Authority and boundaries

28 Thursday May 2020

Tags

sign post (2)

It is sometimes said that if you have to insist on your authority, you don’t have it. We hear much, as we should, of the importance of love. I say, “as we should” because God is love. If His love does not warm our hearts to inspire love then something somewhere has gone very wrong and we may need to find the human equivalent of the “reset” button. But while we may, nay must, for He commands it, love our enemies, lines need to be drawn. While we may love our enemy, we cannot agree with him that the line of conduct he wishes to take is correct if it runs contrary to sound doctrine. We may do our best to reason with him, but love commands the opposite of our approving of any such conduct.

However it might concern us, we cannot deny the individual the freedom to make his or her own decision; but taken to extremes, that is without some degree of reasonableness on both sides, you can end by annihiating all real unity. Any religion which operates on the basis of unlimited pick and mix is a well-being philosophy pretending to be a religious one. Equally, on the other side of the question, an assertion of Church authority can result in the annihilation of the individual – historically, quite literally. Any religion which can only maintain a hold on its adherents by the use of force is a political system pretending to be a religious one, and has nothing to do with Christ and His teaching.

What Christianity has aimed at is a situation in which the authority of the Church nurtures the spiritual judgment of each individual to grow in conformity with God’s will, but in practice this via media has seldom been achieved, and a survey of the current situation suggests that mankind’s tendency to prefer extremes continues to prevail. Even within the Catholic Church there is a range from those who condemn Vatican II and long for the days of Encyclicals which condemned “modernism”, through to those who feel free to reject the idea of miracles and the bodily resurrection. I still recall the shock of a fellow parishioner when he realised that, as he put it, I believed “that stuff in the Creed literally.”

The life of the soul is meant to be nourished by cooperation between external gifts of Grace to which the Sacraments give us access, and the internal action of our faith. The former are not magic charms, neither are they substitutes for our own efforts; faith without works is, after all, in vain. But equally, the idea that our own efforts and our own reason can, by themselves supply what the Sacraments are there to give is equally vain, if not a sign of vanity. Grace works with and on our own faith.

There are boundaries, and one of the functions of a Church is to patrol those boundaries. In an age of relativism this is difficult, not least because some of those whose job it is to police them do not believe in the necessity for their existence. But without them, what remains of bonds of unity?

Render unto Caesar …

01 Wednesday Apr 2020

Posted by John Charmley in Faith

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Church Authority, government, pandemic

Caesar

Christ is clear that in matters which relate to Caesar, Christians are to deliver him his due. It is in the nature of Caesar to demand far more than his due; that is where two millennia of Christians wrestling with the issue comes in. There have always been those who wish to define what is Caesar’s so narrowly that they will yield almost nothing to him; there have also always been those prepared to accommodate themselves with whatever Ceasar wishes to demand, not least in times of crisis.

Many of the early Christian martyrs were men and woman who refused Ceasar when he demanded more than their consciences would allow. To many Romans the idea of not treating Ceasar as a god, or indeed, of treating all gods equally was anathema – akin to treason. For a Christian that was impossible. There was one God. So, whether it was Caesar or, later, Allah, or still later the various manifestations of the State, Christians have died rather than betray Jesus. In the piping days of peace and tranquillity it is easy to both admire the stand they took and to assume one would do the same.

Thus, as Catholic Bishops across the world respond the the Coronavirus pandemic by closing their churches, the temptation to point out that even during the two world wars this was not done is an easy one to which to yeild; that is why it is done so often. But a pandemic is not a bomb. A pandemic spreads from person to person, and as everyone is vulnerable, the paraellel is not with a war but with a time of plague. There we know from history that churches have been closed for the protection of the people.

In the third century St Cyprian’s response to the great pandemic which devastated the Roman world was to emphasis the teaching of Christ – we were to love our neighbour more than ourselves and we were to bring consolation,l comfort and practical help to the suffering. The plague was not a capricious act of malign Fate, in the was the product of a fallen civilisation in revolt against a loving God. The care which Christians took of others marked them out from their fellow citizens, and the example they set helped make our Faith more acceptable to the Romans. The first hospitals in Europe were founded as hygienic places to provide care during times of plague, on the understanding that negligence that spread disease further was, in fact, murder. If we take that last point, we can, I think, see why our Bishops have closed down churches for the duration of the pandemic.

Yes, of course, there will be those who argue that this is over-hyped and that people should behave in what they would call an heroic manner. But there is nothing “heroic” in spreading Covid19. The heroism to which we are called is a smaller example. We are called to deny ourselves the spiritual nourishment of the Eucharist, and of the Church community.

But that does not mean that we are not called to vigilence. Where we hear of those in authority threatening to permanently close churches which do not comply with government guidance, we have a legitimate cause for concern. Closure should last for as long as the medical advice tends in that direction. When the great Lord Action said that “power has a tendency to corrupt, and absolute power has a tendency to corrupt absolutely,” he neglected to add that those invested with a little power tend to abuse it.

There is nothing which can separate us from the love of God. Let us do what Caesar says in this time of trial, but let us be vigilant that, as his his wont, Caesar does not overshoot the mark.

The British New Church Movement

26 Thursday Dec 2013

Posted by Rob in Faith

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

British New Churches, Church Authority, Church Government, Ecclesiology, House Church, mission

Rob

During a previous discussion S: wrote: “However, I see the ‘new church movement’ as missing out a key component of what is means to be church” … “I like your idealist approach – I am somewhat inclined that way myself. Yet I think structure has a role. Those outside of structures will come up with 1001 reasons why they are outside, rather than inside some form of structure of visible church unity”.

Our communication often suffers in that we come from communities tracing their concepts in long histories and see things quite differently. I think I have the general shape and context of what we might call institutional churches relatively clear, while S: is launching towards our charismatic planet to search out new worlds exciting or otherwise? (I’m a Sc-Fi fan).

The observations by S: prompted me to briefly outline the history and structures of various streams of the ‘British New Church Movement’ and its concepts – so here we go.

Origins of the British New Church Movement

The Charismatic movement of the early/mid 1960’s led to the expulsion or exclusion by distancing of many, often unsought, from former generally non-conformist churches. These people met in house churches, leaders emerged and networks/streams with trans-local leaders developed. Alternatively the leadership of a local church accepted the charismatic renewal grew, planted sister churches and attracted a network of churches that associated with them or a gifted teacher/evangelist was asked by a few believers to form a team and lead them in evangelizing and church planting with similar end results. Most of these streams are now international with full time workers and short term missions in many nations.

Sadly some of these movements early leaders were not up to the spiritual challenges; there was the development of what became called ‘the shepherding movement’ with restrictive dictatorial attitudes and in a few cases abuses use of power. The result of which was a quick return to institutionalism and the hierarchical power recently left behind. All streams did not fall into this problem and these matters have generally worked themselves out amongst those who did or the stream in question broke up with churches finding new alliances.

These churches have a high view of the corporate nature of the church. Generally the greater problem in the ‘British New Church Movement’ was this over emphasis on authority and the consequent structures rather that the lack of them.

These churches in some cases bridge divides that evangelicals traditionally preferred left as they were. This resulted from the effects of the charismatic renewal across the denominational spectrum from RC to Salvation Army or Plymouth Brethren.

Local Church

The definition of ‘Local Church’ in many ‘New Church Streams’ can be expressed as “All those in the locality gathered around Christ – whatever their denomination or none”. The visible unity of this church can only be built amongst true disciples through relationships of mutual respect and love. The basis of such relationships is the shared life of Christ rather than any particular denominational ‘light or perceived lack of it by one or the other’. The future hope is to see the visibility of this type of church unity to continue to increase and for churches to be mutually supportive and concerned for fruitfulness in each other’s participation in Christ mission.

Church Leadership

Amongst these ‘British New Church Streams’ there is generally two structures of charismatic team leadership that serve and lead the churches the ‘trans local’ and the ‘local’. Leadership is relational, ideally servant orientated, inspirational, charismatic in the sense its base on proven spiritual gift and calling, it is plural.

Trans Local Church Leadership

Trans local leadership might openly be understood as an apostolic team or function in that manner and carrying a sense of responsibility for the churches established or associating with the team. If I were to use a Latin term and say the UK is in desperate need of a vast number of ‘Missionaries’ to re-establish the Christian faith in darkest Britain few would disagree. However if I were to use the Greek term ‘Apostles’ for these companies that we need the Lord to raise up and send out eyebrows will rise in many quarters.

The apostolic gifting to the church illustrates the first consideration for inspirational/charismatic churches which is that every ministry can only be ordained/commissioned/sent by the Lord Himself. The church simply recognizes and acknowledges them rather than ordains them.

Local Church Leadership

Local congregations will generally have a plurality of elders (Biblically synonymous with overseers or bishops), of which one may be a first among equals but not always recognized as such in an official manner – all local leadership is recognized by the local church and in some cases officially acknowledged by the trans-local leadership such recognition in both cases will be a function of relationship and discernment.

Models of Church Gatherings

Church may have a two or three tier model of gathering

a) i) House churches with responsible individuals and ii) periodic gathering of the whole church or

b) i) House churches, ii) gathering in area congregations, with a main emphasis to organize evangelism into their area and iii) periodic gatherings of the whole church.

Ministry

The church may receive ministry from gifted Ephesians 4:8-12 type servants who may or may not carry responsibility as elders in the church – whether they be home grown leaders or visiting from other churches within the same church stream or from another stream or institutional denomination. A church I was in of this type for 20 yrs frequently received ministry from a charismatic high Anglican Priest and a church my wife and I were instrumental in initiation had the benefit of an evangelical Anglican prison chaplain as a church member following our calling on him the day he moved into our city.

Frequently within the house church setting the ministry is from the body of believers which may also be so at times in larger gatherings.

The Emergent Church and Deconstructionism of the Church

This is another phenomena being advocated – while some meet in house churches their ideas are dissimilar in relation to structure from the movement I have described.

Further Information

‘Robes or Overalls and Servant Leadership by Roger T Forster & Marian Marticek – available at http://www.ichthus.org.uk/’ This small concise booklet provide an understanding of the church leadership of those churches that reject the concept of ecclesiastical ordination.

‘Restoring the Kingdom by Orthodox priest Dr. Andrew Walker’.

Walker was born into a Pentecostal family his book is an examination of the ‘British New Church Movement’.

‘The Normal Christian Church Life by Watchman Nee’ Watchman Nee – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nee To-sheng of Fuzhou 1903 – 1972 initiated local churches throughout China during his thirty years of ministry, founding one of the largest Christian groups in Chinese history. Following the communist revolution Nee was persecuted and imprisoned for his faith and spent the last twenty years of his life in a Chinese labour camp until his death in 1972. The numbers of Christians in underground Chinese churches tracing their faith to the movement is probably in its millions see Watchman Nee and the Little Flock Movement in Maoist China.

Nee’s numerous books were generally produces from lecture notes and transcribed messages to his students. Many English titles resulted from translations by Angus Kinnear a member of Ichthus Christian Fellowship London. Nee met T. Austin-Sparks in the 1930’s at the church later attended by Roger Forster the founder of the Ichthus movement with which I am associated http://www.ichthus.org.uk/, Austin Sparks was still in ministry and so influenced both Nee and Forster. ‘The Normal Christian Church Life’ presents a view of ecclesiology held by many in the ‘British New Church Movement’.