+Ramsey and the Evangelical Place of the Bishop
May 28, 2011
I’ve been doing some work in +Arthur Michael Ramsey’s neglected The Gospel and the Catholic Church, specifically to his elucidation of the evangelical necessity of the bishop. For Ramsey, the absolute foundation of the Church lies only in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, but we participate in these historical events ever anew, especially in the sacraments. (He is here, it should be noted, decades ahead of contemporary biblical scholarship that sees participation as one of the fundamental realities of Christian life, as in the work of Michael Gorman and Douglas Campbell.)
Nevertheless, following Ephesians, Ramsey traces the place and function of the apostles in the New Testament where most clearly they are understood as the foundational authorities of the Church. He sees that St. Paul “has an office of ruling and integrating” and the apostles were “a ministry, restricted in numbers and of definite authority, not attached to local churches but controlling local churches on behalf of the general church.” This “rootless” authority is an embodiment of the concrete unity given to the Church in the passionate flesh of Jesus, who himself gathered and commissioned the apostles. They represent to congregations all the other congregations and act for and over all of them; thus by virtue of their office they enact the unity given in the Spirit and the Passion.
The question he then asks is this: Does the “more developed” episcopal theory of St. Ignatius fall in line with this?
“The [episcopal] ministry is important as linking the Christians with the historic events of Jesus Christ, since Christian experience is not a spirituality unrelated to history, but bears witness to its derivation from Jesus in the flesh…Thus the Church is one Body; its members glorify not themselves and their experiences, but the one historic Christ. And its worship is one; the Eucharist is not the act of any local group, but of the one Body, represented by its organ of unity in any place. Hence the Eucharist is to be celebrated only by the bishop [and those authorized by the bishop].”
His answer is yes, the bishop “succeeds” the apostles in function; the primary difference is now that the bishop is local, but as Florovsky says in Sobornost, “in its Bishop every single church transcends its own limits and comes into contact with and merges into other churches, not in the order of brotherly love and remembrance alone, but in the unity of mysterious and gracious life.” So even this “localism” only has significance via the one Gospel, the one life of the Spirit, and so is also universal, a token of the unity that does not depend on the episcopacy but is expressed through it.
So Ramsey can go so far as to say that “the Episcopate is of the esse of the universal Church,” but only inasmuch as it expresses the unity of that one life given first in the flesh of Jesus and then in the Spirit through baptism – It does not constitute the Church. He would no doubt agree with Bulgakov, “First Church, then hierarchy.”
Ecumenism and the Problem of Theological Language
November 18, 2010
There is a language barrier in Christianity, and it has always existed. An anthropologist, I am not, so I will not attempt to explicate all of the legitimate reasons cultural and language barriers exist. However, all of those innnocuous reasons seem to reveal the insidious nature of division in the Church. In my estimation, the theological language barrier exists in the Church, because exclusion exists in the Church. Call it what you want, but when a Protestant refuses to allow a Catholic to explain their position in their own terms (…or a Catholic an Orthodox, or and Orthodox a Protestant, etc., et al), because the Protestant some how already knows the answer, then such interaction is no longer about mutual understanding, constructive criticism, or even healthy disagreement – it is about exclusion. What place has exclusion in the body of Christ? If there is no male or female, no Jew or Gentile, no master or slave in the body of Christ, how can there be actual division?
Which is an important point, I think. If the Church is Christ’s, and he transforms us into a unified body, then there can be no actual division in the actual Church – it is a spiritual law. So, our problem becomes even more exclusive in nature. If there is division, it is either only perceived division or those groups that are divided are not the actual Church. I suppose the larger issue then becomes clear, if Christ is Lord of the Church (read here, “if Christ is your Lord”), then it will conform to his image and his purpose; she is (gasp) predestined to it. So, by allowing exclusion to take place through the vagueness that occurs in interdisciplinary theological discourse, we are flaunting our unwillingness to conform – we are resisting his Lordship. Consequently, the Spiritual reality is that Christ’s Church is unified, but we seem to be slow on the uptake.
How, precisely, does this reduce to an issue with language? Perhaps, an example will be useful. In a sacramental sense, the Eucharist, Baptism, Marriage, et al are seen as conduits of grace in the lives of Christians. Ask a Catholic to explain this, and she will most likely give you a rendition of the RC’s teaching that Christ’s work on the cross requires a response in faith from human beings, so that the efficacy of grace can be experienced. Ask a Protestant to explain this, and he will most likely give you a rendition of the Protestant assertion that an attempt to participate in God’s work of grace actually removes its efficacy; and an attempt to do so constitutes a theological system by which humanity saves itself through empty rituals of righteousness. If you ever want to be “that guy” at a party just bring this issue up, then sit back and enjoy the show. Wherein lies the real issue? Is it really a difference between soteriological systems? Has one side so grossly misunderstood the clear message of the Gospel? Has anyone on either side bothered to ask what the other means when they use the term “Grace”? This is just one example, and it may be a poor one at that.
Are there other issues hindering the work of ecumenism? Absolutely. However, I have been left puzzling for the last several years whether any of those would be as prominent, if we would lay down our weapons and work toward a common vocabulary. Let’s be honest, here – the Orthodox are not going to accept openly homosexual priests any time soon, the Catholics are not going to ordain women any time soon, the Protestants are not going to participate in the Sacraments any time soon. However, how much closer would we be, if each acknowledged the legitimacy of the others’ Christian walk? Are the various Christian sects even able to recognize the doctrinal orthodoxy inherent in the others, or has the vocabulary become too much of a barrier? I recognize that this may only be loosley associated with exclusion as a concept, but language is the origin of behavior. If I reject certain theological language as being heretical, I cannot disassociate that language from the person sitting in the pew. If I do not prefer the language that they use to express their faith, then how will I be able to live out unity with their Christian witness? If I think you teach heresy, by proxy, you are a heretic. The logic is simple, but few are willing to openly acknowledge it.
Strange Encounters of the Pentecostal Kind
July 3, 2010
So long as one is drudging themselves through the process of acquiring basic linguistic skills, fantasizing about future research projects can provide the necessary motivation to continue to drudge. I already have a running list of books and articles that I’m “going” to write and the other day I posted one of my ideas on Twitter and Facebook,
“Of Pilgrimage and Handkerchiefs: The Implicit Sacramental Ontology of Classical Pentecostalism”
Reactions hovered around amazement at my astute imagination. But our long time reader George P Wood asked the perennial question: “How does this move the missional ball down the Kingdom field?”
The funny thing is that I feel this has huge implications for missions and ecumenism. I realized that it maybe was time for me to clarify a bit more why I wish to continue to engage Pentecostalism and perhaps even hint at some of my own hopes future academic work. So here are a few of my persistent thoughts on Pentecostalism and what I hope to do about them.. I am more than aware that I might ‘accomplish’ little of this but I figure it’s more fun at least to plan big and trim as the situations require than stew in perpetual uncertainty like a fourth year sophmore who has changed majors six times.
For the sake of clarity I always attempt to differentiate between “Pentecostals” and “Charismatics” even if the difference is blurred. Consider it heuristic. Charismatics are those in Mainline, Catholic and other historic churches who experience(d) and promote(d) the “charismatic gifts and experiences” (thought of more narrowly as the type normally associated with “Pentecostals”) and Pentecostals are those Protestants who look to various ‘revivals’ which happened roughly a century ago for their roots. They are also generally differentiated by idiosynchratic eschtologies.
- It seems clear based on the unique rise and spread of Pentecostals that it is a work of the Spirit. If it is, then it is incumbent on the whole Church to ‘get on board’ with it, though with discernment. This is really just another way of saying that the charismatic gifts of the Spirit are for the whole Church.
- So I hope to work ecumenically with Pentecostals and encourage the use of the charismatic gifts in the wider Church.
- This engagement is hindered by several things:
- Pentecostals have historically been skeptical of ecumenism. They have been especially hostile to Catholics and Mainline Christians and have tended to feed this with an etiological narrative that sees in intellectualism and liberalism (among other things) a “fall” from the Spirit. So the “start” of Pentecostalism is seen as Gods judgment that the rest of the Church has failed and so is better ignored and left behind than looked to as partners and teachers. This has also borne fruit as anti-intellectualism, anti-institutionalism and anti-tradition.
- So part of what I want to do is demonstrate how under the surface of Pentecostal experience and practice there is a substantive overlap with Catholic Christian theology, experience and practice. By doing this I can help prepare the ground for fruitful dialogue between pentecostal and other churches as well as for cooperation in mission.
- On the other hand, despite initial flowering in various charismatic renewals, other churches still often remain skeptical of pentecostalism on the grounds that it is anti-intellectual, anti-institutional and anti-traditional and just plain ‘weird.’ So by speaking the historic theological language of the Church, I hope to show how the whole Church needs to be renewed by the Charismatic work of the Spirit.
- Additionally I’d like to explore the future of anglo-catholicism and argue that only a charismatic anglo-catholicism can de-clericalize the movement and renew a focus on missions and the sacraments.
- I’d also be interested in exploring the historic three-fold ministerial order, and ‘laws of ecclesiastical polity’ in general, with reference to the charismatic gifts.
- Similarly I’d like to look into the charismatic theology of the Eastern Orthodox because I’ve often found that their theology of the Spirit connects brilliantly with Pentecostal experience.
- I’ve got a million more of these.
- Another minor premise of mine that is rather disconnected to the points I’ve already made is that Pentecostals have done us all a disservice by selling their soul to buy street cred with Evangelicals. So even now Pentecostals need a Charismatic renewal! Especially with respect to how they read Scripture.
A basic underlying premise of all this is that Pentecostals are right in certain things and can enhance and be part of a larger renewing work of the Spirit who is reconciling all things to Christ, but in many things she is young and wrong and needs the whole Church to teach her.
Joseph Ratzinger in Communio: Vol I, The Unity of the Church
Eerdmans - 978-0-8028
Get it Here
My thanks to Eerdmans for the review copy!
Before he became Pope Benedict the XVI, he was Joseph Ratzinger; what is not known by all is that he has been one of the greatest Roman Catholic theologians of the post Vatican II era. It is unfortunate, much like the venerable Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, that his time in a significant See has been deeply controversial, marred as it has been by many unfortunate and very public happenings. Indeed, his actions as Pope have often confused and frustrated me.
But I have come to know much more about Pope Benedict on account on the first of what aims to be a three volume collection of essays put out by then Joseph Ratzinger in the massively influential journal Communio. Published by Eerdmans, these are part of a larger series dealing with the “Ressourcement” thinkers within Roman Catholicism. This certainly solidifies Eerdmans as a premier ecumenical publisher and their work in this series is to be greatly appreciated.
This first volume of essays float around the topic of “The Unity of the Church.” The future volumes will deal roughly with “Anthropology” and “Theological Renewal.” Many of these essays are previously untranslated and I must point out how much I enjoyed these translations. Oftentimes I’ve found translations of German theology to sound rough and rude; these on the other hand maintain a warm and learned tone throughout. The essays are all thoughtful, purposeful, and academically serious but none are abstract and could be read by most any thoughtful Christian. This quality, along with the relative brevity of the essays themselves, make for very fast reading, which gave me a sense of accomplishment and allowed me to finish the book quite quickly.
What was also rewarding was that some of my own fears with respect to ecumenical dialogue were put to rest by learning that Pope Benedict has spent time thinking about topics that I’ve wondered whether they are considered at such a high level of authority within Roman Catholicism. For instance he considers in “What Unites and Divides Denominations? Ecumenical Reflections” that it may just be the nitpicking insanity of theologians and bishops arguing about angels and pin heads that keeps us apart; a conclusion that he does not feel is sound; or also, in his essay on the ecclesiology of Vatican II, he explores several ways of seeing the Church; as Mystical Body; as Eucharistic body; as related to the collegiality of bishops; and as the People of God. This resists some who claim that the “body of Christ” vision is a single minded and ideological ecclesiology within Roman Catholicism.
There are many topics covered in this volume, from relations with Jews, discussions on Luther’s theology to an excellent essay about the theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar. Much like the sympathetic and concise readings of Barth and de Lubac by Balthasar himself, when Ratzinger discusses his friend Balthasar one feels like they are let in on a fireside conversation between scholars; a treat to be sure. Ratzinger looks into liturgy and sacred music, justice and religion, economics and the Church and much besides.
In my opinion one thing that the book obviously needs is an index but otherwise I greatly enjoyed this, I look forward to the future volumes, and I highly recommend it for the edification of a divided Church.
A recent internet acquaintance of mine has some opinions of his own as to how “theologically open” a seminary or Christian university ought to be. Everything sounds good on the surface of his post but I must admit that I disagree with almost all of it.
There seems to be undergirding the entire post a vision of the Church or “Christianity” as a unified body. Now on a dogmatic, especially a pneumatological level, this is true in some sense (this would of course be contested by the Eastern and Roman Catholic Churches) but in our lived lives it is quite simply false: We are divided by a myriad of issues from confessions to political bodies – (I am here endorsing wholeheartedly Ephraim Radner’s understanding of Christian division).
Thus it is difficult to conceive in any meaningful sense what a “merely” “Christian” seminary or university would look like. The Nicene Creed can function as a solid enough base to flesh out a basic confessional unity in most Christian contexts but when considering seminary especially, it becomes far more complicated as to whether or not such a base is truly sufficient to serve the needs of our unique churches. What hath Geneva to do with Canterbury?
The complex Christian cocktail that has resulted from the “Ecumenical Movement” as well as the utter failure of western protestantism to sustain anything like a distinct Christian confessional unity becomes clear in conversations like this. This confusion has several strains currently expressing themselves in our churches, I’ll mention four: 1) Most evangelical don’t have much in the way of any theological identity. They don’t know or recite the creeds, they don’t catechize and they don’t like homosexuals. So long as they sing modern worship choruses and preach 45 minute sermons they feel that they get along fine. 2) Many older churches such as the Mainline still maintain a sense of their historic identity but there is a significant toleration of theological diversity such that there is a widely acknowledged reality of the dissolution of a coherent evangel. 3) Also within the Mainline but also in many Emergent and certain evangelical churches there is a repudiation of confessional unity and a glorification of diversity. 4) There are the hold-the-line or buckle-down-and-fight groups.
I admit this is reductive but on a generic level I think it holds. Within churches we are bound to find any of several of these so I don’t pretend that they are watertight between groups.
I am of the opinion that theological identity is essential to evangelism, discipleship and unity. It follows, as I’ve mentioned before, that I think you should teach what you believe. This of course sounds ridiculous coming from an Episcopalian 
Now… All this and yet I agree that closing off creative and inquisitive theology can be utterly destructive. Honestly, at this point, I’m absolutely clueless as to how to hold these two things together in a balance, historic theological identity and faithful theological response. Or rather I have an idea of how it can work in churches structured according to historic catholic order but no idea how it can work between churches. Whatever the case, Methodists should pump out Methodist pastors and Lutherans Lutherans, anything else just creates a muddle.
The Judgement of Pentecost(als)
February 25, 2010
I’ve been known for periodically maligning “Evangelicalism” and even “Pentecostalism” in various blog posts. But, as I feel quite strongly about a potential future in Anglican/Orthodox and Anglican/Pentecostal work, I am far from having a uniformly small opinion of Pentecostals. Indeed, I think it would be rather blind not to believe that, despite certain evil manifestations (“Health & Wealth” or various Trinitarian heresy), God has indeed given the Church a “wind” from the Spirit.
So I wanted to make mention of a few things that Pentecostals have to teach us, keeping in mind that I attempt to use “Pentecostal” in such a way as to describe Pentecostalism understood through historical churches rather than as anybody who expresses Charismatic gifts. Always remember that Charismatic Christians of various denominations from Catholics to Anglicans are growing along with Pentecostals (which leads me to believe that Charismatization need not accompany bad eschatology, but I digress)
- I am not an Evangelist, or at least I’d make a poor one and I’ve always been uncomfortable with it. But churches that grow are churches that evangelize and/or send missionaries. With the globalization of Christianity it is to be preferred that evangelism be done by the local church rather than by us Westerners, but the huge priority of Mission (almost never connected to lame trendy words like “Missional”) in Pentecostalism is a judgement on those Churches who feel no need to evangelize, or worse, find such a thing intolerable or unnecessary.
- Pentecostals were post-critical before it was cool or justified epistemologically. It forces us to attend to the Texts instead of “spiritualizing” bits of the NT which grate against rationalist nerves.
- Pentecostals aren’t afraid to go all Amos 5 on our liturgical asses
- Prayers for healing and manifestations of the “charismatic” gifts are something that all churches should practice (don’t choke the Holy Spirit)
- Pentecostals don’t neglect “the laity”
- Pentecostals have played a significant role in reminding us that God is Trinity – “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver or Life, who proceeds from the Father (and the …?), with the Father and the Son s/he is worshipped and glorified.”
- Pentecostals are unafraid of not just “helping the poor” but “being the poor.” Go into inner cities and who’s doing a most of the work with “minorities” and immigrants? There is a sort of slight embarrassment for me in being in what is often thought of as the white religion of the bourgeoisie in America.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that Pentecostalism has a LOT to learn from the church Catholic and historic. One hopes that as a movement it will be incorporated into the historic bodies, but that’s another list. Until then…Go Pentecostals!
Hans Kung on Crisis in Roman Catholic Church
February 19, 2009
How come he gets to preside over a Eucharist, and I can’t even take it?
Hans Kung, ever controversial, ever inspiring, has proved again that Roman Catholicism is NOT as monolithic in its theology as it tells the world it is. (sorry quickbeamofangorn) His is only one among many reactions to the recent actions of the Pope to reintegrate an ultra-conservative bishop who downplays the extent of the Holocaust.
In a recent article, Fr Kung has decried the continued actions of Pope BenedictXVI and calls on the Holy Father to look to Vatican II for guidance. Now even I don’t agree with Fr Kung on everything, but the man is one of the last in a line of powerful theologians to come out of the generative Vatican II era. The entire Christian church has been absolutely blessed by Roman Catholic thought this last century, and I hope that we can continue to be so enriched by such a glorious church.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
