Henry Nouwen on Ministering…
I am a profound admirer of Henry Nouwen. His reflections on the ministry have been life-transforming to me; perhaps this quote may do the same for you:
More and more, the desire grows in me simply to walk around, greet people, enter their homes, sit on their doorsteps, play ball, throw water, and be known as someone who wants to live with them. It is a privilege to have the time to practice this simple ministry of presence. Still, it is not as simple as it seems. My own desire to be useful, to do something significant, or to be part of some impressive project is so strong that soon my time is taken up by meetings, conferences, study groups, and workshops that prevent me from walking the streets. It is difficult not to have plans, not to organize people around an urgent cause, and not to feel that you are working directly for social progress. But I wonder more and more if the first thing shouldn’t be to know people by name, to eat and drink with them, to listen to their stories and tell your own, and to let them know with words, handshakes, and hugs that you do not simply like them, but truly love them.1
The Enlightenment and its Effect on the Church
The philosophie des lumieres, commonly known as the Enlightenment, continues to have a destructive effect on our church’s liturgy and life. Hans Kung ably summarizes what was lost with the emergence of the Enlightenment:
Order, hierarchy, authority, discipline, Church, dogma, faith, still highly esteemed in the seventeenth century, came to be detested in the eighteenth.[1]
A high view of Order, a high ecclesiology, a robust view of church discipline,[2] and a commitment to the Great Creeds of the faith and much more have been abolished from Protestant and Evangelical churches. The Enlightenment succeeded in that it continually brings autonomy from the academia to the church. Where there once was a Creed confessed by all, now there are pithy sayings meant to spur others to action; where once was discipline, now there is immediate leniency. This despicable alliance the church has made with the heirs of the Enlightenment will eventually lead to a cultish disassociation from her historical roots. If man can invent their own methods, sell their own strategies, and de-ecclesiasticize the church, then we can expect a diminishment of Orthodoxy.
Much of this refers back to the orderliness of the Garden. The Garden was created so that order would prevail. Perfect beauty was to invade the Garden and replenish all the earth. Since the Fall of man, disorder has reigned supreme. The Christian Church has through the Ages attempted to restore this Edenic Order. To a certain extent it has succeeded, though the church has seen the good, the bad, and the disorderly. In order to once again continue the path laid by our forefathers, we need to abolish any Enlightenment element from our churches and our worship, and return to that sacred space and sacred order. Where there is order, there is clarity. We have lost that clarity in this day and to capitulate to the Enlightenment is to lose all clarity.
[1]Kung, Hans, Does God Exist? Pg. 37.
[2] Considered by Calvin to be one of the marks of a true church.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part V
The latter section of What Christians Believe, C.S. Lewis expounds briefly on the different theories of the atonement. He does not wish to go in depth in any of the positions since this is not a theological treatise, but an introduction to the Christian faith. Lewis summarizes the purpose of Christ’s death by saying:
The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start.[1]
The reason human beings need a fresh start is because fallen humanity has been ruined from conception. Without a new start, man lives continually separated from God (Isaiah 59:2). Christ’s work brings the Sons of God into restoration.
Lewis does not allow his Anglican commitments to speak too high in this tome, however there is a brief section where he elaborates on the graces that Christians, within this fresh start must experience:
There are three things that spread the Christ life to us: baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by different names—Holy Communion, the Mass, and the Lord’s Supper.[2]
Baptism symbolizing new life or as the Nicene Creed states: “ The one baptism for the remission of sins,” the belief, which is authentic trust, and the Holy Eucharist, which nurtures and sustains us in a life that offers little true food. I believe Lewis would not add the foolish programs of our modern church to his list. They probably would have been despicable to him. For one thing, there certainly would not be a stage in the center of the church. There would be no such thing to indulge the flesh. The center would be for that most holy table where children and adults, who profess the Trinitarian God, would come and eat of His body and drink of his blood.
Allow me the liberty to speak of the sacrament of the bread and wine. Though Lewis did not expand on this section, he would not have disagreed with its importance. In fact, Lewis wrote:
God never meant man to be a purely spiritual creature. That is why He uses material things like bread and wine to put the new life into us.[3]
Dualism or Platonism, in any sense or form, is a ludicrous misapplication of the Christian faith. St. John says: “that which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of spirit is spirit.”[4] He is not referring to the platonic distinction of the earthly and the heavenly or Kant’s noumenal and phenomenal, rather he is stating that there are two births, one natural and one supernatural. New Christians as well as older Christians never are fully satisfied in their flesh. Their supernatural birth does not disconnect them from their natural birth. Indeed, they become a full birth. A physical birth apart from the spiritual is an incomplete birth. For this reason, God gives the spiritual body, physical representations, so that we may never forget that Christ himself was flesh of flesh as we are. So he offers himself so that we as spiritual beings may find security and new life as we feast at His table.
The complication of this sacrament arrives because no man understands the holy mysteries. In the Supper, Christ brings heaven and earth together, bread and wine, life and death, exaltation and incarnation.
[1] Mere Christianity, pg. 58.
[2] Ibid. 63.
[3] Ibid. 65.
[4] John 3:6.
Thomas a Kempis (c. 1380-1471) and Trinitarian Speculation
Thomas a Kempis[1] offers the modern Christian a deep analysis into our lives. His insights into our spiritual sins of pride, greed, and false humility are desperately needful. As a medieval ascetic writer, he strongly opposes the natural tendency of man to be speculative about things that are too lofty for our comprehension. In his list the Trinity appears to be one that intrigues the mind with greater degree.
The early church strove to come to a proper formulation of the Triune nature of God and they succeeded. However, the church never intended to exhaust the depths of the Trinitarian mystery. Though many formulations have been made in Creeds and Confessions, we can be certain that we have not yet begun to understand the essence of God. Those who would despise all things earthly for the search of answers not intended to be known are fools. Armchair theologians end their days in deep misery. If we persist in de-coding these mysteries, we fail to understand our purpose. Thomas a Kempis writes: “What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity?” Theology and life meet in Christ. The God-man descends so that we may understand his words and his message, but also that we may follow Him (John 8:12).
[1] His asceticism ought to be denied, but not despised.
Quote, Justin Martyr on the Eucharist
As the human is in Christ, so bread is in the Eucharist: But the human nature in Christ is whole and perfect: Therefore the nature of bread in the Eucharist is perfect.
Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together
If you are a Presbyterian committed to the catholicity of the church read here.
Patristic Fathers’ Quotations on Infant Baptism
With the prevalent discussion on Infant Baptist in the last few days at seminary I decided to post a link with several quotations testifying to the practice in the early church.
Sinclair Ferguson on the Peter “Saying” in Matthew 16:18
The significance of the “Peter Saying” and what Jesus says to Him.
This Peter saying is significant in the post-apostolic years. It has been controversial — the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome vs. the bishops of other cities. In the very primitive word, the Peter saying was simply a saying that was fulfilled in the Acts of Apostles. Look at Acts, and you will see this saying fulfilled.
Tertullian 155-220AD: These words have nothing to do with anyone else but Peter. He is trying to stop the argument of apostolic succession. They refer to Peter, personally. They focus on Peter as an individual believer, at most as a representative of believers but not as an individual to be succeeded. Peter as the first of a series is already current in the church.
Origen: He believed in the spiritual meaning of the text, and said that it applies to the those who share the same role. As to the letter, it describes Peter’s role in the church in the spirit.
Cyprian 200-258AD: He argues that the words refer to Peter as a representative of the disciples not in distinction from them. He is not an isolated individual, but as one from the rest of the apostles. He says that these words imply a particular Petrine authority but sees that authority as being expressed in Peter not as an exclusive member but inclusive member. Thus, Peter’s authority guarantees the authority that belongs to all the apostles. Thus, the authority of the bishop of Rome must be shared with the other bishops.
Augustine late 4th and 5th : Later in life, he believed that the “rock ” is Jesus himself.
Luther: Jesus is saying that Peter is the rock-man because he recognized the true rock. Luther is both having his cake and eating it too.
Calvin: …whose exegetical skills are better than Luther’s, sees an implied contrast between this motley lot, and what the Lord is going to build (the church). Basically, he was saying that on a modest lot such as Peter, he would build his church. From this little confession, will come a great Church. It has in view the faith of all Christians shared in common with Peter and his Redemptive Historical preeminence…
Harmony of the Gospels 2, p186. On the one hand Peter’s confessed faith is in view here, but we cannot deny the Redemptive Historical context here as well.
Justification by Faith Alone
This morning at St. Andrew’s Chapel Dr. R.C. Sproul delivered an excellent summary of the Reformed position on Justification by Faith Alone. In his series on the book of Acts, he has reached the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) where James presides as head presbyter. The discussion centers around the issue the Judaizers have brought forth. The Judaizers were highly concerned that allowing Gentiles into the community of saints would infringe upon their perspective on salvation. Of course, to them grace and circumcision composed the proper ingredients to salvation. Dr. Sproul was conspicuously concerned in alerting the church of the dangers the gospel has faced in the last centuries and continues to face even in our day. Quoting Luther he said that “justification by faith is the article of the standing or falling church.”
RC made a brief reference to the New Perspective on Paul controversy. It appears that in last week’s Pastor’s Conference, a majority of the pastors were utterly in awe of the devastation the NPP has caused in some of the Reformed Churches in the US. The New Perspective on Paul does not see justification as a necessary declaration to enter the Christian community, rather it is the means by which they are maintained. In simple terms, it sees justification as ecclesiastical rather than soteriological.
My brief thoughts on this issue has yet to be confirmed by my studies. I have done some work but not extensive work on NPP. However, I concur with Doug Wilson who stated in the end of his book, “Reformed is Not Enough”, that the Christian Church needs to give N.T. Wright and others a fair hearing.
One of my primary concerns with this issue is that the church despise this perspective as another attack on the gospel and not seek to understand it. If this occurs, she will become ignorant of the facts and not be able to engage major theological issues of the day, thereby losing even more credibility. If the Reformation urged us to “always reform” (Semper Reformanda), it would be foolish to not examine this perspective. I am quite aware that the term “new” causes immediate fear in some, but we are well reminded that the Reformation itself was a new work of God in the church. Another fear commonly expressed is that NPP has its origins in the work of E.P. Sanders, a liberal scholar, to say the least. However, once again another reminder of the history of the church is necessary. It was through the efforts of heretics and excommunicated fathers that the church refined its ideas and came to supreme conclusions on doctrinal matters.
I am not quite sure we can say with certainty that “justification” has a narrow meaning or rather, if it can be defined more broadly as some suggest. It is my contention that there still is much work to be done not only on the usage of the term “justification” but also on its broader application to the community.
Overall, this seems to be a healthy debate and not worthy of separation. Whether NPP is a correct method of interpreting Paul or if Luther had it right to begin with, or even if both of these positions are not mutually exclusive, as I tend to believe, the church is still bound and held by the great creeds, not solely on Lutheran or Calvinistic doctrines, but one that encompasses all Orthodox denominations. One final observation deserves our attention, and that is, that the Creeds of the church for the first 1600 years do not include “justification by faith alone.” Now, what does this mean? I am still not sure. For your convenience here is the greatest of all Creeds in my opinion. Read it and meditate on that which is really essential.
THE APOSTLE’S CREED
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell. [see Calvin]
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
*The word “catholic” refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.