Movements & Institutions, Part 1
[Ed. Note: this post was intended to be a sidebar comment at The Last Sheep, but I couldn’t cram all my thoughts into 3 sentences. Here’s part one of the expanded version laid out as a dialogue between two friends over a couple of beers].
“I don’t think church should be limited to a building. It’s not a four walled institution.”
“You know, I agree. God’s people are his church, living stones built into a spiritual house, (1 Pe. 2:5), not a building made of human hands.”
“In that case, maybe we should worship in homes. After all, that’s what they did in Acts.”
“Well, Acts isn’t laid out as a blueprint or model. It’s more like a narrative description of what happened and less like a divine command. Paul isn’t saying, “The church shalt worship in homes.”
“Yeah, but why do I even need a church to worship in the first place?
“Well, I think we should start with the opposite question: Why wouldn’t you want to worship at a church? As Christians, members of a corporate body, we come to hear and celebrate what God is doing together, as a group. The desire to worship on your own or in a smaller group apart from the larger whole sounds like an ‘island mentality.’ We don’t go into separate rooms to take the Lord’s Supper, we receive it together at the same table. So also we shouldn’t divide into groups to worship God either. ‘Island syndrome’ at the core, is selfish.”
“Okay, I agree with that. Worship is a community event. We do it together. But you’re still not answering my question. Why a church? Why a building?”
“You’re right. We could worship anywhere we wanted. After all, Jesus says that where ever two or more or gathered, he promises to be there, too. But I think there’s a better reason for worshipping together, in a church, than because “we’ve always done it that way.”
“And what would that be?”
“Because that’s where God promises to show up. In his Word. And in his Sacraments.”
“Yeah, but I can read his Word wherever I go.”
“Right. Me, too. Isn’t that a blessing? But at church, where we agree to come together, is the only place we can have it spoken to us. You can worship at the beach, or in your house. But where else can you have someone else forgive your sins, and say ‘Christ died for you.’ Where else can you receive his sacrament? This happens at church, where these things come to us. There is great value in having his Word spoken to us, from the outside. Just like you can try to convince yourself that your crappy day will get better, but ultimately it’s not as comforting as someone else sitting next to you and hearing them say, “you know what, there’s hope in a better day that it coming to you. There’s someone who loves you and is going to change all this someday.’”
“Why do we need to have a pastor forgive us? I can forgive your sins right now.”
“You’re right, that’s one of the privileges of being a part of the royal priesthood. We can forgive each other’s sins. But what about the sins we commit against God? Although our sin breaks down our relationships with people here on earth, ultimately all sin is sin against God. We need hear someone forgive us on God’s behalf. That’s why we have pastors. We, as members of this corporate body called the church, recognize that God has appointed and given us these men to speak to us on his behalf. So although there is some comfort that our horizontal relationships can be restored by forgiving each other, there is no comfort like the assurance that God has forgiven our sins and loves us. After all, there are going to be people here on Earth who won’t forgive our sins at all. But if we are repentant, God promises to forgive us. There is great comfort in that.”
“I just don’t think that the church should be an institution.”
“What would you suggest instead?”
“I think the church should be a movement.”
“Describe what that looks like...”
"Well..."
“I don’t think church should be limited to a building. It’s not a four walled institution.”
“You know, I agree. God’s people are his church, living stones built into a spiritual house, (1 Pe. 2:5), not a building made of human hands.”
“In that case, maybe we should worship in homes. After all, that’s what they did in Acts.”
“Well, Acts isn’t laid out as a blueprint or model. It’s more like a narrative description of what happened and less like a divine command. Paul isn’t saying, “The church shalt worship in homes.”
“Yeah, but why do I even need a church to worship in the first place?
“Well, I think we should start with the opposite question: Why wouldn’t you want to worship at a church? As Christians, members of a corporate body, we come to hear and celebrate what God is doing together, as a group. The desire to worship on your own or in a smaller group apart from the larger whole sounds like an ‘island mentality.’ We don’t go into separate rooms to take the Lord’s Supper, we receive it together at the same table. So also we shouldn’t divide into groups to worship God either. ‘Island syndrome’ at the core, is selfish.”
“Okay, I agree with that. Worship is a community event. We do it together. But you’re still not answering my question. Why a church? Why a building?”
“You’re right. We could worship anywhere we wanted. After all, Jesus says that where ever two or more or gathered, he promises to be there, too. But I think there’s a better reason for worshipping together, in a church, than because “we’ve always done it that way.”
“And what would that be?”
“Because that’s where God promises to show up. In his Word. And in his Sacraments.”
“Yeah, but I can read his Word wherever I go.”
“Right. Me, too. Isn’t that a blessing? But at church, where we agree to come together, is the only place we can have it spoken to us. You can worship at the beach, or in your house. But where else can you have someone else forgive your sins, and say ‘Christ died for you.’ Where else can you receive his sacrament? This happens at church, where these things come to us. There is great value in having his Word spoken to us, from the outside. Just like you can try to convince yourself that your crappy day will get better, but ultimately it’s not as comforting as someone else sitting next to you and hearing them say, “you know what, there’s hope in a better day that it coming to you. There’s someone who loves you and is going to change all this someday.’”
“Why do we need to have a pastor forgive us? I can forgive your sins right now.”
“You’re right, that’s one of the privileges of being a part of the royal priesthood. We can forgive each other’s sins. But what about the sins we commit against God? Although our sin breaks down our relationships with people here on earth, ultimately all sin is sin against God. We need hear someone forgive us on God’s behalf. That’s why we have pastors. We, as members of this corporate body called the church, recognize that God has appointed and given us these men to speak to us on his behalf. So although there is some comfort that our horizontal relationships can be restored by forgiving each other, there is no comfort like the assurance that God has forgiven our sins and loves us. After all, there are going to be people here on Earth who won’t forgive our sins at all. But if we are repentant, God promises to forgive us. There is great comfort in that.”
“I just don’t think that the church should be an institution.”
“What would you suggest instead?”
“I think the church should be a movement.”
“Describe what that looks like...”
"Well..."
posted by nate at 11:48 AM
13 Comments:
No doubt Acts is not a command...but neither is the institution, or a church as we know it...I don't disagree with anything you said, but I would hesitate to put the same emphasis on certain remarks...
for example, I listen to the bible in my car on CD's, and I listen and hear God's rich word, forgiveness and every other aspect of Scripture through the many Christian music groups I listen to (almost all day...well, whenever a technological circuit is available) who are communicating God's Word and truth to me.
I'm not against churches and church buildings, but neither should anyone be against anyone else who is getting the job done in ways that are "creative"...so let's stop arguing, and get to doing, each according to what he has been given (1 Corinthians 12). I think you should do what the Lord has called you to do, which is something I cannot do for the body of Christ. Would you agree the same for me? (I'm not talking about something immoral or unbiblical, which would be the only reason I can think of to disagree). May God bless you in the way that will communicate and speak his precious gospel to the people he has planted you with.
Just a question...is the forgiveness given by a layperson the same as that given by the pastor? Does the layperson speak on behalf of God? Certainly the answer is yes. A pastor serves the people as a matter of good order and, quite frankly, because we've always done it.
Let's empower the people of God and assure them that they, in Christ, can heal, forgive, loose and bind, and speak with the authority of God behind them.
Wow have you hit on an important topic. I know you haven't published part two yet, but I suppose I would ask the question: why not both? If you read Acts 2 you will find they met in the temple AND in their homes.
I think the problem begins when we compartmentalize our faith. Oh, I'm at CHURCH now vs. I'm not at church now.
We post-Constantinian Christians forget that the Last Supper was celebrated in a house.
Jesus' ministry was about people, not buildings. Ours should be too...and sometimes that means we have to rent or build buildings to do His work. But let's not force ourselves into some sort of formula or religious prescription for doing ministry.
And, certainly let's not limit our selves to just one or two days per week.
The Church is the bride of Christ. We should gather together in our homes. We should gather together at our Family Life Centers and our Sanctuaries. We should gather together at Starbucks and TGIFridays.
But wherever it is, we should do it every day.
***By the way, very cool blog. Keep up the great work!
As the writer of Hebrews said:
ESV Hebrews 10:25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and ALL THE MORE as you see the Day drawing near.
I like the thoughts Mark!
Quite simply, we as the Lutherans that we are believe that the church of Christ is present among those who rightly teach the gospel and rightly administer the sacraments. Sounds simple enough. Granted, it allows for an ample share of liberty when discussing the who/what/where of the church. However, I think it's important to note that the original intent of the reformers was not to rock the metaphorical boat. Why, then, do some contemporary Lutherans experience this insatiable desire to do something new, different, exciting, innovative? I find all of this gimmicky at best. Coming to a four-walled building on Sunday morning and hearing the reality of my sinfulness explained and condemned and the joyful promise of my forgiveness proclaimed is more than exciting enough for me. And if hearing isn't enough, we are privileged to actually taste the forgiveness in the *realest* way possible. Just because we don't limit the church to a physical structure doesn't mean it excludes the possibility of this being a logical and meaningful place for God's redeemed people to gather and hear his word of Law and Gospel. Also bear in mind: "liberty in these matters should be exercised moderately," and "nothing in the customary rites may be changed without good reason." (Article XV of the Apology) Personally, I see the so-called hum-drum church building as a customary place for "churchly" activities (Word and Sacrament ministry) to take place. This has been the custom for centuries. Our Lutheran Confessions, which we unashamedly subscribe to as a true and faithful exposition of God's Word, speak clearly on this matter. Since centuries of Christendom (Lutheranism included) hasn't found "good reason" to go about redefining the church as a "movement," the Lutheran confessions do not support this theory, and neither do I. However, in defense of the opposing side I'll add that I can understand how non-Lutherans might toy with these ideas since they have a flimsy, non-sacramental understanding of the church's existence and purpose.
In response to one other question raised...with all due respect, a lay person does not speak on behalf of God under normal circumstances. Binding and loosing of sins is an authority given to the apostles of the early church, and carried out today by the pastors of the contemporary church. "Concerning church government it is taught that no one should publicly teach, preach, or administer the sacraments without a proper [public] call." (Article XIV of the AC) For those who would argue that confession/absolution does not fall under one of the aforequoted categories, Article XIII of the Apology clearly identifies it as a sacrament: "Therefore, the sacraments are actually baptism, the Lord's Supper, and absolution (the sacrament of repentance)." The physical element, if you must have one, is the pastor's voice. Contemporary pastors hold the apostolic office; that is the authority by which they preach, teach, administer. It is an authority given by our Lord (John 20:21-22). This is the authority whereby our sins are forgiven in church on Sunday or any time we seek private Absolution from our pastor.
RosE said: "Why, then, do some contemporary Lutherans experience this insatiable desire to do something new, different, exciting, innovative? I find all of this gimmicky at best."
I think this is an outstanding question. To me, the answer lies in contemporary Lutherans realizing how biblically sound our doctrine is, and yet we discover how biblically unsound our practices are.
First, I know there are some great, vibrant, loving, authentic Lutheran communities out there. But it doesn't take too much looking around to find many, many dying ones. Unfortunately, the dying ones vastly outnumber the vibrant ones.
So, in my opinion, it is not about being innovative and new, but rather it is about being old and original. How did Jesus go about ministry? Preaching and teaching? YES. But was that all?
I'm reminded of Matthew 9 where Jesus went and had dinner at Matthew's house. A little background study yields some amazing truths: Jesus was hanging out with a "hairy" bunch! These were the sinners of the sinners! Did he offer Word and Sacrament?
Nope.
He developed relationships. He lived out his message to them, with them! I think that is what contemporary Lutherans are looking for: we have the Truth of Word and Sacrament, and because of the Great Commission, it is our duty to share them and proclaim them to all the nations!
We aren't wanting to be new, we are wanting to be New Testament. As in, pre-Constantine. Before the Chruch was legalized in the Roman Empire, Christianity was about being the church, living the church, regardless if it was in the temple or in the home.
Page 5 or 15 for an hour a week is not Biblical. Now if you add in real Christian fellowship (as we see portrayed in Acts 2, Romans 12 and the ideals discussed throughout 1 Corinthians) that is happening all the time, then I think you are getting close to the Church that Jesus planted.
The cool thing about it is this: it is not new, but it is very innovative. When you look at it over 2000 years, you see it works in every culture, every country, every time period.
The question is not merely if we are going to proclaim Word and Sacrament, the question is are we going to do it more than one hour per week...are we going to rest on our theology, or are we going to live it the way Jesus did?
Mark, you write:
First, I know there are some great, vibrant, loving, authentic Lutheran communities out there. But it doesn't take too much looking around to find many, many dying ones. Unfortunately, the dying ones vastly outnumber the vibrant ones.
This seems a rather broad statement. How does one determine when a "Lutheran Community" is "dying"? Are you talking about congregations whose numbers are plateaued or shrinking? Cause it certainly sounds like that to me.
If you are speaking of something more qualitative than quantitative, I think that is even harder to say. It smacks of a judgmental tone...
I am also wary of your comment about page 5 and 15. I used to think that any church that uses TLH was dead or dying. I used to think that they were just going through the motions. I used to think they were doing their weekly duty to God and was rather dimissive of the whole bunch. And while this may be true for some (some that use ANY form of worship, btw), I have also learned from experience that many congregations which use TLH DO have a "vibrant, growing" Lutheran community.
I agree with much of what you say besides this, and frankly, it sounds a lot like the Lutheran doctrine of vocation without using the word.
Preachrboy,
I hear you clearly. And, you hit the nail on the head about the doctrine of vocation! That's just it! We have the most biblical doctrine I have ever encountered.
I'm concerned about the practice. My comments about page 5 and 15 were not a criticism of THL, but rather the idea of sola liturgica (wink). Again, my point: Page 5 and 15 alone are the concern. The doctrine of vocation must be there also, in practice.
When I refer to dying communities I'm referring to communities that only grow biologically and not through non-Lutherans joining their journey. Is it about numbers? Nope. It is about the fruit on the tree.
The fact is this: The LCMS as a whole, is a dying church body when you apply that standard. Obviously there are wonderful exceptions. The church I attend is a great example. A look around the doctrinal landscape shows us how important it is for our church body to get out and build relationships.
My heart is not judgemental, but rather more like a brother among his fellow children...praying for them, lifting them up and calling them to reach out to a dark and dying world.
Mark,
Wow. Those are some assertive, well, assertions. I have to say I'm pretty tired of hearing about how churches that use the ecumenical western liturgy are dying, full of uncaring and unsanctified people, etc. This type of claim sounds both like the theology of glory and a pretty loose view of the 8th commandment. Our brothers and sisters with a liturgical piety are still our brothers and sisters--particularly those within our own Lutheran tradition. Furthermore, even if you were so kind as to provide some numbers to back it up, they would prove nothing. The harvest is unmeasurable until harvest time. Full pews are no measure of human hearts. A faithful church is one which proclaims Christ and him crucified and administers the Sacraments according to his command and promise, whether it has 15 people or 1500 in attendence.
As for pages 5 and 15 not being biblical, a brief examination of their contents should be a great joy to a lover of the Word such as yourself, for the service is shamelessly lifted from it, almost all verbatim, and steeps worshippers in it from start to finish. It provides both continuity in the canticles and variety in the readings which change daily and weekly.
Perhaps most curious is your analysis of our Lord's ministry. No, he didn't administer Word and Sacrament as the church does today. There was no need because HE WAS THE WORD INCARNATE. Those who walked and ate with him, felt his healing touch, heard he word of forgiveness in their ears knew his real presence in a way that we do not post-Ascension. As a human being, Jesus naturally developed relationships--we all do. The difference is that he went around forgiving the sins of all those people with whom he was in relationships. The Sacraments were his parting gift to the church so that we too would know his real presence and living, active Word of forgiveness; he institutes them at the end of his ministry because things are going to change for the church (as they also had changed when he became incarnate). There was no need for the Sacraments we know today when he dwelt among us because he was himself the means of grace.
Real Christian fellowship is not friendly interaction, heartfelt conversation, deep care for others--"Do not even the pagans do that?" Inserting Jesus into the camaraderie doesn't change it miraculously. The miraculous change is at his altar, where his very body and blood bind us together with each other and to him physically and eternally. This is where our true fellowship lies, for it is what our Lord gives to his people alone.
People who faithfully receive the gifts of God at a page 5/15 church on Sunday and then spend the rest of the week in prayer and devotion and fulfilling their vocations could do no better in the eyes of God. They _are_ living the church. I'm very troubled by the neo-monasticism which I hear from a lot of LCMS-ers these days, which seems to suggest that if people aren't spending all their days in spiritual contemplation and conversation they aren't sanctified enough. The fact is that the faithful of God have families and jobs, and tending to them in faith is an act of worship. To denigrate this is to travel down a blasphemous road well-trodden by Rome.
Nick
Nick,
Please, please go back and read my comments again. Litergy not biblical? You'd have to go back and find that quote, because I never came close to saying that.
Quite the contrary my friend!! It is the most biblical form of worship I've ever encountered.
My point all along has been very simple: Our church body has the doctrine, the tradition, the heart to be one of the most powerful "arms" of the Body of Christ in our culture (we've been very effective in others!).
I merely propose (not impose) that we be more 24/7 in our approach, rather than 1/1. I propose that we take our incredible doctrinal heritage and live it...
What are your thoughts?
Mark, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. The comment "Page 5 or 15 for an hour a week is not Biblical" sounded to me like another fistful of straw stuffed into the "evil unsanctified Lutheran" strawman we've all come to know and love in these conversations--naturally this spiritually frigid scarecrow would attend a liturgical church. I do ask your forgiveness if I mischaracterized you in this regard in my response. Regardless, that throwaway line was not my primary concern from your post.
Some other things to consider:
1. Shrinking community=shrinking church. A considerable number of LCMS churches were founded by immigrant farmers in rural areas. These communities are generally losing population as people get out of agriculture and move to the service economy-based suburbs. Where are their churches supposed to find more people to fill the pews? (Full disclosure: my congregation falls into this category. So do all the churches in my circuit, and nearly all the churches in my district.)
2. Shrinking families=shrinking church. 100 years ago, the average American family was a lot bigger than it is now. When Lutheranism half-heartedly followed the lead of mainline Protestants and abandoned teaching against contraception within the last few decades (although never actually saying it was ok), congregational growth naturally decreased as a result. Biological growth had until that point (for all of Christian history) been a huge source of converts for the church, if not the main one. I'm unclear as to why you contend that biological growth is inferior. A strong case can be made that the recent and very innovative lack thereof is one of our main problems.
3. 1 Sam. 16:7 "The LORD looks at the heart." Frankly, I don't know how other people in my congregation live their lives all week. I see many of them often, but the vast majority of their time is spent without me. I don't think this puts me in a position to declare that they aren't sanctified enough and aren't living the Christian life 24/7. I'm very curious as to the basis of these declarations. On the other hand, they're nothing new. Replace "emergence" with "monasticism," "Calvin's Geneva," "pietism," etc., and you end up with the same thing: one group of Christians saying that other Christians aren't sincere/expressive enough in their faith. Now I know I'm not sincere enough in mine. As for others, I think Scripture tells me to stay out of it and let the Judge do the judging.
None of this is to say that there isn't a lack of sanctification in the church. Of course there is; there always has been. That is why pastors are called to preach repentance, and to bind the sins of the unrepentant. Personally, I think a great way to increase the sanctification factor among our churches--or to cull their ranks--would be to reinstate the practice of private confession and absolution. I know it's done wonders for me.
Nick
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home