Multisite Church: What a Concept!

The Washington Post has a story about a local multisite church phenomenon, McLean Bible Church. With no disrespect meant, and with no intent at proselytizing here (verboten on Mere Comments) I still cannot forgo these observations:

1) The article describes attempts of one church to expand its ministry geographically by offering the same worship service, using technology to "beam in worship services from a central location" to satellite locations. Many places, but one church. One service, centrally located, but experienced in many places at virtually the same time (one could use a "tape delay" for a slightly different time?)

2) According to my understanding of the Divine Liturgy, on Sundays we gather not simply in place, but most truly at the one heavenly altar, where one church, spread throughout the world, partakes of the one Cup and the one Bread, thus the same service, the very same Thanksgiving, the Eucharist, is offered by the one people of God throughout the world (and through all time for that matter), all attended by the heavenly hosts. (Hebrews 12:22-24) All of our services, indeed, come from "a central location"! Even if you don't hold a high sacramental view, you have to admit the idea of a "multisite" single church is not really new!

Comments

[Bill R]

Jim, I appreciate your understanding of the true "multi-site" church, while noticing your tongue slightly in cheek! But in a modest defense of what's going on here, perhaps I can add a comment from a member of such a megachurch (in Southern California). I really don't know precisely our membership/attendance figures, but it's probably about, oh, 3000/5000. We began as a tiny immigrant (Scandinavian) church by the L.A. Harbor in the early 20th century. By the mid-1950s, the church acquired a fair-sized parcel in what was then a rural area, and grew rapidly as the surrounding area developed. In the mid-1980s, we purchased an even larger parcel across the street, where the present sanctuary is located. A few years ago we sought to consolidate both parcels and build an even larger facility, but the city put the kibosh on that. We went to the "satellite church" concept with our old campus. Last year, we added a second "satellite" three miles away. Each year for the last five or six years, we've also sponsored "daughter congregations" in relatively under-churched areas of Southern California, a project which we hope to keep for a few more years. I know that some folks think ill of the megachurch phenomenon, but what would the Lord think of those who take seriously the need to proclaim his Word to all about them? At least we truly try to reach the half million or so souls within a five mile radius of our church.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>im, I appreciate your understanding of the true "multi-site" church, while noticing your tongue slightly in cheek! But in a modest defense of what's going on here, perhaps I can add a comment from a member of such a megachurch (in Southern California). I really don't know precisely our membership/attendance figures, but it's probably about, oh, 3000/5000.<<<

Permit one who lives in much too close proximity to McLean Bible Church to make a few observations. First, the place is already the size of a shopping mall, and incorporates not only a church, but schools, day care centers, counselling centers and other services on their campus. If we were in medieval Europe, it would be a really good sized abbey.

Second, because of its size, the place really puts a strain on the local transportation network. Route 7, the main thoroughfare in front of the church complex, is usually backed up for several miles on Sundays. This does not win them friends among the local populace, but for some reason, they do not seem to have any problems getting their building plans approved by the County Planning Commission--unlike my little church of some 450 people.

Third, I see the use of multimedia technology to create video satellite churches as indicating a fundamental failure of evangelization. It is diametrically opposed to the practice of the Old Order Amish, who deliberately limit their churches to 20-25 households or less. When they expand beyond that point, they calve off a new church.

It also points out the necessity of the diocesan bishop as the focus of unity and fullness in the local Church. No parish is the fullness of the Church in itself; it is only in unity with the bishop that it obtains that fullness. It is only through the communion of bishops that the universality of the Church is manifested. Thus, in the Byzantine Churches, the bishop is spiritual present at every Liturgy through the use of the Antimension. Every church has a bishop's throne in the sanctuary, behind the Holy Table. But nobody sits in it but the bishop. When the bishop is not there in person, he is there in spirit, and the priest blesses the throne as though the bishop was there.

Lacking this ecclesial structure, the non-denominational megachurches would have difficulty in spinning off daughter churches when they grow beyond the bounds of practicality (as McLean Bible Church did years ago). There is, to be blunt, no guarantee that the teaching of the daughter church would remain consistent with the mother church. And so, to maintain control over an ever-expanding congregation, they must resort to gimmicks like viritual churches.

All of which reinforces my strongly held belief that industrial-scale Christianity cannot work.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Last year, we added a second "satellite" three miles away. Each year for the last five or six years, we've also sponsored "daughter congregations" in relatively under-churched areas of Southern California, a project which we hope to keep for a few more years. <<<

This is not the same model as McLean is following. In fact, it is the classic model of evangelization followed by the Church for 2000 years. We follow it today. My parish, for instance, began as a mission of St. Gregory of Nyssa parish in Beltsville, MD. It was started by parishoners of St. Gregory's who lived on the Virginia side of the Potomac, who didn't want to travel 40 miles each way to church. As the mission grew, it was promoted to parish status. In due time, we formed a mission of our own to serve members of our congregation who lived in upper Montgomery County, MD--on the opposite side of the Beltway from Beltsville, and closer to us than to St. Gregory's.

This is a proper model of church expansion. It is organic and community-based. It requires real, live bodies willing to commit to the formation and maintenance of a living community. What McLean is trying is very different, and in the long term, will not work.

[Bill R]

"All of which reinforces my strongly held belief that industrial-scale Christianity cannot work."

Perhaps it shouldn't work, but very often it does. We like to think the Holy Spirit may have something to do with this, and not the size of our facilities. (But it would be nice to be able to get out of the parking lot in less than 20 minutes!)

"If we were in medieval Europe, it would be a really good sized abbey."

Only if we put up walls.... ;-)

"Third, I see the use of multimedia technology to create video satellite churches as indicating a fundamental failure of evangelization."

It could, but only if new church plants were not sponsored by the "mother church." We do both. Many large churches are not interested in being big merely for its own sake. Rather, a large size is merely an incident of successful outreach to the community.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It could, but only if new church plants were not sponsored by the "mother church." We do both. Many large churches are not interested in being big merely for its own sake. Rather, a large size is merely an incident of successful outreach to the community.<<<

The early Christians were quite concerned that their congregations be established on a household model. As through baptism, all men are brothers and sisters in Christ, so the local church is in a real sense a family. Ideally, everybody knows everybody else, and for that reason are truly able to bear each others' burdens. Once you go beyond a certain point, this is no longer possible. I believe that number is somewhere south of 1000 souls. I have seen very large churches--Catholic and Protestant. In every case I have seen, these could not be described as single congregations. Rather, they were composed of numerous discrete groups that just happened to meet in one place on Sunday. In the case of the larger Catholic parishes, the proliferation of Masses meant that there were really anywhere from four to six parishes under the one roof, since people habitually went to one specific Mass. In a lot of Protestant churches, it was much the same thing, although there the discrimination was on the basis of "worship style" (traditional, modern, silent, family, Hispanic, etc.). My one visit to a "magachurch" what I found was a very impersonal environment, strangers bumping up against strangers, I cannot see how a pastor could provide, well, "pastoral" guidance under such circumstances. "Pastor" means shepherd, and the shepherd must know his sheep.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Stuart -

I'm just curious - how did this work in the large Europeon Cathedrals in the center of big cities? Certainly the celebrants could not know everyone who attended.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I'm just curious - how did this work in the large Europeon Cathedrals in the center of big cities? Certainly the celebrants could not know everyone who attended.<<<

Cathedrals for the most part were full only on major feast days. The rest of the year, they served one parish, the one where the bishop presided. On most ordinary Sundays, and on almost all weekdays, there was a plethora of smaller churches in every town and city.

Take, as an example, York, which in the Middle Ages was the second largest city in Britain, with a population ranging from 10-25,000. The Minster (one of the most beautiful churches in Britain) served as the seat of the bishop, but there were also more than 50 parish churches within the walls. Even taking the higher population figure, this works out to less than 500 people per parish--and far less in many of them.

The situation was similar in most European cities, including London, Paris, Milan, and especially Rome. Rome at its nadir had hundreds of churches (many monastic), all supporting a population of around 25,000. Of course, Rome was a special case, being the headquarters of the Western Church, but Constantinople in its heyday, when the population was on the order of 250,000 or more, was also a city of churches. Hagia Sophia was the largest church in the world, but the next largest was less than a third of its size, and most later Byzantine churches were much smaller--some barely 25 x 25 feet.

Pre-automobile, people even in cities, lived in closely-knit neighborhoods, and they went to church in those neighborhoods as well. They might go to the cathedral for Easter, or Christmas, or Holy Week, or when the new bishop was installed, or the king came to town, but not too much the rest of the time. Rather, the local parish was the center of their faith community.

[Postman]

Forgive the crankiness please. It's late, and I just got back from speaking to a bunch of hard-working priests in a metropolis who were all depressed and overly-impressed with the satellite productions of the mega's in their city. They spoke of sheep-stealing, and I immediately remembered the old Church Growth mantra that went, "There's no sheep-stealing, there's only sheep-feeding." Some of you know exactly who said that.

It is sheep-stealing. And what's more, the mega-church displaces the real ecclesial, sacramental and liturgical community. The displacement is analogous to Wal-Mart destroying the mom-and-pop shops that made walking to the grocer a possibility. How have we gotten to a point where a church must have zillions of "ministries" and thousands of people, in order to be successful or "anointed"? What happened, that we immediately look upon a little church, perched in a neighborhood, with only a 100 singing to a banged up piano, and we call this place a failure? Because the pastor is so unknown that he needs no bodyguards?

[YaknYeti]

I was strongly turned off by the following paragraphs:

"Today's worshipers -- particularly those under 40 -- are more fickle and demanding than previous generations of churchgoers. No longer satisfied with a lone church organist, a scratchy-voiced choir and a few Bible stories for their children, they expect a dynamic preacher, polished worship services in an array of styles with slick videos and professional music along with well-planned religious education.

"To provide that, say ministers and church-growth consultants, churches are spreading their brand, rather than funding smaller independent spin-offs that wouldn't be able to afford upscale worship amenities."

People who aren't willing to put up with imperfection in the carrying out of their church's worship are missing part of the point of church. If you don't like it, work with others to fix it. And any talk of "brands" and "church-growth consultants" makes my stomach turn. Must be a reflex from corporate America.

At the same time, reading further in the article, I notice that the satellite sites have their own pastors, worship teams, etc. If the primary thing that's beamed in is the homily, well, is that so different from an average pastor who leans heavily on the brilliance of excellent preachers to craft his messages? Maybe my gut revulsion isn't justified.

And Bill, be careful on this issue with Stuart. You know how jealously he guards his Old Order Amish traditions!

[Bill R]

"And Bill, be careful on this issue with Stuart. You know how jealously he guards his Old Order Amish traditions!"

Maybe he'll like me better if I grew a beard!

Anyway, I'm not a blind defender of all things mega. Many things about them turn me off as well. I simply want to point out that it's not a simple issue.

By the way, the way we (and most megas) address the psychological need for a smaller community is by means of a small fellowship group ministry. We have 100+ small fellowship groups within our church, with a recommended maximum size of 12 persons (usually six couples). I've been a small group leader for years. We have 14 in our group (a little on the large side), with six couples and two singles. We are a family. During my wife's recent serious disability, the group closed ranks and dropped by almost every night with dinner for our family, to walk our dog, or just to sit bedside with my wife. We regularly gather every other week to study, pray, and to share our lives with one another. This is our church within a church, and I must say, I think it works rather well. Must be a bit like the early house churches.

[YaknYeti]

Bill, it strikes me that the small group concept touches again on the idea Stuart has mentioned about priests being selected from the community and then trained rather than choosing to go to seminary and then being sent to a random congregation. Maybe we'll see a general reclamation of traditional practices through the megachurch movement! Wouldn't that surprise a few people... myself included, of course. :-)

Regardless, I like the idea of small groups, and am glad yours works so well. How long has your group been together? Do you rotate members often?

On the other hand, if your church has 3000-5000 members and on the order of 12*100+ = 1200+ in small groups, it sounds like the system isn't reaching everyone.

[Isamashii Yuubi]

Hmmm, having attended services at a rather large church in Waco while I was a student at Baylor University, and having now found my church home in a small parish in Arlington, TX, I for one feel much more at home with a smaller, more close-knit church "family". I love being able to talk to at least half of the congregation in the narthex after the service. Hubby and I visited another small mission in a nearby town that was made up of about 4 or 5 families, and to tell you the truth, I'd love to be a member of such a small church. It's nice to know people.

[Bill R]

"How long has your group been together? Do you rotate members often?"

My wife and I have been in the group for 8 or 9 years, but it predated our joining it. I'm not sure when it began--the early '90s, most likely. On average we lose a couple a year, but two other couples have been there as long as we have--that's half the group. I'd say that's about typical.

"On the other hand, if your church has 3000-5000 members and on the order of 12*100+ = 1200+ in small groups, it sounds like the system isn't reaching everyone."

That's true, but I said about 3000 members, and 5000 total attenders. Of the 3000 members perhaps 500 or so are children too young to be in such groups, so we have close to half of the membership in small groups. For anything outside of weekly worship, that's a fairly high percentage of participation.

By the way, this is a fairly structured ministry--we have a pastor of small groups, regular leader training, coordinated curricula, even periodic picnics and parties for all small groups to attend. I have to say that if you're lonely in a megachurch these days, you've either just arrived or you're a self-selected loner. Small groups typically go out regularly to dinners, potlucks, movies--whatever families do together. Our group recently rented a gondola and a gondolier, with plenty of wine and cheese, to sing and sail through the coastal canals of Southern California! We've also volunteered the whole group to go down to skid row to serve hot meals in the missions on weekends.

[David Gray]

>It is sheep-stealing.

Odd. I don't know of any churches who turn away converts. Is there an Eastern Orthodox church who, when confronted with someone who wishes to become Orthodox says, "sorry, you were a Four Square Gospel church member, we can't take you, it would be sheep stealing"? Ditto Roman Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Odd. I don't know of any churches who turn away converts. Is there an Eastern Orthodox church who, when confronted with someone who wishes to become Orthodox says, "sorry, you were a Four Square Gospel church member, we can't take you, it would be sheep stealing"? Ditto Roman Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.<<<

OK, the definitive word from the authority on sheep steeling, since the principal charge made against ALL Eastern Catholic Churches is they were intended from the start to steal sheep.

There is some justification to this charge, in some cases. From the 18th century through the middle of the 20th century, the Roman Catholic Church really did create new Eastern Catholic jurisdictions where there was no popular Orthodox groundswell for union with Rome. These jurisdictions were creatures of certain religious orders, mainly the Jesuits and Basilians, and never amounted to much. Other Eastern Catholic Churches arose from demands within various Orthodox communities in Ukraine, Romania, the Carpathians and the Middle East.

One thing is clear, though--once these Churches were erected, all of them saw it as a duty to win converts from the Orthodox, who were labeled "dissdent Orientals". This, of course, created a certain, um, resentment in the Orthodox Churches which for the most part were already under attack from other directions.

Today, the position of the Catholic Church has chaned, and with the Balamand Declaration of 1993 foreswore "uniatism" as a model for reconcilation. On that basis, and recognizing the Orthodox Churches as true "Sister Churches", the Catholic Church does not proselytize the Orthodox. It abjures any effort to convert them, and asserts that they are fully sufficient to effect the salvation of their members.

However, the Catholic Church also upholds freedom of conscience, and will make no effort to oppose an Orthodox Christian who, without coercion or encouragement, feels impelled to become a member of the Catholic Communion.

The Orthodox, for their part, do not universally accept Balamand, but in this country, at least, the vast majority of Orthodox jurisdictions reciprocate: they do not attempt to convert Catholics (especially Eastern Catholics) but they will not reject those who feel impelled to join the Orthodox communion. Within the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic communities, there is a pretty steady flow of traffic in both directions.

However, the attitude of both Churches towards the Protestants is somewhat different, since both Catholics and Orthodox believe them to be incomplete or defective in some ways. They can and will proselytize Protestants, and have had considerable success in some areas. For the most part, though, they are not particularly well organized and rely on curiosity and brand-name recognition to bring people in the door.

Conversely, there are significant numbers of Protestants who don't consider Catholics and Orthodox to be Christians at all, and thus evangelize them with all the fervor of missionaries encountering the heathen. And this has caused a great deal of annoyance in places like Russia and Latin America, where Evangelical missionaries have made a concerted effort to woo Catholic and Orthodox believers away from their adherence, often by combining their spiritual outreach with very concrete material services. Which is well and good, but really IS sheep stealing. There are plenty of the unchurched out there, but apparently winning over a papist (and the Orthodox are usually just considered exotic papists) apparently wind bonus points.

So, there are two distinct models at play here. In the sheep stealing model, one group poaches another group's members, either by providing an imitation of what seems familiar (the wierdest of all--"Eastern Rite Presbyterians", a short-lived phenomenon in Canada, intended to proselytize Ukrainian Orthodox and Greek Catholic immigrants) or by providing material benefits on a large scale, or by offering a "refreshingly undemanding" happy-face theology. In contrast, there are those groups that focus their main effort on the unchurched but who will not turn away those who come of their own according seeking information or comfort, and who decide to stay.

St. Paul would not plow in another man's field. That different Christian confessions do this to each other should not be tolerated. That various Protestant denominations habitually do this to each other is pathetic.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Maybe he'll like me better if I grew a beard!<<<

Beards are de rigeur in my neck of the woods, though I'm reserving mine for the day I enter a monastery. The wife insists.

>>>And Bill, be careful on this issue with Stuart. You know how jealously he guards his Old Order Amish traditions!<<<

There's a lot to admire in the Old Order Amish. A lot that is disturbing, too. Beards without mustaches is one of them.

[Stuart Koehl]

I should perhaps also have mentioned that in the past, especially in this country, Roman Catholics have actively tried to steal sheep from their Eastern Catholic brethren. This was a very deliberate and conscious effort on the part of the Latin hierarchy here in the first half of the 20th century because of their desire to create a uniform "Catholic culture" in the U.S., in which there was no room for "diversity in unity". Thus, aside from lobbying the Vatican for rulings to suppress the married priesthood, infant communion and other Eastern Catholic practices, there were subtle forms of discrimination that included prohibiting Roman Catholic girls from marrying Greek Catholic boys (because under Catholic canon law, the wife takes the Church of the husband and the children are raised in the husband's Church) while encouraging Greek Catholic girls to marry Roman Catholic boys (you can see where this leads). Other pernicious practices included requiring Eastern Catholic families to register in a Roman Catholic parish in order to qualify for the diocesan tuition rate at parochial schools, and requiring Eastern Catholic children enrolled in such schools to attend Confirmation classes (and sometimes be presented to the Latin bishop for Confirmation) even when already Chrismated.

Most of these abuses have ended in since the middle of the 1990s, driven, I believe, by the issuance of John Paul II's pastoral letter Orientale Lumen.

[David Gray]

>Which is well and good, but really IS sheep stealing. There are plenty of the unchurched out there, but apparently winning over a papist (and the Orthodox are usually just considered exotic papists) apparently wind bonus points.

This point would have more merit if there were Protestant ecclesiastical bodies which aimed at the conversion of Catholics or Orthodox while ignoring pagans. There may be such a beast but I've not encountered it. What is generally true amongst evangelicals, at least the better sort if you want to count Osteen et al as evangelicals, is to take seriously the command to bear witness to the truth. This witness is born to all, whether churched or pagan. In South America it has at times been at the cost of life and/or liberty. Often this witness is accompanied by things like medical care which is in no way contrary to scripture. Witnessing by bribing per se is not really witnessing but I don't see that as being all that widespread. Where it exists it is deplorable.

[James A. Altena]

"'Which is well and good, but really IS sheep stealing. There are plenty of the unchurched out there, but apparently winning over a papist (and the Orthodox are usually just considered exotic papists) apparently wins bonus points.'

"This point would have more merit if there were Protestant ecclesiastical bodies which aimed at the conversion of Catholics or Orthodox while ignoring pagans. There may be such a beast but I've not encountered it."

Stuart's point has merit regardless. For Protestants to regard and treat RCs and EOs as non-Christian pagans that have to be converted to Christianity (or vice-versa) is simply wrong, period, and in no way constitutes a witness to truth. Doing that, and actively soliciting for people to convert from one church to another by negative polemics, is something very different from receiving converts who come to a church of their own volition, unsolicited.

A couple of years ago I remember the justified outrage in EO circles when a fellow at a Baptist seminary (I think it was in Texas, but I'm not sure) received a degree for a thesis on evangelization techniques for "converting" EOs in Russia to "Christianity." And, as Stuart notes, RCs and EOs have been guilty of equal abuses.

Some years ago I was standing on a street corner waiting for a bus when two fellows approached me and asked first if I was a Christian, and then if I attended a Bible Study at my church. After I answered "yes" to both questions, they immediately began to badger me as to how I couldn't be sure I was truly getting the Gospel unless I attended *their* Bible Study and *their* church.

Sheep-stealing is very real. And it is utterly despicable. Those who engage in it, in St. Paul's words, preach Christ out of strife, envy, and contention, adding affliction to others' bonds.

[David Gray]

>Doing that, and actively soliciting for people to convert from one church to another by negative polemics, is something very different from receiving converts who come to a church of their own volition, unsolicited.

And bearing witness to the truth of the gospel is not a negative polemic. I take it your criticism would be reserved to those who utilize a "negative polemic"?

The whole concept of sheep stealing is bizarre. Who do the "sheep" belong to?

If Christianity is to be taken seriously and we have serious differences, which we do, then why wouldn't a loving response be to want to see someone be worshipping in the church that is most rightly ordered in God's sight? If you were Roman Catholic wouldn't the loving thing be to want to encourage me to be in full communion with Rome? The only place for criticism would be in method. Neither persecution nor bribery have any place in a loving witness.

[Judy Warner]

There's a lot to admire in the Old Order Amish. A lot that is disturbing, too. Beards without mustaches is one of them.

Like that disturbing Solzhenitsyn.

[David Gray]

>Like that disturbing Solzhenitsyn.

When did he become Amish? Those Amish sheep stealers!!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The whole concept of sheep stealing is bizarre. Who do the "sheep" belong to?<<<

I suggest you go back and look at the situation of the Corinthian Church as Paul found it.

>>>If Christianity is to be taken seriously and we have serious differences, which we do, then why wouldn't a loving response be to want to see someone be worshipping in the church that is most rightly ordered in God's sight? <<<

A loving response is one thing. "You're going to hell" doesn't qualify. Similarly, to hold out the "goodies" (day care, discounted education, free food, job placement, etc.) associated with membership in a particular confession pending conversion to that confession, undermines the real meaning of Christian charity. If you offer charity, offer it to all who need it, without condition. If conversion results, well and good. But to make such charity conditional upon membership is a form of coercion. Moreover, as Christ said, it is easy to love those who love us.

>>>If you were Roman Catholic wouldn't the loving thing be to want to encourage me to be in full communion with Rome?<<<

Well, Rome as a rule no longer tells Protestants they are going to hell. In fact, Rome is loathe these days to even call Protestants "heretics" (there was a long discussion of the issue (with strong dissents from the "traditionalist" wing) over at the First Things web site (www.firstthings.com). I've actually had Evangelicals tell me that Catholics go to hell (I asked about the Orthodox, which got a puzzled look, but I assume that with one foot in each camp, I'm damned either way). I know that Evangelical missionaries in Eastern Europe, very well-heeled by the standards of that region, blow into a village, set up a mission, and begin offering free food, free health care, even monetary assistance. With all this largesse (which local Orthodox and Catholic dioceses generally cannot meet) comes a great deal of not-so-subtle preaching, tracts, etc. The implication is that if the one wants the goodies to keep coming, one should show up for services on Sunday. There's even a lot of re-baptism going on, which frankly, appalls me (the Orthodox no longer rebaptize Catholics, by the way--and only handful ever did, at that).

Now, it's not like there isn't a lot of virgin territory out there where Protestant Evangelicals can bring to Christ those who have never known Him. But to go after those who do, to undermine the authority of their ecclesial authorities, to treat one's brothers and sisters in Christ as though they were indeed heathens--that scandalous. Moreover, it creates a scandal for the unchurched, who look around and see hordes of squabbling groups, each trying to pick up the other's members.

For me, the model of true ecumenical charity is the Catholic organization "Aid to the Church in Need", which has been active in Eastern Europe since 1989. It provides assistance to Catholics and Orthodox alike, without distinction. In particular, it was instrumental in helping the Orthodox Church get on its feet in places like Russia, Ukraine and Albania. Among its most interesting projects were the "floating churches", full-size Orthodox churches on barges which were given, unconditionally, to the Orthodox Church for use on Russia's many rivers and canals. They bring the Church to remote areas where none exist, and where there is simply not enough money to build or sustain one. A similar "church train" program built chapels on rail cars, which then bring Christ into the remote whistlestops of Siberia.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Like that disturbing Solzhenitsyn.<<<

Didn't he have a cameo in "Witness"?

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

I realize that re-baptism is terribly offensive to Orthodox and Catholics, but at least keep a little perspective. Baptists believe that baptism is a symbol of repentance, and thus might almost be more analogous to absolution of mortal sin than conversion. You hear stories of people being baptized dozens of times - who were never Catholic or Orthodox at all. Weird, yes, but I don't think they mean as much by it as if you were asking someone to be baptized.

[James A. Altena]

"And bearing witness to the truth of the gospel is not a negative polemic."

Saying that Christians of another denomination are not Christians is not a witness to the truth of the gospel, but negative polemic.

"The only place for criticism would be in method. Neither persecution nor bribery have any place in a loving witness."

Nor does lying or bigotry -- suc has saying that other Christians are not Christians.

"The whole concept of sheep stealing is bizarre. Who do the "sheep" belong to?"

They belong to God -- which is why the concept of sheep-stealing is not "bizarre" in the sense of being a false phenomenon, but "bizarre" in the sense that those who engage in it act as if they are the shepherds instead of God.

"If Christianity is to be taken seriously and we have serious differences, which we do, then why wouldn't a loving response be to want to see someone be worshipping in the church that is most rightly ordered in God's sight? If you were Roman Catholic wouldn't the loving thing be to want to encourage me to be in full communion with Rome?"

This misleading framing of the problem in terms of a black/white fallacy is the heart of the issue here.

Yes, we all "want to see someone be worshipping in the church that is most rightly ordered in God's sight". But we also need to be much more humble and less cocksure that our particular church is that most rightly ordered one, for two reasons.

First, it is possible (indeed, quite probable) that no single church (in the sense of denominaiton or communion) is more rightly ordered in God's sight than all others. Some are no doubt better and some worse; but there could easily be several of the best that are more or less equal, each one one being relative to the others better ordered in some ways and worse than others.

Second, given the manifold dimensions of the brokenness of human nature due to the Fall and actual sins, there are some people who will be reached by the Gospel by one means where another would fail -- and that includes modes of worship. E.g., as an Anglican I may believe that the BCP provides an objectively superior means for the right worship of God, correct understanding of Scripture, and ascetical shaping of Christian character. I believe e.g. that there are sound arguments for the objective superiority of liturgical worhsip to non-liturgical worship. But for me therefore to insist that a person who (by fundamental temperament) finds liturgical worship stifling (I can think e.g. of my very best friend, an Evangelical, as one instance) *must* worship would be worse than the height of fooolishness; it would be unbridled arrogance.

The same applies (within limits of essential orthodoxy, of course) to doctrine and morals. Certain standards such as the Nicene Creed objectively demarcate Christians from heretics and unbelievers. Beyond that, there is the more gray realm of theological error as distinct from heresy. E.g., I may think that the Baptists have a gravely defective understanding of baptism and the Eucharist; but I am not entitled on those grounds to say that they are not Christians. Do I think that they would profit spiritually if they changed their views? Absolutely. And no doubt they believe the same of me. Does that make it therefore right and just and true for me to attack their church, or for them to attack mine, and each to say of the other that he is not a Christian? Absolutely not.

Human beings are not abstractions, and God works with the clay such as it is. Though I might think church X to have an objectively inferior or defective approach to worship, or to err in doctrine on certain points, that person might nonetheless well draw closer to God and serve Him more faithfully and fully in such a place that is better suited to his peculiar virtues and faults than mine is. I am convinced that a major reason we are members of our several churches is that their respective natures best match both our particular strengths and weaknesses, and give us the best means to serve God most fully within our own limitations. God brings good out of ill, even out of visible schism; I suspect that one reason He suffers the ills of a visibly divided Christendom is that it is in the mystery of reedemption a means for Christ to be all things to all men, that by all means He might save some.

And so here we reach the heart of the problem. The putative "loving response" to actively solicit member X of another church to "convert" to one's own church turns out not to be loving at all. Instead, it is a sin of pride and idolatry, which tries to conform another person into *our* image and likeness, rather than to allow God to conform that person to Himself in His wisdom and His own time and place. It imposes our judgment on that person as to what worship "is most rightly ordered in God's sight" and best for him. That, in a nutshell, is what sheep-stealing is -- an egocentric form of self-worship.

A man may firmly holds his convictions to be true, but be humbly willing to hold them at a certain distance, listen to what another has to say, and critically re-examines them to see if he might have erred, because he recognizes his own finitude and fallenness. And then there is another type of man who cannot make such a distinction, but believes that complete certitude in his convictions means both that they are never again subject to re-examination, and that all others must conform to them as well. (And many of the latter believe sincerely that this is a manifestation of love.)

As G. K. Chesterton said, "The bigot is not the man who believes he is right. Every sane person believes that. The bigot is the man who cannot see how the other fellow came to be wrong." To which I might add, "and will not tolerate the error, and thinks it is up to him to set the other fellow right."

Error will not be overcome by polemics, but by patience. Speaking the truth in love does not include running down someone else's church or saying that they are not Christians when they are such. If someone asks me why, as an Anglican, I hold a particular belief about e.g. the Lord's Supper, I will explain that to him. If asked, I will also explain how that differs from the beliefs of certain other Christian bodies, and why I think the others are wrong. But -- I will also explain to him why they think I am wrong. I do not try to convert; I try to present the evidence for all sides as objectively as I can, and trust God to show which is truth and which is error. (Or, perahps, it is to say that to the extent I seek to convert, I must in humility be equally open to the possibility of being converted.) That is quite different from assuming that I am right, and so sure that I am right that I cannot be wrong, and therefore must seek by every means to win the other person over from his church to mine. We must recognize that our serious differences will be resolved not by adversarial polemics against other Christians, but by trusting in God sufficiently to open and submit our minds and hearts to His total guidance and control, and treating one another as redeemed souls re-made in His image and likeness.

If there was a moral obligation to try to convert Christians of ther denominations to one own, then there literally would be no point to the existence of Touchstone as an ecumenical Christian publication. It would simply be a forum for covert fratricidal spiritual warfare, wherein each member was trying to convert the others to his church.

I will say it again -- I find efforts to "convert" orthodox Christians from one church to another by negative polemics abhorrent. It is an profound affront against both charity and humility.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

By the way, I did have a moment of delightful irony the other day, as a member of my church's missions committee (AMiA). We were looking at a candidate in Eastern Europe, and everyone's first question was, "what is their attitude toward the Orthodox Church?" We wanted to know if they tried to work along side them as best they could for the evangelization of the secular people, or if they saw them as idol-worshipers and conversion fodder. The man who knew the missionary assured us that he had wonderful relations with the local Orthodox parish, and we ended up deciding to support him.

It was just interesting to see an attitude taken as a given in many churches growing up now unanimously treated as grounds for immediate disassociation. It was quite refreshing.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I realize that re-baptism is terribly offensive to Orthodox and Catholics, but at least keep a little perspective. Baptists believe that baptism is a symbol of repentance, and thus might almost be more analogous to absolution of mortal sin than conversion. You hear stories of people being baptized dozens of times - who were never Catholic or Orthodox at all. Weird, yes, but I don't think they mean as much by it as if you were asking someone to be baptized.<<<

So much for that pesky Nicene Creed.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Nicene what? Is that some Catholic thing?

[Wolf N. Paul]

Stuart,

I understand where you are coming from, but I see the other side as well. Most of these Evangelicals (and I do not count Osteen here) are convinced that anyone who has not made a personal committment to follow Christ is bound for hell, regardless of what ecclesial structures they are a part of, and this conviction compells them to evangelize. And because you mention Eastern Europe: we are talking about countries here were the local Orthodox establishment (such as it is after decades of Communism) enlists the state to make life difficult for other churches; where they in fact treat Evangelicals with just as much disdain as Evangelicals have for Catholics and Orthodox.

Because of their soteriology and ecclesiology, most Evangelicals CANNOT accept the idea that anyone who has been sprinkled or dunked as an infant is off-limits for evangelism, regardless of whether his or her life shows any evidence of regeneration.

I know many Evangelical missionaries to Eastern Europe, and I cannot confirm your charge, either, that they use material benefits to draw converts. Most such missionaries involved in any sort of aid are acting out of compassion for the thousands of orphans and other street children in these countries, for the gypsies who are despised by the majority population and often disenfranchised by their governments (more so now than under Communism) and for the young girls who fall victim to the sex trade. If the local Orthodox don't have the means to address these situations the way the Evangelicals try to, then maybe the Orthodox in places like North America should ask themselves why this is and what they can do to change it.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Nicene what? Is that some Catholic thing?<<<

Nah, the Orthodox thought it up and forced it on the poor Romans.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Most of these Evangelicals (and I do not count Osteen here) are convinced that anyone who has not made a personal committment to follow Christ is bound for hell, regardless of what ecclesial structures they are a part of, and this conviction compells them to evangelize. <<<

Presumptuous of them, isn't it? In any case, what makes them think that Catholic and Orthodox Christians have NOT made such a personal committment? Or do they really mean that "people who do not SAY that they have made a personal committment to follow Christ are bound for hell"? In which case, who is putting form ahead of substance. Perhaps a close reading of the rites of initiation would convince them otherwise, but I, as an adult convert to Christianity, remember quite well my baptismal vows, and though I never said "I accept Christ as my own personal savior" (a theology I find to be defective in a number of ways), I did "renounce Satan and all his works and all his angels and all his service and all his pride" and I "did unite myself to Christ". Moreover, in baptism I put on Christ, in Chrismation I was sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and with my reception of the Eucharist I united myself physically and spiritually to Him.

>>>And because you mention Eastern Europe: we are talking about countries here were the local Orthodox establishment (such as it is after decades of Communism) enlists the state to make life difficult for other churches; <<<

Indeed, they do that. The laws are aimed mainly at cults like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, but they are broad enough to be used against Evangelicals who make themselves particularly obnoxious. And trying to woo people away from their current and ancestral faith is pretty obnoxious in my book.

I'll also remind that it wasn't so long ago that Protestants were using the laws in this country to make life difficult for Roman Catholics (and by extension us and the Orthodox). The entire public school system in the United States was largely established in order to protestantize all those insidious Irish Catholic immigrants, and in many states it was illegal until the 1950s or 1960s for parents to send their children to parochial schools. So that knife cuts in both directions.

>>>Most such missionaries involved in any sort of aid are acting out of compassion for the thousands of orphans and other street children in these countries, for the gypsies who are despised by the majority population and often disenfranchised by their governments (more so now than under Communism) and for the young girls who fall victim to the sex trade.<<<

If they want to help, I can certainly give them the names of many reputable Orthodox charities who would love their assistance--but not their proselytization. My daughter, by the way, spent last summer working at an Orthodox orphanage in Romania. There is plenty of Orthodox charity, but remember that we are talking about countries in which the annual income is less than $1200 per year, where I can support a seminarian for a year on $150. When a handful of Evagelical missionaries come into a rural area and begin making handouts that seem modest by our standards, but which are lavish beyond comprehension by the standards of the local people, you're in the business of making "rice Christians", as it used to be called back when Protestants missionized China. They may not consciously be aware that they are doing it (though some are), but cluelessness is no excuse. Since the 19th century at least, many missionaries (American missionaries not the least) have just barged into exotic cultures and tried to turn them into good Englishmen or good Americans. It may work short-term, but the conversions won in that manner don't stick, and create a bad aftertaste.

[Eric]

James Altena wrote:

"Certain standards such as the Nicene Creed objectively demarcate Christians from heretics and unbelievers. Beyond that, there is the more gray realm of theological error as distinct from heresy. E.g., I may think that the Baptists have a gravely defective understanding of baptism and the Eucharist; but I am not entitled on those grounds to say that they are not Christians."

*Do* Baptists profess the Nicene Creed? "I believe in *one* baptism *for* the remission of sins" is substantially different from "I believe in repeated baptisms to symbolize an inward transformation that has already happened."

I don't understand why more Evangelicals don't remark on this section of the Creed. I am curious as to others' thoughts.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I don't understand why more Evangelicals don't remark on this section of the Creed. I am curious as to others' thoughts.<<<

Don't most Evangelicals prefer the more generic Apostle's Creed? I know that when my paternal grandfather was dragging me off to the Dutch Reformed Church, the only one ever used was the Apostle's Creed. Indeed, in many Roman Catholic parishes, the Apostle's Creed is used at least as frequently as the Nicene Creed (though this seems to have been an abuse of a dispensation, and may change).

[Eric]

I grew up in an Evangelical church that had the Nicene Creed pasted to the inside of the hymnal cover. Sigh, part of me doubts that they still have hymnals.

Anyway, the Nicene Creed was there, although only with an asterisk:

"I believe in one holy, apostolic, catholic* church."

The footnote read something like, "That is, the one universal, invisible, body of all believers."

[Ethan Cordray]

>>Don't most Evangelicals prefer the more generic Apostle's Creed?<<

I can't speak for "most Evangelicals," but I think I can count on one hand the number of times I had read the Nicene Creed before I started going to Anglican churches in college. As to the Apostles' Creed, I don't think I had ever even heard of it.

[Peter Gardner]

Most Baptists just baptize once, though infant baptism wouldn't count. So if, say, a Presbyterian were to join almost any Baptist church, they'd have to get baptized again. Some particularly conservative Baptist churches will insist that anyone who's been baptized at any age in a church they don't like (Mormons, Catholics, Seventh-Day Adventists, that other Baptist church across town that split from them ten years ago, &c.) be rebaptized. Multiple baptisms of people who are already members is relatively rare. Sometimes, though, people who backslide then repent might be rebaptized.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Most Baptists just baptize once, though infant baptism wouldn't count. So if, say, a Presbyterian were to join almost any Baptist church, they'd have to get baptized again. Some particularly conservative Baptist churches will insist that anyone who's been baptized at any age in a church they don't like (Mormons, Catholics, Seventh-Day Adventists, that other Baptist church across town that split from them ten years ago, &c.) be rebaptized. Multiple baptisms of people who are already members is relatively rare. Sometimes, though, people who backslide then repent might be rebaptized.<<<

So, in the future there will be Baptists, Catholics and what the Simpson's call the "Reformed EpiscoPresbyLutheran Church"?

[David Gray]

>Most Baptists just baptize once, though infant baptism wouldn't count. So if, say, a Presbyterian were to join almost any Baptist church, they'd have to get baptized again.

If you want an interesting look at this situation look at what happened at Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis, John Piper's church. The church was looking to revise its membership policies to permit members who'd been baptized as infants to not have to be rebaptized as adults in order to join the church. Piper pointed out that it was ironic that under their current policy John Calvin would not be allowed to join their church. It created such a stir that they backed down from the change. Piper took some remarkably nasty comments on Baptist websites.

[Judy Warner]

Sometimes, though, people who backslide then repent might be rebaptized

I thought Baptists believed that once you were saved you could never be unsaved no matter what you did. So why would one need to be rebaptized?

[David Gray]

>Yes, we all "want to see someone be worshipping in the church that is most rightly ordered in God's sight". But we also need to be much more humble and less cocksure that our particular church is that most rightly ordered one, for two reasons.

>First, it is possible (indeed, quite probable) that no single church (in the sense of denominaiton or communion) is more rightly ordered in God's sight than all others. Some are no doubt better and some worse; but there could easily be several of the best that are more or less equal, each one one being relative to the others better ordered in some ways and worse than others.

Presumably you've had words with the Bishop of Rome.

>Second, given the manifold dimensions of the brokenness of human nature due to the Fall and actual sins, there are some people who will be reached by the Gospel by one means where another would fail -- and that includes modes of worship. E.g., as an Anglican I may believe that the BCP provides an objectively superior means for the right worship of God, correct understanding of Scripture, and ascetical shaping of Christian character. I believe e.g. that there are sound arguments for the objective superiority of liturgical worhsip to non-liturgical worship. But for me therefore to insist that a person who (by fundamental temperament) finds liturgical worship stifling (I can think e.g. of my very best friend, an Evangelical, as one instance) *must* worship would be worse than the height of fooolishness; it would be unbridled arrogance.

That depends on your soteriology. Presumably you don't want to assume that yours is right as that might be considered unbridled arrogance?

>A man may firmly holds his convictions to be true, but be humbly willing to hold them at a certain distance, listen to what another has to say, and critically re-examines them to see if he might have erred, because he recognizes his own finitude and fallenness.

Absolutely. If I hadn't done that I wouldn't be a Presbyterian.

>And then there is another type of man who cannot make such a distinction, but believes that complete certitude in his convictions means both that they are never again subject to re-examination, and that all others must conform to them as well. (And many of the latter believe sincerely that this is a manifestation of love.)

Let's really thump on this Christian then!

>As G. K. Chesterton said, "The bigot is not the man who believes he is right. Every sane person believes that. The bigot is the man who cannot see how the other fellow came to be wrong." To which I might add, "and will not tolerate the error, and thinks it is up to him to set the other fellow right."

How many Christians in America are not prepared to "tolerate the error"? I mean this isn't Russia where one ecclesiastical body is prepared to use the coercive power of the state against fellow Christians.

>Error will not be overcome by polemics, but by patience. Speaking the truth in love does not include running down someone else's church or saying that they are not Christians when they are such.

Depends how you use the word Christian. Anyone with an orthodox baptism is a Christian. Not all with an orthodox baptism will be in heaven, just as in the Old Testament not all who were circumsized are in heaven.

>If someone asks me why, as an Anglican, I hold a particular belief about e.g. the Lord's Supper, I will explain that to him. If asked, I will also explain how that differs from the beliefs of certain other Christian bodies, and why I think the others are wrong. But -- I will also explain to him why they think I am wrong. I do not try to convert; I try to present the evidence for all sides as objectively as I can, and trust God to show which is truth and which is error. (Or, perahps, it is to say that to the extent I seek to convert, I must in humility be equally open to the possibility of being converted.) That is quite different from assuming that I am right, and so sure that I am right that I cannot be wrong, and therefore must seek by every means to win the other person over from his church to mine.

James all you are doing is asking people to convert to your image and likeness in their understanding of salvation and doctrine. You describe how you conduct yourself in the paragraph above and essentially demand that all share your understanding and behaviour. How are you different from the fundamentalist who does the same thing? If you wanted to practice what you preach you wouldn't rail against what you deplore in your Christian brother but would feel compassion for what you understand to be his failing and treat him with tolerance and forebearance.

My last pastor told a story similar to one you told above. Some Christians were witnessing downtown on the street corner. One asked him if he were saved. He said no. He said he could see the excitement in his brother's eyes as someone was actually willing to openly say no and fear at actually having to make his presentation. My pastor then explained that his salvation would not be complete until he stood in the new heavens and new earth in his resurrected body. It was more a matter that he was saved, is being saved and will be saved. He didn't feel offended or feel the need to describe his brother's behaviour as "abhorrent" or as a "profound affront against both charity and humility" but saw the good intention and the flawed execution in which there was actually opportunity for him to bear witness. For your consideration...

>We must recognize that our serious differences will be resolved not by adversarial polemics against other Christians, but by trusting in God sufficiently to open and submit our minds and hearts to His total guidance and control, and treating one another as redeemed souls re-made in His image and likeness.

Honest differences demand honest but courteous and respectful discussion.

>If there was a moral obligation to try to convert Christians of ther denominations to one own, then there literally would be no point to the existence of Touchstone as an ecumenical Christian publication. It would simply be a forum for covert fratricidal spiritual warfare, wherein each member was trying to convert the others to his church.

Actually it would make complete sense of Touchstone as part of that honest discussion would be discovering our common ground as well. See David Mills post on Calvin and the Catholic church.

[GL]

Sometimes, though, people who backslide then repent might be rebaptized

I thought Baptists believed that once you were saved you could never be unsaved no matter what you did. So why would one need to be rebaptized?

I have not been following this thread and do not have time to catch up on all that has been written, so forgive me if I replow some ground here. Southern Baptist do believe in once saved, always saved, but the issue can come up as to whether one was saved in the first place (i.e, whether he was in fact "once saved"). In that case, a rebaptism would be in order because the SBC holds to believer's baptism. (This happened to me when I truly put my faith in Christ as an adult after years of living an unashamedly sinful life and explicitly rejecting Christ, though I had said a "sinner's prayer" and been baptized when I was eight.) Other Baptists are Arminians and reject the "once saved, always saved" view. Finally, I know that at least some Southern Baptist churches rebaptize even those who were believers when baptized by full immersion under the trinitarian formula if the person seeking membership in that SBC congregation had belong to a Baptist church which was Arminian when he or she was baptized, under the view that the person had a defective view of salvation when baptized.

[Rob Grano]

The only sizable Protestant group I know of that will rebaptize its own members is the Christian Church/Church of Christ (Campbellites). If a person gets baptized at, say, age 12 and then feels when they have reached 21 that they didn't properly understand what they were doing or weren't fully committed to it they can be rebaptized.

Re: sheep stealing, I know both from personal experience and from hearing many Orthodox priests and prelates say so, that, while the Orthodox will most definitely accept 'converts' from other Christian traditions, we try not to actively seek them, other than by making ourselves present to seekers. This is partially because we don't believe that one's salvation is in jeopardy solely because one isn't in communion with us.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>This is partially because we don't believe that one's salvation is in jeopardy solely because one isn't in communion with us.<<

Glad to hear it, Rob. I had once heard the troubling rumor that the EO believed that all non-EO Christians were hellbound. This is completely without merit, isn't it? How heartening!

[Bob Gardner]

I believe that the Catholic (East and West) paradigm for evangelization of other Christians is the same as it is for her own members, i.e. deeper conversion to Christ. We cannot overlook the value of the sacraments, for Catholics as well as for non-Catholics. So the motive, as Dr. Kreeft said, is one of being not sure where someone else stands in their relationship to Christ. That isn't to say that there aren't Christians outside the visible walls of the Church, which is allot different than just assuming someone isn't a Christian to begin with. That being said Catholics aren't really known for the evagelization of Protestants, though they wish for all Christians to be united.

[Nick]

>>Indeed, they do that. The laws are aimed mainly at cults like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, but they are broad enough to be used against Evangelicals who make themselves particularly obnoxious. And trying to woo people away from their current and ancestral faith is pretty obnoxious in my book.<<

<*sigh*>
As a former member of one of those groups I take umbrage on two points. One, just because they are form a different religion that you believe should be stamped out doesn't make the law any more just.

Two, calling them cults is about as Christian as throwing rocks. It kills conversation and therefore conversion. I assure you that there were never any mind control lasers involved. Its either that or I have a fair amount of built in tin foil. Instead of calling them cults next time pass them some Chrysostom and some baklava.

[Gina]

Some years ago I was standing on a street corner waiting for a bus when two fellows approached me and asked first if I was a Christian, and then if I attended a Bible Study at my church. After I answered "yes" to both questions, they immediately began to badger me as to how I couldn't be sure I was truly getting the Gospel unless I attended *their* Bible Study and *their* church.

This sounds like International Churches of Christ, in which case it was not a matter of sheep stealing but of wolves prowling.

[Bob Gardner]

Perhaps if there are any learned Calvinists reading this they could provide me with an answer to a question I have had for some time. If one is a strict Calvinists what is the motivation for evangelization? I'm not implying that there isn't a good one, just curious...

[Eric]

Bob:

Easy. The motivation for evangelization is that God commands us to do it. That's reason enough, isn't it?

[Rob Grano]

"I had once heard the troubling rumor that the EO believed that all non-EO Christians were hellbound. This is completely without merit, isn't it?"

Not completely -- there are some hyper-traditionalist and rigorist groups that would hold to such a view but it's not common in mainstream Orthodoxy. The caveat is, though, that if one comes to the belief that the Orthodox Church is the true Church, and still chooses not to come into communion with her, then one's soul is in jeopardy. In a sense, one is 'safe' as long as one remains ignorant, but the ignorance can't be willful. We are, after all, responsible to the truth when confronted with it.

[Nick]

The question I think needs to be more nuanced:
For those of the reformed persuasion what is the purpose of evangelizing other groups claiming to follow Christ given that they are arguably just as spirit led as you are?

This I think then leads into the "sheep stealing" argument.

[Bob Gardner]

"Easy. The motivation for evangelization is that God commands us to do it. That's reason enough, isn't it?" Yes, it is a good reason, but I guess what I am asking is if you believe in double predestination why does God command evagelization?

[Nick]

Oh...your going that direction...wouldn't the answer still be the same? That is those that are chosen have already chosen to do the work of the Lord?

[Eric]

Well, I don't believe in it, and I'm not a Calvinist. But, were I so, I would refer you to Job 38:

1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:

2"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.

4"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5Who determined its measurements--surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

In short, so what if it doesn't make sense to you. You ain't God.

A Calvinist would be content with that.

[GL]

Bob,

I am now Presbyterian, but I would not say that I am a strict Calvinist. Nonetheless, I believe I can take a crack at your question. Our sharing the Gospel is (1) commanded and (2) the means by which God predestined for non-Christians to come to personal faith in Christ. It is not ours to judge who is predestined. We are to share the Gospel with all and the Holy Spirit will use our acts of obedience as a means (a factor) in His conversion of those whom He has predestined for salvation.

(I say that I am not a strict Calvinist because I don't accept the double predestination paradigm. I believe that God gets all the credit for those who are saved and the damned get all the blame for their being lost. I believe He eternally elected those who would be redeemed. That is, He not only foreknew who would be saved, but he elected those who would be saved before the creation of the world. He also predestined the means by which those saved would be saved, evanglization by Christians being the normative, but not the exclusive, means. I do not go beyond that. It is a deep mystery, but so are many other important issues of our faith.)

[Bob Gardner]

"Oh...your going that direction...wouldn't the answer still be the same? That is those that are chosen have already chosen to do the work of the Lord?"

They would be doing the work of the Lord, but the elect would be saved regardless, and the damned would still be damned regardless of the fruitfullness of the evangelization. At least that is how it appears to me, but I have been known to be wrong from time to time ;). Maybe that is all there is to it, and that is fine. Since the topic was evagelization I thought I would ask. Thanks.

[Bob Gardner]

Nick, GL,

Thanks. What you say makes sense. The reason I am interested is because I have run across some pretty strick Calvinists that spent allot of their time pointing out the errors of Rome, with the hope of convincing some RC to join them. This seemed like a waste of time given their soteriology, but I didn't want to assign ill-will to them or their efforts.

[James A. Altena]

David:

"'But for me therefore to insist that a person who (by fundamental temperament) finds liturgical worship stifling (I can think e.g. of my very best friend, an Evangelical, as one instance) *must* worship would be worse than the height of foolishness; it would be unbridled arrogance.'

"That depends on your soteriology. Presumably you don't want to assume that yours is right as that might be considered unbridled arrogance?"

On the contrary. My soteriology leaves the judgemnt here to God; yours does not, but appropriates it for yourself.

"'(And many of the latter believe sincerely that this is a manifestation of love.)'

"Let's really thump on this Christian then!"

I didn't have you specifically in mind, but if you find the shoe fits, you are welcome to wear it.

"James all you are doing is asking people to convert to your image and likeness in their understanding of salvation and doctrine. You describe how you conduct yourself in the paragraph above and essentially demand that all share your understanding and behaviour."

This is thoroughly disingenuous. The only way you can make this statement is if you assert that asking *anyone* to do *anything* constitutes a demand to be conformed to one's own image and likeness. On the contrary: the difference between my position and the one I criticize is that I do not presume to judge another Christian or his church as inferior to me and mine; whereas those who hold the position I criticize presume to assert that others are not even Christians. I do not judge their salvation, but they judge mine. I presume that the other person is a Christian despite what I deem to be his sin here against charity and humility; he does not merely presume, but openly asserts, that I am not a Christian at all. I ask to be left alone; the person I criticize refuses to leave others unmolested.

And (as this example shows) it is perfectly possible and legitimate to criticize a specific position or mode of conduct without making a comprehensive negative judgment of the person or church. And my crticism does not constitute railing; there is nothing slanderous in it. Rather, it is soundly based on NT passages such as Matthew 7:1-5 and Romans 2:1-11.

Your pastor's story is not the slightest bit comparable to the one I related. The people your pastor confronted did not insist that he must belong to their church and no other in order to truly be hearing the Gospel, which was the point of my example.

"Honest differences demand honest but courteous and respectful discussion."

Telling other Christians that they are not Christians is neither honest, courteous or respectful. And polemics do not constitue a discussion.

"Actually it would make complete sense of Touchstone as part of that honest discussion would be discovering our common ground as well."

This is also disingenuous, since what i critize is exactly the opposite of Dr. Mills newest post, which concludes:

"If anyone wants to discuss either item, remember to be kind and that those of other churches are not stupid, venal, or self-indulgent in their ecclesial commitments, even if you think they're wrong. (I'm sure some people in every church are, and they may be especially drawn to interchurch polemics, but we should assume the best of our brethren.)"

The whole point is that the polemicist under discussion is denying the very existence of any common ground. He is asserting that the folks on the other side are not even Christians. Pray tell, what common ground is then left?

Do you wish to have a discussion, David? Fine. Then let's see first how much common ground we actually have, by asking you to answer a few simple questions to which I also provide my answers.

Generally speaking (allowing for providential exceptions in the mysterious providence of God)

Do you believe that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who sincerely hold and practice the doctrines and moral teachings of their churches are true Christians, or no? I answer "yes".

Do you likewise generally believe this of non-Reformed Anglican and Protestant Christians, or no? (Distinguish among certain strains of Protestantism if necessary to say "yes" of some and "no" of others.) I answer "yes" (and also of Reformed Christians as well).

Do you believe that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are "false churches" in the sense of e.g. R. C. Sproul -- i.e. their doctrine on essential points is so contrary to Scripture as to endanger the salvation of those who adhere to them? I answer "no".

Do you likewise generally believe this of non-Reformed Anglican and Protestant churches? (Distinguish among certain strains of Protestantism if necessary to say "yes" of some and "no" of others.) I answer "no" (again, also of Reformed chuches as well).

Do you believe that an essential part of your vocation in Christ as a Christian of the Reformed confession is to convert all persons who are of any other confession than the Reformed churches to the Reformed churches? I answer "no" to the same question with regard to Anglicans.

Do you believe that a failure to do so constitutes a failure to witness to the truth of the gospel, and to evangelize? Again, I answer "no" to the corresponding question.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>The caveat is, though, that if one comes to the belief that the Orthodox Church is the true Church, and still chooses not to come into communion with her, then one's soul is in jeopardy.<<

I might go so far as to say that this is true for any church, and any believer, even if their belief is actually wrong. If one is separated for the reason of conscious rebellion, then that would be a sin, just like one of Paul's "weaker brethren" eating meat sacrificed to idols. One must hold to one's conscience in all matters upon which it strongly speaks.

Now, as to whether there is a "true Church" among all those that dwell upon the earth, be it Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant or oddball sect, I consider myself an agnostic tending to skepticism. I think the true Church, as it appears in God's eyes and as it will be manifested in the coming Kingdom, will be a combination of all of our various institutions and denominations, many members all united in the single body of Christ. Though of course, certain churches may be a whole lot better than others, both on individual issues and overall.

I don't wish to belabor the point, but I will tell the story of the strangest "still somehow barely orthodox" sect I ever encountered, if anyone wants to hear it.

[Judy Warner]

Pretty good come-on, Ethan. Who would not want to hear a story of something strange?

[Ethan Cordray]

I'll write it up as soon as I'm off work tonight, when I have time to do it justice.

[David Gray]

>I didn't have you specifically in mind, but if you find the shoe fits, you are welcome to wear it.

I didn't have me in mind either but that fellow you had in mind, whoever he be.

>Do you believe that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who sincerely hold and practice the doctrines and moral teachings of their churches are true Christians, or no? I answer "yes".

As stated above all those who've been given an orthodox baptism are Christians, members of the covenant. How many are of the elect, only God knows. This is as true of Protestants as it is of Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

>Do you likewise generally believe this of non-Reformed Anglican and Protestant Christians, or no? (Distinguish among certain strains of Protestantism if necessary to say "yes" of some and "no" of others.) I answer "yes" (and also of Reformed Christians as well).

Generally yes (assuming you don't do as some do and call things such as Mormonism to be Protestant).

>Do you believe that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are "false churches" in the sense of e.g. R. C. Sproul -- i.e. their doctrine on essential points is so contrary to Scripture as to endanger the salvation of those who adhere to them? I answer "no".

No, I agree with Charles Hodge on this regarding whether they are a false church. Having said that bad doctrine is always dangerous to one's spiritual health and often those around us.

>Do you likewise generally believe this of non-Reformed Anglican and Protestant churches? (Distinguish among certain strains of Protestantism if necessary to say "yes" of some and "no" of others.) I answer "no" (again, also of Reformed chuches as well).

No in general, as above.

>Do you believe that an essential part of your vocation in Christ as a Christian of the Reformed confession is to convert all persons who are of any other confession than the Reformed churches to the Reformed churches? I answer "no" to the same question with regard to Anglicans.

No, but it is my duty to Christ to bear witness when able. That I don't do so more is reflective of the fact that I am an unprofitable servant.

>Do you believe that a failure to do so constitutes a failure to witness to the truth of the gospel, and to evangelize? Again, I answer "no" to the corresponding question.

A failure to bear witness when one ought is disobedience. However determining when one ought is not always clear. But how many of us have not had an opportunity when it was clearly appropriate and we have not for reasons of our inadequacy?

Hope this fits the bill...

[David Gray]

>No, I agree with Charles Hodge on this regarding whether they are a false church. Having said that bad doctrine is always dangerous to one's spiritual health and often those around us.

I should have added that this is also true of Protestants.

[Rob Grano]

'Now, as to whether there is a "true Church" among all those that dwell upon the earth, be it Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant or oddball sect, I consider myself an agnostic tending to skepticism. I think the true Church, as it appears in God's eyes and as it will be manifested in the coming Kingdom, will be a combination of all of our various institutions and denominations, many members all united in the single body of Christ.'

The problem that I have with this view, Ethan, is that Christ founded only one Church, the 'one, holy, catholic, apostolic' one. If this is indeed the case, and if one looks to the early Church as a paradigm, you find that the idea of the church that you propose wasn't part of its own self-understanding. The church of the councils really did believe it was the 'one true church,' not a 'combination of various institutions and denominations.' In fact, the latter model of the church wasn't even possible until after the Reformation.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Of course, Rob - but what does one say of today? That there is a particular denomination that is the "one true church" and the rest are wannabes? Doesn't it make better sense of the realities we see to say that the one true church, the family of God, is scandalously divided?

[Ethan Cordray]

>>The church of the councils really did believe it was the 'one true church,' not a 'combination of various institutions and denominations.'<<

That was perfectly appropriate and acceptable at the time, before the development of the great schisms, first between east and west and later within the west. Yet those schisms did occur, and they were in character different from the earlier heretical controversies in that they did not (in general) arise from a rejection of essential elements of the gospel, but rather from disputes over certain secondary matters, such as the nature of Papal authority and the elevation of certian church practices into matters of dogmatic belief. The proof of this, I think, is that the bodies broke off over such things did not, for the most part, inexorably descend into rejection of orthodox Christology and the essential gospel of Jesus Christ, in contrast to the results of the earlier heresies and the later modernist heresy. But I'm not the one to speak exhaustively on such matters (see, perhaps, Fr. Oakes' recent posts over on First Things for a much better treatment). Rather, I merely wish to point out that if the nature of the later schisms is in fact different, it may require a develoment of ecclesiology beyond the Patristic era model.

Secondly, I suggest that within the East, the various national churches may exemplify the sort of "many members, one body" understanding that I'm presenting. Their unity on matters of doctrine and practice holds them together despite general institutional independence from one another. If I may be so bold as to call the various national churches "denominations," then I think they can be used to illustrate my point. Of course, the doctrinal and practical differences between the traditions of Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and various Protestants is far more pronounced than those within Orthodoxy (to put it mildly), but that only seems to me to make such an ecclesiology more necessary.

>>In fact, the latter model of the church wasn't even possible until after the Reformation.<<

Or perhaps the latter model wasn't necessary until after the Reformation, or at least until after the Great Schism. I sometimes contemplate the reason why God's providence would allow the Reformation and the Great Schism to occur as they did, and I think the answer may include a desire to prompt Christians to distinguish between institutional unity and doctrinal unity, and to not mistake the former for the visible sign of the unity of the body of Christ.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The church of the councils really did believe it was the 'one true church,' not a 'combination of various institutions and denominations.'<<<

Certainly they did believe that they were the one true Church of Christ, but at the same time, they understood that this Church was present in the world as a communion of particular Churches, which could and did have distinctly different modes of worship and doctrinal expression. The genius of the great Councils was their ability to understand the difference between the essential and the secondary. The Fathers were not integrists; they did not insist that there had to be agreement on every jot and tittle, nor did they believe that any one particular Church had an exclusive hold on the Truth. They understood that unity of the Body of Christ was one of the essentials, and therefore they were careful to limit their dogmatic pronouncements to aspects of belief directly affecting the understanding of the nature of God and Christ. Only much later, when long isolation had alienated the two halves of the Church from each other did the "dogmatization" of the beliefs and practices of particular Churches take hold.

[Roberto Rivera]

If you want to talk about "sheep-stealing" in its saddest and most outrageous form, consider what has happened in Iraq. As Lawrence Kaplan recounted in the New Republic, shortly after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, American evangelical missionaries entered the country. Kaplan writes: "The infusion of pamphlets and missionaries from organizations like the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention enrages Iraqi Muslims, who, Iraqi Christian leaders claim, increasingly conflate their congregants with 'the crusaders'--and, too often, treat them as such. 'The evangelicals have caused such problems for us,' says Kanna. 'They make the Sunni and Shia furious.'

Even though Iraq's Christians suffer in the name of their American co-religionists, their fate seems not to have made the slightest impression on much of the evangelical establishment. Their websites and promotional literature advertise the importance of creating new Christian communities in Iraq while mostly ignoring the obligation to save ancient ones. Nor, with a few exceptions, have mainstream church leaders in the United States broached the subject, either. Dr. Carl Moeller, the president of Open Doors USA, an organization that supports persecuted Christians abroad, pins the blame on Christianity's own sectarian rifts. 'The denominations in Iraq aren't recognized by Americans,' he explains. "The underlying attitude is, 'They're not us.'"

As we prepare to leave (and we are preparing to leave), guess who's left holding bag?

[David Gray]

>The infusion of pamphlets and missionaries from organizations like the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention enrages Iraqi Muslims

Any Christian presence which is not subservient to Islam enrages Muslims.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Any Christian presence which is not subservient to Islam enrages Muslims.<<<

Nonetheless, I have had conversations with Assyrian Archbishop Mar Bawai Soro, and he expressed his frustration with American Evangelicals who do not realize that there have been Christians in Iraq since the first century AD, that these have endured centuries of oppression, and that they are not in need of evangelization but of real material assistance. This is the indigenous, traditional Church of Mesopotamia, a Church that is older than the Byzantine Church or the Roman Church, which worships in the language the Lord himself spoke, using the oldest liturgy in continuous use anywhere, and they are treated as heathen by bumptious Americans who never even knew they existed, but who are perfectly willing to impose their brand of Christianity (provenance 1850) on them.

[Pr. Dave Poedel]

While I perceive that there is little interest here in things Lutheran, and back on the topic of the article posted, the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod was asked by one of our larger congregations if it was permissible for the Holy Eucharist to be celebrated "remotely" as in a multi-site congregation with the Divine Service of the "home" church transmitted electronically to a satellite location, the Celebrant being at the home church. In other words, can consecration occur remotely. Thankfully, the answer rendered was "no".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> In other words, can consecration occur remotely. Thankfully, the answer rendered was "no".<<<

Kind of works against the notion of the people partaking of one cup and one loaf.

[luthien]

"I had once heard the troubling rumor that the EO believed that all non-EO Christians were hellbound. This is completely without merit, isn't it?"
The ultra-far-right-wing of EOs do generally believe that all non-EOs are damned; as they are pretty much all non-canonical, I wouldn't take them too seriously, particularly as they consider the canonical Orthodox to be ecumenicist, hell-bound, and dangerous. If you only count the canonical Orthodox, the rumor is without merit to the best of my knowledge.

Stuart, after many years of reading the Voice of the Martyrs and other such publictions, and having very dearly loved relatives who are currently Assemblies of God missionaries in Kyrgzstan (where they are almost assuredly trying to save the Orthodox), I've come to the conclusion that for an awful lot of Evangelical missionaries, Catholics and EOs are Christian as long as they're being matyred for the Faith by Muslims. Otherwise, not so much.

Not quite on the same level of crazy sheep-stealing as Eastern Rite Presbyterians, but I still find this interesting. Several years ago, before my family left the PCUSA for Orthodoxy, my dad experienced some inter-Presbyterian attempts at sheep-stealing; while on a business trip, he struck up a conversation with a young man sitting next to him on the plane, who turned out to be a PCA minister. Their conversation turned to church matters, and the young minister actually told my father that if we didn't leave the PCUSA for the PCA we'd burn in hell. Keep in mind that this was back when the PCUSA was still properly trinitarian-it's not a recent incident.

[Bill R]

Hmmm...when I left this thread yesterday (been on a business trip), we were discussing megachurches. Today, this thread has been hijacked over sheep stealing. Hey, what's the penalty for thread-stealing!?

[Dave]

I have a question regarding sheep-steeling. In some parts of the world, (Europe and Latin America are two which come to mind immediately) you have people who associate with a faith, and yet are attached to it in only the most nominal of ways. Is it sheep-steeling to proselytize to such people?

[Bill R]

One nice thing about being an American evangelical is that most of us don't get worked up over this issue. My mini-megachurch is a member of a small synodical denomination (the Evangelical Covenant), but no one pays much attention to it. We don't regard ourselves as the True Church, but rather as a part of the true and invisible church, as are all who confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, whether as infants or as adults. Membership requires baptism, confession of Christ, and profession of the Apostle's Creed. We never "steal sheep," for we're not out to increase the size or importance of our local church or denomination. New Christians are welcome, of course, but our folks are perfectly happy to steer new believers to any good local church, if converts have a particular preference. Gentle persuasion might be used if someone wished to go Roman Catholic or Orthodox, but no strong arm tactics would ever be considered, and no threats tolerated. We're perfectly willing to admit that Christians are to be found in all the orthodox churches, and we're content to let sheep graze where they wish (though we will express preferences). Any nominal Christian, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, we consider fair game for conversion (for we do not consider nominal Christians to be true Christians), but we do not "own" a Christian after conversion, and will happily wish them well wherever they wish to make their spiritual home.

[Ethan Cordray]

All right, in response to an overwhelming flood of interest from Judy, I will tell my strange story. It relates to the idea that while there may be no "one true church" there can certainly be greater or lesser churches. Yet we should still be very hesitant before declaring just who is and isn't "Christian." As to whether one ought to steal sheep from from the folks in the story, I'll leave that one for you all to decide.

My freshman year roommate at Wheaton, Andrew, was the son of missionaries in Indonesia. His extended family was also very religious, particularly his maternal grandmother, who often sent Andrew care packages including tracts, books, and sundry odd Christian paraphernalia. During one Christmas vacation, she pressed upon him a book which she said he simply had to read, as it would change his whole spiritual life. The book was about the size and shape of a high school science textbook, and it was entitled "The Bible and UFO's".

"The Bible and UFO's" presented the story of human relations with Yhwh, a pan-dimensional cosmic being of infinite power and wisdom who crafted our universe and created all life on earth in a grand scientific project. Yhwh had shaped every step of biological evolution and had engineered mankind specifically to be the apex of the project, the only earthly beings capable of fully relating to him and perceiving his power and love. Yet those beings defied the will of Yhwh, so he altered the parameters of the world he had constructed and introduced physical human death as a consequence for their defiance.

Later on, Yhwh chose a particular man, Abraham, to whom he communicated via telepathic signals, to found a genetic line that would exemplify all of humanity and through whom Yhwh would eventually effect the redemption of the species. Throughout the history of that line, Yhwh sent his messengers, trans-dimensional alien beings called Angels, to communicate his directives to his chosen people. Some of these angels, such as the ones seen by Ezekiel, were accompanied by or dwelled within flying saucers of a shiny metallic appearance.

What's even more amazing, Yhwh himself often appeared to them and accompanied them in times of danger, always from within his fantastic space craft, the "throne." A list of bulleted points described the capabilities of this vessel:

*Dazzling lights of varying colors, often green or white

*A shield that renders the craft completely invisible and undetectable

*The ability to travel at infinite speeds in any direction through any medium

*Sound and thought transmission devices, varying in effect from a loud thunder to a still small voice, and also including telepathic and dream-influencing communicators

*A cloaking device able to shield the craft within a field of smoke or cloud, or to generate a large field of darkness

*Force or gravity beams capable of affecting bulk matter, such as by knocking down walls or moving vast quantities of water

*An array of powerful weapons, including heat rays, lasers, invisible death beams, radioactive rays, matter transmuters (capable of turning water into blood, a staff into a snake, etc), seismic disruptors, fiery projectiles, invigorating and debilitating rays to affect the outcome of battles, and a wide variety of biological and chemical weapons.

Yhwh used this craft's incredible powers to guide and protect his chosen people, and to punish them for violating the directives he had given to them directly from the craft on Mt. Sinai. All of the Old Testament, as we have received it, is a record of the contacts between the UFO's of Yhwh and his angels and Israel, his chosen race.

None of this is the weird part.

What's really strange is that despite all this material, the book was somehow, inexplicably, completely orthodox in its Christology and soteriology. Jesus really was the Second Person of the trinitarian Yhwh, at once both fully divine and fully human, and His death pardoned all of humanity's guilt and sin and opened the way to eternal life after the resurrection and the recreation of the universe. Mankind had fallen in Adam, and in Christ we were all redeemed. Through faith in Him, we can come to be called the children of Yhwh and experience the fullness of His infinite, pan-dimensional, extra-temporal, supra-spacial love for us.

The point is, beyond the sea of bizarre science fiction language, and despite the author's obviously idiosyncratic hermeneutic, there was still a grain of truth. And what's more, it appeared to be the essential grain of the Gospel itself. The manna from heaven was still there, even if it was distributed by transmogrification rays from a craft orbiting in the upper atmosphere.

Make of this what you will.

[David Gray]

>Hey, what's the penalty for thread-stealing!?

Death, but only if you're a Protestant.

[Roberto Rivera]

>Any Christian presence which is not subservient to Islam enrages Muslims.<

True but it doesn't justify the "bull in a china shop" approach that wanders into a situation and gives no thought to the idea that Anbar province might not be like Fairfax County and that there may be very good historical reasons why the native Christian populations say and do the things they do. Especially when you don't plan to be there for the aftermath. Of course, it's easier when you don't acknowledge that there are any Christians there in the first place.

I posted on the plight of Iraqi Christians at the Breakpoint website and got emails denying that Chaldean Christians were Christians. The "reasoning" was that the writers had met such folks in Detroit and they didn't seem "Christian" to them. Leaving aside the inadequate sample size, what the writers meant by "Christian" was "not like me. Not Evangelical."

In any case, by all means, preach to them if you want. Steal sheep. Just don't get them killed because you (I mean the missionaries, not you personally) are clueless and presumptuous.

[Rob Grano]

'Of course, Rob - but what does one say of today? That there is a particular denomination that is the "one true church" and the rest are wannabes? Doesn't it make better sense of the realities we see to say that the one true church, the family of God, is scandalously divided?'

While no doubt it is true that the visible church is scandalously divided, the one, true church in the mystical sense that she is both the bride of Christ and his body on Earth not only isn't divided, but can't be.

To speak of the church being divided into 'denominations' is an anachronistic usage, since the true Church antedates the very idea of denominations. To equate the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church with, say, the Assemblies of God or the C&MA in this sense won't do -- they aren't simply four different 'equal' denominations.

The fact is that both the RCC and the EOC claim to be the one, true, holy, apostolic church of Christ by virtue of their unbroken continuity with the church of the Apostles and Fathers. This is something that ecumenically-minded Protestants have to come to terms with; the truth claims of either group simply do not allow them to be considered mere 'denominations.' Obviously, both churches can't be right, but it is not equally obvious that both are wrong.

[Rob Grano]

Lest the last sentence in my previous post be misunderstood, I'm not saying that either the RCC's or the EOC's claims are obviously correct, only that those two bodies' self-understandings cannot be ignored when engaging in ecumenical conversations.

[James A. Altena]

Dear David,

Frankly, a far more congenial answer from you to my questions than I expected. So long as you recognize RCs and EOs to be Christians (I'm notg getting into issues about the elect), I am content. (And, no, I emphatically do not consider Mormons to be Christians. You might recall my comments posted on another thread a few months back about Mitt Romney that attracted some postings from Mormons.)

Dear Rob,

The problem with the "one true church" issue is two-fold.

First, it depends on the sense in which "one" is being used. I know that sounds like Clinton quibbling over the meaning of "is", but it's not. In Book X of the "Metaphysics", Aristotle distinguishes four distinct senses in which "one" is used. Two of these (I don't recall all four, and my notes are at home while I'm presently at work) are "one" in the numerical sense of exemplar and "one" in the generic sense of species. Thus, one could e.g. believe in "one true Church" in the latter sense but believe in more than one in the former sense.

Second, as I've argued a couple of time before in other posts, it depends upon which sense of the word "church" one is using, and arguments often carelessly conflate two or more distinct senses here. E.g., if "one" in "one true church" is taken to mean numerically one, then "church" as Body of Christ is often conflated with "church" in the sense of specific denomination.

The upshot is that while Nicene Creed professing Christians all affirm blief in "one" as one of the four marks of the true church, there is disagreement as to whether "one" is necessarily numerical, or whether "church" is necessarily a visible institutional entity. In other words, before we can discuss this issue, we first msut all sort out what each of us means by "one" and "church". Otherwise we will simply be talking past one another (what academics like to call "incommeasurability".)

[Judy Warner]

Thanks, Ethan. Strange indeed.

[Rob Grano]

'In other words, before we can discuss this issue, we first must all sort out what each of us means by "one" and "church". Otherwise we will simply be talking past one another (what academics like to call "incommeasurability".)'

Absolutely agree, James. I've long thought that many of the theological differences between the various Christian bodies have an ecclesiological facet to them which is seldom explored. It often seems that ecclesiology is viewed as a sort of afterthought or secondary issue, when it in fact affects nearly everything we talk about theologically.

[Rob Grano]

Having said that, though, I remain convinced that the answer to this problem lies in looking to the early (undivided) Church's understanding of itself.

[James A. Altena]

I agree, Rob. Of course, the problem is that each party presumes that it has already done so and that its own current form is the correct answer and congruent to the same. :-)

[James A. Altena]

It just occurred to me to add to the preceding:

"Rather like the North and the South in 1861."

What a recipe for progress!

:-) :-) :-)

[Rob Grano]

True, but I think that especially among the Protestants they may have done it more with ecclesiastical polity in mind than with ecclesiology proper. I remember one Protestant theologian, I don't remember whom, stating that 'Protestant eccesiology' was an oxymoron. I think that what he meant was that Protestantism seldom thinks theologically about the Church as Church.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

"Protestantism seldom thinks theologically about the Church as Church"

Could it not be retorted that Roman Catholicism seldom thinks about the Church as Catholic? It really baffles me (as a protestant, naturally) how the RCC can be "the Church" with the EO not being "the Church" - and insist that this must be true, because the true Church is one. The theology gains the notion of the Church always being united, but only at the cost of it being catholic.

But I'm sure your view is far more nuanced than that...show me where I'm wrong.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Wonders,

The recent encyclical "Domine Iesus" specifically recognizes the EO communion as a true "sister church" which only lacks formal unity with the See of Rome. That admittedly does not fully address the issue of "one" previously raised, but Rome does recognize the EO as being part of "the Church." (The EOs in turn argue about the use of "part" as a proper descriptor, but I don't want to go into that here.) Protestant churches by contrast are said to "subsist" within the RC Church, but are not properly speaking "sister churches" because of a lack of one or more elements that Rome deems essential to speak of a body being properly a "church" (i.e. sacerdotal ministry and corresponding understanding of the sacraments).

"Protestantism seldom thinks theologically about the Church as Church"

I think that tends to be true, but doctrinally committed Anglicans (if one classifies them as Protestant -- as a catholic Anglican I have a somewhat different take on that point), Lutherans, and Reformed will certainly dissent from that. Calvin devoted a large chunk of the "Institutes" to this issue.

[James A. Altena]

Dear David,

"No, I agree with Charles Hodge on this regarding whether they [RCs] are a false church."

I forgot to ask -- would you please post or summarize what Hoodge specifically said on this point?

[Rob Grano]

James, you're correct about the Reformation and ecclesiology. I imagine that the writer quoted may have been speaking more with evangelicals in mind than with the magisterial Reformers.

'It really baffles me (as a protestant, naturally) how the RCC can be "the Church" with the EO not being "the Church" - and insist that this must be true, because the true Church is one. The theology gains the notion of the Church always being united, but only at the cost of it being catholic.'

Wonders -- I'm not sure if I understand the last sentence here. Care to expound on that a bit?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Could it not be retorted that Roman Catholicism seldom thinks about the Church as Catholic? It really baffles me (as a protestant, naturally) how the RCC can be "the Church" with the EO not being "the Church" - and insist that this must be true, because the true Church is one. The theology gains the notion of the Church always being united, but only at the cost of it being catholic.<<<

To be absolutely fair, since Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church has not taught that it IS the Catholic Church, but rather that the Church of God "subsists in" the Catholic Church, which is a communion of 22 autonomous "particular Churches" of which the Church of Rome is but one. Vatican II also made it possible to recognize the presence of "true Churches" NOT in communion with Rome, of which the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Churches are three. These are recognized as possessing the fullness of the Catholic Church, in that they are sufficient to provide for the salvation of their adherents. Since being Church is kind of like being pregnant--an all or nothing proposition--by implication communion with Rome is not a necessary mark of the true Church (Rome is still having trouble reconciling that with past statements). So, in the eyes of Rome, the Orthodox ARE the Church, at least as much as my Church is the Church.

Distinct from "true Churches", however, Vatican II recognizes other "ecclesial communities" of Christians which, in the eyes of Rome, are orthodox but which lack one or more of the marks of a true Church. Most of the Protestant denominations fall into this category, either through a lack of apostolic succession, or by a defective sacramentology, or by certain of its practices. From the Catholic perspective, members of these ecclesial communities are Christians, and to the extent that they have maintained elements of the Apostolic faith, the Catholic Church "subsists" in them as well--but not to the same extent as it does in "true Churches".

[David Gray]

>I forgot to ask -- would you please post or summarize what Hoodge specifically said on this point?

Hopefully I can make this link work...

Is the Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church?

[Rob Grano]

Ethan said: '...those schisms did occur, and they were in character different from the earlier heretical controversies in that they did not (in general) arise from a rejection of essential elements of the gospel, but rather from disputes over certain secondary matters, such as the nature of Papal authority and the elevation of certian church practices into matters of dogmatic belief.'

I don't think that these issues would be considered secondary by those on the inside of the controversies, esp. those regarging the schism between E and W. The latter involved theology proper (triadology) and the Creed, not just papal authority (although that was undoubtedly the central issue).

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Rob,

I think my question has been answered. It had to do with a particular organization being synonymous with "the Church" (when this organization has been sundered in history) being inconsistent with the idea of a universal Church. But I'm pleased to be told that is not how the RCC understands itself.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>The latter involved theology proper (triadology) and the Creed, not just papal authority (although that was undoubtedly the central issue).<<

Yet now even the Roman Catholic side recognizes the credal and theological issues involved as secondary and non-essential. The same thing has happened (at least according to Stuart) with certain of the earlier "heresies" such as monophysitism. Thus the original schisms must be seen as the elevation of certain language or certain specific speculations into de facto dogma.

This sort of behavior remains, for me at least, a serious barrier to the reconciliation of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism to this very day.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Rob,

I agree with Ethan. Issues such as papal authority, though important, simply are not of the same rank as the Trinity and the Incarnation. To phrase it more generally, issues of the nature of the Church do not have the same importance as issues over the nature of God -- by virtue of a) the former being creaturly and finite, the latter being eternal and infinite, and b) the former is not an object of worship, while the latter is.

[Rob Grano]

James and Ethan -- I agree, but remember that we are looking at the schism with 1,000 years of hindsight. If you read the controversial material of the time, there's no doubt that many of the the contestants believed there were actual theological issues involved, and that they were important ones. To ignore or downplay those differences doesn't serve those well who are engaged in ecumenical discussions today.

'Issues such as papal authority, though important, simply are not of the same rank as the Trinity and the Incarnation.'

No doubt; but when papal authority is perceived to have tampered with 'the faith once delivered' by altering the creed, or conversely, when a large section of the church is perceived to have rejected catholic dogma, then it necessarily becomes important. Ecclesiology is a theological 'subset' of Christology, and therefore isn't something of secondary importance.

Granted, in a certain sense the E and W were talking past one another, but I don't see how this necessarily involves 'the elevation of certain language or certain specific speculations into de facto dogma.'

[Gina]

I've come to the conclusion that for an awful lot of Evangelical missionaries, Catholics and EOs are Christian as long as they're being matyred for the Faith by Muslims. Otherwise, not so much.

Sadly true, Luthien. I hate to be cynical, but it's because martyrdom stories make for good fundraising and prayer-letter fodder. I say this hanging my head. Evangelical missionaries, such as I was for nearly a decade, will have much pride and foolishness to answer for, and I can only hope the good intentions and prayers will offset these offenses.