Quote 3 from Your Church is Too Small
This week (March 14-20, 2010), I’m taking part in a blog tour of John H. Armstrong’s new book Your Church is Too Small. Armstrong begins each chapter with quotes from various writers throughout church history. Each day this week, I’m going to highlight one of those quotes.
Although the church of Jesus Christ is found in many different places, she is one true church, not many. After all, there are many rays of sunlight, but only one sun. A tree has many boughs, each slightly different from others, but all drawing their strength from one source. Many streams may flow down a hill-side, but they all originate from the same spring. In exactly the same way each local congregation belongs to the one true church. -Cyprian
Quote 2 from Your Church is Too Small
This week (March 14-20, 2010), I’m taking part in a blog tour of John H. Armstrong’s new book Your Church is Too Small. Armstrong begins each chapter with quotes from various writers throughout church history. Each day this week, I’m going to highlight one of those quotes.
Do not call yourselves Lutherans, call yourselves Christians. Has Luther been crucified for the world? -Martin Luther
Quote 1 from Your Church is Too Small
This week (March 14-20, 2010), I’m taking part in a blog tour of John H. Armstrong’s new book Your Church is Too Small. Armstrong begins each chapter with quotes from various writers throughout church history. Each day this week, I’m going to highlight one of those quotes.
Whoever tears asunder the Church of God, disunites himself from Christ, who is the head, and who would have all his members to be united together. -John Calvin
ETS in Atlanta in November 2010
I recently submitted two paper proposals for the Evangelical Theological Society’s annual meeting in Atlanta in November 2010:
“The Assembled Church in the Apostolic Fathersâ€
The late first and early second century is often considered a mysterious period of church history. The information that exists is sketchy, with only a few extant documents from that time period. The Christians who wrote during this time have been called “apostolic fathers†since the sixteenth century and have been recognized as church leaders of their day. Although most Christians admit that these writers probably did not possess a complete New Testament, the apostolic fathers present a plethora of information to help today’s Christian understand the New Testament. However, often the apostolic fathers’ interpretations and emphases differ from those of modern scholars. As today’s Christians seek to understand Scripture, they can benefit from examining the writings of the apostolic fathers within their context and with an understanding of their purposes and intentions. This study will investigate passages in the writings of the apostolic fathers that describe the practices of churches when they gather together.“Luther’s ‘Third Kind’ of Divine Serviceâ€
In 1526, Martin Luther published a pamphlet called “German Mass and Order of Divine Service.†In the preface of this work, Luther described three different “kinds†of divine service: two designed for the non-believer to be presented in Latin and German respectively, and one designed for the believer. According to Luther, he could not find the people necessary to meet together in this kind of service. In the sections that follow his preface, Luther focuses on the first two kinds of divine service in Latin and German, without returning to the “third kind.†This study will examine Luther’s “third kind†of divine service, including comparisons and contrasts to the first two kinds along with a discussion of the historical reception and interpretation of the “third kind.â€
My presentation last weekend and my presentation in two weeks are primary theological (although definitely from a biblical theology perspective). I thought it would be interesting to do a couple of historical presentations.
I’ll let you know when you I hear back from them. If you plan to be in Atlanta for ETS (or SBL) please let me know.
Luther and the Church
Three years ago, I first read Martin Luther’s “The German Mass and Order of Divine Service”. I wrote a post about it called “Luther and the Church.” Since then I’ve written other posts as well. I was surprised when I read that Luther was convinced that the “Mass” or “Divine Service” was not for the church but was for unbelievers. I was also surprised to read what Luther said a meeting of true believers should look like.
————————————————-
In the preface of “The German Mass and Order of Divine Service” (1526), Martin Luther describes three different kinds of “divine service”. The first and second kinds of “divine service” are differentiated only by the languages used (Latin and German, respectively). Importantly, this is what Luther says of these two kinds of “divine service”:
Both these kinds of Service then we must have held and publicly celebrated in church for the people in general. They are not yet believers or Christians. But the greater part stand there and gape, simply to see something new: and it is just as if we held Divine Service in an open square or field amongst Turks or heathen. So far it is no question yet of a regularly fixed assembly wherein to train Christians according to the Gospel: but rather of a public allurement to faith and Christianity.
Thus, for Luther, the public service in both Latin and German are for the purpose of exposing unbelievers to the Gospel. Notice that he does not see these services as being for Christians. So, what does Luther proscribe for believers? Keep reading for his “third sort of divine service”:
But the third sort [of Divine Service], which the true type of Evangelical Order should embrace, must not be celebrated so publicly in the square amongst all and sundry. Those, however, who are desirous of being Christians in earnest, and are ready to profess the Gospel with hand and mouth, should register their names and assemble by themselves in some house to pray, to read, to baptize and to receive the sacrament and practise other Christian works. In this Order, those whose conduct was not such as befits Christians could be recognized, reproved, reformed, rejected, or excommunicated, according to the rule of Christ in Matt. xviii. Here, too, a general giving of alms could be imposed on Christians, to be willingly given and divided among the poor, after the example of St. Paul in 2 Cor. ix. Here there would not be need of much fine singing. Here we could have baptism and the sacrament in short and simple fashion: and direct everything towards the Word and prayer and love. Here we should have a good short Catechism about the Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer. In one word, if we only had people who longed to be Christians in earnest, Form and Order would soon shape itself. But I cannot and would not order or arrange such a community or congregation at present. I have not the requisite persons for it, nor do I see many who are urgent for it. But should it come to pass that I must do it, and that such pressure is put upon me as that I find myself unable with a good conscience to leave it undone, then I will gladly do my part to secure it, and will help it on as best I can.
It seems that Luther is calling for a different type of meeting for believers. In this meeting, Luther does not have to order things. Instead, he sees that “the form and order would soon shape itself.” (I would add that it is the Spirit that forms and orders the meetings.) In fact, Luther sees baptism and the Lord’s Supper happening in this group – not in one of the public meetings that are meant for unbelievers. Notice also that in this meeting, believers would teach one another and take up money to give to the poor.
So, why did Luther not pursue this type of service? Well, he tells us here that he does not know “earnest” Christians willing to participate in this type of meeting. History tells us that Luther later relented from this position in order to appease the state church.
Everything that follows this point in “The German Mass and Order of Divine Service” describes how to carry out the first two kinds of “Divine Service”, which Luther said were not intended for believers, but for unbelievers. We will never know what would have happened historically if Luther had held to his convictions: “I will gladly do my part to secure it, and will help it on as best I can.”
Jerome on Ephesians 4:16
A few years ago, some friends gave me a copy of The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (by Ronald E. Heine, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). They give me this book for two reasons: 1) They knew that I loved Ephesians and 2) They wanted to give me something written by someone as old as me. (Thanks again Maël and Cindy… I think.)
Occasionally, as I’m reading through this commentary, I find something that is very helpful. For example, consider this passage from Ephesians:
…from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Ephesians 4:16 ESV)
According to Heine, Origen wrote the following as an analogy to help readers understand what Paul is saying (note, this passage actually comes from Jerome’s pen, but is supposedly copied from Origen):
Now another example may be brought into the same analogy to clarify that which we wish to be understood. A child grows up and, unperceived, matures in time to full age. The hand will have increased in size, the feet will undergo their growth, the stomach, without our knowledge, is filled out, the shoulders, although our eyes are deceived, have broadened, and all the ‘members’ throughout the parts thus increase according to their ‘measure’ yet in such a way that they appear not to be increased in themselves but in the body. (p. 180-81)
I think this is a very good way of explaining what Paul writes. As a person ages from childhood toward adulthood, his or her body naturally grows together, each part growing as it should.
This is way it should be in the church: each part growing together. In fact, as with the child growing to an adult, the growth of one part should be related to and comparable to the growth of the other parts.
But, what if one parts grows while the other parts remain stagnant? What would we say about a person whose hand grows larger, but his or her feet remain the same size? What if someone’s head grew, but their torso never changed? We would immediately recognize that something was wrong.
Can we recognize the same types of “abnormal growth” in the church? Are some parts growing while others are stagnant? Do we consider this normal?
The church will not grow and build itself up in love until each part of the body is working together and growing together.
1) Do you agree with Origen’s (Jerome’s) analogy? 2) What do we do if some parts of the church are not growing while others are growing quickly?
Learning with the Fathers
I like this quote that Scot McKnight includes in his post called “Lengthening our Memory 1“:
My evangelical roots, first planted during the Jesus Movement of the late sixties and early seventies, have been nourished by the fathers’ perspectives. The Jesus Movement, for instance, had no ecclesiology. In many ways, Jesus freaks like me, though we loved Jesus himself, were highly suspicious of the church and authority in general, whether institutional or individual.
I have learned from the fathers that the church is much broader and deeper than I had ever imagined. My individualistic, evangelical bent has been tempered by a historical, theological and spiritual lengthening of memory. … This is not to say that I always find myself in agreement with the fathers. We still have our disagreements, but our quarrels now resemble family squabbles and in-house arguments.
My roots are not in the Jesus movement, but I also appreciate the writings of the church fathers. Like Chris Hall (the author of the quote), I do not always agree with the fathers, but I love to read how they dealt with the issues of their day and in their context.
It is difficult to separate the spiritual from the secular in the first century
While discussing the current state of research into first century synagogues, Stephen Catto makes the following observation:
There would appear to be two major difficulties in addressing the area of worship practices in the first-century ‘synagogue’. The first is the lack of detail that we have on the subject, which should make us wary of overly confident assertions on practice. The second is defining what should or should not be considered worship. It is difficult to separate the spiritual from the secular in the first century, with any public act often having a religious element to it. (Catto, Stephen K. Reconstructing the First-Century Synagogue: A Critical Analysis of Current Research. New York: T&T Clark, 2007, pg. 106)
Certainly, we can do little about the detail of the evidence that we possess, however we can seriously consider that evidence. As Catto notes, in the evidence that we do have, the Jews of the first century did not make a distinction between the spiritual and the secular when it comes to worship. (Of course, the same could be said – and has been said many times – concerning other religious groups of the first century, including early Christians.)
This causes a problem for modern readers. Why? Because we DO make a distinction between the spiritual and the secular, and so we try to FIND that distinction in all historical evidence, including Scripture.
What would happen if we accepted (as those in the first century did) that there is no distinction between the spiritual and the secular, even when it comes to worship?
Two-Thirds Christian
One of the latest observations from Dave Black (Sunday, January 3, 2010 at 8:12 am):
In this connection, perhaps I could remind everyone what Balthasar Hübmaier said about the Reformers. He complained that they had learned only two of the three critically important doctrines of the Christian faith. The first doctrine was salvation by faith (“der gloub macht uns selig“). The second was that the Christian cannot do anything good by himself or herself (“wir mugen ausz uns selbs nichts guts thon“). He went on to say that the Protestants had completely overlooked the third lesson, namely that faith without works in dead. He wrote, “Under cover of these two half-truths all evil, unfaithfulness and unrighteousness have gained the upperhand, completely … so that the old saying is fulfilled ‘Ye alter ye böser.'” We cannot have a two-thirds faith, he said: “das volckh nit mer denn zway stuck geleernet hat.”
Good advice, that. Don’t be a two-thirds Christian!
Are you a two-thirds Christian?
Of course, we can teach and lead as a two-thirds Christian as well, when our teaching or leading do not include serving by example.
He cannot have God for his father who does not have the church for his brothers and sisters
One of the most famous early Christian quotes (outside of the NT) is this:
He cannot have God as his Father who does not have the church for his Mother.
This was written by Cyprian in the third century AD (died 258). Here is the quotation in context:
The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. (Treatise on the Unity of the Church 6)
In this treatise, Cyprian is responding to people who had “lapsed” during a recent persecution.
I wonder if Cyprian missed something in this statement. Notice that Cyprian separates “church” from those who are part of the church. In fact, he says, “She [the church] keeps us for God.” Thus, there is a distinction here between the church and “us” – that is, those who are kept for God.
Cyprian also says, “She [the church] appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom.” Once again, we see a separation between the church and the ones who are part of the kingdom of God.
I don’t think we see this same type of distinction and separation in Scripture. Instead, in Scripture, we see that the people are the church. We are the ones who cannot be adulterous, who are uncorrupted, and who are pure. We are the ones who guard one another for God.
Thus, the church is not our mother – as if “the church” is some entity that is separate from us. Instead, we are the church. If we wanted to keep the family language, perhaps we could say something like this:
He cannot have God for his father who does not have the church for his brothers and sisters (siblings).
I think there is a danger in separating “the church” from those who are the church… from the people themselves. It is impossible to be adopted by God and not be part of God’s family. (Of course, being part of God’s family is not the same thing as being associated with a particular church organization.)