Confession: The Light is On for You

Hey Matt,

I told you I'd send this a long time ago, but I neglected to do so. It is Archbishop Wuerl on "God's Mercy and the Sacrament of Penance ." I just read the letter again. It is very good, I think you'll find it interesting. I think you'll also have a problem with it, especially in the second half. The difficulty comes down to these questions: "What is the Church?" and "What is a sacrament?"

The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have a much more complex understanding of the Church, for better or worse. For you (correct me if I am wrong), the church is the "people of God" brought together in community. As we have discussed, you put a very high premium on community and shared experiences. Most importantly, you see the church as a community where people can bring their joy and sorrow and find comfort. (Again, correct me if I'm wrong.)

With all of this, of course, I agree. Having friends in the Church is important, and anyone who is part of the Church and does not have friends experiences a poverty. However, I do not believe that friendship is the essence of "church." It is one component, and for me it is one of the least striking components. After all, there are many places where one can find friendship, sometimes excellent friendships, outside of the church. Because of the grace of God operating in the church, one would hope to find exceptional friendships in the church, and it is great when such relationships are formed, but there are so many other important and breathtakingly unique aspects of the Body of Christ.

The irony, I think, is that in Protestantism (especially modern American Protestantism) community is such a key element, and in fact is make or break when considering churches. Does this church have community? As I have said, many pious evangelicals spend hours sitting around fretting over community and trying to find ways to build it, however unnaturally. At the same time, I argue that Protestantism (again, especially the American variant) is radically individualist. Salvation is between me and God alone. The early "Great Awakening" evangelists encouraged Christians to see salvation as something that happens outside of the church, between "me and God". Their revivals were "interdenominational" and not linked to any particular church. It was about your heart being strangely warmed, your salvation being secured. In my opinion, this movement ruined Protestant ecclesiology because it trained people to see the church as irrelevant to salvation, which happens outside of churches. Frankly, if you and I are both saved, we have no need for church. Our salvation is secure, so what can church offer us? Perhaps it can offer a loving family-like community (especially important to us in our era of family breakdown) but many people can find that type of community in other places. The church does not seem absolutely necessary; its good if you can make it work, but there is no reason to be bogged down by it. In talking to you, I get the sense that this is your general attitude.

The traditional perspective (Catholic / Orthodox) is strikingly different. We are saved through the Church. The Church (the Body of Christ and the New Israel) is necessary for our salvation. In this way, Catholic Christians are knit together in a profound community--salvation is communal. When I sin I do not hurt only myself, I hurt the whole body. Therefore, I need to seek reconciliation with God and His Church through the sacrament. Furthermore, through the Eucharist the whole Body on earth, and the whole Body in Heaven, is brought together in the unity of Jesus Christ through his flesh and blood. If I do not eat of the flesh of Christ there is no life in me, and therefore I need the Church for my salvation. I cannot save myself, salvation is not individualistic. I rely on the action of Christ through His Church, I rely on the community, and in many ways they rely on me. We need each other.

This, I hope, is a helpful framework for reading the Archbishop's letter. Look for the utmost importance of community in Catholic theology--we are saved through the community established by Christ, not as disconnected individuals. The sacrament of reconciliation, therefore, is a supremely communal activity by which the bonds of community are strengthened through the action of Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit working in the Church. Again, we need each other to finish the race, we cannot do it on our own. This is the robust concept of community found in traditional theology.

This whole difference has been, perhaps, best articulated by that great Lutheran and martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

There is a word that, when a Catholic hears it, kindles all his feeling of love and bliss; that stirs all the depths of his religious sensibility, from dread and awe of the Last Judgment to the sweetness of God's presence; and that certainly awakens in him the feeling of home; the feeling that only a child has in relation to its mother, made up of gratitude, reverence, and devoted love...

And there is a word that to Protestants has the sound of something infinitely commonplace, more or less indifferent and superfluous, that does not make their heart beat faster; something with which a sense of boredom is so often associated. . . . And yet our fate is sealed, if we are unable again to attach a new, or perhaps a very old, meaning to it. Woe to us if that word does not become important to us soon again...

Yes, the word to which I am referring is Church.

I did not mean to write that much, but I hope it helps. I am planning to write another email about the Holy Spirit and the Eucharist, so at least you have that to look forward to!

Rick
Continue reading this post...

Community

Hey Rick,

I really appreciated your below thoughts on this. I am grateful that our friendship continues to challenge and sharpen my walk with the Lord. Since your description of the Eucharistic faith is central to Christian life as you understand it, I will try to express my differing views on this topic--specifically on the following comments you made:

"It is the Eucharist itself that is at the heart of this divine event. Through the Eucharist we unite ourselves to Christ. It is by partaking in his very body and blood that we become one with Him, and as we are united with him, we are united to his perfect sacrifice to the Father. We are united to his death, and united to his resurrection. We receive new life through unity with his everlasting life. Unless we eat his body and drink his blood, there is no life in him."

Question, if the Eucharist is the means by which Christ imparts his life, and by which we are united to Christ, and we do this once a week, then what do we do if we want to fellowship with Christ at other times? This is a basic question about the manner we are to daily relate to Christ, and evidently for Catholics, (or at least Scott Hahn as I understand him), this is fundamentally based on an interpretation Luke's account of the Lord's Supper. In the lecture cd that Chris gave me, Hahn states that the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God actually comes during the Eucharist, for Christ says "I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." And then a couple verses later, as Hahn points out, Christ proceeds to eat and drink the consecrated body and blood, thus justifying Hahn's statement that (paraphrasing) "wherever the King is there is the Kingdom, and wherever the Eucharist is there is the King."


Rick, if you agree with Hahn, then the important question is whether the Kingdom of God was indeed fulfilled at that very supper, and therefore whether it is through the Eucharist that we are united to Christ. This is a question of how Christ enters into his people, as, in speaking of the Eucharist, you say "As the groom approaches his bride and enters her, giving her the seed of life, Christ the groom approaches me and enters me, giving the seed of life". I don't follow how Christ has done this through the Eucharist, and would like to better understand your position on this. For now, I'll offer some passages have helped me understand this in a different way:

John 8:37-39 (NASB): Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'" But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Certainly for me to be part of any community in fellowship with the Lord, I would wish that rivers of living water flow from within me, and the above verses state I must receive the Spirit following Christ's glorification. As Christ promises in John 15:16-17: "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you." Indeed, as it says "The first man, Adam, became a living soul. The last Adam became a life giving spirit." (I Cor 15:45). To eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood and thereby receive life, we are indwelt by Christ's life-giving Spirit. "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." John 6:63.

Thus, as I read it, when Christ promises the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God at the last supper, this seems to refer to the way he will put his seed, his life giving spirit, into those that believe. I don't know how this could be done at the Lord's Supper, for as I understand it he had not yet been glorified (and perhaps (??) why he tells Mary, after the crucifixion "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father" John 20:17). Also, I'm confused by the way Hahn specifically references the Lord's supper verses in Luke, but since I don't know your take on that, we can discuss it later.

Ultimately I think, Christ fulfills the Kingdom when he gives his spirit: "So Jesus said to them again, Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them "Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:21-22) This is what I believe he was referring to during the Lord's Supper.

Therefore, we continually partake of Christ through the Spirit who lives within us. Gathering together weekly and remembering Christ through the physical act of the Eucharist is indeed a important expression of our communal fellowship with God. However, rivers of living water running from within us through Christ's Spirit is, I think, our source of community with God, with each other, and is the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God. The King is certainly where his people gather to take the Eucharist, but more importantly I think, the King is where his Spirit is, and his Spirit is in us.

Reading the above sounds more jumbled and confused than it does in my head, but I hope we talk more about this; I learn more from reading your thoughts than I do from writing my own. Hope all is well at the Jabez House,

Matt Continue reading this post...

The Holy Eucharist: Essential for True Community

Dear Matt and Pat,

Perhaps it is some kind of curse, but I often find it very difficult to walk away from conversations. They linger in my mind, they return to me again and again. Sometimes, as a release, I write about them. Sometimes in the form of a note. Sometimes I even send the note. If you are reading this, I have sent the note.

Matt, I lament the fact that we see the Body of Christ in such strikingly different ways. I wonder how our image of Christ himself must be different based on the different ways we visualize his Body. If our vision of Christ is different, one wonders if we are worshiping different Christs, even, perhaps, incompatible Christs. It seems to me a matter of first priority that the person of Christ himself is clear in our minds. We very well may find our different visions to be compatible, but as it stands now it seems like you reject what I consider to be key aspects of Christ's body on earth. As I said, where our views our incompatible, we should search the Scriptures to see which vision is correct. I would be interested to hear the Biblical texts you rely on for your vision of the Church, and I would be eager to share with you the texts I find illuminating on this question.

Pat, I by no means want to diminish the ecclesial angst that you are experiencing. Who among us has not suffered such angst? However, I must reject the method by which many modern Christians go about finding a Church. Church is not primarily for us, it is for God. It is the Body of Christ offering itself to God the Father in the union of the Holy Spirit. Worship is something primarily done eternally by the Triune God himself; from our perspective, we participate in that triune life of God here on earth. We, as members of Christ's body, are united with Jesus in his total self-offering to the Father. This is not something we do, not something that we can do, outside of union with Christ. It is only in union with him that we can make of ourselves pleasing sacrifices. This sort of total self giving, this "gifting" of ourselves, creates within us a sense of peace and joy because we were created to be in this type of perfect union with Christ. However, it is not the peace and joy we seek, rather, it is the self-sacrificing unity through, with, and in Christ Jesus, by the unity of the Holy Spirit, for the glory and honor of the Father. That is why we can say that church is Heaven on earth, because through the liturgy we are united to God in the same way we are united with him for eternity in heaven.

It is the Eucharist itself that is at the heart of this divine event. Through the Eucharist we unite ourselves to Christ. It is by partaking in his very body and blood that we become one with Him, and as we are united with him, we are united to his perfect sacrifice to the Father. We are united to his death, and united to his resurrection. We receive new life through unity with his everlasting life. Unless we eat his body and drink his blood, there is no life in us. To eat and drink the body and blood of Christ is to be united with him as a man is united to his wife. A man and woman become "one flesh" through mutual self-giving. To partake in the Eucharist is a similar event; Christ offers himself, his very body and soul, to me. By God's grace, I offer myself, my body and soul, to him. Christ is the Groom, the Church (myself included) is the bride. As the groom approaches his bride and enters her, giving her the seed of life, Christ the groom approaches me and enters me, giving the seed of life. We become one flesh, he and I.

In this action, I also become one flesh with all other Christians throughout the ages, because we are all one body in Christ. By becoming one flesh with the one Jesus Christ, I am also one flesh with the men and women who kneel at the same Communion rail with me. I am one flesh with all those who profess the catholic faith around the world. I am one flesh even with those who profess the true faith across the centuries. Thomas Aquinas and I are one through mutual participation in the body and blood of Christ. St. Francis and I are one. Mother Teresa and I are one. St. Paul and I are one. By eating and drinking of the same body and blood, we are One Body in Jesus.

This is the true meaning of community--communion. This is a community more profound than any other possible community. Two individuals who share in Christ's divine feast are perfectly united in Christ. They have a oneness that is ontological, it is real. Communities that are not based on the unity of the Eucharist are, I believe, objectively different. They are based on friendship, common interests, common empathy, genuine love and kindness, and all of this is to be truly sought after. The level of unity, however, is necessarily diminished, and these communities all too often break apart. Look at the experience of churches. Those churches that diminish the unity of Christ's Body as experienced in the Eucharist tend to divide and divide and divide. Too often, there is little to hold them together. The Catechism teaches that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life. For the Church throughout history this has been the case. I include the very earliest Christian communities. Go to the earliest apostolic writings and you will find the emphasis placed on the Eucharist. The Eucharist was the source and summit of all worship. When it is not that, when the real presence is denied, communities break apart.

Therefore, perhaps it is now clear why I am dubious about the concept of finding a church that has more community than Church of the Resurrection. Rez has (or purports to have) the central element of all Christian community, the Eucharist. In full conformity with Christian tradition, the Eucharist is the pinnacle of worship at Rez. In communion, community is made perfect. Perhaps this requires eyes of faith, and much of it is mystery, but it is also true. You cannot find more perfect community than this. More so, you cannot find truer worship, because the liturgical actions at Rez bring you to the high alter in heaven, where the lamb stands if slain, and where all the angels of heaven we sing, "Holy, Holy, Holy. Lord God Almighty!" This is true worship, it is the type of Worship required by God Himself. It is self-sacrificial, Christocentric, spirit and truth. It is an act of pure love by the Body of Christ, and it creates and unity that transcends all human understanding.

I believe that most of what I have said above can be defended in Anglican theology. See how many of the themes mentioned above (the one-flesh union with Christ, the mutual sacrifice, etc.) are articulated in a prayer from the Anglican liturgy, which Church of the Resurrection essentially uses:

And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee, that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him. And although we are unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice; yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord; by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end.

What I have recounted here is a small fraction of the Church's traditional understanding of what the mass is. However, even in light of my weak and amateur explanation, I hope it is clear why I am dubious of the quest for a church that is more communal; such a church can hardly be imagined. One of my primary concerns is that we, in modern America, have replaced the traditional conception of what a church service is about with a new vision based more on Freud than Christ. We know how popular this new idea of support groups is in America, and we see the success of the therapeutic culture in a post-Christian world. Modern psychology is great, and it has done some good for some people, but it contains within it, at the level of first principles, many non-Christian ideas. It is worth redeeming, that is true. However, I think it would be an unspeakable tragedy for the Church to swap out the profoundly beautiful and world changing vision of the historical mass, which has sustained Christians--Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant (especially in the Anglican and Lutheran traditions)--for millenia, and replace it with a new Oprah Winfrey model of church. Small groups are great, accountability is nice, transparency is desirable, Biblical application is wonderful, and all of it is to be sought, but it should not take the place of true worship, which is necessarily Eucharistic.

All of this, I believe, is strictly Biblical. Indeed, I think the true centrality of the Lord's Supper is self-evidently biblical for anyone who approaches it with an open mind.

Therefore, Matt, we can see how the man who stands before us in church is not merely another guy talking at us. If he were just randomly chosen, it would be appropriate to question his role. However, we cannot forget that this man is ordained by the church. Through this ordination, administered through the laying of hands, a man enjoys a special grace, given by the Holy Spirit, to administer the sacraments. This is true of the Reformation churches as well as the ancient churches. This is the clear pattern of Scripture, where Christ chose only 12 apostles and gave them special authority (to bind and loose, to retain and remit sins) and then those apostles ordained new men as leaders of the church thereafter (see 1 and 2 Timothy and also Titus). People do not simply receive church authority because they wake up one day and want it, it must be given to them through the the Body of Christ itself. I repeat myself here, but this is the universal model that we see in Scripture and find throughout history, including the earliest patristic writings. It is the current teaching of every major branch of historical Christianity. It is the teaching of the magisterial Reformers of the 16th century. I do not know exactly the origins of the idea that the church needs no leaders and that no man is ordained to preside over the Lord's Supper, but I suspect they are very modern indeed.

All of this, I hope, goes a small way toward explaining why I do not consider therapeutic community the hallmark of true Christian worship. It is important, but it is not central...not even strictly essential. The type of community that is essential is the community formed between God and man in the Eucharist.

If either of you would like to explain what I am misunderstanding, I would be eager to hear it. I would also be interested to discuss the Biblical citations we might use to get a better understanding for the nature of the Body of Christ.

Thanks for hearing me out, guys! I am so thankful for you!

Rick
Continue reading this post...

Being Bishop: Against Anglican "Intercontinental Ballistic Bishops"

Dear Ben,

Thank you for sending me the article about the now confirmed split from the Anglican church of many prominent Virginia parishes. I have told you in the past, Ben, that I dislike the notion of "bishop shopping," and that I even agree with Bishopress Katharine Jefferts Schori (!) when she condemns "intercontinental ballistic bishops." It seems clear to me that a substantial portion of supposedly conservative Anglicans misunderstand the office of bishop, calling into question exactly how "episcopal" most American Episcopals are.

I am trying to summarize here an excellent article entitled "Why Doesn't the Pope Do Something about 'Bad' Bishops?" Many conservative Catholics, as you probably know, also grow frustrated with their bishops, mostly because of sins of omission. It is rare that a Catholic bishop would preach rank heresy, or encourage others to preach heresy. However, it is not at all uncommon for a bishop to avoid confrontation with priests and parishes that stray from Catholic teachings or engage in liturgical abuses.

The article asks why doesn't the Pope do something. This question, of course, is less relevant in the Episcopal church, but it seems to me you are still wrestling with the problem: what are we going to do with ineffective bishops? Why not just find a bishop we like and submit ourselves to his authority.

I see many, many problems with this. First, your local bishop is the father of the church in your area. My bishop, Archbishop Donald Wuerl, is the spiritual father of the Archdiocese of Washington. This is the teaching of the Church Fathers. Saint Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4:15: "I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel." I point that out before anyone objects to the idea of spiritual fatherhood. Following the teachings of the Apostles, Ignatius of Antioch said:

As therefore the Lord, although united to him, did nothing without the Father, neither by himself nor yet by his apostles, so neither should you do anything without your bishop and presbyters (Letter to the Magnesians , 7).

The bishop is at the center of the local church. When it comes to the bishop, unity is key:

Wherefore let it be your endeavor to all partake of the same holy Eucharist. For there is but one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, one cup in the unity of his blood, and one altar. As also there is one bishop, together with his presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants, so that whatever you do, you may do it according to the will of God ( Letter to the Philadelphians, 4).

Again, the bishop is at the center of the local church. He even represents the church the way Christ represents the Universal Church:

Wherever the bishop will appear, there let the congregation also be; as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans, 8).

This position, so far as I know, was uncontroversial in the early church. The bishop is the sign of unity, he is the spiritual father and visible head of the local church, which is the body of Christ here in this place, here in this town, here in this city.

If Bishop Lee is the bishop of the diocese of Virginia, and Bishop Chane is the bishop of Washington, they are your spiritual fathers. They hold the apostolic office in these areas. It is through them that the local churches are established, and through the local churches that the gospel is preached. We did not pick our bishops any more than we pick our "biological fathers." These things are chosen by God.

We may dislike the things our fathers do. We may wish our fathers would do things that they do not do. We may wish our fathers had more courage, we may wish they were less sinful. Still, dad is father. I hope to be a father someday, and I know already that I will be an imperfect father. What if my next door neighbor is far more charismatic than I, or more athletic, or more fun? What if my kids fall in love with him, and decide that they would like to live with him instead of me. I can imagine that I would be broken by this. If the neighbor was actually lobbying to get my kids to abandon me and live with him instead, I would be furious.

This is exactly what is happening when people start shopping around for bishops. It is an affront to the spiritual fatherhood of the local bishop. Since the time of the apostles, this sort of behavior has never been allowed in the Universal church. There have always been poor bishops, just as there have always been bad biological fathers. Only in the most extreme cases do we remove a father from his children, and we realize that this is an extremely tragic event. Likewise, only in extreme cases has the Church removed bishops. It is rare because the church realizes that a man must be very abusive or negligent before a good case can be made for taking away the children over whom God has given him authority. Most of the time, fathers can be very foolish men, and yet they still have rightful authority over their children.

Again, I have faults, and my kids might have good reason to dislike certain aspects of who I am, but I will still be their Dad. My faults do not change the ontological reality. When a priest is ordained, by the way, their ontological reality is changed. Through the sacrament of Holy Orders, a man is set aside by Christ the High Priest for a special ministry in the Church. Through the sacrament, bishops become true fathers to their flock. When a baby is born a man is changed forever, he is from then on truly a father. When a bishop is installed, he also truly becomes the father of his children in that diocese; Christ has put his children under that man's care. The bishops faults do not change his ontological status as ordained bishop any more than my faults will change my status as father to my children. In a certain sense, I will have authority over my kids, even when I am wrong, and so does a bishop. The bishop and I will both be accountable to Christ for how wisely we used our authority.

Perhaps you don't like your father...either your spiritual father or biological father. He is still your father despite your disgruntled feelings. You pray for him, you work with him, you try to lovingly show him the Truth. In the case of the bishop, you can also pray that the next bishop will be a better man. You do not--you cannot--simply find a father you like better.

This is where the whole concept of bishop shopping is so painfully modern. The idea of radical autonomy is at the core of it, that somehow we are not bound by the father we were given, but that we can choose the father we want. We see this in families all the time. People simply deciding that their father is not their Dad. "He's not my father." Yes, he is. You are not so radically autonomous that you can transcend reality and reject what is objectively true: he is your father. You would not be alive except for him. You may not like him, but you are stuck with him.

The exact same thing is true of the local bishop. The gospel does not fall out of the sky, it is given to us through the community, through a family, through the church. If the apostles did not pass on what they saw and what they were taught, the Church would have died out when they died. But they did pass it on to men who passed it on to men who passed it on to us. We learn about Christ through family...hopefully though our immediate family, and if not, then through Christ's family, the Church. Christ has given us a church that has offices, just as he has given us families with offices (mother, father, grandma, grandpa, brother, sister, etc.). We are bound to the Church as we are bound to our biological mother and father. We are born into our spiritual families--the church--through baptism, and it is not up to us to decide that we want to abandon our family once we realize that our parents are sinners too. Someone who remains loving and loyal to their father despite his grievous faults is a powerful witness. We do not follow our fathers in their sin, but we honor them despite their sin.

Therefore, it is an ugly modern mentality that has us running to Africa, Asia, or South America to find more suitable fathers. Christ has given us the families that we have, spiritual and biological, and we must be loving children who honor our Fathers, even when we disagree. Therefore, these few conservative churches who are Africa bound are actually being very liberal. If they were true Anglicans, true Episcopalians, they would stay put and tackle the problem through prayer and fasting.

I must admit, however, that I think the deed was done in Anglicanism way back in the 1500s. When King Henry refused to submit to his spiritual fathers but instead insisted on divorcing the Queen, I think the precedent was set for Gene Robinson. This radical desire for autonomy from proper authority is at the root of the Anglican church. The fact that there is heresy throughout the church, and the fact that bishops are able to preach such heresy without repercussions truly is concerning. I don't think the solution is to find another Anglican bishop in another land and therefore destroy the concept of "local bishop" in a diocese of the Universal Church. The solution is to submit yourself to the true local bishop, the true father installed by Christ in this place.

The question is, with more than one person claiming that office, who is the true heir to the chair? Who is the the spiritual father of the Universal Church in Washington? Virginia?

Rhetorical question. You know my answer.

This is Advent, a time when we prepare ourselves for the return of Christ. I pray, and I hope you will join me in praying, that when Christ returns he will not find his Church torn in a million pieces, but that he will find the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church with which he left us.

Rick

Continue reading this post...

Embodied: Why the Church Building Matters

Dear Matt (and other concerned individuals),

It has been many weeks since our discussion at Brickskeller, but I have not forgotten the challenge you presented against the traditional vision of "church." I have since hoped to respond in defense of the traditional vision, but now that so much time has passed I fear that a useful critique will be difficult. There are at least two reasons for this. First, it is not entirely clear to me what you believe on the question. You seemed to say many things with a wink, much was couched in sarcasm, and so I ought to recognize at the outset that perhaps I am presuming too much about what you believe. Maybe you were just being provocative and you don't really dismiss the traditional vision at all. Second, so much time has passed that much of what you said has faded in my memory.

I write this letter, therefore, with hesitation and hope. Hesitation because I know I may accidentally misrepresent what you believe. If I do, please correct me and forgive me. I don't intend to butcher your beliefs. Hope because at least this correspondence may facilitate a future conversation where we can all be clearer about our beliefs.

Speaking of being provocative, I thought it would be interesting if I defended "the church building" in this email. It seems to have become a truism that church has nothing to do with the building, and that one need not go to any building on Sunday to worship. Many Protestants who hold a very traditional view of church would probably agree that the building itself is not all that important, that worship can occur anywhere "two or more are gathered" in Christ's name.

I think these beliefs are misguided. Implicit in these ideas is a very unhealthy Gnostic strain. I would like to argue that the very building itself is integral to proper Christian worship. While it is true that Christ is present wherever two or more are gathered, it is also true that not all worship is created equal. It is not a matter of indifference whether the Christian worships in a great cathedral or whether he worships in a barn or a movie theater. This will be my argument, at least.

Before launching into a defense of the building as an indispensable (though not, strictly speaking, necessary) element of comprehensive Christian worship, I need to admit that I am starting my argument somewhere in the middle. Certain things will be assumed that good Protestants may not immediately accept. What I hope to show is that errors of modern philosophy have seeped into our thinking about seemingly benign subjects like church architecture, and that some of those same errors have lead us astray in our thinking about even more fundamental questions of ecclesiology. Ultimately my goal is to show that, far from being a restoration of proper biblical thinking about "church," movements like the "house church" or the "emerging church" are actually errors based heavily on modern mistakes and confusion.

Having spelled out my plan, let me see if I can now successfully make my case. The church building: Dispensable? Irrelevant? Outdated? Unbiblical? As I said above, it seems to be a truism today that the building itself is utterly meaningless to worship, that one can worship just as well anywhere else. The idea that our physical surroundings make no difference to our worship is fundamentally based on bad anthropology.

What is man? I think this is the first question that needs to be asked when exploring the correct Christian vision of church architecture. Because a full and extensive answer to that question is far beyond my capacity, I would like to merely note a few points to keep in mind as our discussion unfolds. Remember, O man, that you are dust and to dust you will return. There is that. But we also know that when God formed us from the dust he breathed life into our nostrils. We are in some sense material things. We are in some sense spiritual things. What is the relationship between these two aspects of human life?

Orthodox Christianity (Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox) across the ages has taught that man is a unity of body and soul. This is an inseparable unity. We are not a soul that inhabits a body. We are not a body that has a soul. We are body/soul, one thing so intimately connected that it is inseparable. The Catechism of the Catholic Church articulates the orthodox teaching well: "The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in many, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature ." (CCC 365) Though this definition comes from a Catholic source I do not believe it is any different from what Orthodox and traditional Protestants teach. Indeed this is the common belief of Christians throughout history.

There are many very satisfying philosophical and biblical reasons for why this is true, but again, it is beyond my ability to get into that. The point I am trying to make is simply that good philosophical anthropology from a Christian perspective affirms (and has always affirmed) that man is not a spiritual thing trapped in a material body. We are not a soul waiting to be set free from our corporal existence. Rather, we are a profound union, an undividable union, between body and soul. This teaching, which can be defended by reason, is also proved by revelation. We see it in the creation account, as well as in the teaching of resurrection. At the resurrection we will not be liberated from bodily life, but we will be reunited with our physical bodies. The body/soul union is normative, it is part of our nature as human beings.

Therefore, it is true to say that God created man a material being and our nature as material is fundamental to what it means to be man. He created the world, and he created us from the dust of the earth, and he gave us an animating spirit. We are physical beings, and from the beginning it was good. Of course, at the Fall the whole man fell, and even the physical creation was cursed by sin. Men have to toil to produce fruit from the earth. Women suffer in child bearing. The whole creation groans. The material world was created good (including the bodily man), and through our free sin the whole creation has fallen.

God himself, at the incarnation, took on human form. That means that God, the Creator of our material world, became himself a material being. He, just like every other man, was truly body and soul, an undivided unity. God became man, and in so doing he redeemed man in his unity. That means that he has redeemed us body and soul, he has saved us from the effects of sin and death completely. God incarnate did not come to save merely our souls, not merely our spiritual aspects, but our whole human selves, and even the whole world. We are saved, body and soul, in full union with Christ.

Christ's redemption is total. There is not one corner of Christ's Creation that was not redeemed by his work on the Cross. Again, it was not merely our souls that were saved, it was us. He has made all things new, restoring the full dignity to even our material selves. This point is so central that perhaps I am belaboring it. Let me just state it one last time: God created the physical universe and called it good. Humans are a total union of body and soul, they are part of that physical universe. God became human, which means he took on material flesh, literally becoming flesh. Through the incarnation Christ redeemed the whole world, including our bodily life, opening the way for the resurrection of the body.

Why meditate on theological anthropology? It is important to remember that the physical world is not evil. It was created good by God, and God became flesh himself. If flesh were evil, God could not have taken on physical form. However, in Christ that is exactly what he did, he became as human as you or I. He was, and still is, a body. This is critically important as we think about what is appropriate for worship. Human worship is not an attempt to shed off our bodily reality and become "spiritual." Not at all! We worship God as he created us: as humans, and humans are body and soul fully united. Human worship, therefore, is bodily and fleshy.

When we worship we should not try to be something we are not. We should worship in an appropriately human way, which is to say, in a bodily way. It was not incidental when Christ, in the Gospels, used the most basic physical elements to communicate his grace. He uses the water of baptism. He takes everyday bread and says, "This is my flesh." He takes common wine and says, "This is my blood." When he heals the blind man he puts mud on his eyes. James tells the presbyters of the Church to anoint the sick with oil. Christian prayer and worship is not about trying to pry your soul from your flesh because this would be an insult to God's good created order. It is not an disembodied experience. No, we worship God as humans, which means we worship with our whole selves, including our bodies. And God has decided to communicate his grace through physical things like water and wine and bread and oil.

What does all this have to do with church buildings? Perhaps my point is already clear. The physical place where we worship is not irrelevant because we are bodies. We have five senses, and each of those senses should be engaged in worship. What we see with our eyes makes a difference in worship. What we smell with our noses, what we hear with our ears. What we feel, and yes, even what we taste ("unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." John 6:53). No aspect of human living should be left aside, we worship as integrated human beings.

Our ideas take physical form. Walk into any church and you will see ideas taking form. Take a Catholic Cathedral. You will encounter great Christian saints in stain glass and statuary. The idea is that the Church is not bound by time, but that we worship along with the whole communion of saints, living and dead. You will see the altar in a prominent spot. The Eucharist is the central act of worship. The tabernacle is also in a central, visible place, with a candle lit next to it. The idea is that Christ is literally present in this place, and this idea takes form with golden boxes and flickering candles. In the design of the building and the art the individual is encouraged to lift their eyes toward heaven. Bells are rung, incense is used, and at the high point of worship, Christ's flesh is received as physical food. Everything is done for a reason, the whole human person is engaged.

What ideas take form in a typical Protestant church? There is great diversity here. Most often we see the lectern from which the pastor preaches prominently placed, sometimes in the center of the room. From this lectern the Bible is read and expounded. The preaching of the word is central to Protestant worship, and that idea takes form in design of the room. If you go into an Episcopal Church built one or two hundred years ago, you would see that at the front of the room certain Biblical passages are always written on the walls. There is the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments. There is also the Apostles Creed. Here we see the Episcopal emphasis on Scripture and Tradition. These ideas have taken form. Often the walls are white and the widows are clear to let in lots of light. The idea is a focus on the Light of the World, Christ. In this room the Light of the World is made known through the reading of Scripture. There is purity in the white walls, it is heavenly. There is simplicity. All these ideas take form in the architecture and décor of the room.

Think about other churches. What ideas take form in a Quaker meeting house? There is no point of focus, the chairs are often built in a circle. There are no pastors in a Quaker meeting. The belief is that the Church is a society of friends that come together, and that the Holy Spirit will inspire different people to give a "word" from time to time. When the Holy Spirit does the person stands up and says whatever, then sits down. These ideas take form in the building itself. What ideas take form at National Community Church? What ideas take form at a typical mega church?

Finally, what ideas take form at a house church? Well, the architecture is that of a family dwelling place. In many living rooms today the central feature is a television set, sometimes it can be a fireplace, or maybe a piano. Furniture is comfortable, cozy. Most houses are beautifully decorated with paintings and "knick-knacks" (indeed, most houses are more beautifully decorated than our churches these days!). Most have pictures of the family hung prominently in many rooms (not unlike the paintings of saints in a cathedral, by the way). Modern houses are built for function, they are built for comfort.

The ideas of Christians who meet in houses take form. There is no central location for any one leader to stand (except, perhaps, in front of the TV). There is no focal point, no central feature. People sit around casually on couches and overstuffed chairs. They are probably sipping coffee or tea. I wouldn't be surprised if someone took off their shoes and put up their feet. Someone probably brings a guitar and strums a few songs as everyone else closes their eyes and sings. Like the Quakers, conversation is probably undirected and informal. It is relaxed and friendly. This is a group of friends who have come together to discuss their lives as Christians. If you zoom out you will see that—if there is any emphasized feature—it is the people themselves that are central. In Catholic worship the architecture places a central emphasis on Christ in the Eucharist. In Protestant churches the emphasis is on Scripture (the Word of God). For the house church, it seems to me, the design and structure and "architecture" places special emphasis is on the people themselves, and on the stories they tell, the complex lives they discuss.

I won't critique the ideas that have taken form in the house church, at least, not today. My point in all of this is to show how human beings are material beings, we live in a material world, and our ideas inevitably take form in the structures we construct. Our ideas about God and what it means to worship God take form in the buildings we use in worship. Even if we decide to worship in a field, ideas are taking form. Because we are material beings in a material world we cannot avoid it.

It is my belief that the old churches of Christian tradition show better ideas taking form than more recent churches. Remember the central truth: man is a body/soul. We are corporal. Therefore, all five senses are to be engaged. What we see, hear and smell makes a difference; our senses teach. The great cathedrals were known as Bible's in brick and glass. Men and women would walk in, most of whom could not read, most of whom toiled with a rake or a shovel all day, and their senses were filled with Beauty. Through the colored glass the learned about Jesus the Christ, their imaginations were captivated by the story told in bright color. The could walk around the church building and follow the stations of the cross, experiencing first hand the events of Christ's passion. They were confronted with statues of men and women long dead…and yet, men and women still alive in Christ. These saints are family members, brothers and sisters of the whole church, and they remind the individual of the timelessness of the Church, and that God, through his grace, has been creating saints for generations.

The focal point of the room is a crucifix, hanging on the wall, center front. Under this crucifix is a table with bread and wine. The lesson is taught: a man has died on a cross, he is the object of our worship. The bread and wine become the same flesh and blood, and through this meal we partake in Christ's saving work. We sacrifice ourselves with him. All of these truths (and many others) take form in the building itself. With time, anyone can "read" a church.

The true ideas that man is a material being, and through material things God communicates his grace to man, take form in traditional Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant churches. The buildings themselves are part of the worship, which is appropriate for humans. They are spaces marked off for God, and God is the animating focus of everything that happens in those spaces. They are refuges from daily trials, they are (literally!) heaven on earth. Understanding the truth about human anthropology, these churches engage the senses…all five. They utilize physical things to reveal spiritual truths. This is what Christ himself did, it is what the Hebrews did in pre-Christian worship, and it is what the Church Fathers did as well.

I believe the Gnostic error has slipped into many Protestant churches. I think many of them try to strip their church of "distractions" so that we can focus on God. The idea is that God is a spiritual being, and that we have souls trapped in our flesh. We need to not focus on our bodily life, but transcend it to worship God as disembodied spirits. Soon one gets the sense that many of these churches believe that the physical world is an impediment to spiritual life. Some even seem to believe that material things is somehow evil. This error has been around since the beginning of the Church, it is called gnosticism, and all of the early councils condemned this heresy in the strongest possible terms. From time to time the error creeps back in, and I think we see that today. This error is especially seen in many Eastern religions, and these religions have started to have an influence on Christianity.

Therefore, we need to be mindful of gnosticism and combat it wherever we see it. God created man material, God became flesh himself, and he has redeemed even the physical world. In building our churches the goal is to redeem the world…this physical world…by creating beautiful, God-centered structures.

Beauty is important. Many evangelicals have a clear understanding that God is Truth, and they always defend His Truth. They know that God is Good, and they defend Goodness (for example, outlawing abortion, preserving marriage, etc.). However, few remember that God is also Beauty, and that in areas like art, music, and architecture, we honor God by making something aesthetically beautiful. Evangelicals are strong when defending the fact that Truth is not subjective, that Goodness is not subjective, but when it comes to Beauty, it seems that anything goes. "Who's to say?" We need to recapture beauty as a Christian ideal. We need to paint beautiful paintings again, compose beautiful music, build beautiful buildings. We need to honor God by redeeming the physical world through participation in His aesthetic Beauty.

Traditional Christian churches did that. Modern Christian churches (including Catholic churches) have lost a sense of beauty, and they are no longer as meaning-filled as they used to be. We must redeem the situation, beautify the buildings to honor God, and once again take true spiritual ideas and give them physical form.

Oh boy, where am I now? I know I am talking around the point, and I fear I have not yet really hit the nail on the head. What I wanted to say in all of this is that Church buildings are not just where we worship, they are part of worship. As bodily beings, we are able to even worship along with the building! Buildings, created by human hands, convey messages that glorify God. When we step into them with the intention of worshiping, we conform ourselves to the message of the whole structure, conveying with our will the truths articulated by the building itself. Through human intention, the building itself becomes part of the Christian worship, it really is the Church on earth. As the website for the Byzantine Catholic Church in America said, "The church building manifests our Christian faith in graphic terms, and allows us to participate in that faith in a tangible way with all our senses, with our entire person."

I also do not want to ignore the fact that the building itself is holy ground. It is very unfortunate that we have lost a sense for the sacred in our culture, that we have become convinced that there is no difference between our church and our bathroom when it comes to God's presence. Obviously no one denies that God is omnipresent. There is no place where He is not. That is true. But God manifests his presence more fully in the Church, especially in the Eucharist. This is not an unusual concept. It is seen throughout the Old Testament. God manifested his presence in a physical place, the Temple. Though, I must not forget, St. Stephen tells us that God was always far bigger than a place created by human hands (Acts 7:48). It is true, no building can contain him. Still, sacred places are still set apart for worship, and God is present when we worship in this very special way. We set physical things and places aside as sacred not for God's sake, but for ours. Again, ideas take form.

I should probably let the Catholic Church describe this reality for me, since I understand it so poorly. The following I from the Catechism, and as I said before, it is a vision held by Catholics, Orthodox, and traditional Protestants (with some modifications):

1179 The worship "in Spirit and in truth" of the New Covenant is not tied exclusively to any one place. The whole earth is sacred and entrusted to the children of men. What matters above all is that, when the faithful assemble in the same place, they are the "living stones," gathered to be "built into a spiritual house." For the Body of the risen Christ is the spiritual temple from which the source of living water springs forth: incorporated into Christ by the Holy Spirit, "we are the temple of the living God."

1180 When the exercise of religious liberty is not thwarted, Christians construct buildings for divine worship. These visible churches are not simply gathering places but signify and make visible the Church living in this place, the dwelling of God with men reconciled and united in Christ.

1181 A church, "a house of prayer in which the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved, where the faithful assemble, and where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered for us on the sacrificial altar for the help and consolation of the faithful—this house ought to be in good taste and a worthy place for prayer and sacred ceremonial." 57 In this "house of God" the truth and the harmony of the signs that make it up should show Christ to be present and active in this place.

1186 Finally, the church has an eschatological significance. To enter into the house of God, we must cross a threshold, which symbolizes passing from the world wounded by sin to the world of the new Life to which all men are called. The visible church is a symbol of the Father's house toward which the People of God is journeying and where the Father "will wipe every tear from their eyes." Also for this reason, the Church is the house of all God's children, open and welcoming.

Therefore, it is true that worship is not tied exclusively to a building. However, when there is freedom, Christian ideas take form in physical buildings. These buildings are more than just places to meet, they are the place where the community comes to encounter God, united in Christ. Church is not a social club. God is the focus of Christian worship, and the Church building should be oriented around that truth. In this sacred place God dwells amongst us in a more complete way than he does otherwise. For the Church Fathers, modern Catholics, Orthodox, and some Protestants, the pinnacle of this is Christ's real presence in the Eucharist.

So much can be said, and much of what I have said should be elaborated. Let me just say that it is true that the first Christians worshiped in homes. But look at Acts 2:44-46, "All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need. Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes." Where did they meet together? In their homes, yes, but also in the temple area. They did not see themselves as a new religion, they saw themselves as a continuation of the Jewish religion, or rather, a fulfillment of the Jewish religion. The temple was still part of their worship in these early days.

What happened? Most likely they were kicked out of the temple eventually as Jewish officials started to crack down on the Christian sect. Persecution began, and obviously Christians could not then buy land and build churches. Over time, as the Church developed it started to set aside apartments specifically for worship (as early as the second century). Once the persecution ended, early Christians immediately started to build separate buildings to glorify God, buildings that were iconic of their faith, buildings that facilitated worship for bodily human beings.

There was never a time when worship in individual homes was considered normative. It is not even normative in the Bible. None of the early Christians (so far as I know) believed it was normative. It was always a "plan B" until God, in His Providence, provided an opportunity for something better.

I hoped my point would be simple, but after all these words I don't know. All I meant to say is that church buildings are normative and appropriate for Christian worship, which is God centered and sacramental. The Church building itself is a sacrament, a visible form of a spiritual reality. In this case it is the visible form of heaven itself; the heavenly temple where the High Priest, Jesus Christ, presides, offering to God Himself. In the Church building men and women meet, in union with all the angels and saints, and partake in divine worship. Though it is not necessary to have a building (even today it remains impossible for many Christians, either because of political oppression or financial constraints), the building should be desired for the glory of God. In a church building Christian worship is realized in its fullness.

I look forward to any responses.

Rick Continue reading this post...