The Marks of the Church

While I would much rather confine my thoughts to The Joy of the Gospel, a work that is brilliantly thought out and abounds with the Grace of God in the teachings of Jesus the Christ, I feel compelled to speak to the Rausch’s chapter on the marks of the church, specifically his section on ecclesiological types (147).  To my surprise I found that he mentioned the Restorationist and more importantly, one of the founders of The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Alexander Campbell.

While his statement that Restoration Movement “places more emphasis on pneumatology and restoring the apostolic Church than on historical continuity” (Rausch 148) is correct, I felt that he ignored the Disciples of Christ (DOC) Church in his explanation of restorationist.  My post then will be a short apologetic for the ecclesiology of DOC Church as a denomination.  So please bear with me.

The restoration movement began with what is known as the revival at Cane Ridge in August of 1801.  If you have an attention span of six minutes then I suggest you watch the video clip.    

While this revival was extremely charismatic in nature, it was the start of movement that would have at its core the idea that all churches should be united together.  I won’t bother you with restorationist history other than to say that its founder’s; Barton Stone, Thomas Campbell, and his son Alexander Campbell  believed in the small-c, catholic Church, the priesthood of all believers.  Campbell Stone Movement  That’s why as Disciples of Christ we have always had as a part of our ecclesiology the unity of all Christian Churches.  Furthermore, there are some Disciples theologians that believe that the Holy Catholic Church should be seen as “papa” church, while not connected in full-communion, but rather related in familiar terms to the long history of the Catholic Church and its traditions. 

Ecumenicalism is in our DNA.  “The unity of Christians is not simply one item on a list of ecclesiastical priorities; it is the heart of the gospel, to be pursued and proclaimed with passion.  Barton Stone: ‘If we oppose the union of believers, we oppose directly the will of God, the prayer of Jesus, the spirit of piety, and the salvation of the world’” (Kinnamon & Linn 67).  As a result, “Disciples have not seen our movement as a permanent part of the ecclesial landscape.  Rather, in the words of a prominent Disciples pastor from the mid-twentieth century, ‘we are denomination that hopes to die’” (Kinnamon & Linn 68).  Striving for unity: Catholic Church dialogue with Disciples of Christ

Concerning the Disciples of Christ ecclesiology our restorationist heritage informs our conscious that the way to a true catholic church is to go back to the very beginning, to the New Testament era found in the book of Acts, the attested to Pauline letters, and along with the Pastorals.  There we find what we believe to be the “essential” signs of the church expressed by Martin Luther to be “baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the preached word of God” (131).

Finally, as Disciple’s we do have a Christological understanding of the church, we do believe in a visible and invisible catholicity, we do believe in a church that was once originally undivided, and our understanding of the apostolic church is tied to Calvin’s belief that “apostolic succession [is to be understood] in terms of succession in apostolic faith and life” (Rausch 143).  I’ve gone on long enough.  Peace to you all in the name of Jesus the Christ, the One who ties us all together as one body, one vine with many branches.

Rausch, Thomas P. Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2005. Print.

Kinnamon, Michael, and Jan Linn. Disciples: Reclaiming Our Identity, Reforming Our Practice. St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice, 2009. Print.

Judith Vollbrecht, RSCJ

Church, Sacraments, and Liturgy

Blogpost,  Feb 3, 2015

Ecclesiology and Anthropology

I found the readings for this week fascinating.  I loved the way Thomas Rausch (87-130) explained the different currents that fed into Christian ecclesiology from the time of Jesus up to the present.  The constant tension that was noted between structure and community reminds me of a theme that interested me very much in graduate school.  I hope you don’t mind if I play with this a little!

Victor Turner, in The Ritual Process, (94-95) speaks of liminality as the transitional period in an initiation rite when one has  been separated from one’s previous status, but has not been integrated into a new one (Turner 94-5).   It is compared to death or being in the womb.  Liminal beings have no property or insignia of rank or role that would distinguish them from one another.  “It is as though they are being reduced to a uniform condition to be fashioned anew and endowed with additional powers to enable them to cope with their new station in life.” 

The three years the Twelve walked with Jesus were their initiation rite.  They were a relatively unstructured and undifferentiated group who had left everything behind, absorbing and living Jesus’ teaching, so that when they “left the womb” at Jesus’ death, they became a new creation (2Cor 5:17). 

After Jesus’ resurrection, the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples “to enable them to cope with their new station in life.”  Having left their former lives behind, they joyfully continued living and sharing the News of God’s Reign.

A society of permanent liminality Turner calls “communitas.”   It is a community which is homogeneous, unstructured, and non-exclusive. (132)  It cannot be maintained indefinitely.  Why not?  Turner sees social life as successive experiences of “communitas and structure, homogeneity and differentiation, equality and inequality.”  These opposites need each other. (97) 

Predictably, as it grew larger and more diverse, the fledgling Jesus Movement developed structures.  To remain true to Jesus’ teachings, it needed leaders.  It looked to those whom Jesus had chosen and sent – Peter and the Twelve, and Paul. 

Through the centuries, Church structures became more rigid, and Spirit-led communitas more restricted.  There were reform movements, but increasing legalism made egalitarian community very difficult.  Animosity between Catholic and Protestant churches grew.

Vatican Council II opened the door by proclaiming the priesthood and equality of all the People of God, the servant role of the pope, bishops and clergy, and openness to other churches (LG 9,10,15,27,28,31). 

I believe that both communitas and structure, Scripture and Tradition, are needed in the Church.  The tension between them is healthy, and one cannot be allowed to quench the other.  Pope Francis is showing us how to hold them both at once, but not too tightly.

The women I meet each week in the prison are taking advantage of their liminal situation there to build communitas as an ecumenical group of Christ-seekers.  Alleluia!

 Abbott, Walter M., SJ, Ed.   Documents of Vatican II.  “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.”  America                 Press.  1966.  Print. 

Rausch, Thomas P.  Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium.  Collegeville: Liturgical Press.  2005.  Print.

Turner, Victor W.  The Ritual Process:  Structure and Anti-Structure.  Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.  1969.                           Print. 

The Faith We Affirm 

A Response to Thomas P. Rausch's Scripture Principle

 

The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) or DOC have had from our very beginnings a belief that individuals are free to interpret scripture as long as it is done in community.  This of course is in conflict with the magisterium or “teaching office.”  To claim that the scripture principle is flawed is not entirely inaccurate, but to claim that Christians need a magisterium to help them to make sense of the scriptures is in my opinion slightly flawed as well.

For Rausch to claim that there have been divisions in the protestant church over the interpretation of scripture is true, but his portrayal was not entirely accurate in my opinion in his articulation of there being a “crisis of the scriptural principle” (125-126).  There may be divisions between “literalist” and those of us who believe biblical scholarship has advanced to a point where we have free access to different exegetical points of view that allow us to engage scripture from perspectives that go beyond mere simple charismatic interpretation.   

We believe that hermeneutics and more importantly sound exegesis allow us to approach scripture from a theologically firm footing.  In my opinion those of us who rely on biblical scholarship are in a position to be free from a consortium that frames the discussion for us opposed to being allowed the freedom to use the tools of exegesis that allow us to approach scripture with what Ronald Osborn, a noted DOC scholar wrote in The Faith We Affirm, with a “reverent intelligence.”

As a member of the DOC, the faith we affirm is biblical, for within the universal church we receive the light of the scriptures.  However, the faith we affirm is more than that.  It’s a faith that is reasonable; it thinks the Bible through with common sense.  It’s a faith that is empirical; it reads the Bible in light of the knowledge that comes to use through new discoveries, through advances in physics, medicine, psychology, anthropology, and all of the sciences.  It’s a faith that is pragmatic; it tests in action the teaching of scripture and all religious notions.  And it’s a faith that is ecumenical; the Disciples mind seeks biblical understanding in the light of the common mind of the whole church. 

It means that the Bible conveys the knowledge of God.  The church, from its earliest days, has called the Bible the Word of God.  Through its writings God speaks to us.  Not that God gives us orders through these ancient texts, but that the same God who confronted the people of Israel and the early church long ago now confront us as we contemplate their story.  To understand God and the shape of the Christian life, we go to the Bible for light. 

Where do you stand?  Does a church rich in being exposed to the scriptures, free from oversight, but rich in Biblical scholarship allow for a greater awareness of what the scriptures say or does having a learned bodied of “officials” give light to the scriptures or does that body take away from one’s ability to search the scriptures freely?

    

I appreciate everyone’s insights to the readings from Rausch. Most of you seemed to have pondered who has the authority in the Church; I however, wondered what should go through ones mind when deciding if he or she should take an authoritative role in the Church and what that role should be.

Rausch notes that in the second and third centuries, the clergy “were not yet distinguished from others in the community, either by dress or special privileges” (102). They were ordinary citizens with leadership roles in the Church. It was not until Constantine’s reign in 313 C.E. and later that the authority (clergy) of the church began to wear distinctive clothing and had ornate vestments. To be a member of the clergy today, however, one is distinguishing himself as a sacramental leader in the Church.

In my own vocational discernment, I joined the Jesuit Novitiate (what better way to decide?) While thrown into silence for a 30-day silent retreat, I began to imagine myself as a Jesuit priest. I would prayerfully daydream about my daily life. I distinctly remember imagining having a family party after my ordination, saying my first mass, and celebrating a marriage for a friend. God quickly pointed out to me that my imaginative prayers were all about one-time celebrations. I did not find myself joyfully celebrating the mass with my congregation, listening to confessions of parishioners, or anointing the sick members of the community. Would I really enjoy the daily life of a priest? Perhaps I was not called to be a priest! I immediately informed my novice master and spiritual director that I may be called to be a Jesuit brother.

In a practical sense, by providing clergy with a special garb, they are identifying themselves as sacerdotal ministers. It is not an easy calling, but one that is needed to continue the leadership first handed to the apostles.

On a side note, after 18 months of discernment in the novitiate, I realized God was not calling me to be a Jesuit at all; however, I have no doubt that God wanted me to spend that time with the Jesuits so that I could figure out that I was called to married life.

Rausch, Thomas P. Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium.     

Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2005. Print.

Touching Through Barriers....

            I just left this month's talk for First Tuesdays: Spirituality in the City. The speaker today was Dr. Martha Orphe. She made a very important point. As good as it is to have compassion and sympathy for those in difficult situations and those on the wrong end of crime and violence in cities like New Orleans, it is only when you “feel their pain” that you really can understand what their lives are really like. It means you have to get close enough to the realities of tough situations to feel the real struggles. It is then that sympathy becomes empathy.  Although Pope Francis said this to priests in his 2013 Chrism mass, it is something for all of us. We need to be “shepherds living with ‘the smell of the sheep’, shepherds in the midst of their flock”

Pastor at the First Street Peck Wesley United Methodist Church in Central City Dr. Orphe told us about a recent shooting where a teenager was killed. Her point was that you have to feel the horror and grief, in this case over a senseless loss of life. You have to understand the conflict between horror, the kind of anger that wants retribution, and the struggle to answer it with faith. Only in reaching for faith while trying to act in forgiveness and mercy can a cycle of violence be broken.  

To me this is the art of Pope Francis.  He reaches out and touches people where they are. Oddly enough I see this reflected in Vatican II documents. To me what is revolutionary about the Council is that it broke down some of the barriers that had built up in the church. “it is much more the necessary that priests, under the leadership of the bishops and the Supreme Pontiff wipe out every kind of seperateness” (Lumen Gentium 28). Not only was the church monarchical at the time, its clergy was treated, and sometimes expected to be treated as royalty.  Yet the gathered bishops wrote that they are to use “their authority and sacred power…remembering that he is greater should become lesser and he who is chief become as servant (LG 27) . They echoed the words of Jesus to his disciples in (Luke 22:26, Matthew 20:26).

So we all need to be willing to smell like sheep, reach out and touch, and shed tears. Willing  to help carry the cross………………..

Pope Francis Chrism Mass Homily 2013

 Please join us for  First Tuesdays: Spirituality in the City

Image: http://images.christianpost.com/full/68262/pope-francis-wears-a-sheep.jpg

 

The Structure of the Church

Church, Sacraments and Liturgy

February 2, 2015

Lumen Gentium 3, 4, 6

     Understanding the history of the Roman Catholic Church, from Vatican I to Vatican II, in particular, Lumen Gentium provides an image of amazing growth and risk taking by a formidable world institution. The depth of the document establishes its richness while still being unfolded in the Church and world over 50 years later. The largest and slowest change I have witnessed is the style or language of the Church that communicates inspiring a change in one’s behavior or a conversion to choose living the Way of Christ, rather than ordering behavior and consequential punishment, as in the Canons of Vatican I. It seems to have taken a generation or two before clergy began shaping their homilies to mirror the invitation of Jesus to follow Him, and to cease using language of force to get the flock in line. In the confusion and/or rejection of Vatican II and/or the Catholic Church, many members and their children fell away from the Church. Unfortunately, one or two generations of young laity “in formation” has missed hearing of the tenderness of God. It will take much work for all to re-do the formation of those educated by pre-Vatican II Church representatives and parents and their children who never received the primary formation grounded in invitation, but, rather, “my way or the highway.” The open invitation to all to God’s plan for humanity issues hope for those who may change their self-centered ways and choose a mature growth for human flourishing based on graciousness and gratuitousness when God is their priority.

      The document beautifully invites all the faithful to live as examples to all human beings of being fully human and alive as designed to be so by God. In doing so, the faithful share in the prophetic office that “man is made for communion with Holiness itself....”All the faithful support and “share in the Church’s mission to the world” (Rausch, Towards, 33). The Church and the world are meeting each other at a time when so many, though not all, advocate for unity in diversity rather than uniformity. Like all groups, the different Church communities take on a characteristically Catholic aspect that is shaped by its individual members that make up their community. The slightly different make-up of each community yields different chrisms and their respective uses and emphasis in a diversity of ways all for the benefit of the whole Church. May those who have inspired us to walk with Christ, encourage us to inspire others to share the journey. I hope to foster to my family, friends and those who I encounter for even a short time a sense of being a part of a wonderful diversity of people who choose to act in love and tenderness worthy of my humanity from God.