THE ONE TRUE CHURCH...
is the Roman Catholic Church, says the new Pope, Benedict XVI, and causes confusion, consternation, and even condemnation among other "church bodies."
So, what else is new, I ask? Has there ever been a time, including Vatican II, when the RCC
didn't believe that? It is one of the many teachings and practices which for so long has kept the RCC and other Christian denominations apart and suspicious of each other. Present and former Catholics will tell you of days when the church leadership forbid any member from even setting foot inside another "church" building.
"Isn't that awful," I say, "for a church group to say that? Who do they think they are, anyway?"
Well friends, before we crucify our catholic brethren - yes I consider faithful Roman Catholics brothers and sisters - let us be sure the log is out of our own eye.
Is there ANY church group or denomination out there that doesn't feel at some point deep within that they are "doing and being the Church of Jesus Christ" correctly? I know that I am! I admit to thinking that my expression of the Christian faith is directly in keeping with what Jesus would approve of. And this is especially true for Churches of Christ.
In many circles even today one can hear the expression "a member of the church" and know it means "a member of a Church of Christ." Because, some believe, outside the "Church of Christ" there are no TRUE Christians. That is NOT what I or most other Church of Christ members believe.
My point is not to castigate either the RCC or the CoC. The point is that we who believe in Jesus Christ, have an obligation NOT to divide over such things but to approach one another humbly and with an attitude of openness.
That doesn't mean we discard the clear gospel of Jesus' death and resurrection, but that in the words of Thomas Campbell (forgive me if I misquote slightly), "In essentials unity, in non-essentials, diversity."
I also see where some evangelicals are disputing the nature of the atonement. Most would believe that Jesus' essential act was as our substitute, taking upon himself the punishment for sin due to us - substitutionary atonement. The minority would say that that makes God a "child abuser" and is not a worthy description of our God. They would emphasize the Jesus who was the "Christus Victor" of Gustaf Aulen, that He came to defeat the powers of sin, Satan, and death, thereby giving us the fruit of that victory, reconciliation to God and eternal life. (Please note that these brief descriptions are woefully inadequate to the full understanding of these positions.)
However, as in everything, it seems to me both positions have merit. Indeed, to fully grasp the fullness of what Jesus Christ did takes more understanding than either of these two. Biblical terminology is too rich to single out one explanation. We have to use (and explain and preach)words like ransom, redemption, sacrifice, reconciliation, atonement, justification, etc. I believe a classic mistake is made when we limit our understanding of the gospel to one aspect. Paul was correct to pray that we might know the "length, breadth, height, and depth" of Jesus. (Some folks say Paul is being redundant; I think he is trying to give a multi-dimensional aspect to Jesus in a three-dimensional world.)
To return to our original theme. It is also clear to me that for ANY single group of people within the Christian fold to profess to have the complete and true understanding of Jesus and the church is the height of arrogance. It's similar to saying "I know all there is know about God." Or, "I know all there is to know about the universe." Or "I know exactly how the human body functions and what causes illness and other health problems."
I suggest if you know such people, run away as fast as you can! I want doctors to tell me what they know and what they don't. Be honest with me. I want astro-physicists to acknowledge that the universe is too vast for us to fully comprehend. And I want Christian teachers to admit they don't know it all.
As I become older I discover aspects of Jesus, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, the gospel, and the Bible itself which I hadn't known before. I realize how much I don't know and how much fun it is to seek and find new insights into the unknowable God and His relationship to His earth.
What do you think?
Charlie
is the Roman Catholic Church, says the new Pope, Benedict XVI, and causes confusion, consternation, and even condemnation among other "church bodies."
So, what else is new, I ask? Has there ever been a time, including Vatican II, when the RCC
didn't believe that? It is one of the many teachings and practices which for so long has kept the RCC and other Christian denominations apart and suspicious of each other. Present and former Catholics will tell you of days when the church leadership forbid any member from even setting foot inside another "church" building.
"Isn't that awful," I say, "for a church group to say that? Who do they think they are, anyway?"
Well friends, before we crucify our catholic brethren - yes I consider faithful Roman Catholics brothers and sisters - let us be sure the log is out of our own eye.
Is there ANY church group or denomination out there that doesn't feel at some point deep within that they are "doing and being the Church of Jesus Christ" correctly? I know that I am! I admit to thinking that my expression of the Christian faith is directly in keeping with what Jesus would approve of. And this is especially true for Churches of Christ.
In many circles even today one can hear the expression "a member of the church" and know it means "a member of a Church of Christ." Because, some believe, outside the "Church of Christ" there are no TRUE Christians. That is NOT what I or most other Church of Christ members believe.
My point is not to castigate either the RCC or the CoC. The point is that we who believe in Jesus Christ, have an obligation NOT to divide over such things but to approach one another humbly and with an attitude of openness.
That doesn't mean we discard the clear gospel of Jesus' death and resurrection, but that in the words of Thomas Campbell (forgive me if I misquote slightly), "In essentials unity, in non-essentials, diversity."
I also see where some evangelicals are disputing the nature of the atonement. Most would believe that Jesus' essential act was as our substitute, taking upon himself the punishment for sin due to us - substitutionary atonement. The minority would say that that makes God a "child abuser" and is not a worthy description of our God. They would emphasize the Jesus who was the "Christus Victor" of Gustaf Aulen, that He came to defeat the powers of sin, Satan, and death, thereby giving us the fruit of that victory, reconciliation to God and eternal life. (Please note that these brief descriptions are woefully inadequate to the full understanding of these positions.)
However, as in everything, it seems to me both positions have merit. Indeed, to fully grasp the fullness of what Jesus Christ did takes more understanding than either of these two. Biblical terminology is too rich to single out one explanation. We have to use (and explain and preach)words like ransom, redemption, sacrifice, reconciliation, atonement, justification, etc. I believe a classic mistake is made when we limit our understanding of the gospel to one aspect. Paul was correct to pray that we might know the "length, breadth, height, and depth" of Jesus. (Some folks say Paul is being redundant; I think he is trying to give a multi-dimensional aspect to Jesus in a three-dimensional world.)
To return to our original theme. It is also clear to me that for ANY single group of people within the Christian fold to profess to have the complete and true understanding of Jesus and the church is the height of arrogance. It's similar to saying "I know all there is know about God." Or, "I know all there is to know about the universe." Or "I know exactly how the human body functions and what causes illness and other health problems."
I suggest if you know such people, run away as fast as you can! I want doctors to tell me what they know and what they don't. Be honest with me. I want astro-physicists to acknowledge that the universe is too vast for us to fully comprehend. And I want Christian teachers to admit they don't know it all.
As I become older I discover aspects of Jesus, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, the gospel, and the Bible itself which I hadn't known before. I realize how much I don't know and how much fun it is to seek and find new insights into the unknowable God and His relationship to His earth.
What do you think?
Charlie
Labels: What is the Church?
posted by Charlie | 7:50 AM
1 Comments:
Very well said. One of the constant messages of church history is that as soon as any group comes to believe (or teach) that they "have arrived" and have "all the answers", it is clear evidence that they have not.
Grace is our only hope.
Post a Comment
<< Home