How many ecclesiologies in the NT?
Submitted by tmoritz on 21 May, 2004 - 05:36.
|
Tom Wright’s discussion of both second temple Judaism and the NT shows how Jesus subverted the centralised understanding of God’s people in Israel at the time. Though Tom never says it like this, the NT insists that God’s people after the Christ event is thoroughly decentralised. The NT’s primary interest is not in one global church, but in scattered local churches. Sacred spaces and sacred times are no more. Churches benefit from the outpoured Spirit of God and operate with all believers being de facto ‘priests’. No lording it over each other and no hierarchies, just mutual exhortation (Col 3:16). No pilgrimages to a holy city and no rebuilt temples, just household based lifestyle churches based on exclusively local and plural leadership. This makes sense, for the number one spot is taken by the exalted Christ and cannot be double booked. Also, we should expect such radical christocentric redefinitions of God’s people compared to the Mosaic framework, for Christ has created a renewed humanity on the cross (Eph 2:15) - which is embodied in the church(es). Pre-Christians must be able to watch our ‘church behaviour’ (=lifestyle) and conclude that this must be the new humanity God has in mind for his good creation. Can our churches stand up to this kind of theological scrutiny? Here is my question, and I would LOVE for us to discuss this in some depth (and to hear Tom’s take on it): Given the starkly decentralised redefinition of God;s people in the NT (as brought about by the cross), how can we possibly avoid the conclusion that, in the light of the Christ event, christendom-style denominationalism and priestly hierarchies are deeply anachronistic - and have been for 1900 years? Aren’t the emerging churches our only real hope for the kind of ecclesiological renewal that makes biblical-theological sense?
|
tags:
the place of ordained ministry
I agree with a lot of the post above, but am not sure about the comments on leadership. The place of ordained ministry in emerging church is something that needs some thought. Somehow I believe there is still a necessary and important place for ordained ministry, but believe it will proabably act and operate differently in the emerging church.
I would be interested on Tom Wright’s thoughts as a bishop in the church (someone who is part of a hierarchy?) and what about the NT stuff that begins to build a leadership structure into church life (pastoral epistles)? actually, what are Tom Wright’s thoughts in general on emerging church - does he see a break with traditional forms of church? He has written (I believe) about the CofE remaining the CofE (i.e. established). How does he see the future of the church, a return to smaller churches like the NT or what?
autonomy v. heirarchy?
My take on the above is that N.T. leadership was not exclusively local and plural (e.g. Paul, Peter, etc… - if they are unique, then how about Apollos, Priscilla & Aquila, etc…), and ordination is not much of a N.T. concept. Therefore, we need some alternative approaches. The autonomous church (“exclusively local and plural leadership”) seems to be as much a modern concept as the autonomous individual. Trans-local links seem important to the health of the church overall.
One thing that I have found valuable is having links with other churches that are not like mine. This challenges my concept of church and enriches it. There seems to be a flexibility about church and church leadership in the N.T. that we should perhaps accept, even if our situation means that we adopt a particular style / model (or if we have a preference for a particular style / model).
I think a fundamental scrutiny of what we are about is that of those who are not yet Christians - can it be said of us “see how they love one another” as was said of the early church?
Meric
p.s. although this conference is in the UK context, perhaps we ought to think about how we rich Christians relate to our poorer brothers and sisters elsewhere on the planet?
Are there really numerous NT ecclesiologies
Thanks andyg and meric. The point you make about plurality of ecclesial models in the NT clearly reflects the majority position. But what is the actual evidence? Aren’t the people you mention (Peter, Paul etc.) all apostles (some in the wider sense introduced by Paul - itself an interesting pointer towards decentralization), rather than church leaders? In other words, aren’t they transitional guardians of the Jesus heritage, as well as facilitators in the monumental early Christian journey from centralization (pre-Christ event) to de-centralization (post-cross/Pentecost)? By de-centralization I mean such things as mission, but also the christocentric re-definition of God’s people and leadership. Part of the apostles’ facilitating involved the appointment of local leaders by each church (Acts 14, Pastorals etc.) - then they got out. So do Timothy and Titus having helped in just the same way. If we take the apostles themselves seriously, therefore, I don’t think we should use them as models of ‘senior pastors’, but instead as deconstructors of clergy/laity distinctions. Are there any individual church leaders in the NT? I’m not convinced. But I’m very willing to look at the evidence. It seems to me that the only way we can see the apostles (in the narrow Lukan sense or the wider Pauline sense) as church leaders - even if only transitionally - is if we put the ecclesiological focus firmly on the ‘universal church’, rather than the local one. And I just don’t see that in the NT, not even in Ephesians (with its body of Christ language as a glossing of competing Artemis claims). Anyway, thanks for your input. I’m very interested in your view points on this. I should stress that I’m not trying to be a primitivist or reconstructionist here. My point is simply this: How can we do church(es) today in ways that actually account theologically for the Christ-event? How can we do church in ways that actually advertise to the world the kind of humanity God had in mind in the first place? Personally I don’t think that clergy/laity distinctions, regional leadership bodies and denominationalism are part of that.
the one v the many
I am not sure that “clergy/laity distinctions, regional leadership bodies and denominationalism” are the issue. Plurality seems to be a key idea (whether in local leadership or in expression of church). I guess that the way we express church is to some degree context dependent, with the proviso that it also “fits” with what the bible sets as boundaries (not sure boundaries is the right word, perhaps parameters is better?!). There is a certain fluidity here.
The point about the apostles is that they provided a relationally based trans-local link. The local church did not operate in isolation (e.g. Paul’s collection for the poor in Jerusalem - which might map onto financial help from rich suburbia to inner city, or western to third world, in terms of church-to-church interaction today). I think that one of the most powerful expressions of what Jesus is all about is that of “doing good to all, especially to those of the household of faith.” The challenge of having “all things in common” always hits home to me. This might be one aspect of our church lifestyle (mentioned in the original post) that might “speak” to others. It does demand a sacrificial commitment to one another, which is a price that I (for one) am not sure I am ready to pay.
How that lifestyle is expressed (ecclesiologically) is variable perhaps?
further thoughts on ordained ministry and the emerging church
This discussion gets me thinking about whether emerging church is something separate from the rest of the church - are they new churches - or is emerging from within anglicanism, baptists, methodism, etc, etc. If it is the latter, issues of ordained ministry must surely be something that needs to be addressed. I like the fact that in the traditional denominations our leaders are ordained - they have received training, their call to ministry has been recognised locally, regionally and nationally. What I want to see is their training being shaped for the new situation, so they can emerging church leaders. I worry that otherwise leaders are recognised because they have the most charisma or that there is more likelihood of leadership being abused - I’m aware that this can occur in ordained ministry as well, but there are at least (meant to be) more checks made. Apologies if I’m going off track, but its something I’m not clear what the emerging church wants to say, but I think needs to face.