Let me offer a brief 2 part premise to this ensuing critique: 1. I do not presume to have a fixed understanding of what a proper ecclesiological form might be. 2. I do believe there are “more” proper forms and they can be observed as they are delivered to us by through reciprocal elements of scripture and tradition.
This Labor Day weekend was certainly a delight due to the Parousia (2nd coming) of Brian C. March. The diesel himself graced Nashville once more for a wedding and thus my time was fruitfully spent. He was accompanied by a few gentlemen of righteous stature. One fellow in particular was of interest to me as we began to discuss their coming visit to my Anglican Church. I attempted to assuage their reticence by describing Anglican doctrine in heavily PCA terms (Brian’s church is PCA, which is the theological background for most of his companions). This one gentleman proceeded to explain his own departure from the PCA based on doctrinal and missional differences.
In short, he was part of a church that sought to relive and maintain commitment to 1st century church living(the oft stated “New Testament Church”) . They, his church, wanted to stand outside of “man made forms of religion” because these simply “caused division”. To he and his fellow parishioners, there was “one true church” and creedal formulations and “structures” were only divisive and not necessarily “biblical” though he admitted they may have symbolic and traditional value. It is quite ironic that the creedal formulations he seeks to forego embody his same ecclesial intents. I suppose (cough) saying them aloud in union subverts genuine spirit-led unity. My sarcasm should indicate my disagreement.
I bring this scenario up not to trivialize his church’s efforts but to highlight a recurrent obsession and faulty historical supposition. This belief that one can purify the Church’s mission and identity by simply uncovering the New Testament tradition and emulating it, is misguided though laudable. The underlying hope is that the present church can be honoring to the virtues we announce: love, unity, forgiveness, etc. However, these virtues come by practice and embodiment and not by some “pre-historical” recovery of the NT church. Frankly, these movements assume that one who is closer to an event has a more accurate interpretation of that event. We know simply by examples of Iraqi war-mongers and those in split-second car crashes that being right on the event itself does not always render a wise decision.
If a church movement pretentiously attempts to reach behind the tradition in which we stand, then be prepared to bear some of its scars such as baptismal regeneration, low christology, fledgling mariology, the catechumenate process, gnostic incursions on doctrine, misogyny, and others. The point here is that the development of tradition has done alot to enhance our understanding of our own belief standards! We have gone beyond immature and destructive theologies.
Also, Father Neuhaus interestingly points out that any discouragement of our contemporary setting is to imply that God of Christ Jesus is dethroned and has not placed us at this point by his divine wisdom. If he were to simply want us to be in the first century then all that is around us and has been a part of us (including our conversion!!!!) is outside of his intent.
If we are to honor his historical intent and his mission to redeem the world, let us not presume to shed our historical location and our recent traditions! We can reform and dialogue about these matters. We should not simply recapitulate the very sectarianism that these “NT church model/movements” seek to oppose. Not communing at the table with one another does not endorse the historical church it tears apart his bride. Instead of abandoning creedal formulations then we ought to scrutinize and pray over them. while doing so we are providing our shirt and a cold cup of water for one another. We, and our private movements, can NOT faithfully-solely arbitrate historical Christianity by being in conversation with our choir! This is fundamentally exclusive and antithetical to unity.
In finality, I repeat my premise. I DO NOT have it together. Certainly, the Anglican Communion worldwide is wrestling with these very issues. But we can affirm that where we are is where we must converse. Of course we affirm the NT church and seek it as exemplary. We follow it not with abandonment of our historical location however! We cannot wait on a hidden appeal to antiquity to illuminate the “true church”. This my friends, is Mormonism.
-Governor
