Is it possible to idolize the Church?
Think for a moment of Abraham and Isaac. Should Abraham cling to what the promise of God had delivered or should he cling to the promise of God? It's not a theoretical question because God demanded precisely the sacrifice of what the promise had delivered. If Abraham had clung to what the promise had delivered, instead of to the promise and the God of the promise, he would have refused to sacrifice his son - he would, in fact, have idolized him; looked to him for every good and help in time of need, instead of to the promise and the God of the promise.
I wonder if a similar temptation can afflict those who love the Church dearly. She's a glorious mystery. She's the body of Christ, the bride of the Lamb, the temple of God. And yet she is all of these things via the promises of God which create what they promise. Is it possible to cling to her in such a way that one begins to make an idol of her? To forget that she is created by the promises and that she does not herself create the promises, but faithfully passes them on, teching all her children to live not by confidence in her, but confidence in the Triune God whose promises never fail?
you gave the example of Abraham as resisting the temptation. For an example of not resisting, fast forward a few centuries to how the descendants viewed the Ark and the Temple (and Herod's Temple too).
ReplyDeleteGreat illustration! In similar fashion Christians also idolize Scripture, the Sacraments, and even faith itself. Someone once said that the human heart is an idol factory, and that is no less true of Christians. Those things that we should hold in honor and high esteem are uniquely positioned to be elevated too highly. Thanks for the post.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, the Church is the Body of Christ , which is He Himself. Christ's Body is not separate from His Person, His soul, Him. Therefore, idolizing the Church would require one to think Christ Himself an idol - and not the True God.
ReplyDeleteIs Isaac a type of the Church, even, according to traditional hermeneutics?
The promise we cling to is that as part of Christ's Body, by Baptism and Communion ingrafted into the Church, we see that our common, shared human nature has already been raised and is seated at the right hand of the Father already. That is not a promise, but faith in the reality of the witness of the Apostles and the Church (and the experience of the Risen Christ by the saints up to today) as to its veracity. According to Maximian anthropology and soteriology, the Christian life is conforming our person to the nature already recreated by Christ, and in undercutting our fallen, personal (gnomic) will to be obedient to the will of our nature (ousia) that we hold in common with Jesus Christ. This is the appropriation of the salvation Christ has already worked for us.
Christopher,
ReplyDeleteDo you know of any place in the Fathers where your argument from the Church as body of Christ to the impossibility of idolizing the Church would be made?
I wasn't using Isaac as type of the Church, though St. Paul does head that way in Galatians - we are children of the promise, of the free woman - but as an example of someone (or something) greatly loved and yet not idolized.
I think your argument with the word "promise" runs counter to St. Paul's whole way of speaking - for anything that cannot be seen, but is believed, concerning our Lord and His redemption and restoration of the human race falls into his category of "Promise" no?
Pax!
Can you point to anywhere in Scripture that says we can 'idolize' Christ? That is what the Church is, His Body.
ReplyDeleteOf course, we rely on the reality of Someone we have not seen: the Risen Christ. This is not a promise, as it was for the Old Testament saints, but a reality. The witness of the Church is what we base our hope on, however, because the Church is, and its 'seeing' members have seen, the Risen Christ. My spleen (sinners like me) can't see the reflection in the mirror (Christ), but my eyes (the apostles and saints) can. We spleens rely on our eyes.
Well, I think you might have demonstrated the concern with which I began the discussion. St. Paul speaks of the Church as Christ's body, but I think you are pushing his mystical metaphor beyond any bounds the Apostle would recognize. She is my mother and I must give her honor; but she is not my God, nor does she anywhere claim to be.
ReplyDeletePr. Weedon, your initial post said:
ReplyDeleteThink for a moment of Abraham and Isaac. Should Abraham cling to what the promise of God had delivered or should he cling to the promise of God? It's not a theoretical question because God demanded precisely the sacrifice of what the promise had delivered. If Abraham had clung to what the promise had delivered, instead of to the promise and the God of the promise, he would have refused to sacrifice his son - he would, in fact, have idolized him; looked to him for every good and help in time of need, instead of to the promise and the God of the promise.
Rx: Yet the Scriptures teach that this was not an either-or with Abraham. For he said, "The boy and I will go over there and worship *and will return to you.*" It was precisely because Isaac was born according to promise that Abraham could say this. So the underlying premise of your question is broken. Because Abraham clung to the promise of God, he clung to what that promise had delivered: the enfleshed promise, so to speak.
It is possible to make an idol of the church--when one rejects what the promise has delivered, the body of him who is the fountain of living waters, and clings to that which is not church, *even by its own admission*. Then one wonders why such cisterns hold no water!
What, after all, was it when Jereboam rejected the Temple, rejected the priesthood and the sacrifices and set up an alternative temple, priesthood and sacrifice? Was it not idolatry?
Dear Father Gregory,
ReplyDeleteAnd that is what you believe of us? How utterly sad.
I'm afraid I must weigh in on the side of my Orthodox friends, rather than that of my Lutheran brethren, on this one.
ReplyDeletethe church which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all (Eph 1.22-23)
Thus St Paul teaches us that the Church, like her Master, is a theandric reality: both divine and human. We adore our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ because He is God; we do not refuse Him the adoration that is His due because He also is man. We adore His body and blood in the sacrament of the altar; we do not refuse the adoration because the body and blood come to us under the form of bread and wine. In the same way we do not refuse to adore the fulness of Him Who fills all in all which His Church is, because she is made up, in her earthly aspect, of sinners (redeemed, but sinners all the same). In Him all the fulness of Godhead dwells bodily, and she -- His body -- is His fulness; and this fulness we adore.
That is not, and cannot be, idolatry.
Christopher,
ReplyDeleteWe adore Him who indwells the Church, we do not adore the Church in which He dwells. The angels also dwell in God, and yet specifically prohibit adoration being given to them. When people were tempted to fall down before the Apostles, in awe at the power of God at work in them, they again prohibit this. The Church is indeed a theandric - for to speak of the Church without the Lord of the Church is not to speak of the Church as scripture speaks of her. But the Church invites all adoration and glory to be given to her Lord and Master, not to herself, no?
Pax!
Also, it has come to my attention that my words were taken as an attack upon my Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ. It was not really meant as such - though if the shoe fits... - but was a reflection on the idolatries of my own sinful heart. I love the Church - I love her very much. But it is an ordinate love - to use a very Roman term?
ReplyDeleteHow does adoration of the Host fit into this discussion? It, also, is Christ's body. Is it inherently impossible to idolize it?
ReplyDeleteFr Weedon,
ReplyDeleteWhether it is possible to idolize the Church turns on the degree to which one may separate Christ from His Bride. To the extent that the Church is a created being separate from Him, it is possible to idolize her.
What bothers me is the possibility that we would be Nestorianizing the union between Christ and His Church.
David,
ReplyDeleteIs not that why the FC makes the distinction we find in SD VII:126?
Christopher,
ReplyDeleteI agree - we must Nestorianize, but nor should we fall into a Eutychianism that would confuse the two natures of the Church.
I guess it all depends on what the definition of is is. If the Church IS the Body of Christ than it IS the Body of Christ in the same way as when Christ said, "This IS my Body". Otherwise, we are ecclesiastical Calvinists.
ReplyDeleteThe very fact that the Church is referred to as Christ's Body takes it out of the realm of Eutyches who denied the presence of two natures in Christ in that the divine swallowed up the human nature.
Being a little puckish, I will quote the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1918 on Eutyches: "Eutyches simply upheld the ultra-Protestant view that nothing can be imposed as of faith which is not verbally to be found in Scripture. This, together with an exaggerated horror of Nestorianism, appears to describe his whole theological position." :)
I didn't take your comments as an attack on Orthodoxy, but as an interesting comment to discuss. So, no shoes needed, thanks.
ReplyDeleteIt gets to how one understands the Church. If it is simply the sum total of those who believe minimally right (saved by grace alone through faith alone), then one is in no danger of "idolizing" it because "it" doesn't really exist as a thing - "it" is simply a category or state that one is in, i.e. salvation.
If, however, the Church is an entity or organism - a Body for sake of argument - that we are members of , then this spiritual state becomes something quite different. I wonder if the fear of idolizing the Church is betrays an ecclesiastical iconoclasm that fears a too tangible, Incarnate God and we as his members through Baptism and the Eucharist? Not that this is what you are arguing for, obviously, as much as it may be an assumed paradigm and preference for a more "spiritualized" God here in Secular/Protestant America.
Christopher,
ReplyDeleteI have found Marquart's analysis helpful in this regard. In his volume on the Church he wrote:
Is it possible to discern a pattern in the ecclesiologies of these major versions of Christianity? Without oversimplifying unduly, we may say that traditional Roman Catholicism (before Vatican II) particularly, but also Eastern Orthodoxy, externalize the Church, while Calvinism spiritualizes her. Lutheran theology, by its innermost logic, understands the church incarnationally. To put this in Christological terms, the traditional Roman ecclesiology tends toward "Eutychianism," in that it confuses Christ's mystical body with the visible organization headed by the pope. Calvinist ecclesiology is "Nestorian" in letting "an invisible church" and "a visible church" stand side by side, without any real integration or bonding between them. The "Chalcedonian" approach of Lutheran ecclesiology distinguishes - without separating! - the church as inward communion of faith and as outward participation in the means of grace. Since the external Gospel and sacraments are the indispensible, God-given source, foundation, and sustenance of all faith and spiritual life, these means of grace bind in one the two "modes" of the church, and keep them from flying apart into two churches. (The Church, p. 10)
WW, citing Kurt Marquart:
ReplyDeleteSince the external Gospel and sacraments are the indispensible, God-given source, foundation, and sustenance of all faith and spiritual life, these means of grace bind in one the two "modes" of the church, and keep them from flying apart into two churches. (The Church, p. 10)
Rx:
What then shall be said of a body in which the sacraments are administered by laity, and what is said to be the blood of Christ is tossed in the trash? If the sacraments are so important to avoid Nestorianizing, then why are you still in fellowship with the people who do those things? Or do you share the Petersenian view that paper orthodoxy is as good as it gets this side of glory?
Fr. Hogg,
ReplyDeleteSince you hold me to a false priest in the cult of a golden calf, I'm not sure what the point would be of further discussion of anything.
We idolize the Church when we ignore the Scriptural evidence that the Church, in the proper sense of the word, is invisible, and instead assert that the Church is primarily a visible institution.
ReplyDeleteFr. Weedon,
ReplyDeleteAn artful dodge, that. To say that you are a false priest in the cult of a golden calf is to go too far; I have no idea, truly, what you are or where you serve. I know where the Church is; I do not know where she is not. I know that Lutheranism in the 1530's wanted ordination and didn't get it; the fault for that lies mostly with Rome. But it led to Melanchthon's "kludge" of a justification for priestly ordination, and it does not go too far to trace current church-and-ministry problems in Lutheranism to this tragic time in its formation.
Now back to the issue at hand, please.
Your cranky, 50 year old friend,
Fr. Gregory
Dr. Strickert,
ReplyDeleteI think you need to move the sense: it's not visible or invisible, its AUDIBLE! The true Church is found in the hearing of the Gospel.
Walther uses three arguments to support his notion that the church is invisible. First, he cites the Lord's words, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation, neither shall they say, Lo here! or, Lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you." We may set aside Marquart's claim that the verse should be translated, "the Kingdom of God is among you," and focus on the point of the argument. Walther's reasoning seems to be as follows: The Kingdom of God (i.e. the Church) is within you; but what is within one cannot be seen; hence the Church is invisible.
ReplyDeleteIf Walther wishes to say that these verses demonstrate the Church's invisibility, he shows too much; for the Lord says that the Kingdom does not come with observation, and the Kingdom comes with the means of grace (Gospel and Sacraments), which are observable. A Reformed view of the Church, as invisible, requires a Reformed view of the Sacraments—merely as outward signs of an inner grace. Walther is inconsistent here. It is more reasonable to suggest that the Lord's words are directed against the Pharisees, who looked for the Kingdom as a future, dramatic outward event. He tells them that it was already there, in himself, his apostles and disciples, and their activities. Recall his words elsewhere to the Pharisees, "If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you."
Next, Walther argues from 1 Peter 2:5, where Peter says "You also, as living stones, are built up as a spiritual house . . ." and remarks, "Accordingly, the true Church is a spiritual, hence not a visible, building." But this is a false dilemma. For when Peter goes on to say that the Church offers up spiritual sacrifices, he does not mean that the Church offers up invisible sacrifices. For he goes on to speak of Christians serving ("Keep your conduct honorable among the Gentiles") and suffering ("…do good and suffer for it") and neither doing nor suffering is invisible.
Finally, Walther also offers Paul's words from 2 Timothy 2:19, "The Lord knows those who are his," and then says, "Accordingly, the Lord alone knows them that are his . . ." But from the fact that the Lord knows x, it does not follow that only the Lord knows x.
Fr. Gregory,
ReplyDeleteI too know where the Church is: where the saving Gospel is proclaimed, the sacraments are administered, and the Holy Spirit gathers together the unique people of God. That's why I know the Holy Church is where you preach the saving Gospel and administer the Holy Sacraments. It is grief beyond words to me that you no longer seem to know this truth. You have moved from calling us servants of a golden calf to professing ignorance about what we are. We have not changed in our opinion of you, we know that when you preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit gathers a church. But I reiterate that it seems pointless to talk further when there is no common recognition even of the Holy Baptism which has joined us to the One Christ in His One Church.
Fr. Hogg,
ReplyDeleteYou've been arguing exactly the same point in exactly the same way for a year and it has never been persuasive.
I think I heard somewhere that the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again expecting to have different results.
Fr. Weedon,
ReplyDeleteAren't passives wonderful? By saying "is proclaimed, are administered," you paper over the entire AC 14 problem of lay absolution, lay consecration, etc. This is a violation of your own confessional standard--the confessional standard which is SUPPOSED to constitute ecclesial unity. Do not grieve at what I say; grieve at what you allow to be practiced!
Chaz,
If this point is not persuasive, being argued as it is from your own confessional standard, then it is evident that the confessional standard is no longer persuasive. Let me lay it out one more time. And don't just say "not persuasive"--show where it is wrong.
Premise 1: (AC 7) "The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. 2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments."
Premise 2: (AC 14) "Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called."
Subconclusion 1: (from premises 1 &2) The Gospel is not rightly taught, nor the Sacraments rightly administered, in ecclesial communions where those who are not regularly called, preach and administer them.
Premise 3: (from observation) The Missouri Synod is an ecclesial communion in which those who are not regularly called preach and administer the sacraments.
Subconclusion 2: (From subconclusion and minor premise) The Gospel is not rightly taught, nor the Sacraments rightly administered, in the Missouri Synod.
Premise 4: (from Lutheran dogmatics) The Gospel rightly taught, and the Sacraments rightly administered, are the marks of the Church, whereby one can know that one is in Church, and without which one cannot know this.
Premise 5: (from 1 Corinthians 15: "Evil company corrupts good morals"--see also 1 Tim 6:3-5, Rom 16:17) To tolerate an error without swift action against it, is to say that the error is a matter of indifference.
Conclusion: One cannot know that one is in Church when one belongs to the Missouri Synod--whether one is directly involved in a situation where lay preaching/administration of the sacraments is involved, or whether one merely remains in ecclesial communion in a body where those things are practiced.
You will note that this argument involves no Orthodox premise. It is argued solely in Lutheran terms: from the Scriptures, from the Confessions, and (in the case of premise 3) from universally-acknowledged experience. Thus, *in strictly Lutheran terms* one cannot know that the LCMS or its congregations are Church--either because one is in a congregation where there's lay preaching etc., or because one is in fellowship with other congregations where such things are practiced.
Church idolators fit the description given by J.T. Mueller in his Christian Dogmatics (CPH, 1934, p.543-4):
ReplyDelete"It is obvious that all who err with regard to the distinctive doctrines of the Christian religion must err also with respect to the doctrine of the Church. Of all the errors concerning the Church the foremost is that the Church is an 'outward polity' (externa politia, 'aeusserliche Polizei,' 'Heilssanstalt') 'of the good and the wicked' (Apology VII[VIII], 13ff.), to which persons are joined by their external membership...
"[This error is] not incidental, but rather the result of the rejection of the fundamental Christian article of justification by grace, through faith."
Dr. Carl Vehse, in his 1839 "Protestation" document, said it well (many years before Walther's Kirche und Amt):
"The true church, which we confess as the invisible church, is not to be superstitiously identified with the visible church.
"In the Third Article of the Apostles' Creed we confess, 'I believe in the holy Christian church.' The true veritable church which we confess must be the invisible church, for it would be a contradiction to confess a visible church when faith is the evidence of things not seen.
"Luther I, 444b, Jena ed. 'The church of Christ says, I believe in a holy Christian church. The muddled church of the pope says, I see a holy Christian church. The one says, the church is neither here nor there; the other says, the church is here and there.'
"For the true church is not visible, but invisible, believed in rather than seen. The evangelical-Lutheran church is called the true visible church, though within it true believers are comprehended together with hypocrites and godless persons in an external communion; thus the word 'true' relates only to outward evidences. Essentially, this true church in its full extent is invisible, and only the invisible church is actually the true church because more than any other church it holds to the external marks of the truth."
Fr. Gregory,
ReplyDeleteYou will rejoice to know then, how our District President shared with us at our last Winkel the Synod's plan for addressing the problem of laity violating AC XIV that was approved by the entire council of presidents and has the support of both seminaries and the Presidium of the Synod. By it, all who administer the sacraments will be ordained in the holy office. But the problem is that you do not believe it IS a holy office - ordained or not - but that we are priests of the golden calf, no?
If by the confession of the President of the Synod, the Praesidium and the Seminaries, lay violation of AC 14 is going on, then by their own testimony, one cannot now know that the LCMS is church. Please address which premise or conclusion of the argument is faulty.
ReplyDeleteNow, what marks the church is not plans for the future, but its actual life in the present. So let me know when the plans become reality. Till then, by Lutheran lights alone the conclusion stands. (And with regard to these plans, the prince of the negative afterlife lies in the nanoparticles. We'll see what actually sees the light of day, then.)
Fr. Hogg,
ReplyDeleteSubconclusion 1 is wrong because it applies the errors of some places to the whole.
Premise 3 is patently false. The Missouri Synod is not an ecclesial communion and does not claim to be one.
Your conclusion is based on premise 3 and since premise 3 is false, so is your conclusion.
Your approach only works if you forget the nature of Missouri polity and make discipline a mark of the church (as Calvinism does).
I'm interested in hearing if you have a response to William's wise points. If you don't, I must echo him and say that I'm not interested in continuing the conversation.
In fact, I'm probably not interested even if you do answer him.
Dr Strickert,
ReplyDeleteAlthough our Confessions do note that one cannot tell whether a person is truly joined to the Church by conformity to outward polity alone, that does not mean (and the Confessions do not teach) that the outward polity is meaningless, nor that the Church herself is "invisible". The Confessions never (to my knowledge) state that the true Church is invisible.
To the contrary, the Confessions teach that the Church may be known by the public preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments. These are outward and very visible things, and where they are found, there the Church is to be found. A person who conforms to the outward polity of the Church (but who, in his heart, is faithless) may indeed not be truly joined to the Church; but no one may truly be joined to the Church except through her public, visible, and covenanted means of grace.
In short, the visible Church and her public ministry are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being united to Christ. That is what our Confessions teach; the notion of an "invisible Church" is a Reformed heresy.
Christopher,
ReplyDeleteI agree in essence, but would rather term the "invisible church" not so much a Reformed heresy as an Augustinian red herring. Not the sense of sight, but the sense of hearing the spoken Gospel in both preaching and sacraments is where the certainty of the Church's life is to be found. None has expounded this better than Dr. Korby - and yes, Dr. Strickert, he was rather an astounding student of Loehe, but also knew, respected, and honored the teaching of Walther.
Rev. Mr. Lehman --you claim that the following premise is in error: "Premise 3: (from observation) The Missouri Synod is an ecclesial communion in which those who are not regularly called preach and administer the sacraments." It is in error, you claim, because the Missouri Synod is not an ecclesial communion.
ReplyDeleteI was being charitable by calling the LCMS an ecclesial communion. Sorry. I guess it's just a national not-for-profit corporation. Let those who support it, take note of what they are supporting. And set aside the ecclesial trappings: preaching and sacraments at conventions, etc. Set aside the Scriptures in favor of Robert's Rules, and the chalice in favor of a gavel.
If Lutheranism has no trans-parish ecclesial existence, what is the point of articles like AC 7? The "true unity of the Church" is not talking about the true unity of a congregation. It's talking about something trans-parish, and not _iure humano_, and not a mere conglomeration of individuals.
And if you are not in ecclesial fellowship with your fellow laymen and the pastors of the LCMS, then what kind of fellowship is it? Petersen's "paper orthodox" fellowship? Christians do not believe in a Word made paper, but one made flesh. And, yes, that flesh is visible and tangible.
Remember that the antecedent of "churches" in the AC were territorial entities: in the very nature of the case they were trans-parish. Chemnitz was not supervisor of an invisible church, but of a trans-parish entity. To say that Lutheranism has no trans-parish existence is to say, in other terms, what I said a long time ago: In the sense that "church" is used in the Augustana, there is no Lutheran Church.
Rev. Weedon: To oppose hearing and seeing, as you do, ignores the fact that baptism and eucharist are not merely heard, but seen and, indeed, felt and tasted. Further, you continue to leave unaddressed the not-unimportant point *from within Lutheran lights* of exactly who is doing that word and action.
Rev. Mr. Lehman, you also said:
ReplyDelete"Subconclusion 1 is wrong because it applies the errors of some places to the whole."
Now subconclusion 1 said:
"The Gospel is not rightly taught, nor the Sacraments rightly administered, in ecclesial communions where those who are not regularly called, preach and administer them."
It is not an error, *if* one is thinking in terms of a body, to say that if a member of the body is sick, then the body is sick. A bad heart, for example, is bad for the legs too. As St. Paul says, when one member suffers, all suffer together.
It is only an error if one denies any possibility of an ecclesial communion--if, in other words, the church is not a body but a colony of bacteria, a conglomeration of self-sufficient cells. (Too bad St. Paul wasn't aware of bacteria! "Now you are the colony of Christ, and individually cells of that colony.")
With such a reductionist, individualist notion of church, the miracle is that there aren't more divisions!
Fr. Hogg,
ReplyDeleteI would expect one who is as fond of logic as you are to not jump to conclusions that go beyond what your opponent says.
You write:
"It is not an error, *if* one is thinking in terms of a body, to say that if a member of the body is sick, then the body is sick. A bad heart, for example, is bad for the legs too. As St. Paul says, when one member suffers, all suffer together."
Then Orthodoxy is sick, because it is part of the body, just as Lutherans are. Orthodoxy is sick because of its own that are sick and the Lutheran congregations that are sick. Lutherans are sick because of its own that are sick and Orthodoxy which is sick.
I did not talk about the church as a conglomeration of self-sufficient cells. I did not deny the koinonia of the church. I did not deny that the church is a corpus mysticum.
I denied that one may equate the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod with "ecclesial communion."
Fr. Hogg... we have different starting places and so we are going to end up different places also.
I pray that you will repent of your prideful attitude toward your brothers and sisters in Lutheranism as I find that I must daily repent of my prideful attitude toward my brothers and sisters among the Orthodox.
I seldom hear the Gospel in your words. I pray that you have not forgotten it.
Rev. Mr. Lehman,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your prayers. The only thing worse than my pride is the fact that I have no reason to be proud. Thank you for your concern about the gospel, as well. If we were speaking of that topic, you would likely hear more of it. Our focus here, I take it, is the doctrine of the Church; and while every doctrine can obviously be tied to the Gospel, not every doctrine is identical with the Gospel.
Now, for the sake of clarity let's set aside all personal references, and even most of what's been said, to focus on one point. Tell me, if the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is not an ecclesial communion, what do you say that it is? In particular, what is its ecclesial status?
It's a bit difficult to describe the Missouri Synod in ecclesial terms, and I acknowledge that for you this is a difficulty.
ReplyDeleteBut, as you know, the Missouri Synod only really exists once every three years when it's in convention. It is the congregations that always exist and are always giving out the Lord's gifts.
Fellowship is not "synodical."
There are other analogies that could be made, but they would be rabidly anachronistic, so I think I'll just stick with the bare facts above.
Charles,
ReplyDelete"Fellowship is not 'synodical'."
I do not think that I understand what you mean by this; or, perhaps, if I do understand it I can't agree with it.
It is understood that the local Church, in which the Gospel is proclaimed through Word and Sacrament, is a true Church. But a Church does not spring up out of nowhere, with no connection to other authentic, catholic Churches (whether those other Churches be the true Churches of the past, or contemporaneous sister Churches). Just as grace does not come to us apart from external, visible means, so a true local catholic Church does not come into existence by "dropping from the sky" apart from the heritage she receives from the true Churches which came before, nor apart from manifesting her catholicity by her fellowship with other orthodox, catholic Churches.
This is just ecclesiology 101, really. And it is not as if a congregation's membership in the Synod does not have ecclesiological implications. First of all, a congregation which joins the Missouri Synod agrees to call pastors who are members of the Synod, and therefore have been prepared for office of the holy ministry either through the Synodical seminaries or through the Synodical colloquy process. This means that they have not only subscribed to AC 14, but also that they have agreed to a particular "implementation" of rite vocatus. It also means that the congregation agrees to the Synod's standards and procedures for discipline of the clergy; for if a man must not only be, but remain, a member of Synod in order to remain the pastor of a congregation, then a congregation's choice of pastor remains dependent on the Synod's disciplinary process. And not only with respect to the initial call, but also with respect to a pastor's continued tenure.
Being a member congregation of Synod also defines (as a practical matter) the congregations with which a congregation is in altar and pulpit fellowship. And ecclesiologically, that set of Churches with whom a given congregation is in fellowship partly defines what that congregation means by the phrase "the catholic and apostolic Church".
Even "between conventions" the Synod is doing things that are "ecclesiologically significant". It is forming men for the priesthood; it is influencing if not controlling the placement of pastors in parishes; it is exercising discipline over the clergy, including (at times) excluding men from the holy ministry for doctrinal or moral reasons. If there is a difference between doing those things and "being the Church", that difference eludes me.
My congregation and yours are in altar and pulpit fellowship -- and that fellowship is on the basis of our congregations' common membership in the Missouri Synod. What other basis for it can their be, since our pastor and elders have not examined the teaching and practice of your congregation to verify that we have a common faith (and vice versa, of course)? If that is not "fellowship being 'synodical'", then what is it?
Fr. Gregory,
ReplyDeleteIf the Missouri Synod has ceased to belong to the True Church just because it is currently tolerating lay officiants in some of its parishes, and this is enough to condemn it in your eyes even though you have just learned that a cure has been decided on, then how on earth did the Church Catholic survive that period between Nicaea I and Constantinople I, during which so many of its bishops repudiated the Nicene Creed?
Pastor Weedon, you mentioned SD VII:126:
ReplyDelete15. Likewise, when it is taught that the elements or the visible species or forms of the consecrated bread and wine must be adored. However, no one, unless he be an Arian heretic, can and will deny that Christ Himself, true God and man, who is truly and essentially present in the Supper, should be adored in spirit and in truth in the true use of the same, as also in all other places, especially where His congregation is assembled.
Does the East believe Rome has ever gone too far in its adoration of the Host? I ask sincerely -- I don't know the practice in the East. If Orthodoxy has no criticism of Rome's adoration of the Host, then that's consistent with the argument being made here.
David,
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding from certain Eastern priests that they have difficulty with the cult of the reserved sacrament as Rome practices it. Not that they would ever disagree that the host should be venerated; but that it should not be consecrated for the purposes of veneration and adoration, but to be consummed. There is a form of benediction of the Sacrament in the (unofficial) Western rite service book of the Antiochians. I know that both priests and a bishop have expressed concern about it, but it persists nontheless.
I guess I don't see the difference between that concern and the concern you expressed about "ecclesiolatry." If one can improperly worship the Host (the body of Christ), how is that different from improperly worshiping the Church (the body of Christ)? Or to put it another way, can we misuse the Church in the same way some misuse the Host, and does that amount to a form of idolatry? Maybe the concern stems from the use of the word "idolatry" to refer to Christ (or His Body) in any way?
ReplyDeleteDr. Phillips, you wrote:
ReplyDeleteFr. Gregory,
If the Missouri Synod has ceased to belong to the True Church just because it is currently tolerating lay officiants in some of its parishes, and this is enough to condemn it in your eyes even though you have just learned that a cure has been decided on, then how on earth did the Church Catholic survive that period between Nicaea I and Constantinople I, during which so many of its bishops repudiated the Nicene Creed?
Rx: I'm not sure I buy into the "true Church" taxonomy that your question presupposes--on another blog I had mentioned that I want to write something on the "true visible Church" notion, but haven't had time yet. There is just Church.
You will note, if you read the argument carefully, that I am not stating what I think--merely showing that from the Lutheran Confessions themselves, Missouri is not church. So if you do not like the conclusion, feel free to show how it does not follow from the premises. I am not condemning you. It seems to me that the Lutheran Confession are.
The Rev. Mr. Lehman said:
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit difficult to describe the Missouri Synod in ecclesial terms, and I acknowledge that for you this is a difficulty.
Rx: It is no difficulty for me at all, since I'm not in it. :-)
RML:
But, as you know, the Missouri Synod only really exists once every three years when it's in convention. It is the congregations that always exist and are always giving out the Lord's gifts.
Rx:
As Chris Jones pointed out, the Synod continues to teach pastors, and send missionaries, all the time. The delegates are elected, if memory serves me, for a three year term. The Synod, whatever it is, does not pass in and out of existence for a week every three years.
RML:
Fellowship is not "synodical."
Rx:
1. In the first place, Synod is a communion fellowship, in that its boundaries determine those with whom its members may rightly share pulpit and altar. You are committed to closed communion, are you not? It is supposed to be closed to members of the Synod and individuals belonging to the member congregations.
2. In the second place, the Synod in convention determines how those boundaries are expanded and contracted by declaring pulpit and altar fellowship with other ecclesial bodies. You don't get to decide that. Neither does any individual pastor or congregation.
And so you are in fellowship with (fill in the blank with your favorite lay-absolving, individual-cup-tossing parish or pastor), but you are not in fellowship with, say, the Rev. Paul Williams or the Rev. David Jay Webber.
Now, if the Missouri Synod is not an ecclesial communion, what is its ecclesial status? If it has none, what sort of entity is it? Please answer the question.
"Now, if the Missouri Synod is not an ecclesial communion, what is its ecclesial status? If it has none, what sort of entity is it? Please answer the question."
ReplyDeleteI chose to end my participation in this particular question by quoting my beloved professor.
"Is wrong question."
It is not clear to me how it can be a bad question to ask about the ecclesial status of something which calls itself the Lutheran CHURCH-Missouri Synod. Perhaps you've been reading 1984?
ReplyDeleteNope. But it's a great book. Maybe I'll reread it.
ReplyDeleteNo need to. You've got NewSpeak down cold. According to you, to ask the ecclesial status of a group that calls itself "Church" is a bad question. "War is peace," and now "'Church' isn't ecclesial."
ReplyDeleteSince the young jedi doesn't want to answer, can someone else tell me what exactly the ecclesial status of the Lutheran CHURCH Missouri Synod is? Is it merely a national non-profit religious corporation--i.e. is its self-understanding solely in terms of the Kingdom of the left hand, to use Lutheran terminology? Or is it, in some sense, "church" too? (If it isn't "church" in any sense, why does it keep the name "Church"?)
Fr. Hank,
ReplyDeleteRecall the words of one of your favorite teachers:
"The church is surely one, according to the Lutheran Symbols. And that remains a scandalous assertion from the century of splits in the church. Yet the church's unity is always distinguished from organizational integrity or harmony. For true unity, the Augsburg Confession avers, it is enough to agree in teaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments. It is not necessary that human traditions, including matters of polity and organization, be everywhere alike. This 'true unity' is crucial; without it, faith cannot come into existence and people cannot become righteous before God. The objective of human institutions and ordinances is organizational integrity and external union or at least intercommunion - an important and ongoing agenda. True unity is God-given; organizational integrity must be worked on by Christians.... In all, what emerges is a view according to which in this world one can know the church only in her present aspect, worshipping and serving, suffering and struggling." (Profiles II, pp. 71,72)
Piepkorn's words illuminate the ecclesial nature of the Synod. She partakes of the Church without the Church in any sense being limited to her. This is the mistake of those who regarded the Synod as "the true visible Church of Christ on earth." *A* true visible Church? Possibly. But an afflicted and suffering body, struggling against selfishness, sin, and death in its every manifestation. The simul justus et peccator runs right through the church's human side - even as she is permeated by the divine.
Is the Synod "Church" - meaning, is it the association of faith and the Holy Spirit in people's hearts? No. Is the Synod - this gathering of parishes and pastors and teachers and deaconesses and other servants of the congregation - a particular manifestation of the Body of Christ? Yes.
Those who do not see the Church as first and foremost that "association of faith and the Holy Spirit in the hearts, yet identifiable by external notes or marks" will never agree to what I have written, but neither will a Lutheran ever agree that the Church is limited to the supposed canonical bounds of Orthodoxy or Rome - canonical bounds that any impartial observer will note are most of the time honored more in the breach than in the keeping.
Pr. Weedon, you cite AC Piepkorn as follows:
ReplyDelete"For true unity, the Augsburg Confession avers, it is enough to agree in teaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments. It is not necessary that human traditions, including matters of polity and organization, be everywhere alike. This 'true unity' is crucial; without it, faith cannot come into existence and people cannot become righteous before God."
Rx:
Note carefully what Piepkorn says.
Agreement need not exist on matters like polity. But true unity, viz. "agree(ing) in teaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments," is crucial. Without it faith cannot come into existence and people cannot become righteous before God.
His words, not mine.
Now, you in the LCMS (and Lutheranism generally--this isn't just a LCMS problem) *don't* agree in teaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments (assuming that AC 14 is still your confession),
if some layfolk do both, with official sanction,
and you who reject it nevertheless remain in communion fellowship with them.
Teaching and administering are and must be done by somebody. Who? Who is the subject of those participles--a layman, or only a pastor?
That is an *obvious* case of not agreeing in teaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments. And if you "run the verbs" (to Nagelize for a moment) in the active, instead of the passive, as is your habit, you would instantly see this.
Piepkorn's conclusion? (Once again, not mine. His.):
"Without it faith cannot come into existence and people cannot become righteous before God."
That sounds pretty serious. And all this time, I am arguing from exclusively Lutheran presuppositions, drawing conclusions that Lutherans themselves have spoken.
Fr. Gregory,
ReplyDeleteThe practice of laity administering the Eucharist or preaching has - as you know - been protested loud and clear by numerous pastors and laymen as a blatant violation of our Symbols. It appears at last that it is being remedied. For that, i give glory to God. Error will ever seek to intrude in the Church.
When I bring up the matter of your communion's violation of its own canons with bishops overlapping jurisdictions, you assure me that it is working itself out and that we must be patient and recognize that hte church moves slowly. Yet Bishop Basil says it is heresy that is imperiling your own soul.
If you can be patient with the Orthodox in sorting out the canonical mess in the diaspora, why are you so impatient with the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod in sorting out the matter of ordering our church life accoring to AC XIV? Please don't tell me that's some logical fallacy. Tell me why you extend charity to the one, but not to the other?
Oh, by the way, Piepkorn DOES speak of the problem of violations of AC XIV in these terms:
ReplyDelete"First, the celebrant at Lutheran Eucharists is a clergyman. If violations of this principle have occurred, they may be put in the same class of abuses that have attended the history of the Eucharist at various times in the past, as when, for instance, in the primitive church ordained confessors who had not yet met martrydom were allowed in some places to celebrate on the basis of their confessorhood." (The Church, p. 132).
I take it there is a misprint there and he originally wrote "non-ordained."
Pr. Weedon,
ReplyDeleteI know all about the protests of violations of AC 14. I actually went to a local pastor who was having a layman do absolution. Now, a few years later, I hear that same layman has done the entire eucharistic service. We shall see whether the remedy sees the light of day, and what it looks like at that time. With a congregational polity, and even seminarians questioning the Synod's ecclesial status, I must confess some doubts.
As I have suggested on other boards, the current situation of the Orthodox Church in our continent is irregular, but I don't think it rises to the level of uncanonicity. It is certainly not phyletism: layfolk of any ethnic background are welcome in parishes of any other ethnic background; priests of all ethnicities serve in all jurisdictions (I believe you know a Greek in Antioch, for example); and my bishop has no Arabic blood in him but serves Antioch. Further, the hierarchs belong to a single group, and have just met for the third gathering of all Orthodox bishops in North America. With regard to your quote from His Grace Bishop BASIL, I would need to see it in its context.
It isn't a question of extending charity to one, but not the other. I am merely applying the words that the Confessional standards themselves speak, and that Lutheran theologians have said, to the situation of the Missouri Synod. Look at my argument from earlier yesterday. Your quarrel is not with me. It is with your own Confessions and theologians.
When the Orthodox Church hits a bump, it has a God-ordained way of dealing with it. Bishops meet, and pray, and talk. What they decide, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, is enacted in their parishes. (We've been doing it since Jerusalem.) Monastics and layfolk serve as checks and balances, should the bishops become wayward (as happened in Florence in the 15th century).
There is also this relevant difference between the Orthodox and Lutheran situations: the Orthodox situation in America arose out of a revolution which upset a previously-existing harmony. The Lutheran situation happened in a time of peace and prosperity.
Finally, I reject the assumption that I am not extending charity to the Missouri Synod. It is no sign of hatred to tell people whose souls are precious that their house is on fire. It would be no charity to call it a campfire, and start a weenie roast. I may be the only true friend you have. Am I proud, as Chaz said yesterday? Without question, and with no reason. Am a I horse's posterior? No dispute from me! And my situation, personally, is far worse than the average Lutheran's--for I have been given so much, and use it so poorly. But none of this changes the facts or reasoning I have employed, and the conclusion I have drawn from them: The Lutheran Confessions are the doctrinal standard of no actually-existing ecclesial body.1
I will be quiet again. I have been for some time. My recent flurry of posts stems from a post by Pr. Petersen, to the effect that there is only paper orthodoxy this side of heaven. It disturbs me when I see confessional men becoming relativists--not only because of them, but because of the layfolk they lead.
P.S. The "violations" Piepkorn is speaking of would have been occasional in nature, and without official sanction. His words here don't fit the nature of the "violations" taking place in Missouri now.
1. And we have only been speaking of lay celebration of sacraments. We have not addressed disposable communion cups. Nor have we even touched on the inversion of AC 28 (that pastors may excommunicate by divine right, changed to pastors announce what the congregation has done--even a scion of a well-known confessional family told me, "Robb, the situation has changed and we aren't going back to AC 28!").
Ask Fr. Daniel Griffith about His Grace's hard words.
ReplyDeletePr Weedon wrote, It is my understanding from certain Eastern priests that they have difficulty with the cult of the reserved sacrament as Rome practices it. Not that they would ever disagree that the host should be venerated; but that it should not be consecrated for the purposes of veneration and adoration, but to be consummed.
ReplyDeleteHere's where I must be missing something, and if someone could set me straight, I'd appreciate it. If this is the case, is it because these Eastern priests believe Rome's practice approaches an idolatrous treatment of the Host? Or would they say it is impossible to react idolatrously toward the Host, because it is the body of Christ? If the latter, then it's consistent with the argument made about the Church in this thread. If the former, I don't understand the difference.
I think it's the latter -- but, then, I'm an Eastern Catholic, not Orthodox.
ReplyDelete(Gregory Dix notes passingly in his *A Detection of Aumbries* how when orthodox bishops visited Dix's [Anglican Benedictine]monastery they all routinely venerated the reserved Blessed Sacrament, even though they would not normally do it in a Byzantine non-liturgical context.)
David,
ReplyDeleteIn his widely popular introduction to Orthodox Christianity The Orthodox Church, Bishop Kallistos Ware says this:
Orthodox do not hold services of devotion to the Blessed Sacrament outside of the Divine Liturgy, although there is no theological reason -- as opposed to a liturgical reason -- not to do so.
(I'm quoting from memory, but this is pretty close to verbatim.)
For a long time I was puzzled as to what Bp Ware meant by this. What would a "liturgical reason" be? But I think what he means is that we are not to deviate from what our Lord commanded concerning the Supper, even if we think that it makes theological sense. If we turn "take, eat" into some other action, we are celebrating the liturgy otherwise than as our Lord commanded.
But the Orthodox have no "theological objection" to eucharistic adoration. If, as the Formula of Concord teaches, the sacrament of the altar "is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ" (FC SD 7.21), then the bread and wine are not conduits which deliver the body and blood, nor vessels which contain the body and blood, but themselves are the body and blood of Christ. If that is true, then they are to be adored. Otherwise, we are either saying that the bread and wine are not the body and blood of Christ; or we are saying that Christ is not to be worshipped in His human nature (i.e. in His body and blood) but only according to His divine nature. But that is to Nestorianize and deny the hypostatic union. And further, it is to deny the divinization of our human nature in the person of the incarnate Word, and to deny the theosis of the redeemed in the Kingdom that is to come.
A bad deal, all the way around.
even though they would not normally do it in a Byzantine non-liturgical context.
ReplyDeleteIt is the custom among Orthodox (Russians, at least) to cross oneself when passing by a Church. It is my understanding that this is an act of reverence toward the Blessed Sacrament which is presumed to be reserved on the altar. That would certainly qualify as a "non-liturgical context".
"Discipleship in flesh" is no true discipleship, but idolatry towards your own ego. (cf. Galatians 3; Amos 5:21ff and many other bible passages)
ReplyDeleteIntrinsically this does not have to do with outward worship forms, but with your real relationship of heart with God.
David prays: "Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." (Ps. 139:23f)
God is the only one who may reveal the true ambitions of our own hearts.