RE: The Triumph of Ecclesiological Relativism

[Rusty T]

I love this blog (http://pontifications.classicalanglican.net) and I wanted to share this post (http://pontifications.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=625) by the author. I know I'm just linking, but is it okay to quote from an online blog without asking? Anyway, I love this post.

rusty

[spiritmech]

It's okay to quote a piece from a blog, as long as you don't quote the whole thing, and include a link back.

SM

[spiritmech]

Very good post. Thanks, Tizzi. "Mere Christianity" is a good starting point, but one needs to go further.

SM

[Constantine]

Thank you Tizzidale. It was quite refreshing to read something like that, I especially liked the ending. I bet it will stir up some debate with the Protestants.

Have some pearls for that.

[Anoetos]

I love this blog (http://pontifications.classicalanglican.net) and I wanted to share this post (http://pontifications.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=625) by the author. I know I'm just linking, but is it okay to quote from an online blog without asking? Anyway, I love this post.

rusty

The problem with this sort of thing is that Protestants, typically, don't know what to do with it. First of all the generic categories of "anti-sacramental" and "neo-gnostic" are, I think purposely, obscure. Who is he talking about? I think I know, but I certainly wouldn't want to put myself in that category even if the author would.

It appears to be a generalized rant against "Evangelicalism". As such, it has some problems too:

First of all it mis-formulates (again, purposely?) the doctrine of Justification as Protestants have, historically articulated it. It leaves out the important adverb "alone" but worse, it fails to do justice to what are nuances, but important nuances nonetheless, for example that no one says we are "justified by faith", period, just like that with no qualification, and if they do they are either mistaken or garbled.

What we do say is that we are justified by GRACE working through the agency of FAITH; i.e. the sovereign act of God whereby He declares just those who cannot otherwise manifest or claim this necessary justness and solely based upon the work of Christ imputed to the believer through faith, itself a gift of God to the sinner.

But even more pertinent to the author's intent, the blog begs some very important questions, like "What is the Church?". It may be assumed that persons acquainted with the author's own affiliation may have had that question answered adequately heretofore and the article itself certainly does seem to clarify things. And it is certainly fair in such a context to assume the correctness of one's own formulation to the exclusion of others. But really, what good does this do? What do we have here? A high church Anglican preaching to the choir? Why would this stir Protestant sensibilities? The author may not even be Protestant even though taxonomic considerations would place him and his church in that sphere.

In a way though, Tizz, this blog is of a piece with what I think you were trying to get accross in your earlier "bait and switch" thread. But here, as in that thread, grave disservice is done to Protestant ecclesiology by reducing it to it's least understood and most severely backlit terms.

To get back to my introductory remark though, how does one answer this? I, for example, am a Presbyterian. We have a very intricate ecclesiology, just because we don't go in for incense and pointy hats doesn't obviate the fact. And we certainly do not believe that “God doesn’t care whether we are Episcopalians, Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, or whatever!”. I don't think most conservative Evangelicals believe that either. What we will often say is that one's membership in the Body of Christ is less a matter of one's affiliation with a visible institution than with Christ Himself.

However, we Presbyerians, for example, happen to believe that our form of Church government is not only the best of several options, but is taught in Scripture as the norm for the Church. We also believe that our sacramentology most clearly implements what a proper understanding of the Covenants would require for the Church. We believe a lot of other things that lead us to conclude that we are at least closest to the biblical ecclesial ideal and at most the real embodiment of that ideal.

Frankly, what we seem to have here, is again, someone preaching to the choir. It's hard to respond to because it presupposes so much. Okay, so the guy is Anglican, okay, so he has problems with what he perceives to be issues in some neighborhoods of Evangelical Christianity, okay, so he plays rather fast and loose in his presentation of Protestant soteriology, okay, so his answer to the problems is thus and so: more bells, more vestments, more pointy hats, more top-down direction, more magical sacramentology.

Okay, we too have problems with segments of Protestantism. It would be hard not to. Thus my reticence to take up the cudgels for, say, extreme pentecostalism. But our solutions are vastly different than those of the author of this blog.

That we also think them better should go without saying.

[Rusty T]

The problem with this sort of thing is that Protestants, typically, don't know what to do with it. First of all the generic categories of "anti-sacramental" and "neo-gnostic" are, I think purposely, obscure. Who is he talking about? I think I know, but I certainly wouldn't want to put myself in that category even if the author would.
The Pontificator (http://pontifications.classicalanglican.net/)can defend himself (and usually does) so I will only attempt to address a couple things here.


It appears to be a generalized rant against "Evangelicalism". As such, it has some problems too:
I really don't know who he had in mind exactly, but he seems to addressing, "American Christianity" in general. I'm not sure who exactly he had in mind, but I (like you) have my opinion.


First of all it mis-formulates (again, purposely?) the doctrine of Justification as Protestants have, historically articulated it.
As an Anglican priest, the Pontificator is well aware of the historic articulation of justification, but I'm sure that is not what he's speaking of now. He makes it clear that he's addressing the 'dominant' view among American Protestants. Not the historically expressed view.


It leaves out the important adverb "alone" but worse, it fails to do justice to what are nuances, but important nuances nonetheless, for example that no one says we are "justified by faith", period, just like that with no qualification, and if they do they are either mistaken or garbled.
And I think this is exactly what the Pontificator is trying to say. They are mistaken. But again, he's not talking about what you want him to address.


But even more pertinent to the author's intent, the blog begs some very important questions, like "What is the Church?". It may be assumed that persons acquainted with the author's own affiliation may have had that question answered adequately heretofore and the article itself certainly does seem to clarify things. And it is certainly fair in such a context to assume the correctness of one's own formulation to the exclusion of others. But really, what good does this do? What do we have here? A high church Anglican preaching to the choir? Why would this stir Protestant sensibilities? The author may not even be Protestant even though taxonomic considerations would place him and his church in that sphere.
These are questions that the blog's author is trying to work through himself.


In a way though, Tizz, this blog is of a piece with what I think you were trying to get accross in your earlier "bait and switch" thread. But here, as in that thread, grave disservice is done to Protestant ecclesiology by reducing it to it's least understood and most severely backlit terms.
Well, I wouldn't even put my thread in the same hemisphere with this post. I was half-joking, this guy is very serious. Again, I do not think he was addressing 'Protestant ecclesiology', but rather the popular 'American' version that he sees today. Entirely his opinion, of course.


To get back to my introductory remark though, how does one answer this? I, for example, am a Presbyterian. We have a very intricate ecclesiology, just because we don't go in for incense and pointy hats doesn't obviate the fact. And we certainly do not believe that “God doesn’t care whether we are Episcopalians, Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, or whatever!”. I don't think most conservative Evangelicals believe that either. What we will often say is that one's membership in the Body of Christ is less a matter of one's affiliation with a visible institution than with Christ Himself.
And this is exactly the issue. It would be the Pontificator's answer (I'm guessing) that affiliation with the visible Church is affiliation with Christ.


However, we Presbyerians, for example, happen to believe that our form of Church government is not only the best of several options, but is taught in Scripture as the norm for the Church.
Well, I don't know enough about Presbyterians to even begin discussing them.


We also believe that our sacramentology most clearly implements what a proper understanding of the Covenants would require for the Church. We believe a lot of other things that lead us to conclude that we are at least closest to the biblical ecclesial ideal and at most the real embodiment of that ideal.
Of course you do, sir. But are you right? That's the question.


Frankly, what we seem to have here, is again, someone preaching to the choir. It's hard to respond to because it presupposes so much. Okay, so the guy is Anglican, okay, so he has problems with what he perceives to be issues in some neighborhoods of Evangelical Christianity, okay, so he plays rather fast and loose in his presentation of Protestant soteriology, okay, so his answer to the problems is thus and so: more bells, more vestments, more pointy hats, more top-down direction, more magical sacramentology.
And he's misrepresenting?


Okay, we too have problems with segments of Protestantism. It would be hard not to. Thus my reticence to take up the cudgels for, say, extreme pentecostalism. But our solutions are vastly different than those of the author of this blog.
So you wave you cudgel instead? As for as your solutions. . . the author of the blog is simply asking, "Are they correct?"


That we also think them better should go without saying.
Of course.

rusty

[Maxentius]

I love this blog (http://pontifications.classicalanglican.net) and I wanted to share this post (http://pontifications.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=625) by the author. I know I'm just linking, but is it okay to quote from an online blog without asking? Anyway, I love this post.

rusty

I think he got Luther very, very wrong. It does get tiresome sometimes, but such is life:

"Whatever Luther’s intentions may have been, his theory of justification by faith unleashed a heretical anti-sacramentalism that has undermined the sacramental life of the Church and distorted our understanding of our salvation in Christ Jesus. As a result, a heretical ecclesiological relativism has triumphed in American Christianity. Perhaps in the 16th century it was necessary to declare 'We are justified by faith'; but today it is now necessary to declare with equal fervor and urgency "We are justified by the Church!'"

To be fair, this misunderstanding is very common among Protestants who "know" what Luther tought and meant--and that is usually something akin to what Pontificator was critiquing. Here the acusation is that Luther tought we are justified "by faith". That phrase does indeed occur, but he fails to realize that for Luther and by extension Lutherans "Justification by faith" IS the Sacraments and we always find the Sacraments INSIDE the Church. We receive Baptism into the Church, we receive Jesus' blessed body and blood in the Sacrament of the Altar, we receive absolution from the minister as the icon of Christ in the Church. In the Small Catechism there is not an article called "Justification" because it is contained in the articles of the Sacraments.

Also, when Lutherans say we are justified "by faith" we do not mean "because of faith." We are justified by Jesus' work on the cross--EVERYONE! But it is only by faith that wereceive the gift. Thus, when I was baptized I received God's grace. When the minister absolved me I received absolution, when I eat his body and drink his blood I receive forgiveness, or grace again. I can only receive these things because I trust in God's promises, which trust itself is his gift to me (Eph 2:8-10).

Here is a quote from the Defense of the Augsberg Confession:


Thus, because faith, which freely receives the remission of sins, sets Christ, the Mediator and Propitiator, against God's wrath, it does not present our merits or our love [which would be tossed aside like a little feather by a hurricane]. This faith is the true knowledge of Christ, and avails itself of the benefits of Christ, and regenerates hearts, and precedes the fulfilling of the Law.


Notice that faith receives what is already accomplished. As I said, I think he badly misrepresents Lutheranism and Luther.

Also, how far do we take this logic? Is the RCC at fault because they approved of St. Augustine's teachings that the Reformers used?

And finally, I think I would agre that modern American Evangelicalism has more or less removed itself from historic Christianity--"Open" Theism, "Christ does not have a body now", no Sacraments etc. All these critiques are valid, but they are not Luther's fault and they are not true in the Churches that call themselves Lutheran.

There are some Lutherans who commented about this in the Blog post in question. Also, here is a link to some other critiques of the article from some well informes Lutheran laymen:

http://metalutheran.blogspot.com/2005/01/luther-under-fire.html

Some of the comments are excellent.

[Rusty T]

Max,

Good points.

rusty

[Anoetos]

Tizz,

Good points all...I appreciate your response.

[Anoetos]

Alright, so he's criticizing the "dominant view" of Justification, that's great. He fiddles a bit with the edges of a definition, points out his dislikes and what he thinks is wrong with it and leaves it at that, though not before digging up the bones of Luther for a good posthumous whippin'. His contention that it is, in fact, the "dominant" view is left very much open to question.

We often hear of this Great Evangelical Majority. We hear all kinds of things like what this fellow has written. But how much of a majority are they? What kind of numbers are we talking about?

I would hazard to guess that if you took all the doctrinally conservative people in the mainstream Protestant denominations and added to them all the people in the self-consciously conservative and confessional denominations (LCMS, PCA, OPC, WELS, REC, etc.) you'd have a better majority than this bogie man of fundamentalist ecclesiological iconoclasm would represent.

Of course, maybe he's just talking about a "movement", a "tendency". within all Protestant denominations and native to Protestantism per se...but since when was a "tendency" worth wasting so much bandwidth over? I find it best to fight over stated doctrinal expressions rather than what I perceive to be happening here and there in a given communion. Sure, I may see a problem, and I may even voice an opinion on it, but I would hardly try to formulate an apologetic based on it.

But then, maybe I am reading too much in here. Maybe all he's doing is kvetching about a largely mythological beast, or, to put it more charitably, perhaps his own ecclesiological commitments preclude his clear evaluation of movements other than his own such that he misunderstands the actual stature of what he is criticising.

[Rusty T]

Or. . . maybe he's right.

rusty

[Maxentius]

Or. . . maybe he's right.

rusty

Well, as Anoetos pointed out, they may not be a majority. But Evangelicals are certainly more culturally influential then e.g. LCMS, PCA etc. And as I pointed out earlier, they have separated themselves from the historic Church (this is not to say I do not blieve they are Christians btw). Many "Protestants" do have a very low view of the Church--one that is completely invisible and rather subjective.

[Rusty T]

When you say 'majority' you mean the majority of Protestants right? Would you consider Southern Baptists 'low church'? Pentecostals? Nazarenes? United Methodists? Evangelical Lutherans? National Baptists? Non-denominational? I find it hard to believe that 'high church' Protestants are in the majority here in America. Would be interesting to see.

rusty

[Anoetos]

When you say 'majority' you mean the majority of Protestants right? Would you consider Southern Baptists 'low church'? Yes.
Pentecostals? Yes.
Nazarenes? Yes.
United Methodists? Sometimes, but mostly not.
Evangelical Lutherans? Definitely not.
National Baptists? Not sure what a "national baptist" is...but I'll say yes, they're also low-church.
Non-denominational? in the vast majority of cases, yes.
I find it hard to believe that 'high church' Protestants are in the majority here in America. Would be interesting to see.

Well, let's look at the numbers, shall we? These numbers are taken from the website adherents.com and are probably roughly accurate. There is no way, of course, to track the Greater Mitchell Church of Jesus Christ Triumphants of the world so we will be left to a rather sketchy view.

This first list represents denominational families, not individual sects within those families:

Denomination Est. Tot. Adult Pop. Pct.

Baptist 33,964,000 19.4%
Methodist 14,116,000 8.0%
Lutheran 9,110,000 5.2%
Presbyterian 4,985,000 2.8%
Pentecostal 3,116,000 1.8%
Episcopalian 3,042,000 1.7%
Churches of Christ 1,608,000 1.0%

If we break it out this way, dividing those churches which which could be called "high Church" very generally [by which I mean that they have a fairly static liturgy, a historic confession and an involved doctrine of church government] from those that could be considered low church [by which I mean that they lack any or all of the above criteria for 'highness'], we get the following:

Low Church:
Baptist 33,964,000 19.4%
Pentecostal 3,116,000 1.8%
Churches of Christ 1,608,000 1.0%

High Church:
Methodist 14,116,000 8.0%
Lutheran 9,110,000 5.2%
Presbyterian 4,985,000 2.8%
Episcopalian 3,042,000 1.7%

Yielding totals as follows:

Low Church:
38,688,000 22.2%

High Church:
31,253,000 17.7%

A difference of 4.5%

Now, if we do it another way, and we measure the memberships of those denominations which are self-consciously conservative in doctrine as compared to those which are not, we can take this list of the top eight denominations in America and sort them this way:

Conservative:
Southern Baptist Convention 16,247,736
National Baptist Convention of America 3,500,000
Church of God in Christ 5,000,000*
Assemblies of God 2,687,366
Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod 2,512,714
Total: 29,947,816

Liberal:
United Methodist Church 8,251,042
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 5,038,066
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 3,595,259
Total: 16,884,367

Now, if we take out those churches which are conservative in doctrine but which have not very clearly adopted a confession which is true to Reformations principles as laid out in the Sola's, regardless of their liturgical/ecclesiological considerations (i.e. COGIC, NBCA, and AoG), we still end up with a comparison showing a 1.88 million adherent variance to the good for the conservative denominations.

I will suggest that the consensus of all this is that there is a slightly higher per centage of American Protestants who belong to low church oriented denominations but a vast majority of whom are conservative in doctrine and a small majority of whom have a clearly articulated public profession of faith grounded in preinciples rooted in the Reformation.

None of this clearly repudiates "The Pontificators" point but it does give some flesh to the issue. And this is the root of my problem with his blog: He decries "low churchism" and then equates it with Luther's insight re: Sola Fide. What are we to do with this?

Often the most liturgically ridgid and ecclesiologically intricate denominations are also the most doctrinally liberal, and the churches which exercize the most 'liberality' in liturgy and church government are the most doctrinally conservative...

Just doesn't seem to mesh with his conclusions, or, maybe it does...and if it does, for my part, confessionalism trumps liturgy and pointy hats every time.

[Rusty T]

Whew! At least Orthodox don't wear pointy hats.

rusty

[spiritmech]

Just pointy beards.

[Anoetos]

Whew! At least Orthodox don't wear pointy hats.

rusty

I dunno, this hat is pretty pointy:

[Rusty T]

Heh, it's not exactly pointy, though. :)

rusty

[Rusty T]

I think your #'s are off also. I'll put some up of my own.

Pentecostals . . . 10.3 million (http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_495.html)
Baptists . . . . . . 36.4 million (http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_66.html)
Nondenominational . ~10 million (http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_542.html)
{this one was a little hard to extrapolate, but it says around 4% of total US population described themselves as non-denominational}
Holiness (non-Pentecostal) 1 million


This changes your #'s significantly. Not to mention that you put Methodists in the 'high church' category, which is debatable. I also wouldn't consider Presbyterians as "high church" - well not all of them, at least. The numbers decrease immensely (for high church) if you take this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Church)definition of 'high church'. But, taking your numbers (with my updates and dividing the Methodist in half for good measure), let's see what we have so far.

'High Church' = 24.1 million (28 %)
'Low Church' = 64.75 million (72 %)

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that your #'s were off a bit.

rusty

[Anoetos]

I think your #'s are off also. I'll put some up of my own.

Pentecostals . . . 10.3 million (http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_495.html)
Baptists . . . . . . 36.4 million (http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_66.html)
Nondenominational . ~10 million (http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_542.html)
{this one was a little hard to extrapolate, but it says around 4% of total US population described themselves as non-denominational}
Holiness (non-Pentecostal) 1 million


This changes your #'s significantly. Not to mention that you put Methodists in the 'high church' category, which is debatable. I also wouldn't consider Presbyterians as "high church" - well not all of them, at least. The numbers decrease immensely (for high church) if you take this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Church)definition of 'high church'. But, taking your numbers (with my updates and dividing the Methodist in half for good measure), let's see what we have so far.

'High Church' = 24.1 million (28 %)
'Low Church' = 64.75 million (72 %)

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that your #'s were off a bit.

rusty

Inasmuch as the Methodists use the Calendar, practice a static liturgy and are Episcopal in government I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt on the matter and, I'll have to go back to my post but I think I included Presbyterians because, regardless of what you may have seen, Presbyterians (and by extension the Dutch and Continental Reformed) use a (fairly) static liturgy, a high view of church government though they are generally opposed to an intensive use of the calendar, they will recognize the major seasons and festivals.

[scholasticus]

To get a proper overview, how do the numbers of Catholic and Orthodox weigh up to that? And how do you classify a Church which in the main is equally confessional and pointy-hatted? ;)

Peace

Keir

[keith]

To get a proper overview, how do the numbers of Catholic and Orthodox weigh up to that? And how do you classify a Church which in the main is equally confessional and pointy-hatted? ;)

Peace

Keir
Well you took the words right out of my mouth there. It seems this thread is focused on America and since I don't live there I will stay out of that part of the discussion. However, as an Anglican I was amused/bemused by the link with Pontificator. How does this person wish to cut the cake when it comes to Anglicanism? There are High Church who may be conservative or liberal or charismatic theologically and the same applies to 'Broad Church' and 'Low Church' congregations. In England at least there are plenty of 'High Church' priests who at the same time have a quite radical/liberal interpretation of scripture. Are we supposed to judge by the pointyness of the hats (or the smell of the incense)? Form and content do not necessarily neatly fit together. Perhaps things are different on the other side of the pond.

As an aside, there have been 2 Anglican views on Justification which have a pedigree going back at least to the time of the restoration of the monarchy - each quoting various Anglican Divines as their authority. That would be the subject of a discussion in itself and perhaps not appropriate here. But the idea of just one Anglican view of Justification just will not stand up to scrutiny IMHO.

[scholasticus]

Dear Keith,

Well, you are 2 consonants away from the coolest name on earth... but anyhow...

Yes, I agree. Nice to see someone else from our side of the Pondus Maximus.

I was actually talking about the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but I suppose it does apply a great deal to English Anglicanism - how about that for a concept?!

I think one factor in the English Anglican issue is that there simply isn't enough "room" - geographically, culturally and historically - for two separate "wings" of the Church of England to coexist for long without re-mingling a bit - more's the joy, since I can safely say that the CofE is one of the most miraculous things I have seen in a long time!

Peace

Keir