Ecclesiology

[winterlens]

Some churches take the position that since scripture doesn't command the use of a particular bread for communion, they are not going to use the unleavened bread. Personally I have gotten a sense of arrogance about it. Essentially they are going to do anything that scripture doesn't explicitly state not to do.

Does your church use wine as the drink, then? I know a curmudgeonly Lutheran who insists that wussy drinks should not be used for the elements (except for health hazards).

I prefer the use of unleavened bread, but I don't think it's essential to the practice of communion. We should understand by it that we add nothing of our own works to the work of Christ--and indeed, I think eating and drinking unworthily is primarily eating and drinking with the idea that somehow we save ourselves, or that our actions supplement God's.

Then the pastor got up said a few things, and instructed that the communion elements would be distributed together and that people could then remain in the sanctuary as long as they needed to, and partake of the elements whenever they felt they were ready. I thought that it was an interesting way to put a focus on getting your life in check and not just participating in a ritual.

This is the practice of the church I go to, as well. I don't have any particular feelings one way or the other, except to say we should examine ourselves before taking the elements. I don't know that adding an extra half-hour of time will reveal more than a few minutes would, for example.

As for the gospel, what do you believe is the true gospel, or true salvation? Does true faith in Christ equal a changed life? Is it reasonable to suggest that someone who professes Christ at some point but never bears fruit may in fact not really have faith at all? Was Judas saved, or does the presence of Satan in his life and his evil heart indicate that he was not saved at all, and by extension that anyone who claims but Christ but shows no evidence may not be saved?

I suspect that these questions belong in a different thread, but because Char was so willing to hijack MRJ's thread for at least a little while, I'll keep them here for a little while, unless she gets her knickers in a knot. In the which case, I'll spam this thread relentlessly. (This is probably a bit like taunting happy fun ball.)

I think the gospel in the end is the revelation of God through Jesus Christ. This is a bit broad, and in fact describes the whole of the Scriptures, but we see God's attributes most powerfully through the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. I think a proper examination of the gospel will illuminate God in all his perfections: goodness, mercy, justice, righteousness, sovereignty, et c.

What frustrates me a bit about the modern presentation of the gospel is that they treat man as though he is the Agent in the new birth, when in fact the Scriptures tell us that we are born again through the gospel (the Word). It is the hearing of the gospel that regenerates us to believe--we believe because we're born again.

As for fruit, each man stands or falls to his own master. I don't know that invoking Judas as any sort of example makes much sense. He at least appeared to bear fruit that would indicate he was a disciple but clearly was not one of God's children (how else could we interpret Mk 14.21?).

But it were better to point out that our own hearts are evil. We are no different than Judas apart from the grace of God, and we bear responsibility for the death of Christ.

[charl]

WTH Winterlens! You promised to be on the Praise and Worship side!!

I have no idea what you are talking about with the pugnacious comment BTW. I come from a long line of calm and thoughtful people who never shot any priests or social services representatives (trying doesn't count).

I am obviously still sketchy on ecclesiology myself, which is why I thought this would be a good subject to argue about.

I agree that the church should safeguard the gospel-they do it in part by regular proclamation to the congregants however. It isn't enough to simply keep the correct doctrine without proclaiming it.

Yes I suppose I didn't really go into that but heretical worship by default does not properly proclaim the gospel and such worship is the archetype of Isaiah's picture of the worshipper feeding on ashes.

I don't think communion can possibly lose any more meaning to some people if it is held more often. In some churches that's the only time you need to show up as you get a non-"useful" sermon, that is to say the gospel.

I also think that insisting Christ's presence is a physical one is once again forcing him into the temporal realm. This is not the only way things must be taken literally. I tend to compare it to the use of phylacteries. The sh'ma was taken quite literally in doing that, but this was unnecessary and not the point. I disagree with those who insist that to say something is spiritual is to allegorize it out of necessity. Sometimes that is true, but in many ways the spiritual reality can be more real than the physical one because it is eternal. I do of course lean toward the belief that it is indeed a means of grace with real meaning to it.

One thing I appreciate about the churches who take a sacramental approach is that they typically hedge the table. This also makes people understand that communion is an important thing and should not be taken lightly.

So gman you've got a regulative principle thing going there eh. I am sympathetic to it, mainly because I think the normative principle really does not work in a culture that has no concept of appropriateness (that would be ours) but unfortunately the regulative principle can not be applied consistently. Or at least it never has been. The problem of what exactly constitutes worship and therefore falls under the principle seems sticky to me.

Yeast is also sin and works tainted with sin also which of course Christ was without. It would also point to the fact that he was made sin for us. The cantankerous Lutheran does have a point in that Christ drained the cup of the Lord's wrath on our behalf. This is always likened to wine that makes the drinker stagger and fall. We proclaim his death and partake in those sufferings no matter how small our partaking may be. I don't know that it's absolutely necessary though, particularly when such things are not available.

[charl]

I suspect that these questions belong in a different thread, but because Char was so willing to hijack MRJ's thread for at least a little while, I'll keep them here for a little while, unless she gets her knickers in a knot.

Yes you people can get out of my thread with your talk of the gospel!! Heheh.

In asking what is the gospel, I guess it is first God's revelation to man in the word and the Word made flesh. It's how he came down to us when we could not ascend to him, how he shows up not in the places we would expect but in the shame of the cross. How his perfect life meant that death could not hold him, and how he has made an everlasting covenant with the bride he has bought with his own blood. The depths of this mystery are inexhaustible and we could go on forever (and I think in a sense we will). Even though the lamb has been slain from the foundation of the world, redemption is applied at belief and that spark of faith is itself a gift of God. We are be born from above, conceived by God as a new man, the image of God restored by the work of Christ. And in us as we are in him.

I actually don't see Judas as someone who didn't bear fruit or standing for those who don't bear fruit. I think he was outwardly pretty good as he managed to fool enough people (perhaps even himself)-the unbeliever can live an outwardly righteous life. As Sibbes said (and I know I haven't quoted him in like a week!! Everyone should just read him so I don't have to quote anymore) even if a man were of such controlled behaviour that his whole life were free from outward offences, yet in Christ's eyes to be worldly minded is death.

He was never a son of God, but of the devil.

Indeed we can't have our share of the grace of the cross unless we first accept our share of responsibility for it. Jesus himself when asked questions about relative sinfulness usually said unless you repent you too will perish. I also have always found it interesting that both Judas and Peter were guilty of betrayal.

I do think there is a difference between a "smoking wick and a stinking firebrand", but sometimes all we see is the smoke being produced and it is indeed hard for us to recognize that difference. I understand the frustration of seeing people call themselves Christians and yet seem to have no love for Jesus. I would still be wary of condemning too quickly and rather continue to preach the gospel to them and exhort them to trust and love Christ. As he is the author of faith so he is the perfecter.

[gman]

where I was going with the salvation thing is that our church had a situation with someone who gravitated toward the free grace movement. One of basic teachings of this movement looks like this: faith minus repentance = justification minus works. Essentially, one simply has to speak that Jesus is the Christ and he is saved. A change in heart does not occur, therefore an outward change in one's life doesn't have to occur either. Thry explain away the new creation in Christ. That's the simplistic explanation. I was just curious what people thought in regards to this view. My church teaches the opposite view. Faith plus repentance = justification plus works. I see that as one first having their mind opened by the work of God to understanding the scripture and the gospel, and belief either following that, or not following that; as with Judas.

GMan

[charl]

Oh but no one can say Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirit. Ahhhhhh

The ultimate goal of redemption is union with Christ and Christ-likeness. So what is the point of a supposed redemption without that as it's goal? We don't want mercy just for pardon, but mercy for healing. Also he will reign in his church, and even though he abides with us in our sinfulness it isn't sin he is abiding with; it is his enemy and as he establishes his rule he goes about actively destroying it. We know he will be victorious.

Although I will say it is Christ that sanctifies us also as he establishes his reign. What do we have that we haven't received? The victory and the work is all his and therefore I would argue the focus must be on him and not our own works-pitch your tent on your justification, on the finished work of Christ, not on sanctification, what you are getting right or wrong. It is dangerous to look for from ourselves what we must have from Christ.

Understanding the gospel comes itself from God. The spark of faith is kindled by him, this is why even the smallest faith can move the mountains of opposition and sin that are between us and God. Once you are born as a child of God, you are not going to be something other than that. In other words, you will believe Christ because you are his.

Man you know I am looking at this and I'm just alluding to the Bruised Reed again. It just seems like it has something pertinent to say to almost everything I've been thinking about lately-a very good work for a human one. It's online for anyone who enjoys awesomeness.

Okay okay one more quote.

...Christ's service is the only true liberty. His yoke is an easy yoke, his burden but as the burden of wings to a bird which make her fly the higher...Those that take the most liberty to sin are the greatest slaves, because the most voluntary slaves. The will is either the best or the worst part in anything. The further men go on in a willful course, the deeper they sink in rebellion; and the more they oppose Christ, doing what they will, the more they shall one day suffer what they would not. In the meantime, they are prisoners in their own souls, bound over in their consciences to the judgment after death of him whose judgment they would not accept in their lives. And is it not just that they should find him a severe judge to condemn them when they would not have him as a mild judge to rule them?

Vive Richard Sibbes!! Even though you were an Anglican I won't hold it against you.

[winterlens]

WTH Winterlens! You promised to be on the Praise and Worship side!!

Who said I wasn't? Where's your famous read-between-the-lines-and-twist-everything-ness now? I did trim a lot of worship-related stuff as I deemed it relatively impertinent to the discussion.

But since you bring it up, it does seem to me as though that we might draw some battle lines regarding worship in general. As we've already mentioned, there are issues of regulative principle (what instrumentation to use) and issues of doctrine (content of the songs).

But we really haven't touched much on the issue of the actual meaning and rôle of worship, i.e., what it is intended to do and how it should accomplish it.

It seems to me that the emotional import of P/W is disturbing to more conservative circles, and I'm not sure exactly why. While naturally everyone has different emotional triggers (your dread fascination with maiming priests, for example), our relationships with others are emotional--so why would we have problems with an emotional relationship to God?

That is not to say that we should substitute experience for truth (i.e., Scripture), but that in our haste to defend against milky writing we shouldn't prejudice ourselves against lively worship.

I am obviously still sketchy on ecclesiology myself, which is why I thought this would be a good subject to argue about.

What subjects don't you think are good to argue about?

I agree that the church should safeguard the gospel-they do it in part by regular proclamation to the congregants however. It isn't enough to simply keep the correct doctrine without proclaiming it.

Of course. Proper teaching in the Scriptures will expose the gospel. We can't preach on Genesis 1-3 without seeing about nine skillion references to Christ, for example.

Sometimes that is true, but in many ways the spiritual reality can be more real than the physical one because it is eternal. I do of course lean toward the belief that it is indeed a means of grace with real meaning to it.

I would actually take this a bit further and say that the spiritual sense is the "real" one, and the physical is the shadow. The tabernacle made by hands -- the physically real one -- was an expression of the tabernacle made without hands -- the spiritually real one.

I think we tend to think of the spiritually real things as incorporeal, and I'm not persuaded that's a good idea. It seems to me in the last analysis that we'll still have corporeal bodies--but we'll be dwelling in a spiritual reality rather than the physical one of our present existence.

[winterlens]

where I was going with the salvation thing is that our church had a situation with someone who gravitated toward the free grace movement. One of basic teachings of this movement looks like this: faith minus repentance = justification minus works. Essentially, one simply has to speak that Jesus is the Christ and he is saved. A change in heart does not occur, therefore an outward change in one's life doesn't have to occur either. Thry explain away the new creation in Christ. That's the simplistic explanation. I was just curious what people thought in regards to this view.

Personally my opinion is that God can redeem anyone he wants regardless of their feelings in the matter. That said, we know that grace leads us to repentance (Ro 2.4), and we rightly expect it of those who are God's children. I know an Eastern Orthodox adherent who says it well: the Christian walk is characterized by repentance. Lest we get the wrong idea, repentance isn't simply mental assent to wrong-doing; else John the Baptist would not have told the people to bring forth works of repentance before their baptism.

Naturally we expect there are some Christians who will die in their spiritual infancy--they're spiritually alive, born again, but they're never really conscious of that life. I'm not willing to condemn anyone for the life he leads--it is after all Christ who saves, not man--but grace teaches us to hate sin.

[charl]

I generally dislike the over-emotionalism of P&W because it's very rarely backed by sound theology. We should be emotional because of truth, not (solely) because of music.

There you are saying you don't like Praise and Worship. Usually disliking something means you don't support it. I don't know how I could possibly twist that. You just reneged on your agreement to be the DA.

[charl]

"Worship" is something I have not given much thought to, because I prefer the idea of communion being the centre of worship rather than singing as most think of it. Of course that is again the difference between focusing on what God has done for us in Christ as opposed to what we do (singing lamo songs).

I am not one of those opposed to emotion, however I would ask what do we become emotional about? I usually say if you think you're proclaiming the gospel and I'm not crying at the end, you did it WRONG. Try again.

Boring subjects are not worth arguing about. Like science.

Yes yes this is why God's wrath is actually more terrible since the coming of Christ. And of course he remains incarnate as our High Priest since his coming. However I don't think everything must have a physical component just to be "real".

[separateunion]

What about Communion anyway? I kind of lean toward communion every week (because in some churches the only time you really need to show up is on Communion Sunday) but I don't think this is ultra common practice.

The early church service was built around communion, as opposed to the modern church service which makes the message the focus. Not only that, but communion was the center of a love feast that lasted several hours. Christians gathered together for a meal and fellowshipped, and it was part of the church service, not a pot luck afterwards. I much prefer this type of church service (or at least the idea of it), but have never found a church that practices in such a way.

[winterlens]

There you are saying you don't like Praise and Worship. Usually disliking something means you don't support it. I don't know how I could possibly twist that. You just reneged on your agreement to be the DA.

I'm making a distinction between content and form. You do this all the time. Emotions are good. Maybe not in the sense that pumpkin pie is good, but good nonetheless. We shouldn't reject the emotional perspective of the modern church because the form that triggers it is not one we're comfortable with. If you could write a theologically proper song, is it automatically disqualified from church because of the style of music?

Ultimately people like praise and worship music for two reasons: the emotional appeal of the music and the generally terrible lyrics. I don't say the latter as a matter of taste, but that bad theology is usually appealing.

But bad theology -- poor content -- is bad theology everywhere. The music doesn't make the theology worse, it just makes it easier to spoonfeed. If the mode of transmission -- the music -- is effective, why don't we use it to communicate good theology?

[winterlens]

"Worship" is something I have not given much thought to, because I prefer the idea of communion being the centre of worship rather than singing as most think of it. Of course that is again the difference between focusing on what God has done for us in Christ as opposed to what we do (singing lamo songs).

Here's a fun wild goose chase: find an example of angels singing in the Bible. That is, find one time when the Bible explicitly uses the verb "to sing" (or its conjugates) with angels.

If you picked the revelation to the shepherds in Luke, you're wrong. "And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, ..."

Singing is, I think, a distinctly human province. Perhaps not. We're not all very adequate at expressing ourselves this way, and I, in fact, rarely sing during church. But it's not an inferior mode of expression.


I totally agree that communion should take more precedence in our services--don't get me wrong. But while our relationship with God is predicated exclusively on the person and work of Christ, it is also a relationship in which we participate (actively, as in singing, and passively, as in communion).

I am not one of those opposed to emotion, however I would ask what do we become emotional about?

Which is what I said to start with. If you don't like all this agreement, why don't you say something contrary?

Yes yes this is why God's wrath is actually more terrible since the coming of Christ. And of course he remains incarnate as our High Priest since his coming. However I don't think everything must have a physical component just to be "real".

But that's precisely what I'm saying. The realest of things don't have physical components. Their manifestation is experienced in ways that aren't physical.

Even depraved man understands this--love is not physical, yet it is still experienced. I suppose it is manifested physically, like with all those rugrats you adore so much, but love as such is not a physical thing to be grasped, poked, or prodded. Yet we all agree it exists. (I qualify this paragraph with the beginning words "depraved man." Obviously as Christians we experience love as one of God's attributes, not the silly emotion it is turned into by our fallen natures.)

[Massive snip of philosophical things I'm unqualified to comment on.]

[charl]

The feast thing seems to have gone by the wayside relatively early on. However, Eucharist remained the central focus (it was part of the service that was barred to nonbelievers). An early variant actually did have the earmarks of a potluck apparently. I don't have the primary source for it, but one of the things I have heard is that in some churches, congregants brought the elements themselves and they were then pooled together.

In the ancient church homilies usually went along the lines of: the bishop picks a verse. The bishop talks about the verse. If the bishop is John Chrysostom, he talks about the verse for several hours.

[charl]

Winterlens; this is my thread, so why don't YOU say something contrary?! You don't fool me you know-I know you are saying things I agree with just to spite me.

You stink.

BTW how do you know I make distinctions between content and form? Maybe I do, maybe I don't.

[charl]

If the mode of transmission -- the music -- is effective, why don't we use it to communicate good theology?

It's not necessary to throw it out I suppose. I would ask though what is it that it's effectively doing? Emotional manipulation is essentially falsehood, this would make me wary of it. You don't really feel what they want you to feel without the heartstring tugging. How do you know what you do really feel? Sentimentality and doctrine have rarely existed happily beside one another, and it is usually doctrine that is jettisoned.

Also it encourages the quest for transcendent experience. This is a roller coaster that I do not believe God approves of, for several reasons.

I will complain more later.