RSSWas the Reformation a Church?
Darryl has raised the question of whether or not the FV really represents a high ecclesiology. If the need of the hour is a restoration of the doctrine of the church, and if FV types say we are all about that, then isn’t it inconsistent if the FV is spread across denominations and does not itself function as a church?
ndrew offered the observation that FV is a classic movement — and he is exactly right. As a movement, it will suffer the temptations that movements do and exhibit the strengths that movements do. As it happens, one of the tenets of this movement is the need for a higher ecclesiology.
Andrew gave a number of good examples, but let me give a couple more, examples which present a problem for how Darryl has framed the question. Was the Reformation a movement, or a church? If it wasn’t a church, then how could the Reformers have had a high ecclesiology? Was the Puritan movement in 16th and 17th century England a movement or a church? To take Darryl’s options, was the Reformation a Bible study, a semi-organized parachurch thing like ACE, or a church? The same questions can be posed for the Puritans.
Now, a good historian can pick out the basic trajectory of the Reformation, and of the Puritans, but this does not prevent the wild variations that we actually see in history. We can discern the same sorts of variations among those who identify themselves as FV.
On ecclesiology, it is sufficient, if we say that a high ecclesiology is important, for those of us in the FV to be faithful churchmen, attached to the church in our respective places, and to be dutiful and faithful sons of those communions. We need to live in our churches the way we say that all Christians should be living in their churches. If we are doing that, there is no inconsistency, even if there are “trans-denominational doings” going on, and even if a full-fledged movement develops. If any of us joined that movement instead of our churches, that would be a severe problem. But we don’t have that problem — because all of us have a high ecclesiology.
So my question for Darryl is this. Can you frame an ecclesiological objection to the “institution” of FV that would not apply, with equal or greater force, to the “institution” of the Reformation and to the “institution” of the Puritan movement of the 16th century?
D Hart
September 26th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Of course, the Reformation was a church. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, these guys were all ordained and ministering in local churches. It wasn’t like Calvin was in Geneva, had a plan passed by MNA, and decided to plant an international seeker sensitive congregation on the other side of town. He (like the other Reformers) had the backing of the local authorities. This was a time that some FVers would long for, a state that meddled mightily with the church. If Calvin hadn’t had state backing, he would have had his head removed. The same goes for the Puritans. They were ministers. When the political winds changed directions, some of those ministers either left nation, or got burned.
So I don’t see any precedent for a parachurch movement in the Reformation.
And, I see FV as a parachurch entity. I wouldn’t even call it an institution because I don’t see the paper work in place for tax exempt status and membership cards.
If you guys want to form a church, I’m more willing to listen to high ecclesiological claims. But I’d also like to hear the reasons for starting a new church.
Peter
September 26th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Darryl, Doug’s a pastor, Jeff Meyers is a pastor, Steve Wilkins is a pastor, Rich Lusk is a pastor, John Barach is a pastor, Steve Schlissl is a pastor, I’m a pastor. We’re all ordained and ministering in local churches. What makes Luther, Zwingli, Calvin a “church” and us not a church?
DWilson
September 26th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Darryl, I’m not following you here. The Reformation was a church because Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were all ordained and ministering in local churches? That would make FV a church too because Leithart, Wilkins, Wilson, Barach, et al. are also all ordained and ministering in local churches. Or did I miss something important? If the Reformation wasa church, then so are we. If we are not, then the Reformation was not.
James Jordan
September 26th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
From the standpoint of the Vatican, the Reformation was totally parachurch.
D Hart
September 27th, 2007 at 12:53 am
But Federal Vision doesn’t ordain anyone. Reformed churches do. Why isn’t that obvious?
Peter
September 27th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Did “the Reformation” ordain anyone?
James Jordan
September 27th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Darryl, I don’t quite follow you either. You seem to be complaining that FV is not a church, and then complaining that FV does not ordain anyone. All FV is is a conversation among people in various churches about various issues. Why should we ordain anyone?
DWilson
September 27th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Darryl, seriously, I think there is some serious equivocation going on here. The Reformation, whatever it was, crossed national boundaries, linguistic boundaries, and confessional boundaries (Lutheran, Reformed, Puritan). It was not “a church” and did not ordain anybody. But the men involved in it were all dedicated churchmen, and the fact that a historian can talk about them as part of “the Reformation” does not take away from their credentials as churchmen.
In the same way, the FV does not ordain anybody because it is not a church. But identification with FV does not take away anyone’s credentials as a churchman, for the same reason that identification with the Reformation did not. All the FV men listed above are ordained ministers, serving in churches, and are in submission to their respective church governments. So I would repeat my question: what argument can be brought against the non-ecclesiastical nature of “the FV” that would not serve equally well against “the Reformation,” or the “Puritan movement”?
D Hart
September 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Peter, the churches of “the Reformation” ordained people. Which is to say that the Reformation was about the church and consisted of churches in different places. I understand you can try to construe “the Reformation” in the same way that you reify “the Enlightenment.” But if you look at the institutions of the Reformation you have two, maybe three, you have churches, magistrates and universities.
Maybe it’s unfair, Doug, to compare FV to the Reformation. But with all the talk about embodiment and a high ecclesiology — is this relatively clear Josh — it’s odd to find that FV is only a conversation or a Bible study. There is nothting inherently wrong with those things. But it’s not a church nor is it very ecclesial. So I’d encourage FV to drop the high church language. I do so, of course, as an outsider, James.
There is a bit of double-dealing on the FV side not only about high churchism but also on the Reformation. If FV is a conversation and a Bible study, then it’s not trying to reform the church. Which is why I wrote what I did about playfulness. If FV was serious about reforming the church, then I’d feel I need to pay it more attention. But as I’m sure everyone here knows, there is a lot of stuff being written about the Bible and theology. If FV is not Reformed or interested in reforming Reformed Christianity, it might go down in my pile of reading.
James Jordan
September 27th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Why can’t we have a conversation about wanting to restore Biblical worship and sacraments, and do it locally when and where we can? It’s clear that the Reformed “denominations” are in such chaos that nothing’s going to happen at that level for a looooooooooooooong time. But Jesus did not establish denominations. He establishes the Church “at” Ephesus, “at” Philippi, etc. Jesus comes to inspect local churches in Rev. 2-3. So, what’s wrong with reforming local churches?
DWilson
September 27th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Darryl, as we have read, gone to conferences, talked to friends, and otherwise participated in the “conversation,” it has not stopped there. The one who hears the word and doesn’t do it deceives himself. And if you are following the thread of the FV conversation, the only real place to apply what we are talking about is in the local church. So the worship at Christ Church is not part of the conversation really, but it functions the way it does because of many things that we learned in the conversation. Just as Calvin learned from Bucer in dinner table conversation, so we learn from one another. But we don’t do this so that we might read one another’s articles in academic journals, and then stop. There are scores of local churches around the country that follow the covenant renewal pattern of worship, and they do so as churches. So if someone asks me if Christ Church is an “FV church,” I would say no. It is a Christian church. Are there elements in the worship that were obviously picked up in the FV converation? Certainly. I hope this clarifies what we think we are doing.
D Hart
September 27th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Doug, thanks for the effort to clarify. It is helpful. But as you admitted in your first post, the individual interlocuters in the FV conversation are not on the same page on a number of matters. Plus, the vision of FV still seems to be a work in progress. So it is hard for me to see coherence even among the folks contributing to this blog and see some sort of program or reform for the churches.
Peter
September 28th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Darryl, of course it’s a work in progress. What isn’t?
And, don’t all reform efforts have the kind of diversity you’re talking about, including the Reformation?
JMeyers
September 28th, 2007 at 8:40 am
To add to Peter’s comments, how many times do we have to say that “we” don’t have some grand “program” for the reform of all churches.
D Hart
September 28th, 2007 at 10:54 am
JMeyers, why don’t you have a plan for all the churches? If this is about doing God’s work in God’s words, then why such a piecemeal approach? Does this mean that FV is just another Reformed flavor? You have the New Lifers, the Redeemer model, the emergent, and now FV. Where’s the urgency? Where’s the “thus, sayeth the Lord”?
Peter, are you suggesting that FV is a harbinger of change the way that the Protestant Reformation was? I don’t see how it will be until FV figures out whether it wants to be a reform effort or simply be left to conduct its own affairs its own way.
JMeyers
September 28th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
No, I don’t have a detailed master plan for all the churches. Why? I don’t believe I’m competent to draw up such a comprehensive blueprint. Piecemeal approach? Of course. What’s the problem? Who has the mind of God and knows everything that needs to be corrected? One does not need to have a detailed, comprehensive plan in order to say, “This is the Lord’s will.”
Hey, I’m content to contribute my part and allow others to build on it or not. The Lord is building his house. I’m just one worker among many. And I have confidence that the Lord is not finished with the church. That he intends to mature her and glorify her. That she has a long way to go. And that that does not mean we’re gonna party like it’s 1647 for centuries. Living in the past is not my idea of an ecclesiastical paradise.
James Jordan
September 28th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
I’m not Jeff, but I would not have a plan for all the churches because “God is new every morning.” The future is never the past repristinated. The Israelites probably expected the Tabernacle to be rebuilt after it was torn apart in the days of Eli, but after a century what they got was the Temple: similar but radically different. That’s how God does things. We are seeking to be faithful now, but we know that what will come will be things we cannot anticipate very well. Moreover, if Rosenstock is right (and he usually is), the new paradigm will come from another location, which is what has happened every time thus far. Hence, we have to be open to what God is doing elsewhere in the world and outside the increasingly narrow and shallow “Reformed” faith.
Meanwhile, we have local situations, and that’s what Jesus cares about. Doug Wilson’s essay on this “The Center of My World” was excellent.