Knowtown…

bq. A church is an assembly, but an assembly is not yet a church. An indispensable condition of ecclesiality is that the people assemble in the name of Christ. Gathering in the name of Christ is the precondition for the presence of Christ in the Holy Spirit, which is itself constitutive for the church: “…where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them” (Matt. 18:20).

From here, Volf dives into an important discussion about the one thing that many “emergent” thinkers are falsely accused of not caring about—doctrine. Who is this Jesus Christ? Why gather in his name?

bq. The church manifests itself as church insofar as it understands itself as defined by the entire history of Jesus Christ, by his past, present, and future. Expressed in Pauline terminology, the church is the church of Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:16; cf. Gal. 1:22; 1Thess. 2:14), or it is not a church at all.

bq. This necessary recourse to the entire history of Jesus Christ makes ecclesiality dependent on certain doctrinal specifications. Although these may well vary (just as confessions of faith vary within the New Testament) and even be quite brief (as, e.g., “Jesus is Lord”), the church cannot exist without them. …one can relate to Jesus Christ only by believing something about him.

Of course just what that something is has been debated since Jesus Christ asked his disciples “who do men say that I am?” At this stage of the argument Volf is not attempting to articulate a bounded set of beliefs that define “orthodoxy” he is simply pointing our that there is a content to our faith that is connected to the person of Jesus Christ. So Volf highlights two conditions of ecclesiality that come from being a “congregation assembled in the name of Christ.” The first is “the faith of those who are thus assembled,” and second, “the commitment of those assembled to allow their own lives to be determined by Jesus Christ.” While there is much to be said about these things that a short blog post cannot fully articulate, these two things are essential for any assembly to claim to be a church.

Volf’s thoughts about this fall under a subheading titled “the church and the confession of faith.” So Volf sums up the issues of doctrine (saying something about Jesus Christ), faith, and commitment into a concept of “confession.” While I agree with Volf’s line of thinking here, what I really like is how he narrates that process of confession. He emphasizes the preformative and the commissive aspects to confession. When we confess our faith we are performing something and committing to something. But that is not all:

bq. Confession is, moreover, not an individual and private affair. It always takes place “before others” (Matt. 10:32-33) and possesses an essential social and public dimension. …In a confession of faith, I affirm my own relationship to Jesus Christ, a relationship that makes me into a Christian, and yet in the same act I acknowledge this relation before others.

Volf continues by pointing out that a confession of Christian faith is not just something we do before others but also something we do with others. Because it is with others we can be open to a pluriform confession. And this sets up one of my favorite sections in Volf’s book:

bq. By confessing faith in Christ through celebration of the sacraments, sermons, prayer, hymns, witnessing, and daily life, those gathered in the name of Christ speak the word of God both to each other and to the world. This public confession of faith in Christ through the pluriform speaking of the word is the central constitutive mark of the church. It is through this that the church lives as church and manifests itself externally as church. Although such confession is admittedly always the result or effect of the “word,” just as faith, too, is a result or effect of the “word” (see Rom. 10:8-10), the “word” is proclaimed in no other way than in this pluriform confessing. The confession of faith of one person leads to that of others, thereby constituting the church.

Volf then discusses the issues of “office,” and the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Differing from the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, Volf’s ecclesiology does not require there to be an office of “bishop” but in agreement with them he argues that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are essential. This is going to lead directly into the next section of his argument—What is the relationship that churches are to have with one another?

Maybe its me but this joke reminded me of some of the critical discussions going on in some of the comments sections of some of the blogs I read (I edited it so that “nuclear power” became “emerging church”)…

bq. A guy gets on a plane and finds himself seated next to a cute blonde.
He immediately turns to her and makes his move.

bq. “So tell me,” says the blonde, “How is it that you feel qualified to discuss emerging church, when you don’t know sh*t?

I like Volf’s book because he is helping me ask the right questions as an ecclesial dreamer and also offers answers that I think are faithful and offer a deep Christian ecclesiology while maintaining a distinction between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. I think he articulates as well as anyone can what I see to be the “open source” nature of ecclesiology which creates the room for diversity without sacrificing unity at the source code level.

Building from Matthew 18:20 we can find that there are some key ingredients in Volf’s Free Church ecclesiology that will help us define what makes a church.

bq. If one is to speak meaningfully about ecclesiality, one must know not only what the church is, but also how a concrete church can be identified externally as a church; one must also be able to say where a church is. If the external identifying features of a church are to fulfill this function, they cannot be purely external, however; if they do not visibly disclose something essential about the church, we will be unable to identify the church unequivocally (unless these features happen to represent a specifically ecclesial curiosity having nothing to do with ecclesiality as such, even though they always accompany the phenomenon “church”). Hence all Christian churches have understood the signs of ecclesiality to be externally perceivable and simultaneously necessary conditions or consequences of the ecclesially constitutive presence of the Spirit of Christ. These have been either the persons or actions through which the presence of the Spirit is mediated in a congregation (office and sacraments), the effects of this presence itself (imitatio Christi, commitment), or both.

For Volf, one key ingredient is the assembly. As Matthew 18:20 points out it is not in the “two or three” but in the “two or three gathered together.”

bq. Doubtless, however, the life of the church is not exhausted in the act of assembly. Even if a church is not assembled, it does live on as a church in the mutual service its members render to one another and in its common mission to the world. The church is not simply an act of assembling; rather, it assembles at a specific place (see 1 Cor. 14:23). It is the people who in a specific way assemble at a specific place. In its most concentrated form, however, the church does manifest itself concretely in the act of assembling for worship, and this is constitutive for ecclesiality.

In the next post we will look at another key ingredient, the confession of faith.

Part II of Volf’s book is where he begins constructing a foundation of ecclesiology for the “Free Church.” He is dealing with some very important questions and developing a beautiful theology of church. Having outlined the ecclesiologies of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions in Part I, he is able to draw clear distinctions in his own argument as well as deal with the significant challenges those episcopal (Volf uses this word to speak generally of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox collectively) traditions bring against the Free Church attempts to embody a faithful ecclesiology.

Volf goes on to show how Matthew 18:20 is a passage of scripture that shapes Free Church ecclesiology.

bq. …although it was the Free Church theologians who first accorded Matt. 18:20 a key systematic role in ecclesiology, this particular passage actually acquired preeminent importance quite early in church history.

He quotes Ignatius, Tertullian, and Cyprian as illustrations of this point and continues:

bq. I will join this long tradition by taking Matt. 18:20 as the foundation not only for determining what the church is, but also for how it manifests itself externally as a church. Where two or three are gathered in Christ’s name, not only is Christ present among them, but a Christian church is there as well, perhaps a bad church, a church that may well transgress against love and truth, but a church nonetheless. I intend to explicate this as yet incompletely formulated thesis through theological (and not just purely exegetical) reflections on Matt. 18:20. In discussing the internal and external conditions that any group of persons must fulfill if they justifiably are to call themselves a “church,” I am also addressing indirectly Cyprian’s two fundamental objections to separatist groups, objections containing the crux of the criticism that episcopal churches direct against Free Churches.

From this starting point Volf builds a strong case for the Free Church ecclesiology. (I think that all church planters should read this section carefully.) It is in this section that Volf touches on the questions that have been much on my mind over the past few months. I remember the first time I read this book I really liked what Volf has to say about the “confessing community” but at this stage of my journey it is resonating even more. I long for Missio Dei to be this type of “confessing community.” I hope to highlight some of the key ingredients that Volf identifies as necessary to being this type of community in the near future.

I have blogged several times about my friend and fellow ecclesial dreamer, Tre Cates. (search my blog for previous posts.) Tre is doing some creative pastoral leading as the CEO of his company. All of his staff are trained on the core principles of the company– things like “grace” and serving the community are standard practices at his computer memory company. I would bet that everyone in his company could define “grace” better than the members of most churches and one day a month each person takes a day away from work to do community service projects.

Recently an article was written about his company that touches on some of his pastoral leadership in a corporate context:

bq. After serving as a pastor for five churches, Tre’ Cates decided to answer a different calling: the $7 billion computer-memory business.

bq. “I didn’t feel I should be paid to live out my faith, so I had to figure out what to do for a living,” he said.

The only comment I would make, as someone who knows Tre, is that he is not following a different calling. He is simply fulfilling that calling in a different context. He is one of the best pastors I know. Here is how the article ends:

bq. “We want to be seen as a company that gives back and cares — not just about making money,” Cates said.

bq. In addition to giving every employee one paid day for volunteer work, Silicon Mountain Memory supports a Boulder Meals on Wheels program and the local YMCA. The company provides its employees with paid memberships to the Y. Cates also volunteers as a small-business coach.

bq. The chance to grow a business, create new jobs and do good things in the community gives Cates the satisfaction he couldn’t find in the clergy.

bq. “I feel the church focuses on spiritual needs,” he said. “But here, I have a chance to work with people on all levels.”

The first section of Volf’s book, After Our Likeness is an in depth look at Ratzinger’s ecclesiology. He does a great job of illustrating the connections between ecclesiology and how we understand the Trinity. It is fascinating to re-read this in light of the recent election of Ratzinger to the Papacy. The title Volf gives to this chapter is “Ratzinger: Communion and The Whole.” The subject headings within the chapter are 1) Faith, sacrament, and Communion, 2) Eucharist and Communion, 3) The Word of God and Communion, 4) Office and Communion, 5) Communio Fidelium, and, 6) Trinitarian and Ecclesial Communion. It is a great look at the Roman Catholic theology of the church that challenges the reader to think deeply about their own ecclesiology. There are a lot of good things in this chapter worth commenting on but I will only post one excerpt:

bq. What Ratzinger calls the “primacy of reception” is encountered at every level of his ecclesiology. The liturgy, Christian existence, the being of the church and of the bishop – all these are always received from the whole. Reception is a basic form of ecclesial existence and of human existence as such. Protestant Christianity emphasized the primacy of reception over the “justification by works” of Catholic soteriology and ecclesiology. Ratzinger gives to this charge of “justification by works” an anti-Protestant, and especially an anti-Free Church twist. The activity of the larger church is indispensable for securing the primacy of reception; the activity of the Gospel or of scripture (or even of tradition) does not suffice. A faith, a church, the word of God, a liturgy not received from the larger church is “self-invented faith,” a “self-constructed congregation,” (Ratzinger, “Warum,” 70) a word one speaks to oneself, or a liturgy in which people merely celebrate themselves. Commensurate with the notion of Christus totus there seems to be only one alternative for Ratzinger: either “from the larger church and thus from the Lord,” or “self-constructed.” The Protestant charge that the church has usurped for itself what God alone can do, and in the process shown itself to be purely human organization, Ratzinger now directs against an individual Christian or an ecclesial community separated from the whole church.

What I find interesting from this perspective is that “church planting” in the Protestant context is seen only as an exercise in “self-construction.” If any ecclesial dreamer who comes along wants to start a new church what will be the relationship between that particular church and all other churches? Questions like this are important for Christians who are looking for connection to an ecclesial tradition, particularly those who are gravitating towards a “progressive Evangelical” ecclesiology. As the current debates continue to exclude emerging Christians and their communities from the traditions that they are emerging from they will need to find a new ecclesial home. I have some thoughts on this but they are not nearly as articulate as Volf’s. I highly recommend this book.

I spent the better part of two hours reading through this outstanding blog, authored by Christian Scharen, who works with Miroslav Volf at Yale. Christian’s writing is intelligent, thoughtful, informative and entertaining. I love it. Many thanks to Sivin for bringing it to my attention.

I have been asked by a few fellow ecclesial dreamers that I associate with why I don’t just make my first Tuesday meeting with friends my church and get over my desire to embody something new. Others are quite fond of pointing out that we don’t go to church, we are the church. I know several people who say that their “small group” is their church, or that being out in nature, or some other favorite place, is church for them. I have trouble relating to these questions and claims. For me these statements make church an additional component to life—something you can take or leave. For them what is really important is that they have a “personal relationship with Jesus” and as long as they have that, church is not necessary. It seems to me that this is too low a view of church. I am becoming more aware than ever that the gathering of the people of God is a sacrament that is intended to form my faith in ways that no other thing can. I need to be in committed, covenant relationships with other people who are attempting to be faithful if I hope to be faithful myself.

Volf has an interesting observation in the introduction of After Our Likeness that speaks to the involvement of others in my faith formation:

bq. In the meantime, the cry of protest “We are the church!” seems to have become redundant. No one contests it today, and it thus shares the fate of many cries of protest that not only derive from empty discontent, but rather denounce genuine social grievances: they are often incorporated into the self-understanding of the group against which they are directed, and thereby domesticated. Thus, for example, the notion “We are the church!” is integrated into “The church is a ‘we.’” Although this formulation is unobjectionable in and of itself, concern arises whenever the singularization of the plural (“are” being transformed to “is”) signals a reduction of the complexity of what “we” to the simplicity of a quasi-“I”; a populist cry of protest becomes an integralistic formula of palliation! By contrast, the slogan “We are the church!” quite correctly expresses the notion that “church” is a collective noun. The church is not a “we”; the church are we. On the other hand, this plural does not express merely a relationless multiplicity. The ecclesial plural is not to be confused with the grammatical plural. While several “I’s” together do constitute a grammatical plural, they do not yet constitute an ecclesial “we.” “We are the church!” does not mean “We meet occasionally,” nor “We cooperate in a common project”; rather, it means basically, “Each of us in his or her own being is qualified by others.” Whoever says less than this in saying “We are the church!” is saying too little, and the cry of protest “We are the church!” has degenerated into an ideological slogan.

I think I have formed the types of relationships that are creating my sacramental ecclesial “we” but this “we” is finding it difficult to increase the plural of the collective noun we call church. We are very aware that we need more voices to qualify us. We realize we have reached a point in our shared journey that the things we do, say, believe, and be together is changing. So while I think we are getting comfortable with being an ecclesial “we” for each other we are still navigating how other people connect. The questions we are asking and the situations we are facing have changed. What does it mean for us to be a sacramental, formative, faith community that is built on volitional, covenant commitments to others? How do those people in our relational worlds see this “we” in a way that bears witness to Gospel? It is nice to be at this stage of the journey. And, as I expected, re-reading Volf’s book has been a very compelling guide. More to come…

A regional newspaper has posted an online only Q&A question with Brian Mclaren. I thought it asked good questions which brought some good answers.

bq. McLaren: Some of the rhetoric used to critique our work sounds less like an invitation to dialogue about differences and more like a polite invitation to vacate the premises — and there’s nothing wrong with that. People in power have every right to determine who’s welcome and who’s not on their turf. Sadly, some of their negative response is no doubt a reaction to times when I and others haven’t been respectful, gentle, or patient enough ourselves; I know I have made many mistakes in this regard and hope to do better in the future.

bq. I hope that the leaders of evangelicalism will realize that I and my friends are not a threat. Actually, we hope to serve and be of help. We love our evangelical sisters and brothers - as we love our Catholic, Orthodox, and Mainline Protestant sisters and brothers. We don’t want to bother anyone. We don’t want to be a nuisance or stay where we’re not wanted. We’re not better than anybody else. We’re just seeking to be faithful to the message of Jesus as we understand it, in our times as we understand them. We hope people will pray for us. We seek to remain open to constructive criticism and suggestions. God knows we need all the help we can get.

This is the opening paragraph of the preface to Miroslav Volf’s great book,

bq. “All the attempts to trace the origins of this book take me back into the foggy regions of my earliest childhood memories. I was born while my father was a student of theology, and I grew up in a parsonage in the city of Novi Sad (Yugoslavia) at the time when Marshall Tito and his communists exercised their uncontested rule. It would not be quite accurate to say that my parents worked for the church; they lived for that small communty of believers entrusted to their care. As children, my sister and I were, so to speak, sucked into the orbit of that community’s life. Our home was in church, and the church had insinuated itself into our home. We were part of it because it had become part of us.”

Later in the preface he mentions two lessons he learned from that community of faith long before he had the vocabulary to articulate them:

bq. there is no church without the reign of God and there is no reign of God without the church

I don’t know about you but these thoughts from Volf get my blood pumping. I can’t wait to interact with this book again. Stay tuned…