Ecclesiology
Who is the church to whom I am in
submission?
I’m thinking about ecclesiology. How much should a person—or a denomination—submit to the will of the entire church of Christ? In general I take seriously the notion that the Holy Spirit speaks through his people—that’s a strong ecclesiology. I think it is dangerous for an individual to decide what God wants in defiance of the rest of Christ’s church. That goes for politics or any other issue. So when I find myself in discontinuity with the general flow of Christians I feel “checked” and want to reconsider my views. But my strong ecclesiology makes me ask several questions I have not yet worked through completely:
1. What is “the church?” If I commit to submit to the general sense of God’s will as understood by the church—which church is it that I should submit to? My local church? My denomination? All “holiness denominations” (or whatever grouping fits you—Reformed, Anabaptist etc.) Or does “the church” include all Christian denominations—including all protestants, Catholics and the Orthodox folk too? How about regional matters—if I am to get the “sense of the body (of Christ) in these things does it include only Christians in my own country or do I give a “vote” to the majority of Christians in the “third world” too? And beyond this—what weight do I give to the Christians who have died in the last 2000 years—church “tradition?” It is easy for me to say I must let “the church” correct my sense of God’s will but defining “the church.” is a far harder matter. I need to think on these things.
2.
Can the majority of “the church” be wrong? If I am successful in defining whom I mean
by “the church” (to which I ought to submit) another question rises: can the
majority—even 90% of the church be wrong?
What about the era when most of the church tacitly approved
slavery—would I submit to “the church’s” view in 1843—including much the
Methodist church and most of its leaders?
Or would I rebel and reject slavery as morally repugnant even though
accepted by “the church.” The vast
majority of “the church” past and present disapproves of ordaining women—does
my strong ecclesiology obligate me to submit to this “majority rule” on
discerning Gods’ will for the church?
When should an individual submit to the “sense of the body” and when
should she resist what “the church” senses is right or wrong? If you are a thoroughgoing Baptist you
probably don’t have this problem—you feel free to declare yourself free of “the
church’s” sense. But I am a
Wesleyan—and the Methodist family comes form the Anglican tradition…we never
had a “reformation” in the same sense that Presbyterians had. Thus we are a bit more catholic-ish than
Baptists. Our ecclesiology demands we
consider “the church” including “tradition” when determining God’s will. So that puts a walloping crimp in my life
when I find myself out of step with the majority. What does a person do when
they believe the general consensus (at least in one’s own country) of
Christians are wrong? Do we submit to
the over all sense of the body, or fight to persuade the majority of their
error? How do we know which is right—is
it merely the side that wins eventually?
The abolitionists that founded my own denomination were a minority yet
fought against slave-holding and finally won. The winners write the history and now we all condemn slave-holding
as sin. How can a person (like me) with
a strong ecclesiology ever fight against the majority—and when should they
submit? I need a model that reflects an
answer to these questions.
So, “If I am to submit to the church in my
opinions and interpretations—who is the church? This issue came personally home to me
recently when I did some writing on my personal political views, which was
something like pouring gasoline on myself then asking a mob of evangelicals
“got a match?” (They had one.) Anyway, if I had a “low view of the church”
(like for instance if I were a good Baptist) I’d simply blow off the majority of
the folk who disagree with me and pronounce them all wrong—believing that I
myself have the right and duty to interpret the Bible for myself and I have
discovered God’s position on these things and these readers (mostly Baptist, by
the way) are simply unenlightened.
But I’m not
a primitivist with a low view of the church—I have at least a medium view of
the church, and perhaps even a high view.
I’m a Wesleyan and our heritage comes from Methodism which comes from
Anglicanism which comes from the Roman Catholics. We didn’t have the same reformation my Presbyterian friends
had. So I take it seriously when I’m
out of step with the “church” (whatever “the church” is). This is why I’m trying to think through
this issue. Let me start by collecting
some fragments of my thought and make a start toward formulating a model that
answers this question:
1. I don’t
trust individuals. I may not fully trust “the church” but I
trust individuals even less. When an individual announces to me what they’ve
discovered exactly what the Bible “really means here” I want to check their
“discovery” with the rest of the church.
I think individuals can too easily deceive themselves. Letting individuals “go it alone” in
interpreting the Bible (or making any other decision) can get us to Waco Texas
or drinking arsenic-laced Kool Aid. I
distrust individuals—which is why I have a high view of the church. Thus in making political decisions I ought
to ask, “What is the Christian position?” but I do not trust individuals—even myself. I want the individual’s position informed by
the total church—I just believe the entire “body of Christ” has something to
say about the position of Christ.
2. So I
expect an individual to “test” their view with their own local church. I should test my individual
interpretation of Scripture (or political position) on my own local body to see
if it is sync with their understanding of the Lord’s will. This is safer. This is what Sunday school classes are for (should be
for)—so we can share our unique interpretation of Scripture and get it
moderated by others. If I test some of
my own political positions on my local church I get a divided response—I’d say
form my mail and conversations about 80-20, with only 20% agreeing with
me. That is an alert to an
interpretation of scripture or political opinion if you have a high view of the
church. However, sometimes a whole
local church can be wrong. I’ve seen it.
You might even say the above reference to Waco and Guiana were whole
churches that were off their rocker—not just individuals. I know of whole local churches who have
strange beliefs that are way off the deep end of orthodoxy. So, while my own local church should be where
I start testing my positions, it can’t be the end of my testing
journey—“the church” is more than my local church.
3. Thus I
ought to test my thoughts on my denomination. Even if my local church or small group
all affirms my thoughts I still ought to test my thoughts in a larger
circle—like my “denomination.” Here
there are two checkpoints to stop at:
(a) the present popular opinions and (b) the official history and
doctrines of the denomination. If I
test some of my personal political views this way I get mixed signals. The current opinion is about 90-10—I am in
the 10% minority when it comes to present political positions so I need to take
note of that—it is a serious “check” on my view. However in checking the history and doctrine I get quite another
read. The doctrine of my church says
nothing at all about one or the other political party and can easily be read to
support neither or to produce a pick-and-chose position that neither party
satisfies. As for history, my
denomination (The Wesleyan Church) was born in a social movement in the
1840’s. We were started by a gang of
radical abolitionists who were so angry with the Methodist church for refusing
to condemn slave-holding as sin they broke away and started the “Wesleyan
Methodist Church.” These folk were
active in breaking the laws by slipping slaves through the underground railway,
refusing to obey the fugitive slave act, and generally made themselves a pain
in the neck to conventional Methodism and to the sherrifs of any county with an
escaped slave in it. On top of that they
were strong feminists (one of my denomination’s preachers preached at the
ordination service for the first women ordained in America and we ordained
women from the beginning). The “other
half” of my denomination (the Pilgrim Holiness Church) sprang up at the turn of
the century as a city mission to poor people—tramps, outcasts and
prostitutes. We were acutely aware of
the plight of the poor and both prayer and poverty were important to us. So in history I get maybe a 10-90 reading
from the early days—that is I get more “votes” from the members of the
denomination who are now dead than those who are alive—especially those dead
the longest. (Is this why I like
history so much—I feel at home with those long gone more than those alive
today?) However, there is a twist still
with this model. I don’t completely
trust denominations either. Whole
denominations can be wrong about things.
In fact some say that this is the source of denominations—finding
something to be wrong about and founding a splinter group on the excess. (I
didn’t say that—but some do ;-). I do, however, believe whole denominations can be wrong about
things—mine is, I admit. So when
defining “the church” with whom I want to “test” my views I need to go even
larger than my denomination. Something
needs to “audit” my denomination’s view too. Who?
4. I think
ideas should be “tested” by the entire movement. In a sense I think a denomination should
submit somewhat to a whole movement—and so should I. The larger group provides a “check” on the smaller one, the group
on the individual. Right now my
denomination claims to be a part of “the evangelical movement.” (we used to be a part of the “holiness
movement”). So I expect my
denomination’s “unique ideas” and “distinctives” (including political ones)
ought to be “tested” by the whole evangelical movement. Mine should too. As for some of my own cherished political views -- I get maybe a
70-30 reading in the evangelical movement—I am in the 30% minority (larger if
you believe the numbers in actual polls—less if you monitor the language in
local churches). But there’s still a
problem with the model. Occasionally
“movements” can be wrong, at least excessive.
In fact some historians will claim that all movements are
excessive—and when they moderate they lose their traction at affecting the
whole. So I want even another level
“above” the movement.
5. The
church worldwide past and present is the highest body. If I am going to check my interpretation
of Scripture above my own head I need my local church as my first checkpoint,
then my denomination, then my movement, but ultimately I need a checkpoint even
larger than my movement—for even movements sometimes are in error. Thus I am wiling to subject my
denomination’s and movement’s ideas (and my own) to the standards of orthodox
Christianity past and present worldwide.
Christian in Albania and Chechnya should get a vote too. The desert fathers and Martin Luther should
both get a vote. Calvin and Wesley and
St Francis too. The final “check” for
my individual position (if you have a medium-high view of the church like I
want to have) is the parade of past Christians from the apostles through
history. How did they interpret
this Scripture? What were their
views on politics?
So I wonder if “the church” I want to
submit to is best illustrated as a collection of concentric circles. The individual (me is in the inner
circle but I can’t trust myself completely so I “test” my views in the local
church (the next circle out) then my denomination provides yet a
larger circle outside my local church and provides a “check” to error and
aberrant local church views. Outside my
denomination is yet another circle of “our movement” who provides a
“check” on us all, and even outside that is the Christian church worldwide
past and present who “audits” everything inside. (I use “check” and “test” and “audit” purposely, for I don’t see
these circles so much as a hierarchy of submission as “checks” on the inner
circles.)
When I “test” my
political positions this way I get some interesting answers. I find myself less out of step the further
out I run my “test.” In fact I find
great affinity with the Roman Catholic Pope’s positions—something that causes
my radical reformed friends to quake and turn yellow!
But this model
still is unsatisfactory to me. For it is conceivable to
me that the whole set of circles could be wrong about something. It should be rare, but I have to admit that
it has happened. Not on doctrine so
much as practical matters—positions like political ones in fact. Take slave holding for instance. I suspect an anti-slavery position wouldn’t
get a majority vote from the big circle.
Neither would ordaining women.
Or, refraining from beating your kids with a rod to make them behave,
for that matter. So my model doesn’t
work yet. I still need to think
more. I need some way to provide for
“the prophet” for change to occur. I
need some way to provide for the Anabaptists who marched into a world where all
the circles insisted on infant baptism yet these guys called for adult baptisms
and adult conversions. I need to
provide for a Martin Luther who went against all the circles to proclaim
something new and different. I need to
provide for John Wesley’s radical notion of assurance—that a person can
actually know for sure that they are saved—when all the protestant
circles said “you can’t know—you can only hope.” My model does not yet provide for that---so I need to keep
thinking…
As I think more on thinking on the question,
“If I am to submit to
the church in my opinions and interpretations—who is the church? I answered that question by drawing a set of
concentric circles defining the church from a local church out through the
church past and present around the world.
The theory was that each outside circle would provide an “audit” to
those inside to keep individuals (local churches, denominations etc) form going
off the deep end. The trouble with the
diagram was it provided no place for “development.” That is if I defined “the church” that way and insisted we all
submit to the teaching of the church as drawn—Martin Luther should have
recanted! I needed something to provide
for a prophetic role where the entire church could be wrong past and
present—yet still someone could come along and challenge the church.
So I’ve simply added a slice
like a piece of pizza to the concentric circle to represent the “Prophetic
role.”
Martin Luther sliced into the
conventional thinking of his day (and most of history before him) with a new
approach. Same with the abolition
movement. I think Luther was (mostly)
right. And over time much of the church
(even significant parts of the Roman Catholic Church, howbeit almost 500 years
later) came to agree. My model now
works. I want us to be submissive to
the church “checked” by the increasing circles, but I also allow for someone to
stand for God and proclaim the church past and present wrong—a prophetic
role. I sometimes find myself totally
in submission to circles of the church.
Occasionally I find myself in the “prophetic slice.” I don’t fit with conventional thinking past
and present. I’m suspicious of any
thinking that doesn’t fit into Christian tradition, but I occasionally have
some.
So the next
question is: How do we know if the “Prophetic slice” is right? Do we know this by pure democracy? If the prophet persuades enough church circles does it become
valid? When is the prophet a false
prophet? How long do we let a prophet
say things “outside the circle” before we excommunicate her or insist she
stop? If I find myself “in the slice”
what signs should I seek that I am out of bounds? Here are some tentative conclusions:
- Give it time. A new twist needs about
100 years to be tested. I’m not
ready to jump on board a notion like “Open Theism” without a hundred years
to think about it. Open theism
gives us answers to some hard questions—for instance the question, “Does
Prayer ever actually move God?” But it is a new answer—so it needs a century to convince us.
- Look for “everywhere” confirmation. Don’t
be impressed that 90% of American Evangelicals agree if the rest of the
world’s Christians differ with them.
Look for confirmation form all Christians in all ,locations.
- Triangulate. This will drive my Reformed friends nuts, but, when it comes to
authority I think I want to triangulate between three sources:
·
Protestants
(including evangelicals)
·
Catholics (I
don’t buy it all—but on many issues the Pope speaks for Christ better.)
·
Eastern
Orthodox (They are our oldest branch and closest to the church fathers)
Of course
I do not weight these equally—after all, I’m a protestant.
But then again, who speaks for the Protestants? As a Protestant I can find confirmation of
just about any idea I can dream up. So
I suppose I give about half the votes to history, then split the rest by
triangulating them among the three Christian groups today—but weighting them a
bit toward Evangelical-Protestants.
OK—enough on this subject for a while—it needs to marinate.