In Christ(ianese)

Self-actualization is a long process. Maslow was well-aware of the difficulty in achieving an individuated selfhood. One must climb, as it were, "up" the eschelons of self-awareness until, by degrees, one is a fully realised, fully actuated person with all personal potentials being utilised. It is an existential reality everyone must grind through, and it is often fraught with vast pains, remorseless joys, and common experiences between those extremes.

More, our interactions with others add to, or detract from our self-actualization. However, our self-realization and self-actualization happens, on a fundamental level, alone. No-one else self-actualizes for another.

With that in mind, I cannot help but call into question the teachings I was attendant to at a Pentecostal church recently. The subject was, essentially, identifying who you are and becoming fully you. The catch was that in order to be who you fully are, you have to be that person "in Christ".

Well, far from being a religious critic, I must admit that this phrase put me off straightaway. I was ripped out of my nostalgia by a sudden sense of urgency; urgency that perhaps I had just listened to an interesting preamble about self-identifying and self-actualizing, but that such a disposition could only take place "in Christ".

What does the phrase "in Christ" even mean? Are we somehow enwombed in this man, Jesus, people call "the Christ"? And given that last question, how can we relate to the preposition in Christ, when what is being suggested is that we are included in his title of 'Christ', or 'Messiah'? Linguistically, the phrase simply doesn't make sense. What does it mean to be "in Christ"? No-one really knows, but we acknowledge it on a notional level, we give the connotation a favourable nod; we feel all soft inside, as if we've been rolled in a giant warm-fuzzy. But the phrase means literally nothing on a practical level. It is wanton Christianese.

Particular idioms like "in Christ" should be expected in Christian assemblies, however. In-groups have their own fashionable expressions, their own method of meaning that out-groups simply cannot partake in. And it's not as if the inability to partake of in-group lingo is forced on out-groups; I'm sure this particular Pentecostal church would like nothing more than to swell its ranks. The difficulty is that in-group lingo is fixed against the sensible notion of making what one says intelligible. Or, as Paul put it in 1 Cor. 14:10-11,

"Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me."

So while it is that in-group lingo is fashionable and expected, I can't help but wonder why any church would allow it if the net result is that outsiders feel alien? The church's mandate, as far as I've been educated, is to make Jesus the Christ understandable, convincing, persuasive, graspable, intimately familiar, not vague, imperceptible, elitist, and contradictory. And it is phrases like "in Christ" that do just that: remove understanding from outsiders and render communication bleak.

Another catch-phrase was thrown at me when I asked a couple questions of the leaders. The phrase "prayed-up". I was struck by the overt insincerity of this nugget. In essence, the phrase "prayed-up" implied that one can simply go to the prayer-bar, in much the same way one would go to a gas-bar, and fill their spiritual tank. Simply drop to your knees, pump the spiritual sagacity in, and then carry on your merry little evangelistic way. Rubbish and poppycock!

Look, if the context of a lesson is going to be about how a person can self-realize and self-actualize, then importing confusing mumbo-jumbo about how that can happen in somebody else as long as they are filling up on prayer (spiritual gas, that is) is contradictory and inane. There's no sense trying to convey large concepts like self-realization and self-actualization by speaking about them in connotative language that means literally nothing to outsiders, and is internally contradictory, even when examined from the perspective of an insider. Why add confusion if what you're trying to do is bring clarification? Lingo should never trump the content of the lesson. When it does, as it did in the case of my experience with this Pentecostal group, all that's left is to state firmly, "do not speak unless you can improve upon the silence." In other words, shut-up.

The Never Erring Story P. 2

I didn't think I'd be writing a part 2 to this subject but, like the movies that inspired my title, I'm fated to weigh-in once more. This time, however, my good friend, Gregory (a first-rank Catholic apologist) has opened the opportunity for some hearty debate. His response to my first article carried with it the flavour of tart sauciness, and seemed steeped in more than a little spicy polemic.

What follows is my response to his comments. His remarks will be in red and mine will remain black.

"I suppose if we want to ignore the nuances of definitions, we can say all sorts of silly things, and point out ample non sequiturs to bolster our defense."

More than likely true. And most certainly true for the usual operations of Catholic rhetoric. More about that later, however.

"The statement, 'The Catholic Church has/can/will never err(ed)' is at best shorthand for 'When officially defining and promulgating doctrine pertaining to Faith and Morals, the Magisterium of the Church is preserved by the Holy Spirit free from formal error.'"

Thank you for that information, Gregory. This raises a particular concern for me. Namely, that I included this very definition in my original article, albeit with a slightly different arrangement of words. Here, again, is what I wrote:

"...the Catholic Church believes she has never erred in matters pertaining to
faith and morals; it has nothing to do with historical opinions. To quote the
Wikipedia entry, "in Catholic thought, the exemption of the Roman Church from error extends only to its definitive teachings on faith and morals: not its historical judgments." In other words, those teachings that are not held to be divine revelations but are free from error and essential to proper belief."

As I failed to mention in my original article, this idea of the Catholic Church's impeccability is an extention (without warrant) from the doctrinal claim that Jesus was without sin. If Jesus was without sin, and the Church (i.e., those who gather in Christ's name and share in his sacramental life through the emblems of the church) is Christ's body, then it seems to follow that the Catholic Church would not be subject to error/peccability.

Reality bears out otherwise, I'm afraid. You see, unless a person is willing to divest themselves of any interest in rationality, there's simply no possible way to make such a sweeping claim demonstrable. Unless... Unless we make metaphysical disections between the spiritual and the physical. That provides the opportunity to make rhetorical manipulations (I mentioned I would get back to this) that completely obfuscate communication, and render free inquiry meaningless.

Theo: "The Catholic Church has never, cannot, and will never sin or make erros in matters of faith and morals."

Kim: "But what about the systematic pograms during the Crusades? The popes that raped and impregnanted women with bastard sons? What about buying offices? What about the witch-hunts? What about Pius XII ambivalence to the Jews? What about the Vatican openning the geneological records of Jews living in Germany to the Third Reich? Don't those kinds of things imply culpability on the part of the Catholic Church?"

Theo: "Yes, but those examples are simply mistakes of people. Clearly you don't see that sort of stuff being given the a-okay in our Catechism, do you?"

Kim: "Well, no. But..."

Theo: "And that's because the Holy Spirit preserves the Church from error in matters of faith and morals."

Kim: "But those horrible things were done by the Church. They certainly weren't actions that were borne of true faith. And they certainly weren't moral actions!"

Theo: "That's true: they weren't moral actions. They were the actions of sinful people."

Kim: "But it's people who are the Church. You can't just divorce the people from the Church. That doesn't make any sense. You're just playing with words now."

Theo: "The Church is comprised of people, yes. And sometimes people do bad things. But the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ cannot sin. The Holy Spirit preserves the Church from error. Sometimes people make bad decisions. Even the pope makes bad decisions sometimes; like, the witch-hunts, say. But that doesn't mean that the Church sins because individual people sin."

Kim: "So, are you saying that the Church is both the people and Christ's body? Are you saying that if the Church does something horrible then the blame gets dumped on to the people, while the entity called the 'Catholic Church' remains unstained by what the people within it do? Why is it that our sins hurt Christ so much before that he decided to die an agnonising death for us, yet now that he's gone and ascended suddenly his body, his Church, isn't implicated by what it's members do? Why don't Catholic errors make a difference to what our faith means, and what our moral standards are? How can you divide Christ from the people that make up his body like that?"

I sympathize with Kim: at what point does any institution get the jurisdiction to divide reality for it's own purposes? Theo clearly believes that if bad things were done, it was because that was a result of human taint/sin/depravity, call it what you will. At the same time, Theo dumps all his confidence in the doctrinal claim that the Catholic Church is impeccable in matters of faith and morals. Theo has no way to measure the truth of this kind of claim, so he has to resort to meaningless rhetoric, hair-splitting, and performative logic (what is said constitutes the thing referred to; or, what is said becomes its own proof, or point of reference).

This is quite obviously ridiculous. No-one can live out this kind of mentality in real-life without being thought insane. If I were to shoot a classroom full of kindergaarten kids, I wouldn't have any kind of defense for my actions. I wouldn't be able to say, "well, that was just my body, my fleshliness. My mind was pure apart from the actions of my body. I've told myself over and over again that I shouldn't shoot children, but my body didn't listen." That kind of talk would have me implicated on not only charges of mass murder, but also have me committed for irremediable insanity.

No logically capable, or emotionally stable individual would be free to use claims such as the Catholic Church's impeccability clause on an individual level. It simply cannot be applied or accepted in reality without a person being understood as clinically insane. So, since it cannot be in any way a practical, or livable reality, it is in all ways irrelevant. It is a fantasy that provides a convenient loop-hole when stuff goes wrong in the Catholic tradition. It is a way of dodging responsibility and accountablity. It is a highly sophisticated use of a childhood method for avoiding homework: an excuse.

"This does not mean that the Catholic Church's members are free of sin (impeccability). It only means what it meant for the writers of Sacred Scripture--that, when they wrote Sacred Scripture, they didn't make formal mistakes pertaining to faith and morals. In fact, the writers of Sacred Scripture got a second gift that the Catholic Church does not claim for itself today--that of infallibly declaring new revelation."

Let's stick with one topic, shall we? It's one thing to bellow-out that I've got my definitions mixed-up, muddled-up, and back-asswards. It's another thing to counter that alleged confusion with a new topic: the infallibility of scripture. We can go that direction if you'd like, but let's examine the course I set out already: the supposed impeccability of the Catholic Church. One thing at a time, as is so often quoted.

"In other words, all Christians can (or should be able to) agree that the Bible, being the Inspired Word of God, is inerrant. Catholics state that in a similar manner to God's transmitting the inerrant Scriptures to us, He preserves the Church He founded free from similar error, as it continues to ponder and grow in its understanding of those once-for-all revealed truths."

First, the scriptures are not inerrant. They're full of discrepancies, forgeries, and overt contradictions. But we can move that to another debate, if you'd like.

Second, Catholics often cite Matthew 16:18 for a dual purpose: to establish the Petrine supremacy, and to allege the impeccability of the Church. Peter is taken to be the 'rock' that Jesus is referring to, and the extention from there is simply that the Church Peter presided over -- the Catholic Church (!) -- would be free of error because Jesus established the Church through Peter. Therefore, since Jesus cannot sin, the Church that he founded, the one that is his body, cannot sin. Just the people within it.

Let's look at this in another way. If the people comprise the Church, which is the body of Christ, and because the Church is the body of Christ it cannot sin in matters of faith and morals, then every time an individual sins, that individual has somehow gone rogue. In an actual body, some cells do go rogue, and they are attacked by the white blood cells and destroyed. If they're not destroyed, if they're left unchecked by the immune system, they sometimes become cancerous and kill the body. So, perhaps the Inquisition was an immune response to the rogue members within the body of Christ, right? Perhaps the Reformation was/is a cancer due to the failure of the Catholic immune response?

If you answer 'yes', then you admit the imperfection within the body of Christ, and thus the notion of impeccability becomes flacid.

"Now, not every idea, theory, or pious devotion throughout history has been officially promulgated by the Magisterium as doctrine."

Yes, that's true. That's not my issue, and that's why I covered that nugget when I included Dr. Ott's definition of tertiary doctrines.

"As for the sex abuse scandal, and how the Church handles it, the Church has never dogmatically declared that it would always handle sinfulness in its members with the utmost in grace or wisdom. But since their actions in "covering up" the abuse scandal or in representing themselves to the Press do not constitute anything approximating its beliefs in matters of Faith or Morals, it falls well outside the pale of the Infallibility question."

It absolutely does not! The Catholic Church is beholden to a watching world. She must not close herself off in some hermetic seal officially pronouncing what is to be believed by humanity, and then claim immunity when challenged on her integrity. If the practice of Catholicism is not weighed against the reasonable dictates of a functioning conscience, then it is a force for evil in the world.

More, because Catholicism has "covered up" the sex abuse scandals, I'd say that it has handled the sinfulness in its members with the maximum grace. That's the problem, however! If we define 'grace' as giving what is undeserved, then "covering up" for licentious virgins in collarinos is giving to them what is not deserved: nothing. As far as I'm concerned, they should be strung up by their eyelids and kicked in the balls 'till they blink. In all seriousness, however, these abusers have stepped outside the pale of human decency, period. They should therefore be handed over to the civil authorities for court action and dealt with accordingly.

"The same response is easily given in the case of the Church's alleged inaction in Rwanda (though your link leaves much to be desired in the case of proof, though accusations abound. Either way, the lack of fortitude or ability to do anything on the part of African bishops does nothing to the notion of Catholic Infallibility."

It amazes me that you would attempt any defense of these assholes at all! It also amazes me that you may not see the reality that the actions taken by these cowardly leaders may have been, in part, as a result of what was inculcated in them by the Catholic community. Children are not free of the influence of their parents. By way of a parallel, criminal priests are not free of the Catholic schools, churches, and seminaries that taught them. To suggest there is no connection at all, would render anything else you have to say completely irrelevant.

"And so, I find I must level an old refrain of criticism toward you yet again, Chris."

You mean 'Kane'.

"Get your definitions right if you're going to criticise something--anything--Catholic Church or not! The only thing you've demonstrated in your article is that you, in fact, do err."

My definitions come from Catholic sources, so I won't apologise for the errors they contain.

Questioning Authority

Okay. I have internet at home again, so I will be able to start regular blogging once more. Hopefully there are still some interested readers. Four months of involuntary hiatus can, I understand, diminish enthusiasm for regular readership and participation.

In any case, let's get things going with a bit of a bang. Authority takes on many forms: absolute, provisional, juridical, religious, etc. On St. Cynic, I deal almost exclusively with religious issues. Given that, let's take a look at the definition of religious authority, how it is expressed, enforced, and whether it is legitimate.

For example, Reformation theologians didn't subvert the notion of religious authority, they simply removed it from the hands of a highly corrupt papacy. Their emphasis -- at least in the Lutheran circles -- was on the freedom of the individual conscience to apply the moral standards, salvific message, and confessional doctrines of Scripture and the Book of Concord. Catholics charge that this is an abrogation from the papacy and the absolutist claim the Roman church had on Scripture, tradition, faith and morals. In both cases, each ecclesial communion based their claims on an absolutist sense of truth, and an assumed unerring interpretation of holy writ and tradition. In both cases, both factions viewed each other's 'authority' as illegitimate.

So, my question is, first, what is authority? And second, how can authority be properly expressed, enforced, and legitimized? Finally, do we even need religious authority; that is, is it essential?

What are your thoughts?

Where I'm At.

I've lost a member of my 'following'. That doesn't sound creepy at all, does it? :S

In any case, I can only guess that it's because I haven't been posting as much these past couple of months. One of my readers quipped to me at lunch the other day that she comes by the site a couple of times a week, but "meh. There's nothing new." That's true: I haven't posted anything new.

Sadly (for me, that is), not having electricity at home renders self-publishing on the internet a trifle difficult. Hopefully November will turn up some more practical living arrangements, however. Not that living in the bush with no running water, and no electricity isn't practical -- it's the original practical, when you think about it -- it's just not cosmopolitan enough to warrant something so fancy as electricity.

On another note, a friend of mine asked me how my agnosticism is coming. I'd like to take a moment to shout out to Aaron. I miss your tongue-in-cheek humour, bud! Nevertheless, it would be unfair of me to leave this blog dangling, as it were, on the hooks of my last two articles. They were, admittedly, somewhat maudlin and full of serious doubts. Aaron picked up on the natural conclusion to some of my meanderings: that I seemed to be turning agnostic.

I'll admit, things have been taking a radical turn-around for me. The history of the church, of my Christian beliefs has been put under intense scrutiny this past while. I've had questions about inspiration, inerrancy (I plan to buy that book, Ed!), the legitimacy of dogmatics, ecclesiology, the efficacy of prayer, the nature of truth, epistemology and revelation, illumination, the list goes on. In a nutshell, I've been re-visiting the truth-claims of my faith.

Some of them I've found wanting. For example, the purported necessity for a hierarchical church structure. I used to be Lutheran. I used to believe that a very definite, rigid structure needs to be in place; one ruled, as it were, from the bishop down through the clergy. While I agree with the biblical precedent for the necessity of elders, bishops, and deacons (the office I was ordained into in 2004), I disagree that the laity is under the rule of said 'servants' of the Church. In short, bishops, elders, and deacons are to serve the Church (i.e., the people of God) without reservation or prejudice toward certain faith traditions, and without jockeying for lordship amongst themselves (e.g., the Roman church's apotheosis of the bishop of Rome to a jurisdictional authority over all other bishops). The needs of the people should always outweigh bureaucracy. In the same way, the true servant of God always considers the needs of the people as irrefutably more important than the polity of his ecclesial (church) community.

Recognizing that, I could never be a sold-out, hardcore Lutheran. Nor could I ever be a friend to Roman Catholicism -- except to be the kind of friend who is willing to take scorn for attempting to correct a wrong.

Given that example of changes in my beliefs (not to mention many others), where am I as regards the Christian testimony? Well, rest-assured Aaron, I'm not agnostic. Nor am I an atheist. One wit I read about called himself a 'recovering Christian'. While I can appreciate the humour of his sentiments, I think that kind of terminology can be misleading: I'm not casting off an addiction; I never had one to begin with. I'm compelling myself toward the true, amorphous nature of oecumenism -- that is, wholistic Christianity. I'm not hemming myself in by divorcing principalistic authoritarianism (e.g., Roman Catholicism) from real flesh-and-blood people. I'm pro-actively moving away from the apartheid mentality of Christendom; that is, Roman Catholicism cannot commune with Lutherans, Lutherans cannot enjoy the free-spirited nature of the Anabaptists, the Anabaptists cannot espouse the rich cultural and intellectual heritage of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Enough. Grow up! The Western world got past the subjugation of peoples according to race -- thanks, in part, to the Church. However, the Western church cannot seem to get past its wanton need to subjugate its own people to this-or-that other faith-tradition. I refuse to take part in it any longer. And to a large degree, that will bring into question, if not stark contrast, my views about God, Jesus, and the Christian community. I'm prepared to answer those questions.

So, if any of you are interested, this is the place to ask those questions. I'm open to dialogue. And thank you, Aaron, for prompting me to write an answer to your question. I'm grateful for your concern, and humour.

On Women In Ministry

Gregory Boyd. He's a man of great learning, insight, and dedication. A former atheist, he became a Christian in 1974, and eventually gratuated from Princeton Theological Seminary with a Ph. D. He's a formidable philosopher, a top-notch theologian, author of many scholarly and popular books, a former professor of theology, and currently a pastor at Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Lately, I've been reading through some of the material on his site, Christus Victor Ministries, and came across a very important article I think every Christian should read. It concerns women in ministry. It's a hot-topic, to say the least, and has been for quite some time.

Now, given my background in conservative Lutheranism, I was once a staunch supporter of the 'men only' policy toward ministry positions. Women, I believed, were wonderful, beautiful, and spiritually gifted individuals who -- for reasons that were suspicious to me then -- were disallowed any ecclesial teaching office. Since I was ordained a Rev. Deacon, and was training in seminary to become a pastor, I wasn't prepared at the time to challenge the status quo. Most especially because it would mean expulsion from seminary, and a definite case for church discipline where I was serving.

On a more personal note, I am married to a tremendously erudite, and sagacious woman (Sarah, co-author on this blog) who, despite her many and profound giftings, was prevented from using those giftings (which extend beyond her natural ability to nurture our children, and cook food) because of her status as a woman. To Sarah's credit, I probably wouldn't have done as well as I did at seminary were it not for her incisiveness, natural knack for making theology practical, and her superior ability to converge disparate, abstract pieces of information. In many ways, any success I have ever had as a teacher, church servant, and communicator is due to Sarah's ministrations to me, and our family.

Given what I've just written -- that I was always suspicious of the 'men only' dogma, and that Sarah has many extra-domestic talents and giftings -- it became a matter not just of curiosity, but of necessity for me to start asking important questions like: why shouldn't my wife, who is a more capable teacher than me, have the opportunity to teach? What biblical warrant is there for Sarah to have to suppress her God-given abilities? And wouldn't that be contradictory? Or, as Sarah once put it, "why would God give me these gifts and then make it so that I'm disallowed using them?" These kinds of questions apply across the board, really: why would God create women to have the same spiritual and intellectual gifts as men, declare their total equality to men (Gal. 3:28), and then proscribe their use of those gifts? Is God capricious? Is He fixed on torturing women's psyches? What's the deal here?

As I said earlier, it became a matter of necessity to have these questions answered. And the answers didn't come fast, or easy. In fact, I agonized over this issue for many years. I was torn between wanting to keep my loyalties to those men of God that I loved (Rev. R.A. Ballenthin, and Dr. William Mundt), the Scriptural declarations that seemed so precise and clear (esp. 1 Tim. 2:11-15, and 1 Cor. 14:34-35), and the fantastically gifted woman I married. All of this came to a head when I took two years away from church (a wonderful catharsis for my wife and I, but not something I would necessarily prescribe as a common course of action).

During those two years in absentia, I grew more sensitive to the arguments proposed by my wife, and other scholars that certain passages of Scripture were more culturally relevant, or contextually skewed due to lack of appropriate cultural references in our present day. I didn't want to bite this bullet, as it were, because it seemed so hackneyed, so oft-parrotted that I didn't want to re-visit the philosophical implications it presented; I had already dismissed such ideas in my seminary days. God's Word was God's Word, and it contains no errors. And in this case, I still believe that God's Word contains no errors: it says what it means about women in ministry. The problem was that I wasn't understanding what Scripture meant by what it said. So, because of that, I was forced to chew back my (then) cynicism on the issue of 'cultural relevance', and re-visit the issue.

Fortunately, my wife and I came into contact with a house-church couple who invited us to participate with them in worship from the home. Eager to have fellowship, we accepted the invitation. But it quickly became apparent to us that this couple was living out to a much greater, and to a much more shameful level, the same 'men only' policy that I was struggling with. As I observed them and asked some questions, their understanding of Scriptural warrant for silencing women reflected the extreme logical end of the same understanding I had ruefully carried about for years: women were out-of-place teaching in church. For them, however, the extreme expressed itself in complete and utter disallowance of women to speak at all during times of worship. In fact, the one time I witnessed this couple's teenage daughter speak, both her mother and father quickly turned on her and launched Scriptural condemnations at her as if they were taking target practice with a handgun. She was shamed, the father was red-faced with anger, and her lively eyes dimmed into sadness.

So how was that experience 'fortunate'? Simple: it put a bold-faced stamp on the absurdity of over-extending ancient cultural imperatives into present-day scenarios. To put it differently, I learned that day that it is of paramount importance to re-examine our cultural differences now that we're 2000 years removed from the ancient biblical world. Sometimes there will be consonance. Sometimes there will be startling, and important differences. Seems like a simple, even obvious fact, doesn't it? But try learning that from the position of a pastor-in-training, who wants nothing more than to do God's will, and take care of his family. It isn't easy. And it took a total break from the pursuit of that vocation, that lifestyle, to even begin to have the opportunity to freely explore such an issue.

But I did. And here is where I now stand: I find it absurd that women are excluded from ministry positions. Not only that, I find the notion of religious 'authority' to be so illusory, and filled with shoddy, unbiblical reasoning that I can no longer justify the typical dyed-in-the-wool treatment of "no woman should have authority over a man" (1 Tim. 2:11). That pericope was an imperative leveled by Paul to a particular church, in a particular locale, at a particular time experiencing difficulties with certain rebellious tendencies. Paul, being the educated, and highly intelligent man that he was, I am quite certain of it, would have made a universal statement to all believers if it truly were God's will that no woman at any point in time, anywhere, and for any reason was to have a voice in the assemblies of God. It would be the height of imbecility and insanity to suggest that Paul intended a universal application of the 'men-only' policy when he quite consistently breaks his own policy in several other places in Scripture! It would also be egregious to state that Paul attempted a universal silencing of women when he wrote such passages as 1 Tim. 2:11 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35 when he was intimately aware of the ministry of women to Christ, Christ's elevation of women, and other Scriptural writings that showcase the importance of women in ministering capacities.

No. Paul intended to be particular in his application of the passages I've noted. To say otherwise, would be to misrepresent one of Christianity's greatest figures, and declare God a liar. Are you willing to go that distance? I'm not. I'm also not willing to make arbitrary, unbiblical distinctions the likes of which allow for women to minister in churches but only in nursaries, or to female 'tweens'. If you've agreed with me so far -- that women are equally ministers with men -- then such a cockeyed distinction is just another way to subvert the potential capacities of women in the church.

For some extra, more clearly explained material on this subject, let me refer you to Gregory Boyd's article "The Case for Women in Ministry". It's an excellent read with a lot of fantastic points, and straight-up exegesis.

Authority and the Church P. IV

And once again, we turn to Authority and the Church. Tim's comments will be in red and mine in black. Also, on the issue of authority and the church, I will be having a formal debate with a Roman Catholic lay apologist in the near future. We will be debating the relevance and validity of the papacy. I'm sure you can figure out what side of the debate I'll be taking up. For now, enjoy this series, and the series on Coyne.

"It is the church that makes the decisions collectively. Church discipline is done by the whole church not the group of leaders. Matt.18:17 Authority lies with the whole church, not left to its leaders exclusively."

Agreed. And some congregations understand how to go about church discipline. Others do not. So my question to you on this issue is: are you willing to spearhead a greater understanding amongst churches (house churches, and otherwise) that teaches a proper view of church discipline instead of condemning them for being ignorant?

"In asking for a king God’s people where rejecting the king that was all ready in place YHWH him self. 1 Sam.11:12 In asking for a king Samuel said that their wickedness was great in asking for a king. 1 Sam.12:17. He pointed out their sin which they acknowledged (vs 19) but also that if they continue to do wickedly they shall be consumed, both the people and their king. 1 Sam12:25 The lesson is this you reap what you sow!! Gal.6:7,8"

Again we turn to this point. I think this is probably your strongest argument, Tim. However, I do want to point something out: God allowed for a king over Israel, even though He desired otherwise. That king was a representative of God's authority. So saying, when Israel had a bad king, stuff went really, really wrong for them. Why? Because that king was not representing God's authority according to God's character. When Israel had a good king, Israel prospered, sometimes beyond our fanciest understandings. Why? Because those kings represented God's authority according to God's character.

Given the above, is there anything stopping conventional church leaders from being in the same place as the kings of old? That is, when the church has a bad leader, bad stuff happens. But when it has a good one, lots of really laudable, and praise-worthy things happen. I don't particularly see anything wrong with that.

But more poignantly, is the argument for the overthrowing of church leadership, as it seems to mirror Israel's asking for a king, an attempt to turn back time? The reason I ask is that God actually gave Israel what they asked for, even though it upset Him. If you follow that line of reasoning, why not take it all the way back to before the Fall and simply declare ourselves sinless, and demand that God come and walk amongst us?

Nevertheless, I don't want to give the impression that I'm trying to dismiss the idea of meeting in homes. I think it's perfectly valid to do so, though perhaps for different reasons. Namely, God gave us the model of the family as the most conducive to secure, and loving relationships; therefore it's ideal to welcome fellow believers into our homes, the sanctuaries of our family life. And if this satisfies the needs of a person's faith -- to meet in other Christians' homes -- then by all means, do that!

By the same token, if it satisfies the needs of other Christians' faith to meet in larger, public buildings and have a structured/liturgical/non-liturgical meeting, then again, by all means! However, it does seem somewhat foolish to exclude the family, homestyle fellowship from the faith-life of the Christian given that it is the more likely to engender the community and loving relationships that Christ desired for His people. Hence "all things are permissable, but not necessarily beneficial." But the last thing we are to do as Christians is determine out-of-hand that a given format by which our brothers and sisters worship is simply not beneficial because we can find this-that-or-the-other fault with it. We're not given licence to be presumptuous about others' faith lives because we have a different way of expressing our love for Christ.

Authority and the Church P. III

It's been a while, but I thought I'd revisit the issue of authority and the church. The first two installments of this debate I entertained are here, and here. My comments will be in black, and TJG's will be in red.

Having said that, I have to ask a few questions in return: what makes you think that doing Church as a House Church will avoid any of the partitioning, and pandering that accompanies conventional churches? And just to keep in focus with your question a little more, why do you think a house church model will avoid the pitfalls and downswings of churches as they've been through the centuries?

"Meeting in our homes doesn’t ensure anything will be what it is suppose to be. Meeting in the home is not a guard against a Diotrephes but it his the wisdom of God to gather as a family in ones home"

Absolutely it is the 'wisdom of God' to gather in one's home. I have no quarrel with you there. My concern is that you've written off a large portion of history, and thousands of years (2000, that is) of people meeting in larger houses affectionately known as the 'house of God' all for a change in location. If I can venture a bit of sarcasm without it being taken as hostility, you've exchanged mitigation for mortgages. In other words, you've exchanged a bigger building for a smaller building. But practically speaking, meeting in the home is valid, for sure. But not meeting in the home, and opting for a larger place to gather in not invalidated by other Christians meeting in their homes.

But more to the point, the necessity of meeting in homes was a fact of Roman persecution. The apostles and the early Christians met in homes because the influence of the Hellenic Jewish community around them was oppressive, and the Romans were obliged to apply the law to Christians since they were viewed as upstarts, rebels, and a disturbance to the peace. It didn't take 50 years after Christ's death before Jerusalem was burnt to the ground and the Christians were blamed (AD 70)! If they didn't all want to get nailed shut into their public buildings and burnt alive, or worse, they had to meet in secret. Thus the origin of the icthus (the symbol of the fish, or the first letter of the Greek alphabet, alpha): it was a symbol used in secret to identify without speaking who was a Christian. One person would etch the first arch of the symbol into the ground with a walking stick, or their foot, and the one passing by would intersect the arch with the completing arch. Then the two passers-by knew each other as Christians.

Oppression and persecution drove people into their homes, caves, catacombs, and tombs until roughly AD 313; why don't we meet in caves, or tombs then, if we want to be biblically and historically pure, Tim? The fact that the apostles started meeting with people in their homes was not only a Jewish custom at the time, it was also a matter of being a seed community. That is, a fledgling group of believers with no financial clout, and no ability or influence to gain a public building of their choice. Given all that, I'm concerned that 'house church' is simply a different format for doing church and is no more right, or wrong than church as it presently is. God isn't stopped, or slowed by methodology, or location. Geography isn't a barrier to our Lord.

"it is how the apostles brought the body to relate and function together with out any kind of dedicated edifice for that function."

Because it was their only option. I mean, aside from the caves, catacombs, and tombs I mentioned earlier.

"Leadership is to be understood as a servant not a lord.(1Pet.5:3 Luke 22:26) Leaders lead the church but are not lords’ of the church."

Yes, you're right. I think that is an established, almost universal understanding, if not a doctrine (i.e., established teaching) amongst conventional churches. The fact that some people take advantage of a leadership position is not an argument for the illegitimacy of present-day church leadership. It is an argument for the immorality of some people, but it does nothing to debunk the presence, or even necessity of leadership in present-day churches.

An Open Discussion On Roman Catholicism

I've been wondering lately if the accusation that Roman Catholicism is a cult is accurate or not. I haven't made a decision, but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion here. And if others do think it is a cult, I'm sure we can agree that that doesn't mean that everyone within the Roman Catholic Church is a godless reprobate, but that some people are devoutly secured in the love of Christ.

So, anyway, what are your opinions?

Can't See God for Christianity

Many questions toward atheists are equally unanswered for in Christianity. While I believe that God Himself answers them all, Christianity doesn't and somehow manages to sidestep the reality of such questions, or even worse, ostracises those within for asking them. I have first-hand experience with this.

A few typical questions asked of atheists by Christians are (and I've borrowed some from Suneal's post 'Openness Theology has Tea with Atheism'):

1) How do you place one value over and above another without the constant of God to arbitrate?

2) Why would you feel any inclination to defend or purpose or initiate anything? What would be the point?

3) What is the purpose of life to you? Why bother with anything, trying anything, most especially attempting civility and altruism? What benefit are these?

4) From where are derived such realities as justice, mercy, art, music, thought, charity, love, effort, ad nauseum things that Christians attribute to God's character...?

I could posit myriad *reasonable* (non-Christian-faith-based) responses to these questions, and I believe in the ultimate/eternal/everlasting Lordship and salvation of Christ. The point is that these questions alone will never be sufficient for pointing out error; I'm not even sure they *could* point out error.

I believe that all are created in the image of God; therefore, all are capable of acting in accordance with His image (at least some of the time) regardless of whether or not they choose to acknowledge Him. Asking an atheist to account for morality as if to corner him toward God misses his point at best, and misses God's point at worst.

I think there are definitely huge problems with atheism, but asking existential questions that the whole of humanity has and continues to struggle with camouflages the real problem.

Christians want to know why atheists can't see God. Christ told His disciples that the world would know God because of how the disciples loved one another. Since there is a greater love vacuum in the church than elsewhere (where we wouldn't *expect* to see it), how could *anybody* recognise God in the world?

Did Christ say that the world would know Him through the love of His disciples toward one another and if they don't love one another He would perform a great miracle to convince everyone anyway, so don't worry about it? Did He only mean that IF His disciples loved one another then obviously the world would be forced to recognise the One who IS that love? Or, did He mean this as He said it? That the world WOULD know Him BECAUSE of the love His disciples had for one another?

I think the questions atheism poses directly correlate to the lack of love in the church, which is why as we see an increasing absense of love amongst believers, we see an increasing frustration from those outside. They are crying out for what their souls need, and they cannot get it because we're supposed to be giving it to them, and in our own lack, we're not. We're not BEING the love that GOD IS in us!!! We have taken His 'talent' and buried it-- deep-- so deep that nobody can see it.

So essentially, unbelief is a *believer's* problem. If my children or my friends don't think they are loved, it is my neglect and lack of willingness to extend Christ's unconditional love through me toward them that has brought this about, even if I can point at reasons for my actions, even if I can point at how they weren't willing to receive it, even if... whatever; I'm judging THEM as though I were God, and not at all living the love of Christ, but rather living the judgment of the forbidden tree from which I think I can sustain myself, but which instead of feeding me is actually the source of my starvation, and theirs. Ultimately, I have to be willing to give love at all cost and unconditionally, and until I do, my questions or calls to account belong aimed at me.

The community of believers known as and who is the Body of Christ Himself has the much greater calling to truly and pragmatically LOVE than to bring unbelief to account, especially having contributed so much clanging to the 'cause.'

So let's get to it.

There is no sense in screaming in someone's face while slapping them on the cheeks, "WHY CAN'T YOU SEE HOW LOVED YOU ARE???!!!"

This Is My Church

This is where I attend church. It is a mid-sized congregation with a very inclusivist view of other Christian pedigrees (just a little playful term). As I understand it, we have former Catholics, questioning Catholics, former Lutherans (like my wife and I), Baptists, Anabaptists, etc.

Our common vision is unique to churches that I've attended -- and I've attended a lot: to love Christ and be an example of lovingkindness to the community around us. What makes that vision unique is that my church accomplishes it without all the fixings and dressings of denominationalism, and hang-ups of arbitrary legalisms and moralisms. It is a free-flowing, and loving place to gather together and express our common love of Christ without the blurring of theological differences.

Dr. Veith noted that my church is essentially non-denominational. I kindly disagreed with him citing that non-denominational churches, while holding to a rejection of denominationalism, usually have very definite stances on certain doctrinal issues; e.g., infant baptism, or the nature of the eucharist. These stances are essentially de facto standards which -- and I'm open to correction, Wyatt -- don't seem to be applied within our congregation. That is, theological differences co-exist in a mature manner with love for Christ and each other being the primary focus between us. This makes for a place where people can gather around, say, the eucharist, some of us disagreeing as to the memorial aspect of the practice, and still lovingly and validly partake of Christ's real presence, or even *gasp* transubstantiation. An issue such as the eucharist is an issue between the person receiving the gift, and the Person giving the gift. Our theological differences do not matter so much as meeting and being together in His love, receiving what Christ has to offer, and not interfering with one another in the reception of that gift.


This, I think, is what really being a church is about. It is not about streamlining, managing, overseeing, and over-ruling each other's theological compass to the point where we can all only see North and refuse the realities of East, South, and West. That is, really being a church is about loving each other despite, and even because of our differences. It's about iron sharpening iron just as one man sharpens another. And if, in the end, we come out having to agree to disagree on certain points, we can still love each other as a family loves each individual within that family whatever the respective differences may be.


However, this brings up a necessary point: is there a place where differences are actually divisive and unChristian? In fact, yes. At my church, however, I think the idea is not to weed out those who are not actually Christian by the traditional understanding of what a Christian is (see, Apostle's Creed) but to include them with the loving hope that they may one day become Christians.

Cult and Culture

Dr. Veith over at Cranach allowed me the use of this poignant reflection. Thank you Dr. Veith.


"I’ve been at the CIRCE conference in Houston, which offered not only tips for classical education but, what is supremely classical, actual content. I learned some things that I’ll be posting on this blog.

For example, we had several presentations that drew on Russell Kirk, arguably the father of modern conservatism. One of his points was that the root of “culture” is “cult”; that is, the foundation of every culture is a religion with its distinct way of worship. (In cultures that reject religion, an ideology takes its place, as happened with Communism.)

That’s a profound point in itself, but then it made me wonder: I have always complained about Christians who conform to today’s culture with all its woes. But could it be that the problems in the church came first, creating our cultural woes? Did the secular liberalism of the European state churches produce the secular liberalism of modern Europe? Did the subjectivism of Christianity (which certainly began in the 19th century) produce the subjectivism of contemporary culture?

If so, reforming culture would simply be a matter of the church getting its act together."