The subject of this essay is the need for, and the relationship between, the institutional Church and the missional movement. In light of recent turmoil in Protestant, mainline denominations and the emergence of independent, non-denominational, local churches and small fellowships of churches, the notion of an 'institutional Church' has been subjected--like all Western institutions--to deconstructive criticism. On the other hand, mission societies struggle to relate to church bodies, whether local or denominational, as is illustrated by the fact that many missionaries today find most of their funding from individuals. While we are about rebuilding ecclesiastical institutions in new, revitilized, orthodox denominations that provide doctrinal and ecclesial structure, we also need to rethink the relationship between these institutions to the mission of the Church.
The Early Church and Its Institutional Structure
Earlier New Testament scholarship—say, in the 1960s-1980s—was beholden to the idea that the early Church began as a ‘charismatic’ movement that developed into a ‘catholic’ institution by the beginning of the second century. This ‘early Catholicism’ theory was defined in terms of one cause and two developments. What allegedly precipitated this development was a supposed crisis: (1) the delay of the Parousia. On the slightest evidence, scholars assumed that the early Christians believed Jesus was going to return in their lifetime.[1] When the years rolled on and Jesus did not return, the Church had to rethink itself in terms of ecclesiastical structure, appointing deacons, elders, and bishops, and of orthodox doctrine.[2]The developments, and, thus, the other two elements of 'early catholicism', were: (2) a move from faith as an act of believing to faith as a system of belief, and (3) the church as a community with various ‘charisms’ or gifts to an institution with a hierarchy of leadership.
The Early Church and Its Institutional Structure
Earlier New Testament scholarship—say, in the 1960s-1980s—was beholden to the idea that the early Church began as a ‘charismatic’ movement that developed into a ‘catholic’ institution by the beginning of the second century. This ‘early Catholicism’ theory was defined in terms of one cause and two developments. What allegedly precipitated this development was a supposed crisis: (1) the delay of the Parousia. On the slightest evidence, scholars assumed that the early Christians believed Jesus was going to return in their lifetime.[1] When the years rolled on and Jesus did not return, the Church had to rethink itself in terms of ecclesiastical structure, appointing deacons, elders, and bishops, and of orthodox doctrine.[2]The developments, and, thus, the other two elements of 'early catholicism', were: (2) a move from faith as an act of believing to faith as a system of belief, and (3) the church as a community with various ‘charisms’ or gifts to an institution with a hierarchy of leadership.
To maintain this theory, a number of assumptions had to be held against the New Testament evidence. First, there is no Biblical or early Christian evidence that the Church had a crisis over any delay of the Parousia. (The concern addressed in 2 Peter 3.4 is repeated elsewhere in New Testament literature.) Second, in Paul’s undisputed letters, we find both a charismatic version of the church, such as in 1 Corinthians 12, and an institutional version of the church, such as when Paul addresses not only the saints but also the ‘overseers and deacons’ of the church (Philippians 1.1). Similarly, when Luke records in his history of earliest Christianity that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church (Acts 14.23), an interpreter assuming an Early Catholic theory of development has to argue that this practice is not accurate but is read back into the account from a later time when leaders were appointed in the churches. Reading against what primary sources record historically from two thousand years later should require a very high degree of proof--and certainly more than a theory. Third, the theory requires distinguishing the early Church rather sharply from the long-established, community structure of the Jewish synagogue. While there were surely new dynamics for house churches, the assumption that the early Church rejected the notion of ‘elders’ from the synagogue is less likely than that they continued such a practice. Fourth, the notion that there cannot be a mixed idea of charismatic gifting and structure is only an assumption—an assumption that the evidence itself contravenes. Indeed, in our day, Pentecostal and charismatic churches that emphasize multiple gifts in the church community also have various versions of ecclesiastical structure, and some even have bishops who oversee local pastors, who themselves exercise considerable authority. Fifth, on the flip side of the fourth point, the notion that elders and bishops in the early Church held office because of some appointment rather than gifting that, once recognized and proven, led to appointment needs to be challenged. As Gordon Fee argues, the qualifications listed for overseers or elders and deacons in the Pastoral Epistles seem to suggest that persons were chosen on the basis of their recognized character and ministry (as also in the case of elderly widows, 1 Tim. 5). In other words, they functioned in these ways, and therefore their appointment was more than anything else a recognition of their character. Function, rather than ‘office’, seems to be the primary way in which the Church acknowledged and received elders and deacons. (Cf. Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989).) ‘Function’ is rather close to ‘charism’ or gift, and this is probably to be seen in Paul’s recognition in the ‘charismatic’ chapter of 1 Corinthians 12 that ‘administering’ is a gift along with such things as healing or speaking in tongues (v. 12).
The Church and Its Mission
The Church and Its Mission
Now, what does all this have to do with the Church and its mission? Much in every way, as Paul might have said himself. The discussion so far indicates a theoretical tension between the Church as an institution and the Church as a people gifted for ministries. It has also suggested that there is no absolute distinction between these two notions, as though the Church began as a believing people in community gifted for ministries by the Holy Spirit and developed into an institution with hierarchical leaders and doctrines that defined the orthodox faith. Quite the contrary. Jesus’ movement outside institutional Judaism involved a challenge of official teaching where it was wrong, and in so doing involved an articulation of right—orthodox—teaching based on Scripture and Jesus’ words. Moreover, Jesus’ ministry was a continuation of John the Baptist’s ministry, and both were a ministry emphasizing the return of sinful Israel from ‘captivity’ in their sins to enter the kingdom of God as God's now washed and righteous people. The textual location for both John’s and Jesus’ ministries were in the ‘return from exile’ texts of Isaiah (40.3 and 61.1-2). (It did not matter that some of Israel did return from exile--many did not. Nor did it matter what other Jews thought about a return from exile. The fact is that John, Jesus, and the early Church thought of the prophecies of a return from exile—including the coming of the Messiah, the forgiveness of sins, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the establishment of a new covenant, and the inclusion of Gentiles—as beginning to be fulfilled in their day and through the existence of the Church.) Such a ministry involved the creation of a righteous ‘assembly’, or church, that was continuous with the qahal YHWH or ‘assembly of the Lord’ in the Old Testament.
Consequently, the significance of an institution was relativized. It was not wholly rejected but was to find meaning only insofar as it served a higher end: the establishment of a righteous people with a mission to the world. Ecclesiastical offices were to serve such a purpose. Church authority was subordinate to the Gospel. Power was not located in status but in God’s working His purposes through clay vessels for ministry. (This is why, incidentally, the early Church did not advance a theory of leadership as many do today. People functioned in ministries rather than held authoritative offices, although some combination of these notions was possible.)
Hopefully, it is not too early in the advancement of this point to bring this around to an application. We see, on the one hand, the demise of mainline denominations in our day in the West—a steady decline of churches that have rejected orthodoxy. This is not true outside the West, although there we find a proliferation of independent churches with little connection to ecclesiastical history. In these ways, there is in our day an anti-institutionalism that affects our view of the Church. This does not mean, however, that the alternative discussed above has moved into the ascendency. That is, the very demise of institutions of the Church has undermined the mission of the Church. This is likely so because independent Churches have lost the thread of the history of mission over the centuries as well as because it takes something like a denomination—a collection of like-minded churches—to accomplish the mission of the Church.
The Evangelical Movement and Its Mission
Furthermore, ‘Evangelicalism’ is under considerable threat in our day. It barely a movement but in danger of being coopted by causes that derive more from the culture than the Gospel. It once flourished in a role of reforming institutions (mainline denominations, e.g.) as long as this was still possible. It now struggles to find its place when it has no relation to institutions and where it, as a movement, tries to become an institution—an Evangelical institution, such as we find with Evangelical denominations. ('Evangelical denominations' are fine--as orthodox churches in an ordered relationship to one another--but they still need to participate in a broader Evangelical movement.) Evangelicalism is also under threat when certain conservative groups that are not actually orthodox or consistent with the ‘Evangel’ get included into Evangelical groups, like the churches that teach a Prosperity or Cessationist theology. Evangelicalism is further threatened where liberals have snuck into some Evangelical groups to undermine Evangelicalism and advance an unorthodox agenda. (One sees this in the Church of England, for example, where some have affirmed the culture's teaching on homosexuality while still maintaining that they are Evangelical.) Yet there is also a danger to Evangelicalism where it ceases to be the movement in and around and for the institution and becomes the institution itself. As earlier argued, a movement of people with its community above the institution and its mission beyond the institution need not be opposed to ecclesiastical institutions. The latter, though, need to serve the former, and the former needs to reform the latter. In other words, we need both, but in the right relationship.
This is part of the success of the Assemblies of God denomination, for example. It developed from a movement--the Pentecostal Movement, which grew out of the Holiness Movement and healing ministries--into a fellowship of churches precisely because this was necessary to accomplish the mission of the Church. The Gospel produces mission, and the mission defines the organization, and the denomination arises in order to accomplish the mission. Apparently, there was a discussion in its early years as to whether the Assemblies of God should become a denomination or remain a fellowship of churches. Even while it held a strong conviction that the return of Christ would be soon, it became a denomination, but one that was highly motivated as a mission force. One might argue that some of its problems arise precisely where its vision of mission is lost and where more institutional concerns set in. Another problem arises where the denomination fails to combine with other denominations that are united in the Gospel and the Church's mission. Yet it stands as an example for how a clear understanding of the Gospel and a clear vision for mission gives rise to a vibrant denomination and missionary movement.
[1] One text brought out to support this view was 1 Thessalonians 4.16-17. Here, Paul speaks of the dead in Christ rising first when Jesus returns and then ‘we who are alive’ being caught up to meet him in the air. Paul’s use of ‘we’ here, though, is appropriate because, when writing, he is alive, not because he is convinced Jesus will return in his lifetime. How do we know this? Jesus himself said that nobody knows the hour when the Son of Man will come (Mark 13.26, 32). While some critics might suggest that this passage is read back into Jesus’ discourse from the later Church to explain the delay of the Parousia, such critical scholarship would also want to say that this is an historical saying of Jesus on the grounds that it says the Son does not know something. The more likely explanation however, is that Jesus is himself the source of the Church’s consistent view that nobody knew when Jesus would return. Moreover, when some touted the notion that Jesus had already returned, Paul responded to say that the time had not come and that the time of rebellion would come first (2 Thessalonians 2). (The theory of Early Catholicism, of course, has led some to dismiss Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians these grounds. And so the adjustments of the evidence continue to be made to fit the theory.)
[2] One work that encapsulated this idea of Early Catholicism was that of James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977). One of the four types of early Christianity that Dunn thought he could identify in the New Testament books was ‘Early Catholicism’. This way of reading the first century Church involves reading against the dynamics of the Church that we read in the first century, New Testament books.
No comments:
Post a Comment