North American denominationalism seems to owe much to John Locke’s definition of church in his Letter Concerning Toleration:
A church, then, I take to be a voluntary society of men, joining themselves together of their own accord in order to the public worshipping of God in such manner as they judge acceptable to Him, and effectual to the salvation of their souls.
I say it is a free and voluntary society. Nobody is born a member of any church; otherwise the religion of parents would descend unto children by the same right of inheritance as their temporal estates, and everyone would hold his faith by the same tenure he does his lands, than which nothing can be imagined more absurd. Thus, therefore, that matter stands. No man by nature is bound unto any particular church or sect, but everyone joins himself voluntarily to that society in which he believes he has found that profession and worship which is truly acceptable to God.
Contrast the Lockean view to that of the Heidelberg Catechism (Q & A 54):
Q. What do you believe concerning “the holy catholic church”?
A. I believe that the Son of God through his Spirit and Word, out of the entire human race, from the beginning of the world to its end, gathers, protects, and preserves for himself a community chosen for eternal life and united in true faith. And of this community I am and always will be a living member.
Historic liberalism is predicated on the assumption that all communities can be reduced to mere voluntary associations of sovereign individuals uniting with each other for specific self-chosen purposes amendable at their own discretion. This is behind the contractarian vision of the state, and it also obviously has relevance for the institutional (or not so institutional) church. Is it mere coincidence that North America, whose culture has been deeply influenced by Locke, is disproportionately populated by churches with voluntaristic polities and a commitment to what has been called “decisional regeneration”?
What if we were to take seriously St. Peter’s words concerning the church and the seriousness of God’s sovereign call to us as its members?
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9).
How would this change our attitude towards the church as corporate recipient of God’s grace?
March 23rd, 2012 | 11:18 am | #1
Then Mr. Gilson might have to admit that he and the folks at Westboro Baptist are members of the same church–whether or not he voluntarily associates with them.
March 23rd, 2012 | 1:21 pm | #2
“Then Mr. Gilson might have to admit that he and the folks at Westboro Baptist are members of the same church–whether or not he voluntarily associates with them.
I am wondering what the big concern is over being members of the same church as someone who is not-maybe-the-best-example of a member of the church.
If one member of the camp is bad does that make the campground infected?
Should I fear every atheist since the two greatest murderers of the 20th century were stout atheists? (Stalin and Mao)
I think not. It’s more of an attempt at a grand version of poisoning the well fallacy. I don’t mean to compare the WBC to mass murderers (clearly they’re not), but my point is that choosing the WBC as a representation of all Christians is a straw man at best (whether they’re a member of the same church or not).
Besides this, the church shouldn’t be where Christians go to associate themselves with proper, respectable people. The pride in our churches (should there be any at all) shouldn’t come from the caliber of people who attend, it should come from God’s grace. The church is a hospitable for a spiritually sick, not a hotel for saints.
I have no issue admitting that the WBC associate themselves with the same Christ that I follow. Do I have major disagreements with them? Of course. Would I charge them with saying they “aren’t Christians”? I couldn’t say for certain. I don’t know their hearts, and I don’t know the extent of their relationship with Christ.
Is this to say that I must agree with their practices? Of course not, I don’t think that their practices really are the discourse that Christians should be taking to show Christ’s love.
March 23rd, 2012 | 2:05 pm | #3
“What if we were to take seriously St. Peter’s words concerning the church and the seriousness of God’s sovereign call to us as its members
What if indeed? Perhaps we would then treat all of the church as priests instead of a select few and recognize all born-again believers as saints instead of making that a title for certain historical figures. We would see the entire church as one body instead of competing local churches. What a glorious thing that would be. Of course those who stand to lose the most from tearing down this system are those most likely to fight to the end to keep it in place.
March 23rd, 2012 | 2:07 pm | #4
“Then Mr. Gilson might have to admit that he and the folks at Westboro Baptist are members of the same church–whether or not he voluntarily associates with them.”
Only insofar as they fit the idea behind the passage quoted from the catechism. One has to decide what it means to have been gathered by God, and how that is determined — voluntarily calling oneself a “Baptist Church” seems to fall short of what’s in view there.
But I also agree with Livingston Dell.
March 23rd, 2012 | 2:08 pm | #5
I mean, affirming that something is a church *purely* because it calls itself a “Baptist Church” falls short of what’s in view in the catechism.
March 23rd, 2012 | 4:11 pm | #6
I was actually thinking that it might be healthy for the evangelicals here to think seriously about publicly embracing the Westboro Baptists as fellow members of their “holy nation,” who, in their own special way, “proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” At any rate, the general idea is that contemporary evangelicals are perhaps a bit too given to letting minor differences in taste and doctrine divide the “chosen race”.
March 23rd, 2012 | 4:26 pm | #7
“Then Mr. Gilson might have to admit that he and the folks at Westboro Baptist are members of the same church–whether or not he voluntarily associates with them.”
It depends if you mean the same “visible” church or the same “invisible” church.
Mr. Gilson is not, as far as I know, not a member of the Westboro Baptist Church which is a visible church.
But Mr. Gilson and some/many/all members of the Westboro Baptist Church may indeed be fellow members of the “invisible” Church of God.
Or in other words, Mr. Gilson may have or probably has brothers and sisters in Christ over at Westboro Baptist Church.
But despite that, it’s perfectly fine for Mr. Gilson to denounce some of the practices of Westboro Baptist Church.
March 23rd, 2012 | 4:37 pm | #8
“Then Mr. Gilson might have to admit that he and the folks at Westboro Baptist are members of the same church–whether or not he voluntarily associates with them.”
Or perhaps you could have worded it this way:
“Then Mr. Gilson might have to admit that he and the folks at Westboro Baptist are members of the same Body of Christ–whether or not he voluntarily associates with them.”
Then Mr. Gilson might admit to that.
March 23rd, 2012 | 6:31 pm | #9
Thank you for clarifying that, TUAD.
It is not my place to know or to decide whether members of the Westboro Church are members of the Body of Christ (those who are among Christ’s redeemed people). If they are, then we are members of the same body together, with all of our imperfections, which Christ can and does forgive. Still I reject and deplore the Westboro Church’s public demonstrations of hate, and I strongly disagree with them that God hates any person.
March 23rd, 2012 | 6:33 pm | #10
I also reject and deplore more subtle dishonesties such as this one:
March 23rd, 2012 | 8:26 pm | #11
Tom Gilson: “I strongly disagree with them that God hates any person.”
For the sake of careful examination, is it Biblical to say that God does not hate any person?
Related, suppose upon reading Scripture that the Bible shows that God hates some particular person or group of people, would you not like God for being in your view a “hater”?
Basically, would you yield and submit to Scripture or would you have to modify some things so that you could retain your view that God is not a “hater”?
March 24th, 2012 | 2:46 pm | #12
Mr. Gilson doesn’t think God hates gays; he just think that gays are under God’s wrath, and that God has plans to burn them for all of eternity.
As I say, what a shame to divide the royal priesthood over such fine distinctions.
March 24th, 2012 | 10:06 pm | #13
TUAD,
John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son…”
Pretty straightforward. I’m not a fan of cherry-picking verses to establish a point, but given the context of the rest of the New Testament I think there’s little argument for that.
March 25th, 2012 | 6:19 pm | #14
Ancius, your not-so-subtle sarcasm, your point-without-a-point, is no more worthy of a response than your previous subtle dishonesty.
If you have something to say, feel free to say it.
March 26th, 2012 | 9:56 am | #15
Odd. I didn’t think my post was about the Westborough Baptist Church, yet the comments here suggest that it was. Did I miss something?
March 26th, 2012 | 10:32 am | #16
No, David, your thread was just hijacked for someone else’s agenda. As you already knew.
March 27th, 2012 | 11:44 am | #17
[...] The church: Locke and the Heidelberg Catechism » Evangel | A First Things Blog. Share this:ShareEmailPrintDiggFacebookStumbleUponLinkedInTwitterRedditLike this:LikeBe the first [...]
March 27th, 2012 | 2:23 pm | #18
Well, given the hijack…
Here’s something that was published today that mentions Westboro Baptist Church and hatred:
“1) Most liberals are hateful people. Who are the most hateful people you can think of off the top of your head? If you’re not a liberal, the first people that probably come to mind are the God hates f@gs lunatics from Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church. What type of human beings would do sick protests at funerals? Well, liberals have their own version of this. Whenever a prominent conservative gets sick or dies, there’s an orgy of celebratory hatred on the Left. It happened with Reagan, Breitbart and every other big name conservative in between.
Bill Maher, Barney Frank, Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Amanda Marcotte, Ed Schultz, Dan Savage, Ted Rall, Al Sharpton, etc., etc. are some of the most hate-filled people you’ll ever run into outside of a maximum security prison, but liberals consider it to be okay because their hate is aimed at conservatives, who are acceptable targets. This is why liberals felt perfectly comfortable attacking Sarah Palin’s children, harassing Michelle Malkin’s family until they had to move, and publicly posting the addresses of ordinary citizens who opposed Prop 8. They’re hate-filled people who are constantly accusing EVERYONE ELSE of behaving the way they do on a daily basis. So, if you want to find the most hate-filled people in America, look for a liberal lecturing other people about how important it is not to hate people and you’re practically guaranteed to be looking at a hate-filled person.”
Read the rest: HERE.
March 28th, 2012 | 3:49 pm | #19
(Apologies to Dr. Koyzis)
Tom Gilson: “I strongly disagree with them that God hates any person.”
Ancius: “Mr. Gilson doesn’t think God hates gays; he just think that gays are under God’s wrath, and that God has plans to burn them for all of eternity.”
Tom, Ancius, et al, here’s a post by Pastor John Piper which I have just read that pertains somewhat to your discussion:
What is God’s Relationship to People Who Are In Hell?
“God’s wrath remains on them (John 3:36). If you believe, you have eternal life. Whoever does not obey the Son, the wrath of God abides on them. And I presume that means forever. So God is infinitely angry at people in hell forever.
He is separate from them, in that they are not allowed to enjoy any of his grace and beauty.
Outer darkness is a phrase that I think, probably, is meant to communicate a realm of existence that in no way contaminates the new heavens and the new earth, so that the totality of reality as we know it in the future, in the new heavens and the new earth, is totally good, totally beautiful, and totally free from sin.
And where they are, those who are excluded, is outer-it’s outside this magnificent creation that God has made here. It’s a strange relationship: it’s out there. I don’t believe in annihilationism. And I don’t believe that it will be some pocket within the new heavens and the new earth. It will be outside.
But the main thing to say about the relationship is that it is one in which they hate him and he is infinitely wrathful towards them forever.”
March 28th, 2012 | 4:54 pm | #20
TUAD,
Respectfully, this is a side topic that Ancius has tried to drag me into, in which I have chosen not to take part.
March 28th, 2012 | 6:25 pm | #21
Okay Tom.
April 3rd, 2012 | 7:33 pm | #22
[...] political and legal framework. Eventually Christians in America will have to deal with the question of Lockean liberalism, which is related to the Baptist doctrine of soul liberty, the doctrine that determined the [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact