Early Church Hymn

"Very Flesh, yet Spirit too;
    Uncreated, and yet born;
  God-and-Man in one agreed,
  Very-life-in-Death indeed,
  Fruit of God and Mary's seed;
    At once impassible and torn
  By the pain and suffering here below;
  Jesus Christ, whom as our Lord we know."
              ~Ignatius to the Ephesians

One...

Surveying the landscape of Christian churches and pseudo-Christian churches (there are more of these than we think) it is hard to imagine that at one time in history the church could have been called "one". The Apostles Creed dates back to around 150 AD and is an early collection of statements that are essential to Christian faith. Among these essential statements is a belief in "one...church".

Really?

Could a new believer be confessing a commitment to "one...church"? Could the congregation be reaffirming their baptism by confessing "one...church"?

How is this possible? And, more importantly, can we go back? Well, it is possible and we can go back...sort of.

Michael Svigel treats this very issue in his book, Retro-Christianity. He spells out a path to unity that can be embraced as always, everywhere, and by all. For Svigel there is unity through the essential marks of the church. And frankly, there is disunity when these essential marks fail to be present. He uses the confession of the Apostles Creed to make his stance, "We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church."

Oneness:

The first essential mark of a church is oneness. Is the church that we are attending incorporated into the body of believers that are present always and everywhere? For some the confirmation of this truth is simply mental assent. They would affirm a connection but if asked how they are connected it would probably be hard for them to answer. The truth is that we have lost our paths of connection by becoming overly denominational. We have to work at overcoming some of this through fellowship and bringing historical connections into worship. Svigel says,

"Every generation should strive to bear out the oneness of the church by seeking unity between other orthodox believers and churches despite the ever-present reality of doctrinal and practical diversity." 

 This connection cannot be merely spiritual either.

"We must conceive of the church as having both a spiritual nature and a physical nature, without mixture, confusion, separation, or division."

Holiness:

The church is not perfect. No one believer is perfect (my apologies to the pope). But the church, as a whole, is a sanctified union. That does not mean that there are no physical flaws. Just as is true for individuals, the collective church is being ever sanctified into a holy existence. This is also spiritual and physical. Svigel says,

"Theologically, the church of the elect is sanctified (set apart), reckoned holy by the decree of God in light of the cleansing work of Christ and the anticipation of the future purification in the resurrection and glorification of the church. However, in this present time, the church is characterized by both the presence of sin and the process of purification."

Catholic(ness):

There are many that have warped the word "catholic". Some will not even confess the word in the Apostles Creed and instead say "Christian" church. I get the sentiment. But isn't it preferable to take the word back from those that hijacked it in the first place? "Catholic" is not a sect of Christianity. Catholic is the church everywhere and everyone that professes faith in Christ. Svigel explains,

"So when we confess the catholicity of the church, we mean the that the church as a whole share in a confession and a commission that transcend time, place, culture, and language. These also rise above denominational differences and theological distinctives. Every generation of Christians should therefore strive to overcome their provincial and temporal concerns and readily align themselves with the "community of communities" of orthodox Christianity."

By the way, Ignatius was the first to use the word "catholic" and by his use the Roman Catholic Church doesn't fit the bill. It has turned renegade and claimed for itself power that was never afforded it by the Christian faith.

Apostolicity(ness):

The tradition of the Apostles (the first "sent ones" of Jesus) is preserved for us in the Holy Scriptures. Every orthodox church will accept this claim. Where we begin to differ is how we build upon this foundation of Scripture. Each church is apostolic if it is faithfully recognizing the teachings of Scripture and recognized as in line with apostolic teaching by those churches that are also faithful to this line. Well, that is what Tertullian said, anyway.

Which brings us to my point (and Michael Svigel's). Where do we turn to build upon the foundation of Scripture? I would suggest a return to the writings of the early church fathers as well as subsequent generations. By this we can establish the historical authenticity of our message and have a stronger foundation to expel heretical messengers (my apologies to Joel Olsteen) or at least show would-be followers their break with apostolic witness.

It is my hope that we will return to the great gifts given us by our fathers and through responsible efforts live in the reality of one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

The RetroChurch...

In our last post we asked the question, "How do we know we have 'real' Christianity?" To answer this question we must traverse three fields of thinking; theology, the Bible, and history. In short, we have a real reflection of the faith if we have presented God and His character/actions in an orthodox way. We have what is real if we have presented a biblical foundation for salvation/sanctification/glorification that is clear and verifiable. Also, we have a real faith if we have properly rooted and guided into the historical practices that were given for all by a "great cloud of witnesses."

This last sentence is where we have a tendency to say...wait...what?

Yet this reliance on history is an important and indispensable guide to capturing and protecting a reflection of the Christian faith that is "real". Without a faithful reliance on history you are not a faithful reflection of the church.

It is time for your church to go retro.

In Michael Svigel's book, RetroChristianity, he gives us a guide on discerning the influences of history. Let's face it, when I say that we need history in order to be "real", some not so good moments in the life of the Christian church can be conjured up. One may say, "there is a lot that we must avoid in history and by avoiding the bad the church currently looks the way we do." To be fair, we need to be aware and conscious when dealing with history. We need not take anything blindly. But we must not neglect the work of God through history by ignoring those that came before us. Svigel suggests these as a guide:

Some things Never Change and Never Should.

There are some things that simply should never change. The center of our faith is Jesus Christ. Not the healings of Jesus, but Jesus. Not the sacrifice (continually) of Jesus, but Jesus. Not the prosperity of Jesus...wait...okay that is just not Christian. Jesus is and should be the center of our faith. We can learn much from history (especially the early church fathers) on making Christ and his gospel the center of it all.

The story of our faith should be the Trinitarian creation (Father, Son, and Spirit all active in the creative acts), redemption, and restoration. Our faith can never leave this story. Our worship can never stop replaying this central drama. This is historical worship. This is Christian faith.

The markers (doctrines) of our faith should always stay the same. These markers come through the struggles and biblical wrestlings of our fathers. To leave our fathers behind is to say that we no longer need their voice, their thoughts, their fights. Sadly, many do this very thing. Some, even proudly.

Some things have Never been the Same and Never Will Be.

Still, some things can never be the same. There is a diversity among Christians today unlike any in history. We have different denominations and reflections on orthodoxy and that is not necessarily a bad thing. We cannot have the solidarity that our church fathers enjoyed. We cannot go back to that time and we should not seek to idealize it. What we can do is learn to embrace diversity. We can have unity in essentials while maintaining diversity (and discussion) of non-essentials. Without history we can (and have)...(and do)... easily confuse the two.

Some things Grow Clear through Trial and Error.

I do not advocate leaving the challenges of the present by blindly retreating to the "golden days" of the past. We are where, and when, we are. We have learned through the decades and centuries. We have grown through time. We must continue growing. But we can also keep learning through remembering. Many traditions and many time periods have golden gifts for us if we will accept them. We do not have to accept them all. We can continually be guided by theology and Biblical faithfulness.

As Michael Svigel says, "This is not returning to the past, but retrieving the past for the present."

Peanut Butter Christianity

In his book, RetroChristianity, Michael Svigel discusses the appetite of the current church-goer for all things inauthentic. We have been tasting something manufactured using the ingredients of post-reformation, post-Great Awakening, and post-revivalism faith for so long that we can hardly recognize what is truly authentic.

More than this. When we do taste the authentic faith of Historic Christianity as it was practiced and believed by our forefathers we quickly spit it out. We may even pull back from this authentic product. Svigel compares our reaction to that of peanut butter.

Most Americans today are not really eating peanut butter. We may think that we are eating peanut butter but we usually are not. Look at the back of the jar. Peanut butter is peanuts. Peanuts that have been ground up into a smooth form something like butter. We buy something smoother. We buy something sweeter. In fact, if most of us tasted "Natural" peanut butter we would probably not like it....at first.

But it still looks like peanut butter. It is still labeled peanut butter.

The same is true for Christianity. Current Evangelicals look Christian. They are labeled Christian.

"What I'm suggesting is this: over the last several decades, many of us evangelicals have become increasingly accustomed to a less "natural" form of Christianity. While still essentially Christian, many aspects of evangelicalism have become victims of "enrichment"   by non-Christian ingredients that are meant to enhance the faith. This "enrichment" has been done to make the gospel more convenient, palatable, or marketable. Yet as these added ingredients take up more and more space, the essentials of the faith are necessarily displaced."

 For us to continue forward without regarding the essential elements of Christianity that have been clearly evident in historical practices as they have been believed everywhere, always, and by all is for us to continue to accept a mere imitation of real Christianity.

"The time has come for evangelicals to reclaim the forgotten faith. However, this means doing something many are reluctant to do. It means reflecting on the past to rethink the present and revitalize the future. It means, in short, to think not just biblically and theologically, but also historically."  

We will continue in future posts to discuss a few ways that we can recover a more "natural" reflection of Christian faith.

Freedom from Independence...

The mark forever placed on those that are born and raised in the United States of America is an appreciation and celebration of freedom. Specifically, the type of freedom that displays itself in independence from another governing authority. Men and women of this country fought for it...died for it...and continue to defend it.

This passion for independence affects much of what is done in America. Independence is a cultural norm. It is a social expectation. We see it in marketing, in education, in entertainment, in technology, and in worship.

The standard form of Christian worship in America has been to gather as individuals...sing as individuals...have a sermon prepared and performed by an individual...and if we happen to take communion (depending on whether you hit the right day of the year) we take it individually. We are independent!

But this is not Biblical worship.

Biblical worship has a specific pattern that it follows. It has a form. This form is not arbitrary. The form is not dependent on personal creativity, the talent of the music leader, or the budget of the congregation. The form is Biblical, historical, and universal. This pattern and form does not negate our freedom. It upholds our freedom. It remembers our freedom. Freedom from slavery in the Exodus. Freedom from class, race, and gender. Freedom from the bounds of sin. Freedom from the ravages of death.

Freedom from independence.

In Biblical Christian worship we tell a story. The story of creation, redemption, and new creation. We tell this story with signs, drama, and participation. It has a beginning (invocation) and an end (benediction). It celebrates Christ's incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection in gathering around the table for Eucharist (thanksgiving). It demands response from the people through hymns, creeds, prayers, doxologies, confessions, and offerings.

This is worship that is Biblical.

This form and pattern of worship also unites Christians throughout time and space. We are in communion with patriarchs, saints of old, a gathering of languages, cultures, genders, and classes. This is worship that gives freedom. Not freedom to deconstruct and rework. Not freedom to explore a new way but a freedom to walk in ancient ways. This is freedom to be who we were created to be. This is freedom to behave how we were created to behave. This is freedom from being on my own. This is a freedom that is shared by a people...a new people. To engage the spiritual realities through physical signs. This is worship.

True worship is freedom from independence.