Ecclesiology: Chapter 13
Chapter 13: The Messianic Community and Individuals
Let us reflect
upon “body of Christ” for a moment. Embodiment is availability to other
persons. For the church to be the body of Christ is for the church to make the
risen Christ available to the world.[5]
If in the meeting
between us you are a subject of whom I am an object, but are not in turn an
object for me as subject, you enslave me. Only if I am able to intend and so
grasp and respond to you as you intend and grasp me can our relation be
reciprocal. A disembodied personal presence to me could only mean my bondage.
If the person in question were to be God, the bondage would be absolute.[6]
Robert W. Jenson has a beautiful way of putting this relation.[7]
Where does the risen Christ turn to find himself? He turns to the gathering of
believers. Who is the risen Christ? His answer is: “I am the head of this
community. I am the subject whose objectivity is this community. I am the one
who died to gather them.” His point, I think, is that being the body of Christ
means that the actual church, in its fellowship, history, and institutional
life, has the respect due to any embodied presence, a respect it ultimately
receives from God.
Barth will stress that the
community is the earthly-historical form of existence of Jesus Christ. The
church is the body of Christ, created and continually renewed by the awakening
power of the Holy Spirit. Christ is the head of this body, the community. The
body has its head in Christ. The church belongs to Christ, and Christ belongs
to church. Because Christ is, the church is; the church is, because Christ is.
That is its secret, its secret in the third dimension, which is visible only to
faith, the first two dimensions being psychological and sociological.[8]
Second, Pannenberg
will discuss the basic saving works of the Spirit in individual Christians. He
admits the manifestation of the Spirit has an ecstatic character, but wants to
separate this notion from intoxication. Such ecstasy can mean becoming
supremely with oneself. As the Spirit integrates such ecstasy with fellowship
of believers, it mediates the sense of an initial removing of alienation
between individuals and between individual and society. He will then discuss
the theological virtues as the primary way of removing alienation, concluding
with a discussion of adoption and justification.
Moltmann will have a
different way of approaching these matters as he says that the church
participates in the process of the life of the world. The goal is liberation.
The stress of economic life is that of that of expansion versus the limits of
growth and ensuring the participation of all persons. The danger is
exploitation. Participating in political life means valuing human rights. The
danger is repression. Participation in cultural life means openness to the
identity of various groups in the social order. The danger is alienation
between these groups. One does not have to go his admittedly Marxist analysis
and socialism to understand these areas as real issues the churches need to
face.[9] Tillich
refers to expanding the function of the church. Whenever active members of the
church encounter those outside the church, they are missionaries of the church,
voluntarily or involuntarily. Their very being is missionary. The purpose of
missions as an institutionalized function of the church is not to actualize the
Spiritual Community within specific congregations all over the world. Of
course, this means not imposing one cultural form or one generational form on
others.[10]
As Pannenberg
continues, he discusses, one, the theological virtue of faith or trust in the
future rule of God. Faith relates to time, to the future God will bring, and
therefor to God. Faith is trust. Faith is not mere knowledge. However, since
Christianity rests upon historical acts, faith depends on knowledge of the
reports we find in the Bible. Thus, faith is not blind obedience. Yet, like
human knowledge, the knowledge is provisional and probable. Thinking about this
faith and our knowledge of it always takes place with the recognition of our
historicity and finitude. He deals with the link between the assurance of faith
and the rise of certainty. Knowledge rests upon a process in which we need to
consider present knowledge as anticipation of the totality of the context of
life and world. Any sense of certainty and assurance is in the context of the
anticipatory character of our experience. Faith can accept, therefore, our
questioning and doubting in the context of the brokenness of our knowledge of
God and readiness to receive further instruction.
Two, hope relates
to the incomplete character of life now, relating it to possible fulfillment.
The basis of the hope is the promise of God. Such hope is not just for the
individual but also for humanity. Eschatological hope includes this-worldly
hope, but orients them to divine fulfillment.
Three, love begins
with love of God and neighbor. Love of God is the communication of the grace of
God to individuals. Christian prayer is an expression of love toward God and
neighbor. Prayer as thanksgiving, adoration, and petition has its best context
in a discussion of love.
Four, he discusses
adoption as children of God and justification. Being children of God is the
essence of Christian life. Faith makes us righteous before God because it
appropriates the saving work of God in Christ. Only faith fellowship with Jesus
Christ is the object of the divine sentence of justification respecting
believers. Faith participates in Jesus Christ in the missionary message that
takes to the world a ministry of reconciliation. Baptism is the connection
between both adoption and justification. Justification assures believers of participation
in eschatological salvation. Such faith sets aside any human attempt to get
right with God. The Christian life as a whole is a life in faith. Such faith
lifts us up above ourselves to fellowship with Jesus Christ and therefore to
hope and love. It does so in a way in which ecstatic faith bring participation
in the life of divine love. In this way, a human life finds protection against
corruption we find in human self-centeredness.
Third, Pannenberg will discuss
the form of the signs of the nearness of God, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as
the presence of salvation through Christ in the life of the church. John Wesley
would remind us that these signs have value only as they connect us to Christ.
He also would discuss them in the context of the means of grace. Thus, one may
pray, receive baptism, receive the Lord’s Supper, and read scripture, to no
profit. They have no grace in themselves, for grace comes only through Christ.[11]
The event of the regeneration of believers takes place in baptism. Our gaze
turns toward the common life of the church, as baptism integrates the baptized
in the fellowship of the church. Participation in Lord’s Supper links to the
fellowship of believers. It assures individuals of their fellowship with Jesus
Christ. Baptism is the grounding of fellowship with Christ and the Lord’s
Supper demonstrates and assures its continuance. Both acts are signs. Tillich
will stress that sacramental symbolism connects to the great moments of the
life of individuals, such as birth, maturity, marriage, and imminent death, or
with special religious events, such as entering the clergy. His point is that
the Spiritual Community can appropriate various forms through which people can
experience Spiritual Presence. If Spiritual Presence no longer grasps people
through the sacramental act, it has lost its sacramental power.[12]
As Tillich points out, the
fear of this magical approach has led to an intellectual or moral
interpretation of the sacraments, or, as with the Quakers, to interpret the
sacraments in terms of a mystical inwardness. In fact, one could say that we
maintain spirituality better by not having physical objects, as in the
traditional use of the sacraments. Yet, the physical symbol participates in the
power to which it refers. The question arises as to whether the physical
objects are necessary at all. The Roman Catholic Church bound the Word to the
teaching office of the church, and the Reformation bound the Spirit to the
Word. In both cases, they faced what they believed to be dangers of spirit-movements.
We could, and do, experience the work of the Spirit outside of these external
signs and symbols. Yet, God always has a medium to communicate the Spirit. The
connection of the work of the Spirit to external means arose out of the concern
that movements would lose their connection to Christ if they were simply
movements of the Spirit.[13]
In fact, Tillich will say that in light of the twentieth-century rediscovery of
the unconscious, we can re-evaluate positively the sacramental mediation of the
Spirit. A Spiritual Presence apprehended through the consciousness alone is
intellectual and not spiritual. A sacramental symbol is neither a thing nor a
sign, but participates in the power of what it symbolizes, and is a medium of
the Spirit.[14]
Pannenberg
continues with a discussion of baptism and the Christian life. He begins with a
discussion of baptism as the constitution of Christian identity. Disciples who
follow Jesus on his way let their lives grow into a unity with the way of
Jesus. Their dying has a link that of the death of Jesus on the cross. In that
way, the vicarious significance of his life and death counts for them in their
living and dying. They that stand under the promise of Jesus that those who
confess him before others, the Son of Man will also confess before the angels
of God (Luke 12:8). Baptism is an enacted sign, and therefore points people to
the thing signified, which is Christ, but also sets people moving in that
direction. Faith rests on the relation to that which is outside the believer.
He takes his stand with the tradition of the church that one receives baptism
once. It occurs one time and has a lasting character. He wants to reflect on
the relevance of baptism to the life of the Christian. He begins with a
discussion of the relationship between baptism, conversion, and penitence. The
motive for conversion is the proclamation of the presence of the rule of God
and its salvation who rely (have faith) on it. Of course, conversion and
baptism have a close relation in the New Testament. He stands with Luther in
closely connecting penitence with baptism. Penance is the daily task of
appropriating the conversion and regeneration of baptism. The ship of the new
Christian life becomes ready in baptism. Christians can fall from grace, as we
see in Galatians 5:4, but they can also regain it. Baptism is there all our
lives. Baptism offers a new identity that is ec-centric rather than
ego-centric. He views pastoral counseling as helping individuals face the
continuing reality of sin in the baptized. It is part of the reconciling work
between the individual and the church. He then discusses baptism and faith,
discussing the matters of infant baptism, confirmation, and anointing of the
sick. He will argue for the permission of infant of baptism in the life of the
church and will offer reasons. Baptism and faith belong together, even if the
missionary practice and theology of the early church recognized that faith came
prior to baptism. Cyprian and Origen testify to the presence of infant baptism
at the end of the second century. He does not think one can draw firm
conclusions from household baptism. Tertullian argued against it. Paul refers
to the sanctification of the children of Christian parents in I Corinthians
7:14. The doctrine of the original sin became the primary reason for infant
baptism after Augustine. The Reformed tradition continued to practice it
because the covenant of grace is not only for adults. The criticism by Barth of
this position is that faith and free confession of the baptized is a
prerequisite for baptizing them. Pannenberg will disagree in that baptism links
the individual to the destiny of Jesus. One receives this baptism, and is
therefore not primarily a human act. My faith receives baptism. Baptism as a
sacrament aims at the faith of the recipients in what it signifies (Christ),
but does not presuppose it because faith can only receive baptism. Baptism is a
gift that presupposes only lack of opposition. Part of his point here is that
even as adults, our power of judgment and decision in these matters has a
limit. We cannot guarantee our perseverance in faith. At the baptism of the
children of Christian parents, we have to reckon with a positive readiness for
unlimited trust whose real object is the true God who has revealed who God is
in the sending of Jesus. He will set aside, of course, the portion of the
Christian tradition that excluded unbaptized children from salvation due to
original sin. Rebaptism is a cause for division in the church universal because
it means regarding the baptism already received as invalid. Parents adopt
responsibility for the well-being and development of the child until they can
take responsibility for themselves. The parents have a vicarious confession of
faith that carries with it an obligation to undertake the religious education
of the child. This obligation does not guarantee the future faith of the child.
Of course, adults cannot guarantee their future faith either. Confirmation as a
rite within the church arose because of the lapse of time between baptism and
the personal confession of faith. Confirmation affirms the connection of
baptism to the whole life of the baptized. The death of the old nature
anticipated in baptism is something the believer works out in daily Christian
life in the appropriation of baptism. Again, baptism is an anticipatory sign of
the whole life of the baptized as seen in the light of its end, followed up
gradually throughout the course of the Christian life. Experience shows that
after confirmation many young people experience alienation from the Christian
faith. He supports beginning confirmation at puberty as part of the relation of
faith and personal identity. The basis of confirmation is not personal faith
and confession, but rather, strengthening and blessing those come of age.
Baptism is the concrete place of justification in the lives of Christians.
Faith appropriates throughout life the new identity that rests on baptism.
Baptism is part of the Christian understanding of the formation of personal
identity. New human identity is outside the self. Baptism is re-founding human
identity by focusing upon Christ. Baptism is the reconstitution of the person
in the form of the sacramental sign. The sign is anticipatory of the life of
the baptized. Through baptism, believers are in relation to the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Participation in the relation of the Son to the
Father by the Spirit changes the structure of self-identity. Lastly, he
discusses the institution of baptism and symbolism of the rite. The basis of
baptism is in the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. Early Christianity
viewed his baptism as the model of Christian baptism, especially regarding the
link between baptism and reception of the Spirit. Baptism into the death of
Jesus changes matters of individual identity in that the baptism of Jesus
serves as the model for the meaning of baptism. The Spirit gives the children
of God freedom to go their individual way, follows their calling, and accepts
the consequences. Of course, Jesus did all of this in the course of his life.
Barth has a significant discussion of
limiting baptism to adults.[15]
Moltmann has also gone the direction of urging the church to move away from
infant baptism, and instead have a blessing of children born to Christian
parents.[16]
The churches would then reserve baptism for those who wish to make a public
profession of their faith in Christ and identify themselves with Christ. For
them, the missionary situation of the church in the West has sufficiently
enough for the church to re-think the notion of infant baptism.
Pannenberg then
discusses the Supper of the Lord and Christian worship. He begins with a
exploring the origin and meaning of the Super of the Lord. The beginning of
Christianity witnesses to the Lord’s Supper being at its heart. The tradition
that on the evening of his passion Jesus authorized continued table fellowship
with him even after his death forms of the basis of its celebration. He admits
that we cannot reconstruct with certainty the historical nature and course of
the last meal. We cannot even be certain it was a Passover meal. He reminds us
that Jesus ate many meals with people. He also told stories of the messianic
banquet. Jesus offers signs and depictions of the eschatological fellowship of
the rule of God. We have the central symbolic action of Jesus in which he
focuses on his message of the nearness of the rule of God and its salvation.
The forgiveness of sin is a special link to this message. The words of Jesus
around this meal connect more with other of his meals than do with Jewish
observances of the time. Such meals, involving the participation of Jesus, were
anticipatory signs of the coming rule of God. The being of the church in this
sign-act an assurance based on the gift of the Spirit. The church is the
fellowship that celebrates the Lord’s Supper. The church has its existence
outside itself. Receiving bread and cup unites believers with each other in the
body of Christ. He discusses the words of institution and the presence of
Christ in the Lord’s Supper. At issue is the full presence of Christ in the
Supper. He argues that saying “This is” changes the bread and wine through
giving it the new meaning of the offering of the body of Christ for us. He then
discusses the meaning of the presence of Christ in the Eucharistic liturgy of
the church. It presents the paschal mystery of the death and resurrection of
Christ. Therefore, the liturgy is not just remembering by the believers
present. Eating and drinking of the Supper causes us to participate in the path
of Jesus toward the cross. The liturgy enables the church to enter into the
self-giving of Christ as we offer ourselves with Christ as a living sacrifice
in the bread and wine. The Supper is first the turn of Christ to us. The Supper
grants fellowship with Christ and therefore forgiveness of sin. He refers
positively to the Orthodox Church in its liturgy calling upon the Spirit to
make Christ present in bread and wine. He then discusses the Lord’s Supper and
the fellowship of the church. Participation in the Supper worthily (I
Corinthians 11:27) involves the mutual fellowship of the participants. The
invitation is to all disciples present. For him, this means all baptized
Christians, an inclusive invitation, may I say, especially for a German Lutheran.
Participation presupposes faith. He notes that Moltmann extends the invitation
to include all who wish to come, based upon the fact that Jesus ate with tax
collectors and sinners. When I invite people to the table of the Lord, I invite
all who seek to draw near to Christ. He then discusses the Lord’s Supper and
the proclamation of the gospel in the worship of the church. He urges preaching
that integrates the various parts of the liturgy and music so that people can
see its unity.
Reformed theologian F.
Leenhardt, along with Wolfhart Pannenberg, has suggested the concept of a
"transformation of meaning."
In this way, the focus shifts from the nature of the elements. The
elements are material and pass away. They would like to shift the focus to the
meaning of the elements as we partake of the Supper. The meal takes on a meaning of fellowship
with Christ and fellowship with each other, a reminder of the “being” of the
church. In fact, this is what happens in daily life. People do many things by habit. However, one day it all takes on new
meaning. Then, we receive a new
motivation for living and loving. One
can say the same of the Lord's Supper.
The presence of Christ in the Supper and in the elements is in such a
way that our own view of reality and faith and life can be altered as we become
open to God in our fellowship with Christ and with each other.
Much of the historical
discussion focused upon the nature of the presence of Christ in the Supper. For Roman Catholic tradition, there appeared
to be an emphasis upon the sacrifice of the Mass, as if this were a
re-presenting of Christ as the sacrifice for the sins of the world. In Protestant circles, this teaching removed
the unique nature of the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross. Yet, in the process of this dispute, many
worshippers lost the connection the reality of fellowship with Jesus now in the
Supper. It became little more than a
remembrance of a past event, rather than experiencing anew fellowship with
Jesus. While Roman Catholics speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, Protestants
reject this terminology. In fact, Luther considered the mass and its concept of
sacrifice as the greatest abuse of the power of the Pope. Trent in fact
separated offering and communion, celebration and sacrifice. If fact, many
Catholic theologians have recognized that if there is truly one sacrifice of
Christ, which their church now clearly teaches, there may be little sense in
continuing that particular terminology.
Pannenberg
concludes with a discussion of the ambivalence of the word “sacrament” and the
special case of marriage. The issue is liturgical actions or states of life in
the church. He discusses the difficulties in using and justifying the term
“sacrament.” The difficulty is the biblical usage of the term and the
institution of the liturgical action by Jesus. We can see the problem
heightened when the historical nature of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not
as clear as one might like. He refers to Barth here, who wanted to limit the
term “sacrament” to Christ. He then explores the notion of the one mystery of
salvation and the many sacraments. The use of the term “mystery,” which is
behind the term “sacrament,” in the New Testament focuses upon the plan of God
for salvation in Christ. He then explores sacraments as signs. Here, he notes
that the term “sacrament” meant a series of signs related to the offer of
salvation in Christ. Granting that a sign points to the thing signified, it
also separates the believer from the thing signified. Yet, the sign nature of
the liturgical action has validity in referring to the presence of salvation
and its yet to come feature. He agrees with Aquinas that the sign “effects”
what it signifies. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper in particular point to Christ,
while also actualizing the presence of Christ. He then discusses the scope of
the sacraments, discussing them in a way that connects various traditional acts
to baptism, as we have shown. He then discusses marriage as a reminder of a
broader sacramental understanding. Ephesians 5 in particular unites the
fellowship of husband and wife to the fellowship between Christ and the church.
Marriage is sacramental in that it relates the difference of our bisexuality to
our destiny to fellowship with Christ and with another. Christianity offered
monogamy that offered to women security and a solid social position they did
not have in Jewish or Greek practices. It points the way to equality of the
sexes (Galatians 3:28). He thinks the church cannot regard the homosexual
relation on the same level as that of marriage. He concludes with a summary of
the use of the term “sacrament.” He argues for a broad use of the term.
Since the matter
of homosexuality has reached a high degree of debate in the churches, I would
like to pause for a moment and consider the position of Pannenberg. In a broad
sense, his point is that the saving plan of God has a hint in the bisexuality
of the race. The reconciliation that God seeks in humanity receives its first
pioneering efforts in the marriage relationship. The homosexual relation is one
individuals and churches can tolerate (a bad word today), but not make of equal
ethical value or validity with the marriage relationship. Sadly, I have had
direct questions regarding how they should treat a homosexual friend or
neighbor. Of course, we are to love actively our neighbor. For some people,
toleration would be a wonderful step for them to take. However, Pannenberg has
written a well-circulated article on this subject that I want to explore.
Pannenberg considers whether love can have a perverted expression. The Bible is
clear that it can. Hence, of course, the prohibitions against adultery, which
lead to prohibitions regarding sexual activity with persons within the family,
whether son, daughter, aunt, uncle, or stepparent. Love for God must take
precedence over every other love, the denial of which would be the greatest
perversion of love. Of course, the will of God determines our identity as
followers of Christ. Instead of going first to biblical statements regarding
homosexuality, he goes to an important statement regarding marriage. Jesus
referred to creation as the basis of the marriage relationship. The purpose of
God in the marriage relationship, according to Jesus, is that male and female
become “one flesh.” The goal is the indissoluble relation of marriage in sexual
relation. This standard is the guidance of Jesus and the church for the sexual
relation. Jesus is largely consistent with Jewish teaching. His teaching is
strict, largely due to the desire to protect women from a divorce that could
leave them with little legal protection or financial support. The Old Testament
assesses negatively the sexual behavior of those under covenant who depart from
this standard. The Holiness Code in Leviticus 18-20 is clear on this. Israel
knew it was different from other nations in this prohibition. The New Testament
continues this distinctive moral guidance. Romans 1:27 includes homosexual
relations among the signs of those who turn away from God. I Corinthians 6 says
that one can gain strength to avoid such practices in light of their baptism.
He indicates his view of biblical interpretation when he says that the New
Testament gives no evidence of any other evaluation than a negative one
regarding homosexual relations. I might add that this would be the difference
with other matters often raised. Pannenberg affirms the right of women to
ordination because the New Testament contains a discussion (dialectic)
regarding their involvement in ministry. The same is true of the marriage
relationship and slavery, where, if one followed the household rules (Ephesians
5, Colossians 3, Philemon), the marriage relation becomes a partnership and
master-slave relation dissolves, at least, within Christian households. The
point is that the negative assessment is the corollary to the positive
statement of Jesus that the marriage relation of male and female fulfills the
intent of God at creation. To neglect this teaching will bring detriment to the
Christian message. This teaching opposed the cultural setting of its time, so
it should not surprise that it opposes the cultural setting of this time. The
new evidence to which some point to today involves homosexual inclinations that
may or may not result in homosexual relations. Yet, an inclination does not
necessitate behavior. Our sexual impulses influence every area of our lives and
therefore fall under the need for self-control. Sexual activity is not the
determinative center of life. In fact, monogamous marriage offers the gift to
human beings of subordinating sexual activity to larger objectives and tasks.
An inclination does not deserve judgment. What it does need is responsibly
directed behavior. As we have seen, homosexual activity is a departure from the
norm of sexual behavior as men and women created in the image of God. Of
course, a full discussion of this matter would lead us to any sexual activity
that does not orient itself to the marriage relationship. The departure of
heterosexual persons is far more numerous in our time than the limited, but
vocal, matter of homosexual activity. The church lives with the fact that
departures are common and widespread. The response of the church should be one
of tolerance on the one hand and a call to repentance on the other. The church
cannot surrender the distinction between the norm and the departure from the
norm. As he concludes, he makes a strong statement. The church that knows
itself bound by the authority of scripture knows it encounters a boundary here.
Those who urge the church to change the norm promote schism. They urge a church
to stand no longer on biblical ground. A church taking this step would cease to
be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.[17]
I am sure some
persons would consider Pannenberg outdated here, as they might Karl Barth. At
the same time, we need to hear such theologians and their rationale. For some
persons, putting this topic out there for discussion will mean dismissal of
Pannenberg. I hope not, for he has much to teach us.
Fourth, Pannenberg
discusses the ministry as a sign and instrument of the unity of the church. He
will discuss the need for the organization and order of the church. The latent
church, apart from its worship life, experiences the power of the Spirit at work
by faith, hope, and love. Paul Tillich and Jürgen Moltmann explore some of
these matters in a different way. Paul Tillich refers to functions of the church that help to
construct it into what God intends. He includes aesthetic (arts), cognitive
(theology), communal (fellowship), and personal (spiritual formation)
functions.[18] He also
discusses the relating functions of the churches, which he sees as the way of
silent interpenetration (priestly), the way of critical judgment (prophetic),
and the way of political establishment (kingly). In the latter, the churches
must be careful not to fall into nationalistic ideologies.[19]
Moltmann follows a similar path, but adds that Jesus was also “friend,” based
on Luke 7:34 and John 15:13-14. His point is that people who live with another
as friends no longer have concern for privilege and domination.[20]
The theological discussion of ministry and offices usually begins with a
discussion of spiritual gifts in the writings of Paul.
One, Pannenberg
discusses the common commission of believers and the office of unity. The
common calling of all Christians is to witness to the salvation offered in
Christ. After Vatican II, all Christians have share in the priestly ministry of
Christ. After the death of the apostles, bishops emerged as the primary persons
with the responsibility of ensuring the fidelity of this witness of all
Christians. Leadership and teaching authority combined in the one office. They
had special responsibility for encouraging the unity of the church. He argues for
the inclusion of women in this leadership function.
He says that the
role of clergy is to help believers on the way to independence in their
relation to the substance of the scripture. Only in this way do they perform
their task. In this, he is defending the truth of the Reformation teaching of
the priesthood of believers. Nevertheless, a particular form of ecclesial
polity emerged that used “apostolicity” as its legitimation, namely, one that
was sacerdotal, Episcopal, and hierarchical. By its very nature, this polity
vested authority in a group of specially sanctioned individuals, and its
tendency was to become increasingly monarchical and absolutistic. Obviously, it
was necessary for the post-apostolic church to adopt some form of definite
institutional structure, including an ordered and recognized ministry, and it
was probably inevitable that this structure should reflect the patterns of
religious and political authority characteristic of Hellenistic and Roman
culture. What occurred was the loss of charismatic forms of ministry present in
the apostolic church, and the adoption of a juridical model of reality with its
accompanying system of rewards and punishments. While these developments are
regrettable, one should acknowledge that true Christian faith and practice
survived in countless individuals, that the church helped to shape, for better
or for worse, the values of Western civilization, and that, despite obvious
abuses and corruption, the institution was for the most part effectively
governed and led.
What Pannenberg
observes here is consistent with Peter Hodgson, who has a concern for the role
of leadership within the community. What authorizes leadership in the community
is not sacerdotal, or hierarchical that accrues to the office. He would say that
office, consecration, or special call, are not what authorize ministry. Rather,
the possession of knowledge, skill, commitment, and character are what
authorizes ministry. Ordination is a matter of recognizing and certifying the
possession of such qualities in the person. It does not confer sacral power or
authority. What he proposes is a democratic, participative, and secular model
of ministerial office. The minister as leader should empower the common
ministry of the people. True leadership is not simply management or
administration. Leadership involves articulating a vision of what the church
is, its essential being, its purpose, and enabling this vision to become a
productive ideal that infuses all church activities and all participants.[21]
Two, he discusses
ordination and apostolic succession. He points to the issue that for the Roman
Catholic Church, all churches not united to the Pope have a defect in their
ministry. He discusses sacramentality and ordination. The ministry of
leadership comes under the commission of the risen Lord to continue the
apostolic ministry to serve the church. Ordination becomes a sign of that
ministry. He then discusses the effect of ordination. The gift conferred at
ordination relates to the function the one ordained serves and not to a
personal standing of grace. He then discusses canonical ordination as a sign of
the unity of the church. He agrees with much modern ecumenical discussion here
in saying that apostolic succession has more to do with the teaching and faith of
the apostles than it does to an office. He agrees with Luther that the
“emergency” of a missionary setting that he faced allowed for the ordination of
persons to ministry outside the established order of the Catholic Church.
Three, he
discusses the unity of the church and ministerial hierarchy. In our setting,
the unity of the church is a gift it receives because of our common fellowship
with Christ and a task for the churches to make a reality. One, he discusses
the essential attributes of the church in Nicene Creed (381) of holiness,
catholicity, apostolicity, and unity. He refers to the scandal of divided
Christianity for the modern Christian consciousness. Two, he discusses
different levels of the unity of the church and its leadership. At its core, the
ministry of leadership is a teaching ministry. He does think that the regional
episcopacy and the local priest-presbyter-pastor need to express an episcopal
character. Regional leadership can focus more upon unity among the churches.
Robert W. Jenson suggests that he various levels of the church are in
perichoretic communion with each other, drawing an insight from the Trinity
rather than insight into how the world works. Such an insight also leads to the
view that every local church has integrity and wholeness, even in divided
Christianity.[22]
Three, he discusses whether ministry to the unity of Christianity as a whole is
a possibility. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church views the Pope as that
possibility. He sees no reason to rule out this possibility. The Orthodox
Church acknowledges the primacy of the bishop of Rome. He refers to speeches,
lectures, encyclicals, and pastoral letters as expressions of this function.
Many still hold ecumenical counsels of history in high regard. He questions any
notion of infallibility either for the councils or for the Pope. He sees a
special need self-criticism by the Pope. The focus of the Pope should be more
on persuasion than power.
Fifth, Pannenberg
discusses the church and the people of God. The term “body of Christ” is the
most profound description of the nature of the church. The church in its
institutional form has not done well in discharging its function as a sign of
hope of a future consummation of humanity in the rule of God. It has divided.
It has shown intolerance. It has sought power. Clergy have participated in
this. It has accommodated to the changing modes of the world. It has shown
narrowness of the hothouse forms of its piety. It often gives little evidence
of the liberating of the spirit. Yet, this obscure sign is still a sign. God
can purify the sign. At times, the light of the church shines brightly. The
church is the people of God, a provisional representation of the future of
humanity reconciled with God in the future rule of God. While “body of Christ”
is the basic description of the church, “people of God” derives from it. The
latter phrase involves election. The doctrine of election supplements the
doctrine of the church. Election involves sending. Sending directs the elect
into the world and into its history, which is moving toward the future of the
reign of God.
[1] (Oden 1987) , 725.
[2] John
Wesley, Sermon 75, “On Schism.”
[3] John
Wesley, Sermon 39, “Catholic Spirit.”
[4] John
Wesley, Sermon 75, “On Schism.”
[5] Robert
W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, Volume 2,
The Work of Christ, Oxford University Press, New York, 1999, 213.
[6] Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, Domination and
Slavery.
[7] Robert
W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, Volume 2,
The Work of Christ, Oxford University Press: New York, 1999, 214-15.
[8] Church Dogmatics IV.1 [62.2]
[9] The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 163-188.
[10] Systematic Theology, Volume III, 193.
[11] John
Wesley, Sermon 16, “The Means of Grace.”
[12] Systematic Theology, Volume III, 123-24.
[13] Systematic Theology, Volume III, 122.
[14] Systematic Theology, Volume III, 123,
125-128.
[15] Church Dogmatics 4.4, [75.2].
[16] The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 226-42.
[17]
Christianity Today, November 11, 1996.
[18] Systematic Theology, Volume III, 196-212.
[19] Systematic Theology, Volume III, 212-16.
[20] The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 76-108,
114-21.
[21] Winds of the Spirit: A Constructive
Christian Theology, Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, Ky, 1994, 300.
[22] Systematic Theology, Volume 2, The Work of
Christ, Oxford University Press: New York, 1999, 223, 224.
Comments
Post a Comment