This is a repost, the article was published in the now defunct Resonate Journal. I needed to reference it for my research, thought you might enjoy it.
Liminality of the Eucharist
There is a mall here in Ottawa where I enjoy sitting with a coffee and my Bible. I am convinced this is one of those places the ancient Celts would say is thin. That is a place where the veil between heaven and earth is so sheer that one almost stumbles through it to the other side, and into the very presence of God. I’ve stumbled across the threshold in that mall a few times now so just going there gives me a sense of expectation and longing. That mall is a place I want to experience with eyes wide open.
The Eucharistic Community
In the community I pastor we have been exploring the corporate Eucharistic experience. I have had the privilege of hanging out with some very cool Roman Catholics over the years. Their passion for the Eucharist has stirred up in me a deep dissatisfaction over the whole Protestant minimalist approach to this practice. I realize that I had been missing out on something good – and it had little to do with theology and a lot to do with expectation. For my Catholic friends the Eucharistic celebration is a thin space. In the sacrament they are actually encountering God and participating in God’s life. What is even more exciting is that their liturgical structures foster this expectation and create an environment where God actually shows up.
There is a lot of fear that can rise up whenever we talk about the Eucharist in this way. Many Protestants have been prejudiced with a notion that a sacramental theology excludes salvation by faith alone. This is the fear that the sacraments hijack the role of faith in the life of the believer. Many are scandalized at the notion that anything more than flat allegory happens at the communion table. And as a result it is no wonder that, since the time of Luther, there has been very little liturgical reformation in terms of the Protestant communion.
Maybe there is some validity to this fear because personally I now find the typical Protestant communion, with its little cups and little squares of bread, to be quite absurd. We need to ask the question: “What are we afraid of?” Are we afraid that God might really show up? Are we afraid that we might encourage people to recognize in the bread the body of Christ broken for them? Or that they realize, through the wine, that the blood of Christ seals the deal of a whole new covenant with God? These are legitimate fears. When God shows up things change and that can be hard to deal with. Just think of the frustrated disciples leaving for Emmaus; when they recognized Jesus everything changed.1
Many of us recognize that if we want to see healings, then we have to make space for them in our lives and communities. We need to ask in order to receive. We recognize that in the tension of these times we do not always see the things we long for – but that doesn’t stop us from asking, hoping and expecting. We can be comfortable with things like healing prayer, but still neglect a God given space for life changing encounters.
Not everyone will participate in the healing space, but almost everyone will participate in the act of communion. Jesus brilliantly tied His saving work to the most basic of human actions – eating and drinking. God “uses material things like bread and wine to get the new life into us. We may think it is rather crude and unspiritual. God does not.”2 In fact it is hard to think of any spiritual action that is more inviting and natural, yet also so meaningful. In order to overcome the fears that cause us to shy away from creating this space for Eucharistic encounters, let us examine some of the benefits that such a space can give our communities.
Shaping Eucharistic Encounters
The most basic benefit, and likely the most appealing, is the didactic nature of rich spiritual actions. Recently I attended a mass at a local Charismatic Catholic community. In the mass we were given the opportunity to write our troubles on a piece of paper and then toss them into a garbage bin set at the foot of the cross. It was a poignant moment in the service. After everyone was done the priest took the bin around asking who would like to have their burdens back? There were no takers. Actions like this make a dramatic impact on the participant. A richer vision for the Eucharist provides fertile ground for just such an impact.
When the elements of the Communion are small, they loose a lot of their potential impact. The richer the experience the more it will impact the participant. Recently in a home group we were celebrating the Eucharist and I happened to look down to see crumbs everywhere. I was scandalized. Not because I felt it was literally God underfoot, but because the whole thing was so messy. I realized that this made me very uncomfortable. In that moment God began showing me how comfortable I’d grown with the cross. The cross was almost a flippant part of my conversation, instead of the scandalous extent of our Great Lord’s love. This teaching moment would have been lost in small elements that possess no possibility for messiness.
There are many such moments in the Eucharist. Moments where we suddenly get what God is trying to show us, where the veil over our eyes is pulled aside and we catch a glimpse into the very heart of eternity. The Eucharist is only equaled by baptism in its rich potential for such an encounter. Our efforts at teaching are but letters on the page – it is not until the Living Word infuses them with presence that they burst to life in our veins invigorating our spirituality and passion for God. Those travelers to Emmaus found their hearts burning within them. Yet, it was not until the Living Word Jesus was recognized that the words propelled them to change their course of action.3
This invitation to change is the second benefit of a rich Eucharistic experience. The theological debate about the location of “real” presence need not find an answer in order for us to have a real experience with God. We are often so afraid of being deceived that we throw out the potential that maybe God will show up if we ask Him. Like most Protestants, I am not comfortable with the veneration of a host (wafer), but unlike most Protestants I expect to encounter the real presence of Jesus whenever I partake in the bread and the wine. In our fear we have done a disservice to the hungry masses, longing for real experience, real encounter. We have failed to believe that when God shows up everything changes.
You might suggest that we already have a space for encounter in our songs of worship or even some other aspect of our corporate liturgy. Corporate singing is quite accessible, but not everyone feels they can or should sing. Everyone eats and drinks. Jesus marries mystery to the mundane in a way that invites all of us to have that intimate encounter with Jesus. I like to think our community does intimate worship in song fairly well. When we had our first communion service in our newest home group, the response that struck me the most was “I liked it because it was intimate.” There is something about the invitation of the table that draws us into God’s presence. When we sing we exhale, lifting our voice and breath up to God. But when we eat and drink we take into ourselves the very meaning of the elements, taking God into ourselves in a very intimate way. I am convinced that we need to treat the Eucharist as a part of our corporate worship.
The third benefit might stretch our operative theologies. (Despite the challenge it is something very important for a full and rich Eucharistic experience.) When we celebrate the Eucharist we unite with the celebration of the Church throughout all of Salvation History. The reason this notion is a problem is that a connection has been made to the crucifixion in a way that suggests the Mass is a re-enactment of the sacrifice of Jesus and that in the celebration Jesus is perpetually offered in sacrifice for our sins.
Some conceptions and theologies of the Eucharist conform to this understanding, but there is another way of approaching this, one that I believe works with both understandings of the Eucharist. We see the participant as sharing in the collective memory of God’s saving action, participating in the reasonable response of deep gratitude that is the Eucharistic celebration. This participation in the shared collective memory is often called anamnesis, which is Greek for memory lifted up.
When we see the Eucharist as an invitation to participate in this anamnesis then we are acknowledging a connection with both the historic Christianity of the Last Supper and the fulfillment of history in the coming Kingdom Feast. The Last Supper narratives in the gospels represent the ways that the primitive Christian communities celebrated the Eucharist. It is not until the fourth century that the Eucharistic forms begin to become overly complicated. At that point we see the addition of venerations, processions and other ceremonial actions.4 Looking at the pattern of the gospels there is the implication that the Eucharistic event is both a memorial and a moment of recognition and that both are received with thankfulness as the word eucharist suggests.
The God Who Invites
But the idea of a memorial does not adequately capture the sense of anamnesis. It simply implies that we remember what God has done, give thanks and go on with our lives. But there is something deeper at work here.
There is an open door in the Eucharistic experience. God stands on the other side and beckons us across the threshold into that dangerous space where He is present. The latin word limina means threshold, and so this Eucharistic experience is a liminal experince.
The whole history of the Church is about this struggle at the threshold. When we celebrate the Eucharist we are standing with the whole of a great cloud of witness, seeing not only the accomplished work of the cross – but the invitation into the Kingdom work of the Church. God stretches out His hand and says of the bread, “behold what you are, become what you see.”5 This is memory come to life in the believer: the recognition that we too participate in this thing called Salvation History. This has the potential to really impel the participants into all that the Father has in His heart for them.
When we celebrate the Eucharist, we are inviting an encounter with the Living Word. We are inviting a visit from the God who changes everything – including our hearts and minds. We are participating in the rich heritage of the Christian Church – joining our hearts with the faithful before and after us in holy declaration that all Jesus has done for us makes a difference in our lives.
By celebrating the Eucharist, we are opening ourselves to stepping across the threshold between this world and the next – into the very presence of God. And we are letting the Word teach us through profound act and action. In the Eucharist we find a thin place just waiting to be experienced. The celebration of the Eucharist will be a place where you will want to keep your eyes wide open.
=====
1 Luke 24:13-33.
2 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd., 1944), 62.
3 Luke 24:33.
4 Paul F. Bradshaw, In Search of the Origins of Christian Worship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 216.
5 Eucharistic formula usually associated with St. Augustine.
Showing posts with label Ecclesiology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ecclesiology. Show all posts
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
[THO] Building a Church?
I have come to realize something: I don't really want to build a church. Now that sounds like an odd statement, even dead wrong if you know how passionate I am about church planting. But what I realized is that I am less concerned with building a church than I am with building THE CHURCH.
Now I'm not saying that Freedom is THE CHURCH, but I sure do believe that we are a part of THE CHURCH.
But where this really makes sense for me is in the fact that I'm not really that passionate about my church being any more or less than what God wants. I'm really quite happy with doing what we did tonight (we had an awesome service, tonnes of prayer and just a sweet presence of God's Spirit) if that is what it is that is our gift to THE CHURCH.
Building a church only makes sense if we are building THE CHURCH. I think that this is a key issue for pastors today. We have this sort of success mentality that says building a church proves I'm useful and valuable. Really it only proves we have the ability to make a church. I can't help thinking of Wimber hearing God say, "I've seen your ministry John, meh. Now let me show you mine." I wonder how many of us would hear that same thing if we stopped long enough to listen.
Now I'm not saying that Freedom is THE CHURCH, but I sure do believe that we are a part of THE CHURCH.
But where this really makes sense for me is in the fact that I'm not really that passionate about my church being any more or less than what God wants. I'm really quite happy with doing what we did tonight (we had an awesome service, tonnes of prayer and just a sweet presence of God's Spirit) if that is what it is that is our gift to THE CHURCH.
Building a church only makes sense if we are building THE CHURCH. I think that this is a key issue for pastors today. We have this sort of success mentality that says building a church proves I'm useful and valuable. Really it only proves we have the ability to make a church. I can't help thinking of Wimber hearing God say, "I've seen your ministry John, meh. Now let me show you mine." I wonder how many of us would hear that same thing if we stopped long enough to listen.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
[THO] Jesus Camp
The other night Sharon and I watched the documentary film Jesus Camp. This film follows the ministry of Becky Fischer, a Pentecostal youth minister. I just noticed from her site that she is now connection with Patricia Cocking (now Pat King, but I knew her as Patricia Cocking and once ministered with her in Mississauga) of the Extreme Prophetic fame. I'm not keen on a lot of the directions the Prophetic movements have taken, but I'll reserve that for another post.
What was most interesting to me is how much of what was shown in the film is normative Pentecostalism. And I'll start by saying some of it is great. Praying over chairs, passion for God, passion for children and even praying for governments. But the good and the bad are thoroughly mixed together here. What I saw most was the unreflective Christianity that I spent my early Christian years in. There is something so good about grabbing the bull by the horns and going for it. But when there is no serious critical reflection it is easy to see, and this film shows this well, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Meaning well and doing well are not always the same thing. As Gary Best always tells us pastors, "it is not good enough to do the right thing, you have to do the right thing for the right reasons."
So from that film (which was at times very painful to watch) a few things are worth engaging here. Hopefully we'll pick up a conversation in the comments.
1) Kids and Politics
Despite Fischer's insistance that this is not political this film shows clearly how incredibly political Christianity is. It actually shows it from both sides. The counterpoint from Mike Papantonio is just as much a call to politics as the rest of the film. Mike insisted on a separation of church and state, I'm convinced that is a delusional position, almost as delusional as Fischer's denial of politics. I'm not doubting their convictions, just their lack of honest critical reflection. What we need to realize is that religion is always politically orienting. Haggard's comment that if the Evangelicals vote they win the election is true - but only because Evangelicals represent a directed voting block. To me that is patently wrong. We need to wake up and help people reflect through the issues and vote from their heart and minds.
Now having said that, the question I have is "how can we expect children to make that kind of assessment?" There is a reason we don't let children vote. But over and over this film showed the manipulation of children's political orientation without even giving them an honest amount of data to work with. When we present complex situations, like the whole issue of abortion, and only tell these children that God hates this act - how are we orienting this generation towards those make other choices?
2) Symbols and Kids
Related to that was the taping of the mouth. What a powerfully charged symbolic action. There is no reflection offered in this film. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, but Lou Engle really didn't encourage me to give him the benefit of anything but being an alarmist, and assume they unpacked the meaning of the tape before they placed it on the mouths of these kids. But what gets me is that they are calling these kids to take on symbols which have powerful meaning. The word 'LIFE' does not belong to a symbol of silent solidarity that emphasises the helplessness of the unborn. This dichotomizes the issue in ways that are completely offensive, no matter what our opinion of abortion. We need to be more careful. I hope Fischer is right that some of these kids will want to get into politics, but I hope that first folks like Fischer wake up and realize that we don't need more fear based unthinking politicians in this world. Similar problems could be identified with the identification of American military service and the tradition of martyrs.
3) Directional Prophetic and Kids
Lou Engle called up the young boy Levi and prophesied over his life. He was careful to give himself some outs. But this is quite common in the prophetic movement. Everywhere you go God has some big plan for your life. I find this so disturbing. Not that I don't think God wants to do great things, even great things through our lives. But what is done here is that unrealistic expectations are being given. The other problem is that when you start to realize that everyone who is "prophetic" and speaks over you has some big vision (not often the same as the others) then you start to become cynical about the whole prophetic project. I think in the long run this will force the prophetic to the fringes (this is a historically recurring trend). Let me go out on a limb and say I believe in the prophetic. But I believe the prophetic types should shut up, listen and reflect a heck of a lot more than they do. It was so obvious that Lou was Levi as fulfilling what Lou wants in his political agenda - so he projects that, gives it the weight of his "prophetic" title and now you have a recipe for disaster. Folks develop the prophetic within your community and stop bringing in the "prophets". If they are really prophets then they will train your people, not hear for them.
4)Over Simplification of Life
The other thing that sets up these kids for a fall is the over simplification of life presented. God has a wonderful plan for your life. God will protect you from the harshness of life. God will take care of you. While there is some truth in this, God doesn't promise us an easy life, but rather in this world we have trouble. I'll leave the promise of heaven stuff out of this for now, it didn't get much treatment in the film anyway. But the life we live in the world means getting our hands dirty. It means kids like Levi have a rough road ahead. Life is ultimately worthwhile and good. But that is a trajectory that is not always apparent in the day to day living. Fischer loved to oversimplify things. Her object lessons were cute, but really could use some unpacking and reflection. We were watching her tactics as she preached at the camp. Fear and shame are not God's tools. This is always where over simplification leads. It has to. When God is painted as the one that makes everything hunky dory, then adversity has to rest on our shoulders. Life is not as simple as all that. Give kids strenght to face life on life's terms and not fill them with false hope.
4) Evangelism and Kids
I didn't realize that people still used Jack Chick tracts. The only thing worse that Chick tracts are Westboro Baptist placards. Ok, so don't get me started on their ill choice of literature. What really bugs me is that these kids are trying to do what they were told to do, which is proslytize everyone, but they were so obviously ill equipped for the task. At one point the kids start to question if maybe it looks like they are trying to sell something (watch for that moment, it is very interesting), that's good reflection, that should be encouraged. Evangelism isn't just spouting some cute rote statements at folks, it is engaging with people and partnering with God's own efforts to bring them to God's self. But these kids aren't given the tools for that sort of work, they are sent out with cuteness hoping that will win the day.
5) Parenting of Kids
My last critique is about the way we parent our kids. I have my oldest in a Bible club (AWANA). And it drives me nuts at times. I want my kids to be equipped for life in this world. They see our love for Jesus. They ask really good questions and I make of point of not giving them simplified answers. I want to encourage them to think deeply about their faith. I want them to know that there is something good about Christianity, but that they need to choose for themselves. To be honest I'd rather they lived fully and honestly out of their conclusions than to fake being a Christian for the sake of mom and dad. Having said that I am so blessed with how Elyssa's faith in Jesus has been growing, and I want encourage that. I think Christian groups are a great touchstone for kids, but what about when they get into the real world? Not everyone is going to have the same convictions in the real world. That is a tough lesson to learn when you are so sheltered by your parents. Christian schools (or homeschool), a plethora of Church activities, Christian camps, Christian TV and radio (exclusively), the parents in this film live in a bubble! The problem with bubbles is that they burst. What was worse was that the homeschooling was focused on developing a polemic against the rest of the world's thinking. Here you have the chance to develop a real intellectual wealth - seriously homeschooling could be an awesome opportunity to strech a childs mind and develop great habits of thinking. But it is such a wasted opportunity when it is just used to indoctrinate and inocculate children.
I recommend this film to all my Pentecostal and post-Pentecostal friends. It made me really think. It frustrated me but at the same time helped me see that there is work to do. Thank God that not all Pentecostals are like this. Becky Fischer has a great heart, and I'm sure we'd get along. But I hope that folks who follow in her footsteps might read this and pause to think. We want to give the kids great tools for the works God has for them. That is noble and I'll definitely pray for her important ministry. But this is a call to step it up a notch and bring in some needed critical reflection in all we do in the name of Christ.
What was most interesting to me is how much of what was shown in the film is normative Pentecostalism. And I'll start by saying some of it is great. Praying over chairs, passion for God, passion for children and even praying for governments. But the good and the bad are thoroughly mixed together here. What I saw most was the unreflective Christianity that I spent my early Christian years in. There is something so good about grabbing the bull by the horns and going for it. But when there is no serious critical reflection it is easy to see, and this film shows this well, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Meaning well and doing well are not always the same thing. As Gary Best always tells us pastors, "it is not good enough to do the right thing, you have to do the right thing for the right reasons."
So from that film (which was at times very painful to watch) a few things are worth engaging here. Hopefully we'll pick up a conversation in the comments.
1) Kids and Politics
Despite Fischer's insistance that this is not political this film shows clearly how incredibly political Christianity is. It actually shows it from both sides. The counterpoint from Mike Papantonio is just as much a call to politics as the rest of the film. Mike insisted on a separation of church and state, I'm convinced that is a delusional position, almost as delusional as Fischer's denial of politics. I'm not doubting their convictions, just their lack of honest critical reflection. What we need to realize is that religion is always politically orienting. Haggard's comment that if the Evangelicals vote they win the election is true - but only because Evangelicals represent a directed voting block. To me that is patently wrong. We need to wake up and help people reflect through the issues and vote from their heart and minds.
Now having said that, the question I have is "how can we expect children to make that kind of assessment?" There is a reason we don't let children vote. But over and over this film showed the manipulation of children's political orientation without even giving them an honest amount of data to work with. When we present complex situations, like the whole issue of abortion, and only tell these children that God hates this act - how are we orienting this generation towards those make other choices?
2) Symbols and Kids
Related to that was the taping of the mouth. What a powerfully charged symbolic action. There is no reflection offered in this film. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, but Lou Engle really didn't encourage me to give him the benefit of anything but being an alarmist, and assume they unpacked the meaning of the tape before they placed it on the mouths of these kids. But what gets me is that they are calling these kids to take on symbols which have powerful meaning. The word 'LIFE' does not belong to a symbol of silent solidarity that emphasises the helplessness of the unborn. This dichotomizes the issue in ways that are completely offensive, no matter what our opinion of abortion. We need to be more careful. I hope Fischer is right that some of these kids will want to get into politics, but I hope that first folks like Fischer wake up and realize that we don't need more fear based unthinking politicians in this world. Similar problems could be identified with the identification of American military service and the tradition of martyrs.
3) Directional Prophetic and Kids
Lou Engle called up the young boy Levi and prophesied over his life. He was careful to give himself some outs. But this is quite common in the prophetic movement. Everywhere you go God has some big plan for your life. I find this so disturbing. Not that I don't think God wants to do great things, even great things through our lives. But what is done here is that unrealistic expectations are being given. The other problem is that when you start to realize that everyone who is "prophetic" and speaks over you has some big vision (not often the same as the others) then you start to become cynical about the whole prophetic project. I think in the long run this will force the prophetic to the fringes (this is a historically recurring trend). Let me go out on a limb and say I believe in the prophetic. But I believe the prophetic types should shut up, listen and reflect a heck of a lot more than they do. It was so obvious that Lou was Levi as fulfilling what Lou wants in his political agenda - so he projects that, gives it the weight of his "prophetic" title and now you have a recipe for disaster. Folks develop the prophetic within your community and stop bringing in the "prophets". If they are really prophets then they will train your people, not hear for them.
4)Over Simplification of Life
The other thing that sets up these kids for a fall is the over simplification of life presented. God has a wonderful plan for your life. God will protect you from the harshness of life. God will take care of you. While there is some truth in this, God doesn't promise us an easy life, but rather in this world we have trouble. I'll leave the promise of heaven stuff out of this for now, it didn't get much treatment in the film anyway. But the life we live in the world means getting our hands dirty. It means kids like Levi have a rough road ahead. Life is ultimately worthwhile and good. But that is a trajectory that is not always apparent in the day to day living. Fischer loved to oversimplify things. Her object lessons were cute, but really could use some unpacking and reflection. We were watching her tactics as she preached at the camp. Fear and shame are not God's tools. This is always where over simplification leads. It has to. When God is painted as the one that makes everything hunky dory, then adversity has to rest on our shoulders. Life is not as simple as all that. Give kids strenght to face life on life's terms and not fill them with false hope.
4) Evangelism and Kids
I didn't realize that people still used Jack Chick tracts. The only thing worse that Chick tracts are Westboro Baptist placards. Ok, so don't get me started on their ill choice of literature. What really bugs me is that these kids are trying to do what they were told to do, which is proslytize everyone, but they were so obviously ill equipped for the task. At one point the kids start to question if maybe it looks like they are trying to sell something (watch for that moment, it is very interesting), that's good reflection, that should be encouraged. Evangelism isn't just spouting some cute rote statements at folks, it is engaging with people and partnering with God's own efforts to bring them to God's self. But these kids aren't given the tools for that sort of work, they are sent out with cuteness hoping that will win the day.
5) Parenting of Kids
My last critique is about the way we parent our kids. I have my oldest in a Bible club (AWANA). And it drives me nuts at times. I want my kids to be equipped for life in this world. They see our love for Jesus. They ask really good questions and I make of point of not giving them simplified answers. I want to encourage them to think deeply about their faith. I want them to know that there is something good about Christianity, but that they need to choose for themselves. To be honest I'd rather they lived fully and honestly out of their conclusions than to fake being a Christian for the sake of mom and dad. Having said that I am so blessed with how Elyssa's faith in Jesus has been growing, and I want encourage that. I think Christian groups are a great touchstone for kids, but what about when they get into the real world? Not everyone is going to have the same convictions in the real world. That is a tough lesson to learn when you are so sheltered by your parents. Christian schools (or homeschool), a plethora of Church activities, Christian camps, Christian TV and radio (exclusively), the parents in this film live in a bubble! The problem with bubbles is that they burst. What was worse was that the homeschooling was focused on developing a polemic against the rest of the world's thinking. Here you have the chance to develop a real intellectual wealth - seriously homeschooling could be an awesome opportunity to strech a childs mind and develop great habits of thinking. But it is such a wasted opportunity when it is just used to indoctrinate and inocculate children.
I recommend this film to all my Pentecostal and post-Pentecostal friends. It made me really think. It frustrated me but at the same time helped me see that there is work to do. Thank God that not all Pentecostals are like this. Becky Fischer has a great heart, and I'm sure we'd get along. But I hope that folks who follow in her footsteps might read this and pause to think. We want to give the kids great tools for the works God has for them. That is noble and I'll definitely pray for her important ministry. But this is a call to step it up a notch and bring in some needed critical reflection in all we do in the name of Christ.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
[THO] The Corporate Church
I get a few different ministry newsletters that point me to web articles, often of dubiuos quality. But occasionally a topic catches my attention. Today I was directed to a short little list on the difference between Corporate Strategy and Ecclesial Strategy, I think it is worth perusing. It is also one of my frustrations with modern ecclesiology and I'm not sure that we can just blame an incorporation of corporate methodology. There is a deeper psychosis at work in the Church, an inward turning that has left it with a diminished witness in the world. The corporate methodologies only strengthened a trend that was already present in the Church.
The core of this is an inward turning of the Church. We have reigned so long that our self-importance has left us unable to cope with any other reality. So we bolster the structures that protect our identity at an organizational level at the expense of the people who are the true Church. Theologically this is rooted in a false equation of the Church with the Kingdom of God. But it lives in a fearful protectionist stance towards the encroaching secular reality of the world we live in.
What the world needs is not a starkly isolated and corporately driven, albeit slickly organized, Church. What it needs is a people in the world, yet not of the world. What the world needs is a Church that is struggling with the reality of this world, just like everyone else, and crafting hope wherever she finds herself. There is a lot I can agree with on Mattera's short list, but a lot of it needs to be properly unpacked and meditated on.
The core of this is an inward turning of the Church. We have reigned so long that our self-importance has left us unable to cope with any other reality. So we bolster the structures that protect our identity at an organizational level at the expense of the people who are the true Church. Theologically this is rooted in a false equation of the Church with the Kingdom of God. But it lives in a fearful protectionist stance towards the encroaching secular reality of the world we live in.
What the world needs is not a starkly isolated and corporately driven, albeit slickly organized, Church. What it needs is a people in the world, yet not of the world. What the world needs is a Church that is struggling with the reality of this world, just like everyone else, and crafting hope wherever she finds herself. There is a lot I can agree with on Mattera's short list, but a lot of it needs to be properly unpacked and meditated on.
Friday, July 27, 2007
[THO] Your Church Good?
My buddy Joe on mySpace started a discussion on what is the most important aspect of church to start with. He listed what he distilled from Rick Warren's mechanistic view of church: fellowship, worship, discipleship, service and evangelism. I think a compartmentalized view like that is just plain screwed up, but I wanted to go in a different, but related, direction with this post.
What is the most important thing about your church to you?
My experience in asking such a question, and as a church planter you ask this one a lot of people, is that every one of us will answer that question differently at different times. I suspect that our churches meet certain conscious and unconscious needs for us, and that depending on what need is operative we will answer in a particular way.
I think this quesiton is good for two reasons:
1) It gives us an insight into what needs are animating us.
This is a question we ask so that we can hear our own answer. What is the reason worship in song is so elevated for us at that moment? Why isn't it the community? Why isn't it the encouragement to maturity? It is good to acknowledge and even understand our own needs. I think we hesitate because of the myth that we should be self-sufficient.
2) It gives the minister an insight into what is working well in the church.
When I asked this question recently to our group I phrased it like this: What does Freedom mean to you? I was given answers of relationality, encouragement, community and caring, prayer and the like. It showed me that there is something special about the community we have at Freedom Vineyard. It lets me ask why other aspects were missing, perhaps they are not functioning as well as they should be. This helps to shape the direction in which I pray and move as the pastor. I need that kind of feedback.
So here it is, I put the question to you. You can share in the comment or just ponder it. What is the most important thing about your church to you? I would love to hear some of your responses.
What is the most important thing about your church to you?
My experience in asking such a question, and as a church planter you ask this one a lot of people, is that every one of us will answer that question differently at different times. I suspect that our churches meet certain conscious and unconscious needs for us, and that depending on what need is operative we will answer in a particular way.
I think this quesiton is good for two reasons:
1) It gives us an insight into what needs are animating us.
This is a question we ask so that we can hear our own answer. What is the reason worship in song is so elevated for us at that moment? Why isn't it the community? Why isn't it the encouragement to maturity? It is good to acknowledge and even understand our own needs. I think we hesitate because of the myth that we should be self-sufficient.
2) It gives the minister an insight into what is working well in the church.
When I asked this question recently to our group I phrased it like this: What does Freedom mean to you? I was given answers of relationality, encouragement, community and caring, prayer and the like. It showed me that there is something special about the community we have at Freedom Vineyard. It lets me ask why other aspects were missing, perhaps they are not functioning as well as they should be. This helps to shape the direction in which I pray and move as the pastor. I need that kind of feedback.
So here it is, I put the question to you. You can share in the comment or just ponder it. What is the most important thing about your church to you? I would love to hear some of your responses.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
[LIF] Hockey and Church
Normally I don't follow sports, but when you pick up your four year old from pre-school only to hear, "Go Sens Go!", you realize that this is really big for your city. Last night was our service, but also it was the chance for the Senators to shut out Buffalo! I knew I was in for a competition, our hosts are really into the game.
I arrived late because one of the people I pick up was stuck waiting for her employer (she's a nanny). We arrived at church to find only a few brave souls risked missing the game to come out. And they were sitting, eyes glued to the game! Michelle asked me how churchy I felt tonight. I smiled and said we'll have worship at intermission, watch the second period (a really good one!) and then I'll give short message at the second intermission. And it was a lovely evening. Too bad the Sens lost, but they sure played a good game. The first period was sort of lazy, they were dancing around but not making any real progress. But something happened in the second period that energized them - perhaps it was the wonderful worship time we had (we missed some of the start of the second period, but the Sens waited for us to start scoring). I really enjoyed my own message, but perhaps it was a little flat for the Sens who couldn't overcome the one point lead of Buffalo. I'll try better next time lads.
Church is something that happens in the midst of life, so often we think that it is a separate event. This leads to a whole notion of separation that neuters our witness in the world. If we really believe that God loves the world, then we need to be like Jesus, right there in the thick of it. Sharing the triumphs and disappointments of life with all of humanity. Last night was a great lesson for me, not that I want to do intermission church again anytime soon, but that our lives are one, not two: one in the church and one in the world. But one and that glorifies God even when the Senators don't win.
Go Sens Go!
I arrived late because one of the people I pick up was stuck waiting for her employer (she's a nanny). We arrived at church to find only a few brave souls risked missing the game to come out. And they were sitting, eyes glued to the game! Michelle asked me how churchy I felt tonight. I smiled and said we'll have worship at intermission, watch the second period (a really good one!) and then I'll give short message at the second intermission. And it was a lovely evening. Too bad the Sens lost, but they sure played a good game. The first period was sort of lazy, they were dancing around but not making any real progress. But something happened in the second period that energized them - perhaps it was the wonderful worship time we had (we missed some of the start of the second period, but the Sens waited for us to start scoring). I really enjoyed my own message, but perhaps it was a little flat for the Sens who couldn't overcome the one point lead of Buffalo. I'll try better next time lads.
Church is something that happens in the midst of life, so often we think that it is a separate event. This leads to a whole notion of separation that neuters our witness in the world. If we really believe that God loves the world, then we need to be like Jesus, right there in the thick of it. Sharing the triumphs and disappointments of life with all of humanity. Last night was a great lesson for me, not that I want to do intermission church again anytime soon, but that our lives are one, not two: one in the church and one in the world. But one and that glorifies God even when the Senators don't win.
Go Sens Go!
Sunday, November 26, 2006
[THO] How TO be Emergent (Please)
Pretty consistantly I see the Emergent conversation either misreprented or misunderstood. As someone who sees a lot of value in the Emergent conversation I think it is about time to try and clear the air. I added the word please because what I see happening is Emergent is becoming the latest fad in the Church which makes it much less than helpful. (The same could easily be said for Missional). So if you are looking at joining in the conversation please weigh the following:
1) Don't miss that Emergent is a critique.
I am fond of saying that Emergent is at best a conversation and at worst a movement. The reason for this is that when a critique becomes a movement, it is starting from a fairly negative foundation. Some of what troubles me about fads is that they tend to just adopt methods or principles and miss the real purpose of what is happening. Emergent is what has always happened in the Church, there is always that edge that wants to take us out a little deeper, engage the culture a little better and see God as a little bigger than we have been. Emergent is best understood as walking in that tradition - it is not a comfortable place because it often is experimental and almost always misunderstood. So this isn't something new, but something that is definitely needed. Not to be embraced as a "new" methodology, but as a prophetic word that is trying to call us to a better place as the Church.
2) Don't think a few candles makes you Emergent.
Emergent isn't something you try and attach to how you have done church in the past. It is a conversation that dares to ask how what we are doing is working (or not working). It is a conversation that is happening amongst pastors, priests, leaders and laity from a wide range of ecclesial settings. That is one of its primary values. It doesn't look like anything because it is not a form, philosophy or even a methodology. It is a conversation and you are welcome to join in. In fact you have likely already joined in and not even realized. Sure there are some Emergent churches that use candles, but many don't and if you listen to the conversation - some actually shouldn't.
3) Don't think of Emergent as something other than the Church.
Emergent is not a new church. It is a natural function of the glorious Church of Jesus Christ. It just happens that some felt it was helpful to name it. Think of how many movements within the church have been named. Pietists, Orthodox, Protestants, Methodists, Revivalists, Charismatics. Sure some of us like the labels now, but these labels can be double edged swords. Please, if you want to make a new church, don't call it Emergent, in fact why not consider not doing that at all. The Church has had enough schism for ten Milleniums.
4) Don't think if you are Emergent you won't need the rest of the Church.
If you think Emergent means you don't need the conservatives that dislike your Emergent ways then you are sadly mistaken. One of the critiques that Emergent brings is that of a high degree of disunity. Now the critique is nuanced with a cry for diversity as the basis of unity, but let us not mistake that for a call to disunity. Again this is why Emergent is best as a conversation, conversations happen best with more voices not less, even those voices you don't always want to hear.
5) Don't miss that Emergent means a call to authenticity.
The main critique I hear over and over is one that asks, "where is the authentic experience of the Church?" It would be a shame to have that go forward and build something highly inauthentic. Emergent isn't a call to do what isn't you. It is a call to work within your blessed tradition and maybe reach a bit broader audience. It is a call to wade a bit deeper spiritually. To embrace practices from other traditions only when they are going to foster something deeper, something real. It definitely doesn't jettison the gospel or try to mush everything into a form of relativism. It might question some of the ways we describe this (and even understand this) but only so we can better frame our faith and communicate it to others, say in a way they can actually recieve (authentic). It is about being true to ourselves and the call of God on our lives. Anything less than that should raise a warning flag. Like I keep saying, Emergent isn't a fad we can jump on to try and make our church the hottest thing since sliced bread. Those sorts of things are a dime a dozen and if they really worked we wouldn't need new ones every few months. Emergent is something deeper, it is a conversation and you are welcome to join in.
I could go on, but I think this conveys what is immediately on my heart. There is a great Emergent conversation going on over at Resonate, and I'm sure there are others. I hope to hear you there.
[Edit: I fixed my title.]
1) Don't miss that Emergent is a critique.
I am fond of saying that Emergent is at best a conversation and at worst a movement. The reason for this is that when a critique becomes a movement, it is starting from a fairly negative foundation. Some of what troubles me about fads is that they tend to just adopt methods or principles and miss the real purpose of what is happening. Emergent is what has always happened in the Church, there is always that edge that wants to take us out a little deeper, engage the culture a little better and see God as a little bigger than we have been. Emergent is best understood as walking in that tradition - it is not a comfortable place because it often is experimental and almost always misunderstood. So this isn't something new, but something that is definitely needed. Not to be embraced as a "new" methodology, but as a prophetic word that is trying to call us to a better place as the Church.
2) Don't think a few candles makes you Emergent.
Emergent isn't something you try and attach to how you have done church in the past. It is a conversation that dares to ask how what we are doing is working (or not working). It is a conversation that is happening amongst pastors, priests, leaders and laity from a wide range of ecclesial settings. That is one of its primary values. It doesn't look like anything because it is not a form, philosophy or even a methodology. It is a conversation and you are welcome to join in. In fact you have likely already joined in and not even realized. Sure there are some Emergent churches that use candles, but many don't and if you listen to the conversation - some actually shouldn't.
3) Don't think of Emergent as something other than the Church.
Emergent is not a new church. It is a natural function of the glorious Church of Jesus Christ. It just happens that some felt it was helpful to name it. Think of how many movements within the church have been named. Pietists, Orthodox, Protestants, Methodists, Revivalists, Charismatics. Sure some of us like the labels now, but these labels can be double edged swords. Please, if you want to make a new church, don't call it Emergent, in fact why not consider not doing that at all. The Church has had enough schism for ten Milleniums.
4) Don't think if you are Emergent you won't need the rest of the Church.
If you think Emergent means you don't need the conservatives that dislike your Emergent ways then you are sadly mistaken. One of the critiques that Emergent brings is that of a high degree of disunity. Now the critique is nuanced with a cry for diversity as the basis of unity, but let us not mistake that for a call to disunity. Again this is why Emergent is best as a conversation, conversations happen best with more voices not less, even those voices you don't always want to hear.
5) Don't miss that Emergent means a call to authenticity.
The main critique I hear over and over is one that asks, "where is the authentic experience of the Church?" It would be a shame to have that go forward and build something highly inauthentic. Emergent isn't a call to do what isn't you. It is a call to work within your blessed tradition and maybe reach a bit broader audience. It is a call to wade a bit deeper spiritually. To embrace practices from other traditions only when they are going to foster something deeper, something real. It definitely doesn't jettison the gospel or try to mush everything into a form of relativism. It might question some of the ways we describe this (and even understand this) but only so we can better frame our faith and communicate it to others, say in a way they can actually recieve (authentic). It is about being true to ourselves and the call of God on our lives. Anything less than that should raise a warning flag. Like I keep saying, Emergent isn't a fad we can jump on to try and make our church the hottest thing since sliced bread. Those sorts of things are a dime a dozen and if they really worked we wouldn't need new ones every few months. Emergent is something deeper, it is a conversation and you are welcome to join in.
I could go on, but I think this conveys what is immediately on my heart. There is a great Emergent conversation going on over at Resonate, and I'm sure there are others. I hope to hear you there.
[Edit: I fixed my title.]
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
[THO] Full Time Ministry
I am hoping this is a bit provocative. I've been studying the clergy laity split in the Roman Catholic church and I am more and more convinced that the concept of Full Time Ministry is really just a longing for contemporary evangelical clergy. Prior to Vatican II the clergy were seen almost exclusively as those who have pursued a less perfect way. They were a sub-species of Christian meant only to follow the leaders. But Vatican II challenges this notion, especially in Lumen Gentium and Guadium et Spes. People of God is recovered as an image of the whole Church, not just the laity and the clergy are restored to a servant role and charged with the promulgation of lay action.
In the Protestant/Evangelical world we haven't caught up.
Instead of codifying the offices, we've created two classes of Christians. Those who ministry full-time (whatever that means) and those who are bums in pews. Before you jump on me, I'm trying to make a point. Of course there are many evangelical and protestant groups who have addressed this, but usually what is addressed at a denominational level takes forever to make its way to the adherants. So if you have busted this myth, kudos. But so often I encounter this myth alive and well in the people who attend our churches. Also even though Vatican II has made great strides, it is nowhere near pervasive in Catholic thinking either.
What is wrong with full-time ministry?
Well it may seem hypocritical for me to talk about full-time ministry disparagingly. I've spent many of my own years as a Christian primarily and sometimes only working for the Church. There is a need for a strong sense of direction and cohesiveness in the Church which comes primarily through good leadership structures. That isn't where the problem lies. The problem is when leadership is no longer part of the congregation but something else, an ideal and even an idol.
I've seen lots of young people with aspirations for full-time ministry, as if this were the ultimate in glamour roles in the Church. I think for some it appears that way. Working for something eternal seems to have a great appeal for a lot of ministry hopefuls. Heck in some of our movements you even get to wear funky garb! But there are three big issues that must be addressed, bubbles to be burst so to speak.
1) Full-time Ministry is not a guarentee of the faithful
Just because you gave your heart to Jesus, no one owes you a full-time ministry position. This is not the pinnacle of your walk with Christ, in fact it might very well be your downfall. Paul said not many should aspire to be teachers - be careful what you ask for.
2) Full-time Ministry is not a second class of Christian
Jesus loves all of us, in fact if He has a preference it is for the least in our midst, not the most well endowed (ministerially speaking). It is foolish to think that once you've arrived at full-time ministry you have arrived in the Kingdom. If that is your destination then you can get there quicker by bringing a basin and towel with you everywhere and washing feet - that is a much higher calling than pastor or priest. Those who wish to be greatest among you... look it up Jesus is quite clear about this.
3) Full-time Ministers have the same struggles as the rest of us
I think a lot of people see ministry as a refuge from sin, especially habitual sin. Let me let you in on a secret - we all struggle with sin. If anyone tells you otherwise then you can bet they are lying. There is no magic refuge in ministry, in fact ministry can be so draining that at times those temptations become unbearable. I know I've been in ministry a lot of years and had my fair share of struggles. The same grace is available for all of God's people - even the full-time ministers, so there is no benefit here for those looking for that easy out.
Now that I've burst those bubbles. If you still feel God calling you to devote more of your life to ministry, awesome! Like I said there are definitely roles that need to be filled. But I hope we fill them with those who are truly called. Those who will humbly take their place amidst all of God's people and be the servants of God that Jesus intended.
In the Protestant/Evangelical world we haven't caught up.
Instead of codifying the offices, we've created two classes of Christians. Those who ministry full-time (whatever that means) and those who are bums in pews. Before you jump on me, I'm trying to make a point. Of course there are many evangelical and protestant groups who have addressed this, but usually what is addressed at a denominational level takes forever to make its way to the adherants. So if you have busted this myth, kudos. But so often I encounter this myth alive and well in the people who attend our churches. Also even though Vatican II has made great strides, it is nowhere near pervasive in Catholic thinking either.
What is wrong with full-time ministry?
Well it may seem hypocritical for me to talk about full-time ministry disparagingly. I've spent many of my own years as a Christian primarily and sometimes only working for the Church. There is a need for a strong sense of direction and cohesiveness in the Church which comes primarily through good leadership structures. That isn't where the problem lies. The problem is when leadership is no longer part of the congregation but something else, an ideal and even an idol.
I've seen lots of young people with aspirations for full-time ministry, as if this were the ultimate in glamour roles in the Church. I think for some it appears that way. Working for something eternal seems to have a great appeal for a lot of ministry hopefuls. Heck in some of our movements you even get to wear funky garb! But there are three big issues that must be addressed, bubbles to be burst so to speak.
1) Full-time Ministry is not a guarentee of the faithful
Just because you gave your heart to Jesus, no one owes you a full-time ministry position. This is not the pinnacle of your walk with Christ, in fact it might very well be your downfall. Paul said not many should aspire to be teachers - be careful what you ask for.
2) Full-time Ministry is not a second class of Christian
Jesus loves all of us, in fact if He has a preference it is for the least in our midst, not the most well endowed (ministerially speaking). It is foolish to think that once you've arrived at full-time ministry you have arrived in the Kingdom. If that is your destination then you can get there quicker by bringing a basin and towel with you everywhere and washing feet - that is a much higher calling than pastor or priest. Those who wish to be greatest among you... look it up Jesus is quite clear about this.
3) Full-time Ministers have the same struggles as the rest of us
I think a lot of people see ministry as a refuge from sin, especially habitual sin. Let me let you in on a secret - we all struggle with sin. If anyone tells you otherwise then you can bet they are lying. There is no magic refuge in ministry, in fact ministry can be so draining that at times those temptations become unbearable. I know I've been in ministry a lot of years and had my fair share of struggles. The same grace is available for all of God's people - even the full-time ministers, so there is no benefit here for those looking for that easy out.
Now that I've burst those bubbles. If you still feel God calling you to devote more of your life to ministry, awesome! Like I said there are definitely roles that need to be filled. But I hope we fill them with those who are truly called. Those who will humbly take their place amidst all of God's people and be the servants of God that Jesus intended.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
[THO] Sacrament of Ordination?
I really need to do some serious work on the Sacrament of Orders. Everything about hierarchy and orders gets my back up. I was against orders in the restructuring of the Vineyard in Canada (I sat on the Writing Task Force as one of two Ontario reps). Our thought was that we shouldn't assume someone will serve the same function when they move to another congregation, we want to take seriously the congregations recognition of gifts and calling. I'm sure this would sound quite alien to strongly hierarchical movements, but really it is rooted in our sense of functional leadership. This is a notion that a person will function in their role long before the congregation names that roll. So you don't get hired as the youth pastor, you fall into the roll and someone comes along and recognizes it.
The problem with our paradigm is that it isn't the norm for Christianity. Far from it actually. There is a long historical trend towards the elevation of the clergy which we have inherited. So for our paradign to work it takes a lot of deliberation and explaination. I think of it as a challenge. The challenge is to get the congregation to recognize that this is not the pastor's church, but it is their church and they have a roll in shaping what it looks like.
This sounds a bit more congregationalist than it actually is in practice. The Vineyard has a strong sense of pastoral leadership, especially in church planting. And indeed our issues have been with pastoral abuse not congregational abuse. So in a sense we do have some commonality with a hierarchical model - at least in terms of governance. But when this is working right the pastoral role is more invitational than bounds oriented. In fact at the core of our values is a center set sociological model (a great book on this is Love, Acceptance and Forgiveness by Jerry Cook). So the pastor is pointing towards a shared vision and literally shepherding the vision. Helping people know if and where they fit, always inviting them into more participation. As folks become more attuned to the vision they are invited into roles as their gifts/callings become apparent. And here is where we differ from most movements - these roles need not always be named as offices.
The philosophy of a sacrament of orders does two things that bother me. First it assumes a lifelong calling in a particular way. My own history of ministry has been one of falling into different roles in different settings: worship leader, assistant pastor, helper, prayer coordinator, team leader, participant, congregant, dish washer, chair set up specialist, bulletin maker, youth leader, youth pastor (a particularily bad one), co-leader of college and careers, guitarist, keyboardist, greeter, teacher, church planter. All of these were significant and unique, but the progression was not linear (hierarchical climbing) nor was it permanent. Just because I am a church planter right now does not mean that this is what I will always be. Because of the way that the sacrament of orders is structured you couldn't go back, you would always be the office you were last installed into, at least from that time forward. And we wondered at why it was so hard for the Roman Catholics to deal with their priests who couldn't keep their cassocks done up? When orders are supposed to ontologically change your nature then you have a problem when the Peter principle kicks in. Which is my second problem with the sacrament of orders. There must be a way back. I know at different times in my own walk I needed to step back from ministry to work on my own life. Sure you can do that within orders but when I read the third chapter of Lumen Gentium the standard for ordained ministry is so high that we are setting up the ordained for failure.
This is part of the problem with such strong separation of clergy and laity. The clergy are expected not only to perform all the functions of Church and Christian life. But God forbid they should fall. Yet the reality is that we are all likely to fall into sin - sorry if that is a shocker. Anyone who was a Pentecostal during the Jimmy Swagger days knows the pain of seeing your heroes fall. Before you think me callous, my heart goes out to the priests who have fallen into sin. My frustration is directed towards an unhealthy ecclesiology that keeps our leaders in bondage to ideals that are humanly unattainable. Sure there are shining examples, but if you think that those lives were easy you have bought into a myth. We are all in this together and that is why this is so troublesome - our best resource for dealing with our human frailty is real open and honest community. And the hierarchy doesn't promote that, it hinders that.
I love that if I'm having a hard time, fighting with Sharon or frustrated with parenting, I can show up at church and say 'I need prayer'. I love that I am one of them, not the one they all look to as a perfect example of Christian living. We point each other to the only real example of that: Jesus. I love that my congregation isn't scandalized but gathers around me and prays. I love that they feel they can do the same. That is beautiful ecclesiology. That is how we serve each other in love. To me that is Church.
The problem with our paradigm is that it isn't the norm for Christianity. Far from it actually. There is a long historical trend towards the elevation of the clergy which we have inherited. So for our paradign to work it takes a lot of deliberation and explaination. I think of it as a challenge. The challenge is to get the congregation to recognize that this is not the pastor's church, but it is their church and they have a roll in shaping what it looks like.
This sounds a bit more congregationalist than it actually is in practice. The Vineyard has a strong sense of pastoral leadership, especially in church planting. And indeed our issues have been with pastoral abuse not congregational abuse. So in a sense we do have some commonality with a hierarchical model - at least in terms of governance. But when this is working right the pastoral role is more invitational than bounds oriented. In fact at the core of our values is a center set sociological model (a great book on this is Love, Acceptance and Forgiveness by Jerry Cook). So the pastor is pointing towards a shared vision and literally shepherding the vision. Helping people know if and where they fit, always inviting them into more participation. As folks become more attuned to the vision they are invited into roles as their gifts/callings become apparent. And here is where we differ from most movements - these roles need not always be named as offices.
The philosophy of a sacrament of orders does two things that bother me. First it assumes a lifelong calling in a particular way. My own history of ministry has been one of falling into different roles in different settings: worship leader, assistant pastor, helper, prayer coordinator, team leader, participant, congregant, dish washer, chair set up specialist, bulletin maker, youth leader, youth pastor (a particularily bad one), co-leader of college and careers, guitarist, keyboardist, greeter, teacher, church planter. All of these were significant and unique, but the progression was not linear (hierarchical climbing) nor was it permanent. Just because I am a church planter right now does not mean that this is what I will always be. Because of the way that the sacrament of orders is structured you couldn't go back, you would always be the office you were last installed into, at least from that time forward. And we wondered at why it was so hard for the Roman Catholics to deal with their priests who couldn't keep their cassocks done up? When orders are supposed to ontologically change your nature then you have a problem when the Peter principle kicks in. Which is my second problem with the sacrament of orders. There must be a way back. I know at different times in my own walk I needed to step back from ministry to work on my own life. Sure you can do that within orders but when I read the third chapter of Lumen Gentium the standard for ordained ministry is so high that we are setting up the ordained for failure.
This is part of the problem with such strong separation of clergy and laity. The clergy are expected not only to perform all the functions of Church and Christian life. But God forbid they should fall. Yet the reality is that we are all likely to fall into sin - sorry if that is a shocker. Anyone who was a Pentecostal during the Jimmy Swagger days knows the pain of seeing your heroes fall. Before you think me callous, my heart goes out to the priests who have fallen into sin. My frustration is directed towards an unhealthy ecclesiology that keeps our leaders in bondage to ideals that are humanly unattainable. Sure there are shining examples, but if you think that those lives were easy you have bought into a myth. We are all in this together and that is why this is so troublesome - our best resource for dealing with our human frailty is real open and honest community. And the hierarchy doesn't promote that, it hinders that.
I love that if I'm having a hard time, fighting with Sharon or frustrated with parenting, I can show up at church and say 'I need prayer'. I love that I am one of them, not the one they all look to as a perfect example of Christian living. We point each other to the only real example of that: Jesus. I love that my congregation isn't scandalized but gathers around me and prays. I love that they feel they can do the same. That is beautiful ecclesiology. That is how we serve each other in love. To me that is Church.
Friday, September 29, 2006
[THO] The Disappearance of the Christian Prophet From The Early Church
What follows is a paper I wrote in my first year studying Theology. Because of some material I am engaging with this semester I wanted to have this on hand for easy reference, I thought some of you post-pentecostals might enjoy it. Bibliography on request. (Prepared for Prof.Kevin Coyle, April 3, 2000)
=====
The office of the prophet has seen a considerable resurgence in the last century especially within the Charismatic and Pentecostal churches. Many contemporary Christian authors have attempted to provide guidelines for those pursuing the office of prophet.1 In light of such developments, it is interesting and worthwhile to develop an understanding of the history of the Christian prophet as a phenomenon and to explore the reasons that the prophet, as an office, disappeared from the early church within the first few centuries.
Prophets held a place of deep respect for the Jewish people. Since the days of Noah prophets functioned as the voice of God to the people, revealing to them the will of God and serving as teachers of religion.2 True to the its Jewish roots, the apostolic church also embraced the prophetic office as the voice of God to the church. The Christian prophet fit nicely into the Greco-Roman cultural worldview, which included the oracle as a legitimate profession.3 The Greco-Roman oracle was similar to the Judaic prophet in that they were both channels for their respective gods. Both the Jewish roots of the Christians and the existence of oracles made the inclusion of prophets in the makeup of the early church an expected and natural development.
The prophet represents the “contemporary voice of God to his [or her] generation.”4 The Old Testament shows prophets fulfilling many functions in relationship to presenting this contemporary voice. Old Testament prophets confronted sin such as Nathan confronted David after David had grossly abused his kingly authority by stealing another man’s wife.5 These prophets predicted the future of Israel (usually as a warning) as Isaiah predicted the God’s judgement on King Hezekiah.6 They declared the power and presence of God as Elijah did when he called down the fire of God to consume the sacrifice on Mount Carmel.7 And the Old Testament prophets taught Israel to remember the promises of their God.8 The long history and proven impact of the prophet with the Jewish people is reflected in the early church through their continuation of this office.
From its inception, the Christian church embraced the office of the prophet. Jesus himself is understood as a prophet.9 The prophetic ministry of Jesus included the same features the Old Testament prophets displayed. He confronted the sin of the people even overturning the tables of the corrupt moneychangers in the temple10, predicted the destruction of the temple as well as his own death11, displayed the power and presence of God12, and continually taught the people to remember the promises of God. The fact that these events were recorded in the gospels shows that the stage was set for the continuance of the prophetic office in the church.
It is the church’s union with Christ that solidifies the place of the prophetic office in the early church.13 The church does not question the actions of such prophets as Agabus, Judas and Silas, but accepts their actions as a normal aspect of the Christian community. It was not an unusual event for a known Christian prophet such as Agabus to stand up and predict a famine, or bind the apostle Paul’s wrists as a prediction of the treatment Paul would face at the hands of the Jews in Jerusalem. 14 The prophet was also expected to teach in the church as did Judas and Silas in Antioch.15 Unfortunately, the accounts of the normal activities of the prophets in the apostolic church are few; one can infer from this that the role did not cause a major problem in the developing church, otherwise the office would have commanded more of the literature. It is not until the church begins to seriously look at its own structure that the role of prophet comes into question.
Simply prophesying does not make one a Christian prophet. The prophetic gifts are seen in the New Testament accompanying the impartation of the Holy Spirit and the prayers of the elders.16 The encouragement in first Corinthians that all believers should desire to prophesy does not indicate that Paul desired a church where everyone held the office of prophet, but rather that he believed that this gift was available to the common disciple.17 The office of prophet was reserved for “a select number of ‘leading men’ (cf. Acts 15.22) who exercise considerable influence in the Christian community.”18 To be a Christian prophet in the apostolic church meant that one not only possessed and exercised the gift of prophecy, but also held office in the church to teach and preach.19 The Christian prophet fulfilled the same role as the Jewish prophet had fulfilled for the Israelites.20
The prophet as an office within the early church had a very short life. Even towards the end of the apostolic period the Pauline pastoral epistles hint at a movement towards a new tripartite church governmental structure consisting of bishop, deacon and elder.21 These new roles eventually absorb all of the duties of the roles listed in Ephesians: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.22 Exactly how long the office of prophet remained is hard to determine because the focus of the early writings, including canon, was more concerned with the evolution of this new governmental structure than the established offices springing from the church’s Judaic roots. Moreover, the references to prophets that we do find in the early literature predominantly refer to either Christ as the Prophet or the Old Testament prophets; the Christian prophet, it seems, quietly disappeared from the scene.23
The reasons for this gradual disappearance of the office of the prophet are various and complex. The church began at a time when any government operating from a central point of administration proved to be a considerable challenge, especially for an organization of questionable status with the Roman Empire.24 This presented problems for the administering of such mobile ministries as the apostles, prophets and evangelists. It is no wonder that the church gravitated towards the stationary, local church roles of bishop, deacon and elder. As well, the influence of the extremes exhibited by pagan prophets and oracles, coupled with the Jewish idea that a prophet was beyond question, created a concern that heretical prophets would do much damage to the church in general.25 These factors created a climate in which the church, in seeking to address these issues, began a process of systematically dismantling the office of the prophet.
Although the Roman Empire had well established trade routes, methods of travel were slow. Because letters needed to be entrusted to travelers, correspondence could take months to travel between cities.26 This made it extremely difficult to provide an effective central administration for the newly developing Christian church. No express methods of communication were available to maintain accountability between the mobile ministers (apostles, prophets and evangelists) and the church as a whole. This was especially problematic with the office of prophet because of the prophets’ reliance on the Spirit rather than the teaching of the church.
The church initially begins in Jerusalem with a “group of Judaic Christian elders” and practically no official structure apart from this.27 By examining the Pauline epistles in chronological order, one can see a response to the growing awareness of this problem.28 The initial letters to the Thessalonians show simply a call of order in the church with no real governmental vision. The next groups of Pauline epistles (Galatians, Romans and the Corinthian epistles) preach that the Christian should maintain an overall sense of responsibility to the Christian community. This involves using one’s giftedness to serve the church. The attempt in first Corinthians to provide a list of offices in the church is still loose containing what seem to be both offices and gifts.29 It is difficult to imagine an office of helps or varieties of tongues in the church. Finally, in Ephesians we find the first pure office list.30 This list is a refinement of the previous Pauline attempts. Once we get to the pastoral epistles we see hints of a completely new governmental structure emerging with bishops, deacons and elders.31
As the church moved out from Jerusalem, it began to loose its Jewish character and look for a more effective way to govern itself. This is further augmented by the fact that the church begins to spread, through proselytization, to the gentiles. In Comby’s words “the Christian faith was no longer tied to Judaism.”32 The church needed stronger local leadership than a council of elders in Jerusalem could provide. Much of Paul’s struggles with the church in Jerusalem consisted of confronting the Judaizers who were resisting this evolution and trying to maintain the original Jewish structure in the church.33
Despite these efforts to organize the church, the fact that the apostles and prophets were free to roam wherever they pleased created a problem. The issue was not so much with prophetic groups, but with individuals claiming a prophetic office. There was nothing to stop anyone from claiming prophetic inspiration and deceiving the Christians. Ash tells us that in the writings of Lucian of Samosata, a second century Greek writer, such a situation is described. Peregrinus profited from “the gullibility of some Christian communities.”34 He became prophet and leader to many within a short period of time, which is reflective of both the spiritual hunger and the inherent trust the early Christians expressed for the prophets.35 Fortunately the Christians did eventually wise up to Peregrinus’ scheme and abandoned him.
The Jewish tradition of respecting the prophets and the Greco-Roman acceptance of ecstatic oracles contributed to the idea that the prophets, because they are divinely inspired, are beyond testing.36 The Didache gives direct voice to this fear in saying that you “shall not attempt or dispute with any prophet who speaketh in the spirit; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.”37 The inference is that to speak against a genuine prophet was to speak against, and therefore blaspheme, the Holy Spirit. Jesus claimed that the only unforgivable sin was the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit; the Didache presented an interpretation of this scripture.38 When individuals can claim such power and authority in the community, the community is in danger of those who, like Peregrinus, abuse this power and authority.
The danger of prophets introducing heresy was one that Paul recognized. First Corinthians introduces the idea that prophets should judge the prophecies of other prophets.39 First John, which was written late in the first century, warns that many false prophets have gone into the world and gives us the mandate to “test” the spirit of the prophet.40 The Didache, which represented the teaching of the twelve Apostles, attempted to address this problem by establishing rules for judging the prophets rather than the Pauline mandate to judge the prophecy.41 The Didache states that “by their disposition they therefore shall be known, the false prophet and the prophet.” 42 It is clear that the test of a prophet now included judging the fruit of the prophet’s actions and words. This reveals the obvious gravity felt by the church experiencing visitations from prophets and apostles.
The appeal of the gospel to the common person was a major proponent in the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. The church was not overly discriminate with regards to its adherents’ social standing.43 Christianity considered everyone to be equal before God and therefore opened wide its arms to any who would come; this drew the members of society who were less fortunate such as the poor, slaves, women and children.44 Many of these people would not have been well educated; therefore, they would have been less likely aware of what to expect from their Christian teachers. This would be especially true of the Christians in rural areas whom the urbanites considered uncivilized.45 The rural areas were primarily populated with farmers to whom education would have been a rare luxury. The leadership of the evolving church would have been aware of this situation. The rumors already surrounding Christianity in the urban centers continually brought the threat of persecution to the fore of their minds, the last thing they needed was more controversy.46
As more and more gentiles became Christian, they brought with them a whole array of new worldviews. The fact that Christianity could identify with the mystery cults created an appeal amongst those people who were looking for a new spiritual experience. The mystery cults offered religious experiences often including a personal encounter with a deity; a personal encounter with Christ was also fundamental to Christianity.47 The mystery religions also brought an openness to mystical experiences to which the ecstatic prophet conformed.
History has left us the Montanist crisis to help us better understand how the early church responded to the ecstatic Christian prophet. The Montanist sect, claiming to be Christian, was accused of practicing wild and uncontrolled prophecy, an extreme form of the ecstatic prophecy known to the Christians.48 This Montanist prophecy form is described as being like the prophecies of the pagan oracles.49 Also, the rural nature of this sect drew the suspicion of the developing urban church. The Montanist sect experienced conflict with the steadily developing urban Christianity despite the sect’s best efforts in appealing to Rome to become a recognized part of the developing Christian religion.50
Montanus, who initiated this sect, lived in the village of Ardabau, Phrygia, where there was considerable occult influence from the pagan religions.51 It is not surprising that the Montanist sect would adopt, or at least be accused of adopting, a rather extreme form of ecstatic prophesying as the local pagan worship of Cybele included “ecstatic visions, wild frenzy, and fearful self-mutilations.”52 Stewart-Sykes offers an alternative possible influence, that of the cult of Apollo; but, in either case the feared influence was the pagan forms of prophesying.53 This cultural understanding was compounded by the fact that Montanism was a rural form of Christianity which the urban Christians saw as being tainted with paganism, especially in the Montanist understanding of the prophet.54 The movement’s founders, Montanus and two women Priscilla and Maximilla, all claimed special revelation from the Holy Spirit and took up a prophetic office.55 The Montanist sect was serious enough about the office of prophet that successive leaders were sometimes handed prophetic mantles from the founders.56 The prophetic mantle refers to Elijah’s passing of his office to Elisha in second Kings.57 However, as the Montanist sect grew institutional, we see that they themselves end their days without prophets.58
Reading the anti-Montanist statements in Eusebius, one can sense the alarm with which this sect is viewed. But, in the midst of the criticisms, there are valuable lessons to be learned. The emphasis on the fruit of the prophet is one that every generation of Christians should take to heart.59 It is reminiscent of the law concerning the messages of false prophets.60 The early church would have felt the distrust more acutely because of its relative newness, difficulties in administering remote incidents, proximity to cultural acceptance and trust for prophetic voices.
How the church responded to the Montanists in a sense reveals how they dealt with their own prophets. The Montanists evoked an attitude of distrust from the institution of the church towards the prophets. As well the growing emphasis on the developing nature of the urban church left little room for travelling ministries such as the prophet. Graham Cooke, a contemporary Christian Prophet, gives his opinion that “prophecy usually goes into decline when church leaders usurp their authority and try to control what is said and done in the body of Christ.”61 This statement may be a bit strong but the room for the Christian prophet to operate in the church was continually shrinking. This would also account for the decline of apostles in the church.
The early church initially needed the prophets and apostles to help spread the gospel. Even after dismantling the office of the prophet the church held that the role was critical to the ongoing development of the Christian church. The assertion that “the prophetic gift must continue in the whole Church until the final coming” echoes the epistle to Ephesus.62 The movement from an initially Judaic church government to a tripartite structure gave the church considerable local power to address such roles in the church. The Didache shows the continuance in changing attitudes towards both apostles and prophets. The Didache represents the last real instruction on the issue of prophets. The reason for this is that the end of the prophet as an office had been determined, and as we shall see, it was the solidification of the role of bishop as the only voice in the church that brought the extinction about.63
The bishop, in absorbing the prophetic role, brings greater control to the governance of the church. Eventually the bishop becomes the only official voice within the church. As Ash explains “once Ignatius’ [Bishop of Antioch] oracle ‘do nothing without the bishop’ became accepted, the prophet’s essential authority and freedom was dealt a mortal blow.”64 The prophetic gift is then rendered “a harmless and sometimes forgotten tool” for the church.65 As the bishop became the clear authority in the church the authority of all other roles were removed. All we are left with is the bishop as the “‘prophetic’ man” and the only official voice in the church.66
The office of prophet is also redefined by the early literature to refer only to the Old Testament prophets of the person of Jesus Christ.67 By associating the prophet with a bygone era, the questions of where the prophet had disappeared from the church were skirted. The prophet literally became a person of the past, leaving the bishop to govern the church of the day.
The disappearance of the prophetic office from the structure of the church remedied the problems of potential heretical influence and the need to develop strong local government. The growing church felt it could get along better without the encumbrance of the prophetic office. The church began to shake off its Judaic heritage and give itself more fully over to the emerging governmental structure. Hence the stage was set for the complete dismantling of this role in the early church. The challenge for us today is to understand the problems that the early church sought to solve by dismantling the prophetic office, and to determine if the church would be best served by reinstating the Christian prophet in our midst today.
====
=====
The office of the prophet has seen a considerable resurgence in the last century especially within the Charismatic and Pentecostal churches. Many contemporary Christian authors have attempted to provide guidelines for those pursuing the office of prophet.1 In light of such developments, it is interesting and worthwhile to develop an understanding of the history of the Christian prophet as a phenomenon and to explore the reasons that the prophet, as an office, disappeared from the early church within the first few centuries.
Prophets held a place of deep respect for the Jewish people. Since the days of Noah prophets functioned as the voice of God to the people, revealing to them the will of God and serving as teachers of religion.2 True to the its Jewish roots, the apostolic church also embraced the prophetic office as the voice of God to the church. The Christian prophet fit nicely into the Greco-Roman cultural worldview, which included the oracle as a legitimate profession.3 The Greco-Roman oracle was similar to the Judaic prophet in that they were both channels for their respective gods. Both the Jewish roots of the Christians and the existence of oracles made the inclusion of prophets in the makeup of the early church an expected and natural development.
The prophet represents the “contemporary voice of God to his [or her] generation.”4 The Old Testament shows prophets fulfilling many functions in relationship to presenting this contemporary voice. Old Testament prophets confronted sin such as Nathan confronted David after David had grossly abused his kingly authority by stealing another man’s wife.5 These prophets predicted the future of Israel (usually as a warning) as Isaiah predicted the God’s judgement on King Hezekiah.6 They declared the power and presence of God as Elijah did when he called down the fire of God to consume the sacrifice on Mount Carmel.7 And the Old Testament prophets taught Israel to remember the promises of their God.8 The long history and proven impact of the prophet with the Jewish people is reflected in the early church through their continuation of this office.
From its inception, the Christian church embraced the office of the prophet. Jesus himself is understood as a prophet.9 The prophetic ministry of Jesus included the same features the Old Testament prophets displayed. He confronted the sin of the people even overturning the tables of the corrupt moneychangers in the temple10, predicted the destruction of the temple as well as his own death11, displayed the power and presence of God12, and continually taught the people to remember the promises of God. The fact that these events were recorded in the gospels shows that the stage was set for the continuance of the prophetic office in the church.
It is the church’s union with Christ that solidifies the place of the prophetic office in the early church.13 The church does not question the actions of such prophets as Agabus, Judas and Silas, but accepts their actions as a normal aspect of the Christian community. It was not an unusual event for a known Christian prophet such as Agabus to stand up and predict a famine, or bind the apostle Paul’s wrists as a prediction of the treatment Paul would face at the hands of the Jews in Jerusalem. 14 The prophet was also expected to teach in the church as did Judas and Silas in Antioch.15 Unfortunately, the accounts of the normal activities of the prophets in the apostolic church are few; one can infer from this that the role did not cause a major problem in the developing church, otherwise the office would have commanded more of the literature. It is not until the church begins to seriously look at its own structure that the role of prophet comes into question.
Simply prophesying does not make one a Christian prophet. The prophetic gifts are seen in the New Testament accompanying the impartation of the Holy Spirit and the prayers of the elders.16 The encouragement in first Corinthians that all believers should desire to prophesy does not indicate that Paul desired a church where everyone held the office of prophet, but rather that he believed that this gift was available to the common disciple.17 The office of prophet was reserved for “a select number of ‘leading men’ (cf. Acts 15.22) who exercise considerable influence in the Christian community.”18 To be a Christian prophet in the apostolic church meant that one not only possessed and exercised the gift of prophecy, but also held office in the church to teach and preach.19 The Christian prophet fulfilled the same role as the Jewish prophet had fulfilled for the Israelites.20
The prophet as an office within the early church had a very short life. Even towards the end of the apostolic period the Pauline pastoral epistles hint at a movement towards a new tripartite church governmental structure consisting of bishop, deacon and elder.21 These new roles eventually absorb all of the duties of the roles listed in Ephesians: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.22 Exactly how long the office of prophet remained is hard to determine because the focus of the early writings, including canon, was more concerned with the evolution of this new governmental structure than the established offices springing from the church’s Judaic roots. Moreover, the references to prophets that we do find in the early literature predominantly refer to either Christ as the Prophet or the Old Testament prophets; the Christian prophet, it seems, quietly disappeared from the scene.23
The reasons for this gradual disappearance of the office of the prophet are various and complex. The church began at a time when any government operating from a central point of administration proved to be a considerable challenge, especially for an organization of questionable status with the Roman Empire.24 This presented problems for the administering of such mobile ministries as the apostles, prophets and evangelists. It is no wonder that the church gravitated towards the stationary, local church roles of bishop, deacon and elder. As well, the influence of the extremes exhibited by pagan prophets and oracles, coupled with the Jewish idea that a prophet was beyond question, created a concern that heretical prophets would do much damage to the church in general.25 These factors created a climate in which the church, in seeking to address these issues, began a process of systematically dismantling the office of the prophet.
Although the Roman Empire had well established trade routes, methods of travel were slow. Because letters needed to be entrusted to travelers, correspondence could take months to travel between cities.26 This made it extremely difficult to provide an effective central administration for the newly developing Christian church. No express methods of communication were available to maintain accountability between the mobile ministers (apostles, prophets and evangelists) and the church as a whole. This was especially problematic with the office of prophet because of the prophets’ reliance on the Spirit rather than the teaching of the church.
The church initially begins in Jerusalem with a “group of Judaic Christian elders” and practically no official structure apart from this.27 By examining the Pauline epistles in chronological order, one can see a response to the growing awareness of this problem.28 The initial letters to the Thessalonians show simply a call of order in the church with no real governmental vision. The next groups of Pauline epistles (Galatians, Romans and the Corinthian epistles) preach that the Christian should maintain an overall sense of responsibility to the Christian community. This involves using one’s giftedness to serve the church. The attempt in first Corinthians to provide a list of offices in the church is still loose containing what seem to be both offices and gifts.29 It is difficult to imagine an office of helps or varieties of tongues in the church. Finally, in Ephesians we find the first pure office list.30 This list is a refinement of the previous Pauline attempts. Once we get to the pastoral epistles we see hints of a completely new governmental structure emerging with bishops, deacons and elders.31
As the church moved out from Jerusalem, it began to loose its Jewish character and look for a more effective way to govern itself. This is further augmented by the fact that the church begins to spread, through proselytization, to the gentiles. In Comby’s words “the Christian faith was no longer tied to Judaism.”32 The church needed stronger local leadership than a council of elders in Jerusalem could provide. Much of Paul’s struggles with the church in Jerusalem consisted of confronting the Judaizers who were resisting this evolution and trying to maintain the original Jewish structure in the church.33
Despite these efforts to organize the church, the fact that the apostles and prophets were free to roam wherever they pleased created a problem. The issue was not so much with prophetic groups, but with individuals claiming a prophetic office. There was nothing to stop anyone from claiming prophetic inspiration and deceiving the Christians. Ash tells us that in the writings of Lucian of Samosata, a second century Greek writer, such a situation is described. Peregrinus profited from “the gullibility of some Christian communities.”34 He became prophet and leader to many within a short period of time, which is reflective of both the spiritual hunger and the inherent trust the early Christians expressed for the prophets.35 Fortunately the Christians did eventually wise up to Peregrinus’ scheme and abandoned him.
The Jewish tradition of respecting the prophets and the Greco-Roman acceptance of ecstatic oracles contributed to the idea that the prophets, because they are divinely inspired, are beyond testing.36 The Didache gives direct voice to this fear in saying that you “shall not attempt or dispute with any prophet who speaketh in the spirit; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.”37 The inference is that to speak against a genuine prophet was to speak against, and therefore blaspheme, the Holy Spirit. Jesus claimed that the only unforgivable sin was the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit; the Didache presented an interpretation of this scripture.38 When individuals can claim such power and authority in the community, the community is in danger of those who, like Peregrinus, abuse this power and authority.
The danger of prophets introducing heresy was one that Paul recognized. First Corinthians introduces the idea that prophets should judge the prophecies of other prophets.39 First John, which was written late in the first century, warns that many false prophets have gone into the world and gives us the mandate to “test” the spirit of the prophet.40 The Didache, which represented the teaching of the twelve Apostles, attempted to address this problem by establishing rules for judging the prophets rather than the Pauline mandate to judge the prophecy.41 The Didache states that “by their disposition they therefore shall be known, the false prophet and the prophet.” 42 It is clear that the test of a prophet now included judging the fruit of the prophet’s actions and words. This reveals the obvious gravity felt by the church experiencing visitations from prophets and apostles.
The appeal of the gospel to the common person was a major proponent in the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. The church was not overly discriminate with regards to its adherents’ social standing.43 Christianity considered everyone to be equal before God and therefore opened wide its arms to any who would come; this drew the members of society who were less fortunate such as the poor, slaves, women and children.44 Many of these people would not have been well educated; therefore, they would have been less likely aware of what to expect from their Christian teachers. This would be especially true of the Christians in rural areas whom the urbanites considered uncivilized.45 The rural areas were primarily populated with farmers to whom education would have been a rare luxury. The leadership of the evolving church would have been aware of this situation. The rumors already surrounding Christianity in the urban centers continually brought the threat of persecution to the fore of their minds, the last thing they needed was more controversy.46
As more and more gentiles became Christian, they brought with them a whole array of new worldviews. The fact that Christianity could identify with the mystery cults created an appeal amongst those people who were looking for a new spiritual experience. The mystery cults offered religious experiences often including a personal encounter with a deity; a personal encounter with Christ was also fundamental to Christianity.47 The mystery religions also brought an openness to mystical experiences to which the ecstatic prophet conformed.
History has left us the Montanist crisis to help us better understand how the early church responded to the ecstatic Christian prophet. The Montanist sect, claiming to be Christian, was accused of practicing wild and uncontrolled prophecy, an extreme form of the ecstatic prophecy known to the Christians.48 This Montanist prophecy form is described as being like the prophecies of the pagan oracles.49 Also, the rural nature of this sect drew the suspicion of the developing urban church. The Montanist sect experienced conflict with the steadily developing urban Christianity despite the sect’s best efforts in appealing to Rome to become a recognized part of the developing Christian religion.50
Montanus, who initiated this sect, lived in the village of Ardabau, Phrygia, where there was considerable occult influence from the pagan religions.51 It is not surprising that the Montanist sect would adopt, or at least be accused of adopting, a rather extreme form of ecstatic prophesying as the local pagan worship of Cybele included “ecstatic visions, wild frenzy, and fearful self-mutilations.”52 Stewart-Sykes offers an alternative possible influence, that of the cult of Apollo; but, in either case the feared influence was the pagan forms of prophesying.53 This cultural understanding was compounded by the fact that Montanism was a rural form of Christianity which the urban Christians saw as being tainted with paganism, especially in the Montanist understanding of the prophet.54 The movement’s founders, Montanus and two women Priscilla and Maximilla, all claimed special revelation from the Holy Spirit and took up a prophetic office.55 The Montanist sect was serious enough about the office of prophet that successive leaders were sometimes handed prophetic mantles from the founders.56 The prophetic mantle refers to Elijah’s passing of his office to Elisha in second Kings.57 However, as the Montanist sect grew institutional, we see that they themselves end their days without prophets.58
Reading the anti-Montanist statements in Eusebius, one can sense the alarm with which this sect is viewed. But, in the midst of the criticisms, there are valuable lessons to be learned. The emphasis on the fruit of the prophet is one that every generation of Christians should take to heart.59 It is reminiscent of the law concerning the messages of false prophets.60 The early church would have felt the distrust more acutely because of its relative newness, difficulties in administering remote incidents, proximity to cultural acceptance and trust for prophetic voices.
How the church responded to the Montanists in a sense reveals how they dealt with their own prophets. The Montanists evoked an attitude of distrust from the institution of the church towards the prophets. As well the growing emphasis on the developing nature of the urban church left little room for travelling ministries such as the prophet. Graham Cooke, a contemporary Christian Prophet, gives his opinion that “prophecy usually goes into decline when church leaders usurp their authority and try to control what is said and done in the body of Christ.”61 This statement may be a bit strong but the room for the Christian prophet to operate in the church was continually shrinking. This would also account for the decline of apostles in the church.
The early church initially needed the prophets and apostles to help spread the gospel. Even after dismantling the office of the prophet the church held that the role was critical to the ongoing development of the Christian church. The assertion that “the prophetic gift must continue in the whole Church until the final coming” echoes the epistle to Ephesus.62 The movement from an initially Judaic church government to a tripartite structure gave the church considerable local power to address such roles in the church. The Didache shows the continuance in changing attitudes towards both apostles and prophets. The Didache represents the last real instruction on the issue of prophets. The reason for this is that the end of the prophet as an office had been determined, and as we shall see, it was the solidification of the role of bishop as the only voice in the church that brought the extinction about.63
The bishop, in absorbing the prophetic role, brings greater control to the governance of the church. Eventually the bishop becomes the only official voice within the church. As Ash explains “once Ignatius’ [Bishop of Antioch] oracle ‘do nothing without the bishop’ became accepted, the prophet’s essential authority and freedom was dealt a mortal blow.”64 The prophetic gift is then rendered “a harmless and sometimes forgotten tool” for the church.65 As the bishop became the clear authority in the church the authority of all other roles were removed. All we are left with is the bishop as the “‘prophetic’ man” and the only official voice in the church.66
The office of prophet is also redefined by the early literature to refer only to the Old Testament prophets of the person of Jesus Christ.67 By associating the prophet with a bygone era, the questions of where the prophet had disappeared from the church were skirted. The prophet literally became a person of the past, leaving the bishop to govern the church of the day.
The disappearance of the prophetic office from the structure of the church remedied the problems of potential heretical influence and the need to develop strong local government. The growing church felt it could get along better without the encumbrance of the prophetic office. The church began to shake off its Judaic heritage and give itself more fully over to the emerging governmental structure. Hence the stage was set for the complete dismantling of this role in the early church. The challenge for us today is to understand the problems that the early church sought to solve by dismantling the prophetic office, and to determine if the church would be best served by reinstating the Christian prophet in our midst today.
====
- A partial list of recent authors on the topic of the prophetic within the contemporary church includes Mike Bickle, Graham Cooke, David Pytches and John & Paula Sandford. I have included bibliographic information in the bibliography.
- Israel Mattuck, The Thought of the Prophets (London: George Allen and Unwin ltd., 1953), 22.
- James Ash, “The Decline of Ecstatic Prophecy in the Early Church,” Theological Studies 37 (March 1976), 228.
- “Prophet”, The Revell Bible Dictionary, ed. by Lawrence O. Richards, (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1990), 825.
- 2 Samuel 12:1-15
- 2 Kings 20:16-18
- 1 Kings 17:20-40
- An example would be the major and minor prophetic scriptures.
- Graham Cooke, Developing Your Prophetic Gifting, (England: Sovereign Word, 1994), 21.
- For example Matthew 21:12
- For example Matthew 24:1-2, Matthew 20:17-19
- For example Matthew 12:15
- Charles Grierson, “Prophet”, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, eds. James Hastings, et. al. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909), II, 441.
- Acts 11:27-29, Acts 21:10-11
- Acts 15:32
- Acts 19:6, 1 Timothy 14:4
- 1 Corinthians 14:1-5
- E. Earle Ellis, “The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts” in Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1978), 139.
- Ellis, “Prophet in Acts,” 130-1.
- David Smith, The Life and Letters of St. Paul (New York: Harper & Row, 1920), 72.
- All three members of the tripartite ministry are present 1 Timothy 3:1, 3:8, and 5:17.
- Ephesians 4:11
- Ash, “Decline,” 244-5.
- Jean Comby, How to Read Church History, (London: SCM Press, vol.1, 1985), 20.
- Ash, “Decline,” 239.
- Comby, History, 20.
- Robert Payne, The Making of the Christian World, (New York: Dorset Press, 1966), 76.
- The chronology of the Pauline epistles was determined from the following sources which are included in the bibliography: David Smith The Life and Letters of St. Paul, The Interpreter’s Bible, and the Spirit Filled Life Bible study notes.
- 1 Corinthians 12:28
- Ephesians 4:11
- 1 Timothy 3:1, 3:8, 5:17
- Comby, History, 13.
- Albert Henry Newman, A Manual of Church History (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, vol. 1, 1904) 94-5.
- Ash, “Decline,” 233.
- Lucian, “The Death of Peregrinus” in A Treasury of Early Christianity (New York: Mentor Books, 1960), 217-8.
- Jonathan Draper, “Social Ambiguity and the Production of Text: Prophets, Teachers, Bishops, and Deacons and the Development of the Jesus Tradition in the Community of the Didache” in The Didache in Context (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 296.
- Hoole, Didache, 82.
- Matthew 12:31
- 1 Corinthians 14:29-31
- 1 John 4:1
- Ash, “Decline,” 233.
- Charles Hoole, trans., The Didache (London: David Nutt, 1894) 82.
- Comby, History, 28.
- Comby, History, 28.
- Alistair Stewart-Sykes, “The Original Condemnation of Asian Montanism,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 50 (January 1999), 11.
- Comby, History, 30.
- Comby, History, 24.
- Stewart-Sykes, “Asian Montanism,” 9.
- Stewart-Sykes, “Asian Montanism,” 10.
- Newman, Manual, 204.
- Eusebius, The History of the Church, trans. by G. A. Williamson, (New York: Dorset Press, 1984), 218.
- Newman, Manual, 204.
- Stewart-Sykes, “Asian Montanism,” 10.
- Stewart-Sykes, “Asian Montanism,” 2.
- Eusebius, History, 217.
- William Tabbernee, “Montanist Regional Bishops: New Evidence from Ancient Inscriptions,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 1 (Fall 1993), 249.
- 2 Kings 2:14
- Ash, “Decline,” 242.
- Eusebius, History, 224-5.
- Deuteronomy 13:1-9
- Cooke, Gifting, 21.
- Eusebius, History, 222 see also Ephesians 4:11-3.
- Ash, “Decline”, 228.
- Ash, “Decline,” 235.
- Ash, “Decline,” 236.
- Ash, “Decline,” 235.
- Ash, “Decline,” 248.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)