitments arrived at the same conclusion as Ryan Hurd. As a result, he also swam the river Tiber. Surely, there are many former Reformed folk who have made this move. And I would argue for similar reasons to Hurdā€™s. Ultimately, I have greater respect for people like Hurd who see that the pressure of Thomasā€™ thinking, if held consistently, ought to lead all of his adherents to Vatican City, Italy. Of course, there are better ways to be genuinely Protestant. And so, I would invite Hurd et al. to abandon Thomasā€™ project altogether and recognize what it truly means to be a biblical Christian. There are theological, dogmatic ways for doing that; and ways that do not require a sacrificium intellectus. But alas, that was never Hurdā€™s way to begin with; that is, to be Protestant.

[1] Ryan M. Hurd, Why Iā€™ve Become Roman Catholic, accessed 04-10-2026.

[2] Steven Ozment,Ā The Age of Reform 1250ā€“1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation EuropeĀ (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980),Ā 49.

On the Fructification of the Church: The Church of the Theologians of the Word

Posted on by

Barau, Emile; The Village Church

Barth is opining on the place that each Christian has within the Christian community, even as individual members in it. This gets him into a discussion on the role that theology, the Word of God, the teachers and the listeners each have, respectively, within the Church. In a way, I think the following passage, abridged as it is, represents the core of Barthā€™s heart, as that has been and is being expressed throughout the writing of the Church Dogmatics. And for that reason, I felt compelled to share some of this section with the readers, who will.

. . . At every place and timeā€”and this is basic to all elseā€”it must be a life in knowledge, a life with and under and from and in the Word by which it is commissioned. It may be noted that as such it cannot satisfy itself, nor can it try to be an end in itself. As the edification of the community generally is not an end in itself but edification with a view to external service, so it is not an end in itself in its basic character as edification by and in the Word, as theological edification. Its ministry of the Word has an external goal; it does not seek only a fundamentally egoistic enjoyment of the Word. For the sake of this external ministry, however, however, there must be an internal. Hence the assemblies of the community are assemblies for the proclamation of the Lord and His kingdom as this is to be continually heard afresh by Christians themselves. The worship of the community in all its conceivable forms implies a reestablishment of the community by a new and common perception of the kingdom. Since this is a common perception, the human service to be rendered therewith must be understood and put into effect as a joint responsibility in this matter. We should never lose the sense, however, that this is only a quid pro quo, a practical makeshift. The division of the community into a teaching and a listening Church must never be accepted in principle. In principle the inner edification of the community in this concrete sense, i.e., as theology, is a matter for every Christian. What is at stake is not theology in its erudite technicalities but in its essence and spiritual function, i.e., reflection, orientated on and inspired and guided by the prophetic and apostolic testimony concerning the mystery of Jesus Christ, the reality of the kingdom as it has appeared in Him, and the bearing of this event for the men of all nations, tongues and times; in other words, investigation of the original meaning and the present significance of this event.

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā  To participate in this, and therefore to accompany even the work of erudite theology in the stricter sense, is the task of the community and therefore of each individual member. . ..[1]

I had planned on sharing more of the second paragraph, but it is another page and a half of meaty prose that might end up off-putting some of my readers (because of length). The above should suffice in regard to grasping the gist, the spirit of Barthā€™s heart for the Church. He sees everyone, respectively, as both the listeners and teachers; even if the latter, might rest on some more than others (by calling etc.) Even so, as the last clause indicates, for Barth, every Christian has a duty, a responsibility to be involved in the acquisition and communication and proclamation of the ā€˜erudite theologyā€™ that we have all become participant in, as those in participation in and with God in Jesus Christ, the man from Nazareth. So, for Barth, indeed as the Christian is by definition in participation with the triune life, she has been given to both an external and internal service; as if a centripetal-centrifugal dialectal movement is inhering within the body itself. For sure, as the Church is being fructified by the umbilical cord of the Holy Spirit into the bosom of the Father, where the Son is seated at the Right Hand always living to make intercession for us. It is the Christ, for Barth, who ultimately is the inner reality of the Church, even whilst those adopted, are the external expression whereby He proclaims Himself, through the Churchā€™s lips; first for herself and upbuilding, and in the overflow of this exuberant worship, to the world. Barth is contending that the Church operates as a correspondence of Christā€™s faith for us; as a correspondence of His intercessory work for us, for the world, the us for whom Christ died. Amen.

[1] Karl Barth,Ā Church Dogmatics III/4 Ā§55 [498-99] The Doctrine of Creation: Study EditionĀ (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 168ā€“69.

A Catholic Ripping of the Protestant church / A Protestant Riposting to the Catholic churched

Posted on by

The following is from an X/Twitter account that identifies herself as THE Based Trinityā„¢. She is clearly a Roman Catholic, of the Latin Mass proclivity. And she was recently, or at some point, invited to a Protestant church service. Below I will provide her response to that experience, and then below that I will respectively present my response to her as I offered that on X.

I got invited to a Protestant ā€œservice.ā€ Hereā€™s how it all went down. The intro alone was 40 minutes of the ā€œworshipā€ band finding the resonant frequency of all my internal organs, making me queasy, with the zombies around me waving their hands in the air like they didnā€™t care (about actual scripture). This was followed by guilt tripping tithes and forced socialization, boomer women screaming commands at God to HEEEAAAHHHL IN JESUS NAME some specific congregants, a hot mess of a sermon with the theme of ā€œdonā€™t complainā€, usurping parts of St. Paulā€™s epistles before boldly declaring ā€œif youā€™re born again, ALL YOUR SINS ARE FORGIVEN!ā€, heaps of vain repetition (pastor making the congregation repeat every 6th or so line he calls out), and the good ole ā€œaltar callā€ where people go kneel before the worship band (prots like to call that idol worship when we do it). Not to mention the fact that I was repeatedly ambushed by everyone forcefully introducing theirselves – even when I was very obviously trying to maintain my sanity by quietly reading my Catholic Press prayer book. One lady tried shoving a visitor contact card in my face while I was doing so, and gave me this appalled dirty look when I politely declined. Iā€™d gone to the 8am Mass beforehand, prayed my usual pre-Mass rosary, then prayed an extra rosary afterward.. but when I came out of that dentistā€™s office ā€œchurchā€ I was ready to go to the noon Mass. I felt dirty and hollow and it broke my brain and my heart that while I was in there, everyone was lapping up the emotionally charged nonsense and waving their hands and muttering those ā€œyes Jesus thank you Jesus Aaaaaymenā€ vain Protestant repetitions. Nothing has ever made me want to run back to my car and gun it to a TLM more than what I endured today. Of course, there was plenty of irony woven into the sermon. It pains me to see so many well meaning people who are so dangerously misled. Pray for them. We have to.

And my response:

As an evangelical Iā€™d say this is an apt description of many evangelical church services in North America (although, ā€œaltar call?ā€ if only most churches still did those). But yes, in my view, the evangelical churches have almost totally gone to seed; quite badly in fact. Even so, this does not necessarily entail that the Roman Catholics are the only or recommended alternative. It has its own problemsā€”many in fact. What this does mean though, I think, is that evangelicalism shouldnā€™t be left on life support any longer by those of us who can feel this galā€™s angst and emptiness, just the same. I donā€™t know what the way forward is for the evangelical churches (in name only). A return to simplicity and a Word focusedness is the only way I can really imagine. The Word for the Protestant, and the American evangelical as an ostensible subset, must shape the Protestant worship service; it must shape the body life of the church; it must be disentangled from this or that period of theological development and allow to stand on its own, within the history of its interpretation. Protestants, de jure, have a much surer way to offer than do the accretions found in Romanism. There is hope for the Protestant, a balm of Gilead available; and it must resound and find its ground in a theology of the Word of God alone as the esse of all that is real, and breathing and life giving. But I can resonate with this Catholic galā€™s conclusion, in regard to the vanity of the evangelical churches. Itā€™s just her antidote that is aloof.