Category Archives: Ecclesiology

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

Posted on by
2

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.

The Lombard, An Origenist Analogy On the Church Catholic the Church Protestant

Posted on by

Peter Lombard (ca. 1095-1160), bishop of Paris. Lombard taught theology at the school of Notre Dame and his text Four Books of Sentences was the key theology text of the Middle Ages. (Photo by Ā© CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)

I was just pondering how all of us Protestants (Reformed, Lutheran, evangelicals et al.) are still members of the Latin/Western church (normally understood to be the Catholic church). As Providence would have it, as Iā€™m reading Book 4 of Lombardā€™s Sentences (in my quest to become a mediaeval doctor of the Church), I came across the following citation from Lombard on and from Origen:

ORIGEN, ON LEVITICUS. And so those whom the Churchā€™s sentence strikes and wounds according to what they deserve are outside also before God. Whoever did not deserve it, is wounded by the Churchā€™s sentence, unless he holds it in contempt. Hence Origen: ā€œOne has gone out from truth, from faith, from charity: on this account, he goes out of the encampments of the Church, even if he is not cast out by the bishopā€™s voice. Likewise, on the contrary, another is sent outside by a judgement which is not right, but if he did not do anything to deserve to go out, he suffers no wound. And so, at times, one who is sent outside is within; and one who is outside, appears to be kept within.ā€ (Lombard, Sentences, 4.18.7 (103).3)

In context this is referring to the binding and loosing power that the Catholic church believes priests have, in regard to forgiveness and confession of sins. But on analogy, it could also be observed, in principle, that there remains this type of ā€œoutside/withinā€ dynamic even within the broader catholic Western church (and beyond). Of course, how this outside/within dynamic is affirmed, perspectivally, will determine who the outside and within are. From a historical perspective it would be the Catholic church within which the Protestant church, while outside, is still within in certain important ways. Indeed, in the way Luther had originally intended: to be a reformer from within rather than outside the church. Hence, Exsurge Domine notwithstanding, I would argue, de jure, the Protestants are still within even while outside.

My Exchange with an ‘Orthobro’: Addressing the spirit of Sectarianism

Posted on by

I just recently had an exchange on X with a type of guy who is often referred to as an ā€œOrthobro,ā€ short for ā€œOrthodox brother,ā€ but with a ā€œdudeā€ edge. I am not going to use his name, which to his credit he actually uses his (real name) on X. But he is a recent convert from Anglicanism (as an ordinand for the ministry) to the Eastern Orthodox church (where he will be soon, apparently, also an ordinand). As you will notice, only by inference, I would suggest that he is still in the so-called ā€œcage-stage.ā€ Often this terminology is applied to guys who become ā€œCalvinists.ā€ It is that novelty stage where everything is new; where youā€™ve finally taken the plunge into a whole new world where everything is shiny and sparkly; and you think everyone else, besides you, and your newfound faith, is wrong. I would say my interlocutor easily fits within those parameters.

So, what I am going to do is simply string all of my responses to my interlocutor together, and allow you to infer what it is that I am probably responding to; with reference to his comments to me. I will share a comment from him that will serve as a nice synopsizing frame, which in spirit, typifies the gist of most of the exchange from his end. I will also note here at the outset that what sparked the whole exchange is that I reposted his original post, made on his timeline, where he was noting his conversion to the ā€œonly true and Apostolic Church on the earth.ā€ When I reposted his post, my comment was something like: ā€œitā€™s too bad when people move say from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy (in this case) that they simply canā€™t say that thatā€™s what they did; without the further sectarian qualification that often attends it.ā€

The Orthodox interlocutor: It’s hardly surprising that as a Reformed theologian you have such a view. I pray you eventually come to see the truth and become Orthodox rather than holding to heretical Reformed doctrine that is wholly inconsistent with the Apostolic faith and the patristic consensus. . .. It’s simple, there was one undivided Church, the RCC split off at the Great Schism, then your denomination split off from them. The original Church remained unchanged and still exists today. Ask yourself which human man founded your “church”.

My responses: Jesus loves you too. Altho, I’d say I’m not quite “Reformed” in the way you are presuming. I’m Athanasian Reformed; I’m “Eastern” Reformed; it could even be said, of Thomas F. Torrance, in important ways. You presume much too much methinks. In the end, you’re a sectarian in spirit, which is not of Christ, and thus is antiChrist. . .. Sure thing. And yet the esse of the church is not possessed by a particular “body” on this earth, but grounded in the body of Jesus Christ at the right hand of the Father. There is no prolongation of the incarnation in a peculiar people found in the “East” or anywhere. The church participates in the Church, so to speak, in the triune life, mediated by the Church’s reality in Jesus Christ. We thus bear witness to that reality, to the Church’s reality, through union with His life by the Spirit. . .. Yes, the Orthodox church is really Greek. There is either Greek or Latin churchiology in the history. Yes, indeed: His body, not ours. To simply assert an absolute representation of that on earth is in fact sectarian par excellence. Study of church history itself doesn’t bear out your assertions about the uniformity of things, per se. . .. Again, eh. I understand you must assert such things. It’s as if you operate with some type of physicalism in regard to the church’s lineage. The only yea or no in the church is not conciliar, but within the divine and triune life itself. Your appeals to authority aren’t convincing. . .. This will have to be my last comment. Quoting Bruce McCormack on the councils and creeds and their value. “I say all of this to indicate that even the ecumenical creeds are only provisional statements. They are only relatively binding as definitions of what constitutes ā€œorthodoxy.ā€ Ultimately, orthodox teaching is that which conformsĀ perfectlyĀ to the Word of God as attested in Holy Scripture. But given that such perfection is not attainable in this world, it is understandable that Karl Barth should have regarded ā€œDogmaā€ as an eschatological concept. The ā€œdogmasā€ (i.e., the teachings formally adopted and promulgated by individual churches) are witnesses toĀ theĀ Dogma and stand in a relation of greater or lesser approximation to it. But they do not attain to it perfectlyā€”hence, the inherent reformability of all ā€œdogmas.ā€ Orthodoxy is not therefore a static, fixed reality; it is a body of teachings which have arisen out of, and belong to, aĀ historyĀ which is as yet incomplete and constantly in need of reevaluation.” -Bruce L. McCormack,Ā Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl BarthĀ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 16. . .. Sola scriptura isnā€™t solo scriptura (most likely how youā€™re thinking of itā€”many do, even those who say they hold to sola). Anyway, Iā€™m more radical than that given my theory of revelation. We wonā€™t make headway here, that is clear. I can understand why someone would be drawn to the aesthetics of Orthodoxy, no doubt. If I were to go that way, it wouldnā€™t be Latin, but Greek for sure. Other than that, socially and politically you and I seem to be simpatico, as Iā€™ve scanned your TL a little. . .. Eh. Enjoy.

I think I might have made a few more responses to him, but the above should suffice. I let him know in one of my responses that I would look forward to hooking back up in ten years, Lord willing, and seeing how he had calmed down on the sectarianism by then; hopefully.

Are the Western churches even the Church Anymore?

Posted on by

Confusing the various subcultures of Christianity, with the Gospel itself is fleeting. Each Christian tradition has its own idiosyncratic ways of liturgizing, and various parochialisms, and its just straight up weird stuff that they do. For my respective ā€œtribe,ā€ broadly speaking, as an American evangelical, what has become weird is driven by its slavish commitment to consumerism at all costs. Whether it be professional worship bands leading worship (like the folks who didnā€™t quite make the American Idol cut), the pastor wearing skinny jeans, sporting a mustache, with a man bun, or just the self-help sermons and programs that run amok in such environs, there is a cultural Pelagianism present behind such productions. That is to say, the belief that people, in the main, are simply neutral beings, and that given the proper external stimuli they can be persuaded, one way or the other, to affirm Christ or not; they can be ā€œledā€ into a situation, through various conditionings (and programs), where, as the theory goes, they will come to feel included in the community. You know the whole ā€œfelt needsā€ and ā€œreal needsā€ combine. One big problem with this is that such seeker sensitive churches get so hyper fixated on meeting peoplesā€™ felt needsā€”with the rationalization that itā€™s all being done in the name and claim of the Gospelā€”that that becomes the end. They are unable, under such inertia, to ever get to the real need; which has been the supposed justification for using the felt needs to begin with.

As an American evangelical who has grown up in this, from its more fundy iteration to where it is now, what I have come to realize, along with many, that such Pelagianistically funded churches really arenā€™t representative of the church writ large at all. That is not to say that there arenā€™t ā€œsavedā€ people in the pews all throughout such churches. But it is to say that these people have become used to, and thus expectant of having their ears and eyes tickled with feel good messages; for the most part. After awhile though, the discerning Christian has to start asking at what point such a group ceases to be operating as a real life, Spirit led church, and instead finds its function more in line with some sort of social club (e.g., think of Christian Smithā€™s adage: moralistic therapeutic deism). None of this is to suggest that the church, this side of the Eschaton, will ever be perfect. But it is to say that at a certain point the Ghost has been given up indeed, and the so-called pastors are nothing more than ā€œhirelingsā€ for cultural dereliction.

For those of us seeking a healthy local church to attend, in such environments, this scenario makes it exceedingly difficult. For me, the pastors involved in this type of tripe are heading for a serious and heavy judgment. In the end, the Gospel cannot be reduced to these church subcultures; and yet often, people do engage in such reductionsā€”and so they become so-called Exvangelicals, Nones, or straight up atheists (of a certain pop type). The Gospel is Christ as attested to and encountered in Holy Scripture. The Gospel is Godā€™s triune Life for the world, and a genuine church is to faithfully bear witness to this deep reality; through deep and stretching teachings, activities, so on and so forth. Outwith this I have a hard time seeing how the apostasies of the Western churches (and elsewhere) can be curbed.

Getting Beyond the Baby’s Dream: What Hath the Lectern to do with the Pulpit-Pew?

Posted on by

What hath the lectern to do with the pulpit? I, personally, operate in this strange theological wilderness that spans both poles, whether that is found in the rigor of academic theology (so-called), or the practicality (so-called) of the daily Christian life. It seems that there might be room for both, but Iā€™m not all that sure. Whatā€™s prompting this writing is a theological conference I just saw took place in Scotland at the Scottish Dogmatics Conference at Aberdeen Divinity School. After awhile what comes to the fore for me is the question: so what? Who cares? What is increasingly becoming clear to me is that typically the only people who end up caring are those in attendance at such conferences; i.e., the ā€œacademic theologians.ā€ The irony of such efforts is that they are typically said to be in service of and for the Church writ large. But are they really? Is the theology being cajoled and discussed at such conferences really reaching the churches? Judging by the state of the churches, whether progressive mainline, or ā€œconservativeā€ evangelical, Iā€™d say the answer to that question is a hard no.

What if the theology being discussed, and not just at this particular conference, but along the whole ambit of academic theology turns out to be sound, indeed, the truth (as far as we can proximate that in our theology, in our witness to the risen Christ)? That would mean, as any good Christian theology is, that it is mind independent/extramental; i.e., not contingent on its affirmation to be true or not-true (or objectively true). In that sense, such theological discoursing is justified; I would argue, because it simply just is the case, just as the triune God is the case. Whether or not people in the churches, in the pulpits or pews ascend to such ā€œheights,ā€ the material reality just is the case. And so in that sense there is a genuine witness to Christ present within the academiciansā€™ discourse about God. And yet, as the Gospel narratives attest: ā€œthe common people heard Him [Jesus] gladly.ā€ Somehow Christ was able to accommodate the linguistic modes of conversation in a way that met the people at their own levels of ā€œcommonā€ discourse. If this was, and is the case, shouldnā€™t that be part of the so-called academic theologianā€™s burden; i.e., shouldnā€™t they feel the necessity to not only communicate at the heights, and for each other, as it were, but to communicate for the Church writ large; that is in a way that the Church can have access to the deep profundities of the faith?

And yet, there is another hand as well. The burden in this arena is a like a double-edged sword, it cuts both ways. Certain realities can only be brought ā€œso low.ā€ That is to say, there are meaty truths, as Hebrews attests, that Christians in general should come to the point of being able to consume; beyond their ā€œmilkyā€ diets. That is to say, the ā€œcommon Christianā€ has been burdened, just the same, to stretch and grow; to apply themselves with a zeal that comes from the heart of Christ Himself. That is to say, just as the Lord promised to provide His church with pastors and teachers (and prophets and evangelists), this also implies that there will be crops of students/disciples, eager to transform, to stretch, to grow deeper deeper in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. Being lazy is not a virtue in the Kingdom.

How does this ditch between the lectern and pulpit/pew get bridged? 1) There must be recognition of it, 2) there must be intention to work beyond this impasse on both ā€œsides,ā€ 3) there, most of all, must be a constraining by the love of Christ within the hearts of Godā€™s people for a growth in a knowledge of Him. On the Protestant side we have what is called ā€œthe priesthood of all believers.ā€ This ought to suggest to Protestant Christians (at the least) that they have been called to toil, to rightly divide the Worth of Truth. The notion that the Christian can simply float along the path of salvation without putting in blood, sweat and tears is a babyā€™s dream. Such effort isn’t to ensure eternal life, but it is to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ; to be transformed from glory to glory. This requires a cultivation in a study and reading ethic that the ā€˜fleshā€™ kicks against. Indeed, we are involved in a spiritual battle of the type that the Enemy makes appeal, over and again, to the tiredness of our bodies of death. It takes resurrection power, by the indwelling Holy Spirit and mediation of Christ by the Father, to endure, to perdure and persevere under the stresses of the Christian life; primary of which is to be a studying and reading people.

 

Church Culture isn’t the Gospel, isn’t God: On Deconstructing Deconstruction

Posted on by

Church culture isnā€™t the Gospel. Even so, it is what we most tangibly experience as Christians in the world. That kind of experience, as with any experience, can be either good, bad, or indifferent. Unfortunately, many these days (and in days past) are deconstructing. They are claiming to have this ā€˜come of ageā€™ moment wherein theyā€™ve finally come to realize that their respective evangelicalism[s], the cultures therein, have misrepresented God to them. The early mistake most of these folks make is to conflate their experience in various church cultures with God Himself. This represents some form of functional pantheism for them, wherein Godā€™s existence is coextensive with the churchā€™s ā€œbodyā€ existence. Insofar, that such folk are unable to disentangle their experience of church culture with the reality of the living God Himself, they will mistakenly chuck the whole thing; at least, the whole thing in the way they have come to understand it.

It’s hard to blame people for wanting to abandon North American evangelicalism (among other evangelicalisms across the world). In my own experience, and Iā€™ve been ā€œin itā€ since birth, the evangelical churches have gone to the seed of the anthropology they generally have appropriated from the very beginning. That is to note, evangelicalism, ironically, finds it genesis as a reactionary movement; at least as most of evangelicalism has taken shape into the present. It started with the so-called Fundamentalists. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries post-enlightenment rationalism, so on and so forth, began to penetrate the seminaries in North America; Princeton being the prime example. Once the higher biblical criticism, and its supporting rationalistic positivism began to seep into these seminaries, there were men who were intent on standing against it (think of someone like Machen). But the way they stood against the new theology, or ā€˜liberal theology,ā€™ was largely to assume the burden put to them by the higher critics of Scripture. As a result, through this type of methodological appropriation, what came with it, was the type of supporting anthropology that funded the criticsā€™ criticism; i.e., rationalism, romanticism, methodological skepticism etc. All this to say, in brief, through this reactionism the fundamentalist theologians allowed the critics to define the theological, and thus ecclesiological types of questions they were going to attempt to answer from the get-go. This type of theological mood was passed down to the fundamentalist and evangelical churches into the current moment. It is a ā€˜turn to the subjectā€™ wherein the mode of the Christian is to first think of themselves, and then to God. Itā€™s to think that we are singular islands in a voluntary treaty with other islands, and this cooperation we end up calling Church. But you see, if my sketch is correct, what is set up, when applied to a God-world relation, is a methodological starting point in an abstract individual self. It is through this starting point that such Christians approach God. The result ends up looking like the culture at large; i.e., we see a mass consumerism and self-enthrallment at the center of the biblical teaching (i.e., self-help, positive thinking, pragmatism etc.), as well as ā€œworshipā€ (music).

But the above type of enthrallment only superficially meets the basest of our human and fallen desires. It doesnā€™t offer a deep point of contact between the living and triune God, and what the truly human soul has been created for; indeed, to find its depth reality in the very ousia (being) of Godself. In other words, individualistic consumerist iterations of church culture only have a short burn available to them. For some that might entail decades, for others, a shorter period of time. Once people realize that they are only getting a watered-down version of what the world itself has on offer at full tap, the person seeking real depth turns to the fountainhead of the superficiality that the churches are only able to offer modified versions of. Of course, this ā€œnewā€ sense of liberty, that is from the shackles of ā€œGodā€ as ā€œchurch culture, is experienced as a new burn is started, and the person is able to ā€œliveā€ off of this type of ā€œearly loveā€ feeling for another season of life. Even so, they are left feeling vacuous and empty. They might be able to stoke their new exvangelical sensibilities, as noted, for seasons of time, but they still understand that underneath it all they havenā€™t found the depth dimension their souls have been longing for all along. Except, for many, they believe theyā€™ve already ā€œbeen there done thatā€ with God; i.e., hearkening back to their experience with evangelical church culture as God. They are then thrown into a pit of despondency and despair fortified with the belief that they already tried the ā€œGod thing,ā€ only to realize that ā€œHeā€ was really only a projection of the collective of people self-identified as the church.

My aforementioned sketch is bleak, but I donā€™t think is off point. The Churchā€™s reality esse is not found in itself. The Churchā€™s reality res is found in its inner-being in the inner-being of Godā€™s triune life as it has come to participate in that life through the mediation of Christā€™s life pro nobis for us through His union with our humanity, and through our union with His humanity as that is grounded in the bosom of the Father. The Church will always have a variety of iterations and cultural expressions, insofar that Godā€™s life in Christ constantly afresh in-breaks into all types of human cultures all across the catholic globe. So, as that is the case, cultural expression, just as Jesus expressed His own human culture as the Jew from Nazareth, is not the problem. The problem is when human culture is thought in abstraction from its ultimate ground and reality in Godā€™s life ā€˜for us.ā€™ The problem for the churches is when the churchā€™s culture becomes the starting and ending point in itself; as a harbinger to only reinforce the human incurved and sinful bent to begin with.

All of the above noted: it is understandable why many are walking away from God; insofar that they have conflated God with their purported experience of Him as given in their experiences actualized in the church cultures. I think it may well be the Holy Spirit attempting to wake people up to the spiritual failure of these many churches and their attending church cultures. But it is a fatal mistake to take your church culture, and your damaging experiences with it, and throw the whole thing away. God remains God, no matter the failures of the churches. The churches, as we all know, all too well, are of course populated by sinful people; chucking the whole thing doesnā€™t change that, nor does it change the fact that those who are abandoning God are themselves still, very much so, sinners. What we need to recognize is that the Church does not find its reality ā€˜within itself,ā€™ but ā€˜outwith-outside itselfā€™ in the risen Christ and the triune God. Once the Christian realizes this, i.e., that their relationship with God is not contingent upon their experiences within this or that church culture, they will have a better way to move forward. Maybe it will be to move onto another tradition, or just a specific church they find that is more genuinely grounded on the Word of God; or maybe it will be to stay in said church cultures and attempt to be a witness to the reality of the Church in the midst of all the superficialities they and others have been experiencing within the churches.

After saying all of the above, what also is true is that many people are simply using their dissatisfaction with the churches as an excuse to simply walk deeper into their own self-possessed desires and lusts, while hiding behind the real superficiality that is indeed present in the many church cultures today. That is to say, many arenā€™t finding the ā€˜levelā€™ of superficiality they are experiencing in the churches as a sufficient means of self-centeredness to live the wanton lives they are really seeking; that is, as ordered by a disordered self-drivenness that their base selves long for.

There is a gambit here.

The Particularity and Concreteness of Christ: Against Cultural “Christianities”

Posted on by

A genuine Christianity is not pluriform, it does not have multitudinous realities at its core. It is not a cluster of beliefs that likeminded people rally around. A genuine Christianityā€”its inner realityā€”is in fact a person; it is God for us in the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ. When people exit or walk away from this or that perceived form or expression of the ā€œChristian existence,ā€ they arenā€™t walking away from Christianityā€™s inner reality, per se, if in fact they believe that to be exhaustively represented in the form of that, as they have come to experience that, in this or that Christian tradition. In other words, if someone believes, when they walk away from Christianity, that they have done so by walking away from their immediate experience of that, they are sorely in error; and in error, in such a way that it potentially could have, or will have eternal consequences.

There are certainly damaging and erroneous forms or expressions of a self-proclaimed Christianity, but much of those are simply socio-cultural constructs masquerading as THE form of Christianity; at least in the way that it is presented to and received by its adherents. If someone has a personal relationship with the living God in Christ, walking away from Christianity becomes a much different thing than walking away from an experience of a so-called Christianity.

Make sure, if and when you walk away from something, you know what in fact you are walking away from. And just as important, make sure you understand what you are walking into as an alternative.