Yesterday, I asked you to join the Church if you, like me, are frustrated with the Church. The strongest critiques of religion come from within, not without, the Christian community. Plus, your frustrations are likely shared by many others within the Church! However, it’s not enough to point the finger at others from your pew, instead of doing so from the public square. Yes, that’s a good first step, but another one is necessary. ...
…and by “club” I of course mean “Church”! What am I getting at? Am I calling the Church a mere “club”? No. Although, unfortunately, it often feels that way, doesn’t it? A club full of hypocrisy, idolatry, indifference, and platitudes. A club full of power-plays, fear-mongering, and Bible-thumping. A club full of saints too afraid to admit that they are sinners. Perhaps you’re sick of this “club,” and you’re ready to leave, if you haven’t left already. ...
INTRODUCTION: ACCEPTING, BLOCKING, AND STATUS From the church’s perspective, is the state a promising offer, or a threatening one? At the risk of breathtaking oversimplification, Anglicans have tended to adopt the former perspective, leading to accommodation, and Anabaptists the latter, resulting in separation.1 Following Samuel Wells in his theological appropriation of terms from theatrical improvisation, the Anglican tradition has tended to respond to the promising offers (invitations to respond) of the state by accepting – maintaining the premise(s) of the state’s action(s).2 The historical legacy of the Church of England has given Anglicanism, as Anderson notes, an “inheritance of a strong loyalty to the state and a conservatism that has led the church to promote the status quo more often than it agitates for reform.”3 This inheritance from the established Church of England has coincided with a dual tendency to adopt a high status (a strategy for getting one’s way), in terms of relative privilege and political optimism, and a low status, in terms of frequent subservience in church-state relations.4 ...
Presented at Southeast ETS 2015. DISUNITY AS ECCLESIOLOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY:A BARTHIAN ANALOGY Joshua P. Steele INTRODUCTION Just as sin is ontological impossibility, disunity is ecclesiological impossibility. The tension between the undeniable reality of sin and Karl Barth’s theological definition of sin as an impossible possibility parallels the tension between the obvious reality of a fractured church1 and the theological definition of the church as the one body of the one Christ. Two excerpts from the Barthian corpus legitimize this connection. First, in his prepared remarks to the 1937 Second World Conference on Faith and Order in Edinburgh, Karl Barth maintained that ...
DISCLAIMER: there’s a fair bit about the Church that frustrates me. However, I’d like to address those frustrations in a way that builds bridges, not burns them down. Especially since sin and justice are both relational. It does no good to flee the former for the latter in a way that creates more rifts than it heals. Therefore, any criticisms I level against my sisters and brothers in Christ, (many of those criticisms coming from outside the walls of the Church), I’d like first to aim them at myself. After all, if I want to witness self-righteous pride, xenophobia, misplaced anger, etc., I need look no further than the mirror. ...
(NOTE: I wrote this essay for my Senior Seminar/Capstone at Cedarville University. You can download the original undergraduate thesis PDF.) Introduction: Reconciliation and the Lack Thereof The impetus for this study is a seemingly unanswered prayer. “[I pray] that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me.” (John 17:21 NET). Ever since Jesus of Nazareth first uttered these words, his followers have done what appears to be an increasingly-worse job of being one. A simple count of the various denominations and sects within Christianity at large—starting with the three prominent branches of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism—reveals the troubling truth that, although claiming to follow the same Lord, Christians around the world are often divided. In fact, it could be argued that the modus operandi throughout church history has been to pursue unity in orthodoxy through division.1 When dissenting voices arise, the group decides which option is “orthodox,” banishes the “heretics” (who often then form their own camp), and proceeds as the “pure” and “united” bride of Christ. Whether in 1054, 1517, or 2012, followers of Jesus the Messiah have often judged it more important to be correct than to be one.2 ...
The more I study the New Testament, I become more convinced that the unity of the Church is of utmost importance to God. What bothers me is that this has never been taught to me before. All of the things I’ve learned (specifically in my studies on Philippians, Galatians, and now Romans) about the importance of unity for the sake of the Gospel mission and the Kingdom of God have come as somewhat of a shock. ...