Perhaps the biggest difficulty facing a catholic Christian at the beginning of the third millennium is denominationalism. This isn’t simply a protestant model, though I’m certainly working from within that tradition. No, there are plenty of “Traditionalist Catholics” that drive an hour to find their Latin Mass. They pass through a few parishes to get to their destination. Orthodox is split around national lines, and let us not also forget that there are plenty of folks who point out that Bulgakov and Lossky changed the face of modern Orthodoxy theology, for better or worse. And as Solzhenitsyn discovered, simply by being in the West, things are different. You can lay the claim to hierarchical unity in these groups, but the ground level experience is difficult to truly distance from that of Protestant denominationalism. The challenge for all sectors of Christendom is becoming basically the same.
The main problem is how to achieve unity and maintain legitimate diversity. It is unlikely that everyone will simply wake up next week thinking, worshiping, and doing ministry like I do. It is just as unlikely that I will be able to transform into them. Somewhat along the same lines, it seems tragic that I would require a shared understanding of limited atonement before I’d recognize a brother as a true brother. So too with the respective relationship between a substance and its accidents during the Eucharist. These just don’t really seem to be the fruits of the Spirit or the way the world will know us, if you’ll forgive my philistine biblicism here.
“Non-denominationalism” is also a dead-end. The first thing is simply that non-denominationalists are their own denomination. Secondly, they often despise history and chop themselves off from their theological fore-bearers. It really is hard to tell when these types move from just weird to a true cult-status. Failing to admit differences doesn’t cut it either, because that’s just dishonesty.
So we have to be able to talk about what we believe and where we differ, while finding a way towards ministerial unity. I have a few points to make which I hope will advance this project:
1) The local church is the catholic church.
The bishop is the head of a local church, and every bishop is the legitimate heir to the apostolic church. The succession is in the waters of baptism and the weekly (re)formation of the body of Christ. As a body of the Holy Spirit, each congregation possesses the fullness of the Church’s essence for it is indwelt by a divine person.
2) The local church is local.
We have to begin serving our neighborhood. I understand reasons why you may drive 45 minutes to find “the right church,” but this approach cannot produce a legacy, and I do not believe it is a faithful application of the great commission. You should know your neighbors, and the only way you could ever bear their burdens or bring a necessary rebuke against them in times of sin is if you already have a relationship of love and trust. You can’t open up the iron gates once a year “to the community” and expect them to all come running in. You have to know them. You have to serve them. You have to die for them. And as soon as you start working with folks where you currently are, you will have your diversity. It is guaranteed.
3) Practice takes priority over theory.
Ironic for a blogger to say isn’t it? But it’s true. Look at what really gets Jesus angry. Now look at what Paul gets mad at. Now check James. How about John? It is always the same. Heretics are those who devour God’s people. They oppress them. They mistreat them. They refuse to love them. They are only interested in their “conversion” so they can boast. Bad theology is fueled by a bad heart. Conversely, the fruits of the Spirit, as well as qualifications for leadership, are mostly behavioral.
4) Theoretical discussions are still necessary and conversations should take place.
Again, there’s no point trying to fool ourselves. Disagreements exist and have been long-standing. We are not honoring history if we toss our forefathers and the things they fought and died for into the trash bin. We want to honor our tradition and truly understand what is Biblical. God is honored by the truth. He is dishonored by our shoddy scholarship and academic and intellectual mistreatment of others. The only way to improve yourself is to have conversations with others who are different and to do so with an open-mind. You don’t have to be naive about this, and first principles are still first principles, but there is always that chance that maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong about something.
5) In order to build a well-rounded vision, our conversations must include history, biblical exegesis, and practical ministry.
As I’ve already mentioned, each of these are important. People tend to be drawn to one of these to the exclusion of the others, but this is only to their detriment. We need to constantly be challenged on all fronts, and the more voices participating in this conversation, the better. We also have to be doing something. We’ve talked enough. Let’s get to work.
How is this “Post-Protestant?”
It is POST-protestant because it seeks to form an ecclesiological identity, not merely based on nationality or ideology, but on the Church’s immediate calling in 21st century North America.
It is post-PROTESTANT because it still maintains key evangelical convictions as it seeks to honor the integrity of my own tradition while moving forward.
But if I may confess a dirty secret, my thought here was influenced by De Lubac’s Corpus Mysticum, Meyendorf’s The Primacy of Peter, Geddes MacGregor’s Corpus Christi, Paul Avis’ The Church in the Theology of the Reformers, and various works by Leslie Newbigin.
[...] (originally posted at Wedgewords) [...]
This is very similar to the EPC “Vision 21″ (or something similar), where the vision is to maintain our reformed heritage, but recognize that Christendom is dead and we live in a pagan culture, that is, we live in post-Christian America. Hence, by ministerial cooperation, we do not mean watering down our real differences, but it does mean recognizing our ontological, organic unity as the visible church– the mystical body of God (to use Moltmann’s language)–as a means toward a catholic witness in such troubling times.
This is a great post. I really appreciate point #2, especially having lived in Moscow, ID for 7 years. But the past year I’ve lived in Dallas, TX, and it precisely the lack of real “locality” and knowing one’s ecclesial neighbors that has gotten me down. We drive about 15 miles to the nearest Presbyterian church, but there are Anglican and Lutheran and Baptist churches only blocks from our house. We bypass all of them to go for what is comfortable – although even then, I’m getting less and less comfortable with Presbyterianism. Aside from this anecdote, though, I wonder how locality can really be practiced in a Big City, which is really just a huge agglomeration of strangers on every level. Maybe soaring gas prices will force City dwellers to stop going where they want to go and go wherever is within walking distance – thus forcing new and real community development. Heh.
Serving the Neighborhood…
As I continue to reflect on things like this previous post as well as this one, I was pleased to stumble across Scott’s blog today and find this, which puts it so wonderfully.
The local church is local. We have to begin serving our neighborhoo….
Steve,
We talked a little about this back in early May on your “Existence and Unity of the Church” post. Here, in this “Post-Protestant” post, while I firmly support your desire for *unity*, I don’t understand your conception of ecclesial unity in a post-denominational context. First, does true unity include doctrinal agreement? How do we go about determining what are the essential doctrines that must be believed? Second, does true unity include agreement on the sacraments, how many there are, what they do, who can celebrate them, who can receive them, etc.? If so, how do we go about determining the answer to those questions? Third, does true unity include a shared governing authority? And who gets to decide that question? How are local Churches in communion with each other, if not part of a larger institution?
It seems like in order to understand ecclesial unity, we need to understand schism. But I don’t see any [conceptual] place for schism in your theory. What does it mean for a Christian to be in schism from the Church?
Finally, what is the role of authority in determining what true unity is, and how we get there? Do we call the equivalent of a global constitutional convention, and let each [self-professed] Christian propose what true unity is, and how we should get there, and then take a global vote? That idea seems to presuppose that no presently existing institution is the one Christ founded. So post-denominationalism only ‘works’ for those who think either that Christ didn’t found an institution or that the institution Christ founded has since ceased to exist. So the ‘global constitutional convention’ idea would leave out all Catholics and Orthodox.
The authority question is the huge elephant in the room here, for ecclesial unity.
Again, I fully share your desire for unity. I’m trying to get a better idea of what you mean by ‘unity’, and how we get there.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
I’m not calling for the destruction of all of our current institutions. I am calling for a vision of where to go from within them.
Of course, my 1st assertion is a fundamentally Reformed one, and it contains my assumptions about ecclesial authority. This a “post-Protestant” model, after all. I’m sure that a post-Roman Catholic model would look different.
I would say that schism occurs within congregations.
This is sort of a real world process. And it is that, a process.
Steve,
Regarding schism, if the two conflicting parties within a congregation simply go their separate ways, then it ceases to be a ’schism’ and turns into two ‘branches’? I don’t see any principled distinction between divisions between denominations (which Reformed Christians tend to conceive of as branches), and divisions within a congregation. If divisions within a congregation are schisms (which are a sin), then it seems bizarre that the way to remove its sinfulness is to further the schism and start a new denomination, and then just call them branches. A fortiori, it seems the divisions between denominations would be even worse schisms than intra-congregational divisions.
If your model contains Reformed assumptions about ecclesial authority, then it doesn’t seem to be entirely “post-Protestant”. In my opinion, true ecumenical work requires examining together (in sincerity and charity) those fundamental assumptions about ecclesial authority.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
I think we’re all familiar with your solution to this by now.
Isn’t there a difference between causing or participating in an ecclesiastical breach (schism) and being born into or the heir of an already existing division? To view prior instances of schism as resulting in entities that are now considered merely branches seems to me to be a step in the right direction.
Joel,
I agree that there a difference between causing or participating in a schism, and being born into an already existing division. The difference, in my opinion, has to do with the moral culpability of the persons involved. But if a schism is wrong, then I don’t see how just waiting for a certain length of time makes the division itself (not merely the act of dividing) no longer wrong. If it was merely the act (of dividing) itself that was wrong, then as soon as the division had occurred, there would be no obligation to reconcile and reunite the divided parties. It seems that it is not only the act of dividing that is wrong, but also the state of being divided that it is wrong. And if the state of being divided is wrong, then it seems arbitrary to pick a certain amount of time and stipulate that the division is no longer wrong.
When I think of “branches”, I think of branches on a tree. And none of us thinks the branches on a tree ought to grow back together into the trunk, to form a branch-less tree. A schism or division, we know, should be healed and the divided parties reconciled in unity. So how we are justified in calling schisms ‘branches’ (and thereby conceptually removing the obligation to reconcile), just because they have been around for a while?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
My link doesn’t relate much to Post Protestantism as much to local ministry.
In my experience, if you want to have a local ministry you need to seek to do the painfully hard work of reviving, if possible, local congregations.
My link is to an article about local church renewal. Unfortunately, that’s hard work… it’s easier they say to start something new, but God still has His people in little churches that He may not be finished with yet.
Thanks for this post, Steven. I just linked it on B.J. Kennedy’s GAFCON post.
“We have to begin serving our neighborhood. I understand reasons why you may drive 45 minutes to find “the right church,” but this approach cannot produce a legacy, and I do not believe it is a faithful application of the great commission.”
But I don’t think there is a neighborhood to address. People drive to work and to shop and to home all in places impossible to reach without roads and cars. That is the way it is. I don’t see how emphasizing neighborhood churches does much except hurl us at modernity.
[...] perhaps the Lord will see fit to bring me back to them someday. But as Steven Wedgeworth once said somewhere, In order to build a well-rounded vision, our conversations must include history, biblical [...]